Reply With Quote
I hope I never see it again!Originally Posted by Diesel
Backed the bloody thing
No change of tactics tonight at Menangle in Race 2
Wilusi Blues has now had 2 Aust starts and galloped away twice......
It should be stood down like many others in the Industry.
I hope I never see it again!
Backed the bloody thing
So when it paces away and finds a spot in the field somewhere...will that be a COT?
Its all just too confusing !
Triplec123 with the greatest of respect I also forgot to correct you on another issue.
Actually it is quite an impotent one there is in fact no setback/ relegation rule in Australian Harness Racing it was removed revoked whatever term you prefer to use back in 2006 it formed part of Rule 66 until that time but was removed by HRA.
There is still the protest rule but that is only if horse A would have finished in front of horse B if an incident had not occurred.
So stop blaming the stewards for not using a rule that is not there and by the way Relegation across the world is being used less and less in the countries that still have it.
It will most likely put out of the draw that is the policy in NSW if a clear record for three starts a warning then out of the draw for a starting offence.
I am interested to hear your opinion on the inter-relation between rule 44(1) and rule 149(1). I have seen drivers in several states fined under rule 44(1) however if they had complied with rule 44(1), the circumstances of the race would have meant that they would have been in contravention of rule 149(1).
Perhaps it is a coincidence, but there has been a rise in problems with "team driving" in a number of states and with this rise, a rise in infractions of rule 44 also. I would have thought the better avenue for controlling "team driving" is under rule 149.
IMHO how rule 44 is currently being implemented, it is allowing drivers little flexibility. You can have your plan A, plan B and the good drivers have their plan C, but you can never 100% predict what is happening in a race and the application of rule 44 in a number of states is stifling split second decision making that would otherwise see drivers complying with rule 149, which I think is the "big daddy" of them all!!
Interested to hear your thoughts.
Geeez Flashing Red,
I like it better when you comment on the lights on, lights off topic.
I am not sure I see any true interrelation between the two rules although I am offering my opinion on the way the two rules are policed in NSW which is where I follow the sport.
In relation to 44(1) Drivers can have as many plans as they want they are only in breach of rule 44 (1) if plan A which is clearly the favored tactic and the one they intend to employ are different from the horses usual racing pattern, in that case if that have not advised the stewards they are in breach of the rule.If the change happens because of something in the race I can not recall a driver ever being penalised in NSW.
I can only recall one occasion when NSW stewards have not allowed a change of tactics even though the rule clearly gives them the right to not approve the change. In my view they would need a very strong case to employ this part of the rule.
In NSW you would not be penalised if the Tactic Change was brought about simply by the circumstances of the race and I would be happy to debate an instance if one can be found by anyone. That is not to say that if the explanation offered to the stewards was" I did not go forward because horse A was drawn one and I knew it would hold the top" that is not circumstances of the race it was a tactic decision made before the race and under the rules has to be advised.
I recall a race at Newcastle a few years back Dash Of Class was being driven back at the time. Talamahara looked the leader when he galloped approaching the start the driver on Dash Of Class pulled the stick led and won ... there was no penalty clearly a circumstance of the race decision.
The stewards in NSW suspended a well know lady driver under 149 a few months back after a race at HP that looked bad . They lost the suspension on appeal because the judge found that the decision which was to hand up to the stablemate early in the race in a very slow quarter after a slow lead time was not at the time in its self a decision that could be considered unreasonable.
That is one of the issues with 149 rules the decision the driver is are punished for has to be deemed unreasonable at the time when it was made not made so by circumstances later in the race that can not absolutely predicted.
Do not get me wrong in a prefect world where the judges understood the game it might hold up but in both codes of racing in many states and even other countries that was lost about 40 years ago when solicitors became involved.
And what if an unannounced change of tactic won the driver the race, whether the decision was made before the race or it was a split second decision during? I do not feel that connections should have to lay every one of their cards out on the table. An example of this I gave a few months ago, namely a horse that had predominantly raced over the mile distance having its first shot, in a long time, over a longer journey. The horse normally would hold the lead if it got there, but if a suitable horse came forward (ie one of the more fancied runners that would not inturn hand up to someone else) it was probably prudent to take a sit in case the horse didn’t run the trip out. But not if another horse would hand up, putting said horse 3rd the fence or if it was a 100-1 shot and unlikely to make it to the sprint lane. The horse took a sit on the favourite and ran second, arguably the best position it could have obtained, as it was beaten by a better horse. Yet the driver was called in under rule 44, despite obviously complying with rule 149. Now if an announcement was made before the race, every tom dick and harry in that race would have charged for the lead and said horse probably would have ended up 3rd or 4th the fence and most definitely would not had won or run second.
Last edited by Flashing Red; 09-04-2011 at 12:09 AM. Reason: font
I agree Flashing because if the driver pushed to hold the lead then dropped out they would have charged under rule # because we want to.
Posting Permissions