MONDAY MARCH 17th RACING POST CH4 2014
WEEK MONDAY MARCH 17th TO SUNDAY MARCH 23rd
WEEK MONDAY MARCH 17th TO SUNDAY MARCH 23rd
PREVIEW TODAY'S CARDS
* REVIEW YESTERDAY'S EQUUS RESULTS *
PREVIEW TODAY'S EQUUS CARDS
LATEST NEWS
http://www.racingpost.com/news/live.sd
http://www.racingpost.com/news/live.sd
RACES ... ENTRIES ... DAYS
Alex Salmond on The Andrew Marr (opinion) Show _ 16-03-14 ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DVWtdEA774Oc
4 days ago ... Marr: "I think it would be quite hard to get back in [the EU], I have to say." http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-26600888.
EQUUS ZONE
Bloodhorse illiterate stewards inquiries called into question
Benefit of doubt should be with the injured party
COMMENT
Colin Russell calls for a change of emphasis in stewards'
inquiries
"WE WILL never know whether
the stewards at Cheltenham came to a fair
conclusion in deciding the interference in the Gold Cup was insufficient for
the placings of the first two horses home, Lord Windermere and On His Own, to
be reversed.
"When the sporting Wylie, owners of the runner-up, not taking it to
appeal the decision will not be subjected to any further scrutiny, which has
probably done racing a great service, for in my opinion had they done so they
might have 'won' the most prestigious prize
in jumping in front of a few journalists
and connections at 75 High Holborn, rather than in the supercharged atmosphere
of Cheltenham.
"It can't have been easy for
the stewards. Having watched the films and listened to the riders, I found it
very difficult to judge whether On His
Own would have won had he not been carried across the track.
"However, throughout those
deliberations there was something nagging, namely that the winning margin was a
short head?
"It did, in my opinion. Ask
the question, which is part of the stewards' decision-making process: 'If On
His Own had been allowed to gallop in a straight line after the last fence
would he have got to the winning post before Lord Windermere? "
"By my calculations, making a
few assumptions pythagoras, the conclusion is that he would. Not by much, but
enough.
"Anyway, that's water under
the Tyne or Barrow now, its gone. As On His
Own's trainer Willie Mullins said, it's time to draw a line and move on.
"The other interesting
stewards' inquiry last week was into the Listed novice handicap chase in which
Present View beat Attaglance by a diminishing
half-length, despite hanging left after the last and forcing the
runner-up to switch.
British
horseracing is being run without any considerations for the trained racehorses
who take part or their handler riders. The horses count for nothing in the eyes of
the political and horseracing government over the last five decades. These government people need to hold their hands up and admit they are wrong.
"Most professionals who follow
such inquiries had no doubt the placings would stand. But so well did
Attaglance finish after being hampered that many were also convinced that with
a clear passage he would have won. "So there's a massive conflict there:
with a clear passage Attaglance would have won, but he wouldn't (and didn't)
get the race in the stewards' room.
"You might ask why we bother
having stewards' enquiries? Surely they are to decide which horse should have
won, or in BHA parlance 'whether by causing the interference the winning horse improved its placing' .
"The problem is the
interpretation of the rules, which are that in order for the placings of the
two horses to be revised, officials have to be virtually 100 per cent the
second would have won. The benefit of
doubt always goes to the offending horse.
"It's rather like being mugged
and having your wallet stolen and when the culprit is caught he not only gets
off scot-free but keeps your wallet.
"That is precisely what
happened here, Attaglance was mugged and had the money snatched from him. There
was a gap, the winner Present View closed it, and Attaglance was beaten half a
length, because his rider had to pull him back and switch him around the
hanging winner.
"Surely we need a change of
emphasis. Doesn't it make far more sense that the benefit of doubt should go to
the injured party, not the offender? In this case stewards would have asked
themselves whether they were certain Attaglance would have finished second and
not first had he enjoyed a clear run. The answer would most certainly have been
'no', so he would have been awarded the race. A much fairer outcome, no. "
J Margaret Clarke Turfcall Comment
Licensed trainers,
their teams and all race- riders are on a hiding to nothing There are no true
Equus Rules of British horseracing, just as there are no true Equus Rules for
Global Horseracing. There can only ever be true Global Equus Rules of horseracing. Other sports:
( true global rules for tennis exist) (football same) (rugby same) (cricket same) (polo same) (where
are the true global rules for horseracing? Why do they not exist?
On the whim
of British stewards the anabolic steroid fiasco condemns innocent men unjustly
because there are no true equus rules to global horseracing . There are no true veterinary medication rules in this country, just as there is no true British Equus Zone
These
bloodhorse illiterate British stewards remain incompetent they are out of their
depth here. They need to put their hands up and admit they are bloodhorse
illiterate and that they are a liability to both British and Global horseracing
that they have no place to go on advising
other horseracing countries in the wrong way.
No comments:
Post a Comment