Mutunga Tap v Drumstrom

[Midget 4,489]

I watched this race and to my amazement there was a change of placing.I didn't have a bet as i refuse in the SI for various reasons.When they straighten for the run in Drumstorm is leading with Mutunga Tap outside, they race down and Drumstrom drifts outwards 4/5 horse widths,the rider puts the whip into his right hand and attempts to straighten.The point i would like to make is,there was never any contact between both horses, neither rider had to stop riding and the margin was clear at the finish.With the JCA Rulings in the past,they state that they had to be certain that other horse would have beaten the other horse and to me this is not the case in this instance.Mutunga Tap had the length of the straight to get past to get past Drumstorm and couldn't and never would have on the day.I feel for the connections and the punters who had a bet on Drumstrom,as you were robbed by an inconsistent JCA decision and i will wait for the Stewards report,not that i rate anything they may say,but it will not surprise me if they endorsed the relegation.

[kdt 293]

Cuneen admitted the charge and has been given 10 days.

[Midget 4,489]

Yes  i see that, but they do that to get a reduced suspension and this is after the JCA wrongly in my view relegated the winner.If you have a look at the race Volkstock'n'barrell won at Ellerslie and held the race and then convince me that this was as bad.In this instance there was contact and the rider of the 2nd horse had to stop riding, unlike the relegation at Gore.

[We're Doomed 4,866]

Interesting. I think it is fair to say that if that was a hot fav winning a group one race at Auck the placings would not have been changed. Does it now set a precedent or will it just  be considered a rogue decision?

[von Smallhaussen 3,226]

p4p - did you attend midnight math this year? 

[Diver Dan 187]

Had a wee tickle on Drumstrom - thought it would lead after watching the first race where the leader and second horse fought out the race.

For mine Matunga Tap was held the whole way down the straight, yes it was pushed wider but 100m out made no ground on the winner.

There is NO WAY it was certain to pass the leader.

[Midget 4,489]

19 hours ago, Diver Dan said:

Had a wee tickle on Drumstrom - thought it would lead after watching the first race where the leader and second horse fought out the race.

For mine Matunga Tap was held the whole way down the straight, yes it was pushed wider but 100m out made no ground on the winner.

There is NO WAY it was certain to pass the leader.

Exactly my opinion and they JCA  have stated that they must be absolutely certain that the other horse would have beaten the other horse and to me clearly this far from certain,but as you cannot appeal and that means that the JCA is NEVER WRONG,i will bow to there opinion.

[Guest 2Admin2]

On 24/12/2017 at 11:13 PM, poundforpound said:

It’s incredibly simple math to prove how much ground was lost by the horse being forced off their line, using the right angled triangle rule.

If A squared = B squared.plus C squared,( right angled triangle rule ) where the hypotenuse is equal to the distance the victim was forced over.

So let’s say the interference occurred over 300 m and the lateral movement was say 10 m, then the square root of 300 sq plus 10 sq ( which is a sum of 90,100 ) is the distance the victim was forced over, so if they’d run straight the distance both would’ve covered us 300m, but the actual distance of the hypotenuse is 300.16 m.

The extra distance covered in thus 0.16 m, and that’s only about a short half head, or the size of a small hand span.

Unless there was an exacerbating factor like loss of momentum,  bumping off balance, or obstruction of whip use, the horse interfered with has to prove they’d finished within a hand span of the winner otherwise there can be no relegation.

I accept that the Racing authorities may be mathematically challenged by this, but it’s an undeniable scientific fact..

I see it all the time, incorrect and inappropriate relegations simply because the parties involved on both sides don’t understand the math.

 

 

But they BOTH moved outwards so both covered the same distance.  I agree though that the rules are applied inconsistently.

As for no avenue for appeal in my opinion that is wrong.  At the very least there should be a process of review where decisions are assessed for their consistency.

[Ohokaman 5,842]

On 12/24/2017 at 11:13 PM, poundforpound said:

It’s incredibly simple math to prove how much ground was lost by the horse being forced off their line, using the right angled triangle rule.

If A squared = B squared.plus C squared,( right angled triangle rule ) where the hypotenuse is equal to the distance the victim was forced over.

So let’s say the interference occurred over 300 m and the lateral movement was say 10 m, then the square root of 300 sq plus 10 sq ( which is a sum of 90,100 ) is the distance the victim was forced over, so if they’d run straight the distance both would’ve covered us 300m, but the actual distance of the hypotenuse is 300.16 m.

The extra distance covered in thus 0.16 m, and that’s only about a short half head, or the size of a small hand span.

Unless there was an exacerbating factor like loss of momentum,  bumping off balance, or obstruction of whip use, the horse interfered with has to prove they’d finished within a hand span of the winner otherwise there can be no relegation.

I accept that the Racing authorities may be mathematically challenged by this, but it’s an undeniable scientific fact..

I see it all the time, incorrect and inappropriate relegations simply because the parties involved on both sides don’t understand the math.

 

 

Not surprised....