RJB Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 The result is a joke...and McNab should count his blessings he got off so lightly...he made zero effort to do anything to correct her...we should have the same system as in some other countries, if you cause interference you are disqualified...that takes all these incorrect decisions out of the hands of people who may have a vested interest in the result...cause interference to another runner and out you go ..end of story. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 3 minutes ago, Hesi said: As I pointed out to Maxi, it was not worth the effort of the connections of Defibrillate lodging a protest, as the best they could have got was Prowess relegated back to 5th with their horse moving up one place to 4th and an extra $12,800 in prize money. Defibrillate was severely checked by Prowess taking it's line when it was not entitled to do so, causing Defibrillate to lose momentum. It was serious enough for the stipes to initiate an inquiry, which i was surprised they did not. Okay, the judicial committee may well have found in favour of Prowess, but it was never the subject of scrutiny. But if it was that serious (or even potentially bringing about change), the jockey/connections would do it. The prize money not being a reason not to. You'd do it in the interests of racing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 8 minutes ago, RJB said: The result is a joke...and McNab should count his blessings he got off so lightly...he made zero effort to do anything to correct her...we should have the same system as in some other countries, if you cause interference you are disqualified...that takes all these incorrect decisions out of the hands of people who may have a vested interest in the result...cause interference to another runner and out you go ..end of story. Agree The way it is at the moment, is anything goes, take the chance and be dammed It is in the book now a G1 to Prowess, and good on her, as we all want to see top horses on the racecourse, winning McNab will get looked after, he has just earned connections a G1, and for a filly that is gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 Maybe what is in the best interests of racing is a misnomer. You don't normally see things done in the best interests of racing, quite the opposite, parochialism reigns supreme, from my observation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 17 minutes ago, Hesi said: Maybe what is in the best interests of racing is a misnomer. You don't normally see things done in the best interests of racing, quite the opposite, parochialism reigns supreme, from my observation Isn't that the issue though. The connections didn't protest supposedly because they don't do what is in the best interests of racing. And the stewards didn't protest supposedly because they don't do what is in the best interests of racing. Or they both didn't protest because the outcome was likely clearcut. The jockey was charged for breaching the rules and the placings didn't change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 That is drawing a long bow Mardi, but interesting point of view Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 ok, playing devil's advocate. Maybe they didn't want a protest lodged because if successful, that would give TA another G1. Many seem to be against TA dominating. (I still believe a protest had 2 shows. A shit show and no show.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 Just now, mardigras said: ok, playing devil's advocate. Maybe they didn't want a protest lodged because if successful, that would give TA another G1. Many seem to be against TA dominating. (I still believe a protest had 2 shows. A shit show and no show.) That is a possible scenario if the stipes do not run the show and affects the integrity of racing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 Jockeys are taking advantage of the existing system Straighten the horse and he almost certainly loses Keep going and he puts it to chance that any interference is dismissed Keep going and win and keep the race, but with a sizeable penalty, he knows he will be looked after RJB's point is a good one, cause interference and get disqualified. That way jockeys will think twice about a win at all costs. We saw that with Bosson a few months ago. He did not straighten the horse, because he would not have won had he done so. In that particular case there were other potential very serious consequences Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 1 hour ago, mardigras said: ok, playing devil's advocate. Maybe they didn't want a protest lodged because if successful, that would give TA another G1. Many seem to be against TA dominating. (I still believe a protest had 2 shows. A shit show and no show.) So you think it was OK what McNab did???