Monday, 17 March 2014




Alex Salmond on The Andrew Marr (opinion) Show _ 16-03-14 ...
4 days ago ... Marr: "I think it would be quite hard to get back in [the EU], I have to say." http:// 
Bloodhorse illiterate stewards inquiries called into question 

Benefit of doubt should be with the injured party


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