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 1 minute ago, RJB said: So you think it was OK what McNab did???? No. Not at all. I'm not even discussing what he did. I'm discussing whether Defibrillate should have been involved in a protest. It would have been a waste of time. If I was to discuss the actions of the rider, he should have got a suspension. I'm assuming he did in line with the rules. If we had disqualification for breaking such rules, then he should be disqualified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 So what we have come to, is the existing rules are an ass. Jockeys break them because they know the consequences that can be levelled against them under current rules are reasonably inconsequential and they will be looked after by very grateful connections Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 Another scenario then McNab badly interferes with Defibrillate and indirectly La Crique, because he knows that close to home, if they lose momentum, they have no chance of regaining it, there fore will finish far enough behind him, that it makes any protest futile. You can debate all day whether Defibrillate was going well enough, only an objective and skilled eye could judge that. No point asking Roger James or the connections of Defibrillate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Maizcay Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 1 hour ago, RJB said: So you think it was OK what McNab did???? if I owned Prowess i'd want him to do what he did straighten the horse and lose or keep going, win and take your chances in the room - give me the latter everyday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Maizcay Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 33 minutes ago, Hesi said: Another scenario then McNab badly interferes with Defibrillate and indirectly La Crique, because he knows that close to home, if they lose momentum, they have no chance of regaining it, there fore will finish far enough behind him, that it makes any protest futile. that's a nonsense scenario, he doesn't have the time to think about that and frankly he's not smart enough to think about that current rules are better than the old rules, it's all in the policing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 Irrespective of all the points and opinions, those horses interfered with were entitled to a clear shot at the line, which then allows a determination of the best horse on that day. They were denied that. Prowess may - probably is - the best horse but it wasn't fairly demonstrated. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 48 minutes ago, Our Maizcay said: if I owned Prowess i'd want him to do what he did straighten the horse and lose or keep going, win and take your chances in the room - give me the latter everyday And that is where its wrong...the rule is wrong the decision should be taken out of the hands of either biased or inexperienced people in a closed room..JMO.That would be fair for all concerned this type of BS decision happens to often in NZ and sometimes in Oz as well..its all subjective opinions...have a clear rule interfere and out you go. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 3 minutes ago, Freda said: Irrespective of all the points and opinions, those horses interfered with were entitled to a clear shot at the line, which then allows a determination of the best horse on that day. They were denied that. Prowess may - probably is - the best horse but it wasn't fairly demonstrated. That is exactly the point I am trying to make, and the rules the way they are set, encourages that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 4 minutes ago, Freda said: Irrespective of all the points and opinions, those horses interfered with were entitled to a clear shot at the line, which then allows a determination of the best horse on that day. They were denied that. Prowess may - probably is - the best horse but it wasn't fairly demonstrated. I agree 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 And not mention the punters, who decided Prowess was poor value and looked elsewhere with a horse like Defibrillate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Maizcay Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 2 minutes ago, Hesi said: And not mention the punters, who decided Prowess was poor value and looked elsewhere with a horse like Defibrillate i thought Prowess was great value at $2.50 turned out to be right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Maizcay Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 8 minutes ago, Hesi said: That is exactly the point I am trying to make, and the rules the way they are set, encourages that what's a better rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 Just now, Our Maizcay said: what's a better rule? The one RJB is espousing. It needs to be something that discourages this sort of rough house riding. The current clearly does not 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 I would suggest it is well known amongst jockey ranks, that if you are going to chop a horse out, do it 150-200m out, as it will finish far enough behind to make a protest a waste of time. 50m out and the margin is likely to be small enough to warrant critiquing. Do it 300m out and the impeded horse has a chance to recover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 15 hours ago, RJB said: The result is a joke...and McNab should count his blessings he got off so lightly...he made zero effort to do anything to correct her...we should have the same system as in some other countries, if you cause interference you are disqualified...that takes all these incorrect decisions out of the hands of people who may have a vested interest in the result...cause interference to another runner and out you go ..end of story. Yes. Agreed. It also removes the bias - or incompetence - of stipes who can't see properly. Curious will know, I think there are pretty strict rules in the U.S on this matter. I seem to recall an incident in one of the major classics that would have gone unnoticed here, or at the worst, the rider would have been cautioned to 'show more care in future '. No pissing around there, disqualified. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.