flockofewes2

~ R2 Ellerslie...

94 posts in this topic

Without head on back on hard to tell.the jc a have rules they have to adhere to.the opinion it was going to win if  it went straight is not relevant.it didn't.the jc a has to adhere to rules.they don't make them.very experienced and competent panel.would be nice if all information and film made public.thennexplanations from the top.im not at all surprised by the decision as I believe the back on and headons might reveal the damage.lets  c them.back on extremely important in these sort of enquiries sometimes it is surprising what they show.better or would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tim vince said:

Without head on back on hard to tell.the jc a have rules they have to adhere to.the opinion it was going to win if  it went straight is not relevant.it didn't.the jc a has to adhere to rules.they don't make them.very experienced and competent panel.would be nice if all information and film made public.thennexplanations from the top.im not at all surprised by the decision as I believe the back on and headons might reveal the damage.lets  c them.back on extremely important in these sort of enquiries sometimes it is surprising what they show.better or would help.

Tim I think they need a bunker system like the league that does all races. No jockey trainer input.

They make a decision and explain the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a frigging joke.

Jockey said (off the record) she wouldn't have won, and doesn't want to protest. Which confirms what the vision shows.

The RIU take it upon themselves to hold the enquiry, and an incompetent JCA upholds the protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, tim vince said:

Without head on back on hard to tell.the jc a have rules they have to adhere to.the opinion it was going to win if  it went straight is not relevant.it didn't.the jc a has to adhere to rules.they don't make them.very experienced and competent panel.would be nice if all information and film made public.thennexplanations from the top.im not at all surprised by the decision as I believe the back on and headons might reveal the damage.lets  c them.back on extremely important in these sort of enquiries sometimes it is surprising what they show.better or would help.

Tim the JCA have to be 100% certain that the 2nd horse would have beaten the winner, in my opinion, it would not have. Have a look at both horses at the top of the straight, they racing side by side,100m further on the filly had put 1 length on the other horse, she then looked at the big screen and pricked her ears and lost momentum and shifted ground. This made the 2nd horse appear to make ground.In fact, the winner had lost concentration and momentum and this flatted the runner up.

I believe this would rate as an embarrassment for both the RIU and the JCA and i do feel for the punters who lost on a poor decision.

I am told that the Trainers Association had a lot to say about this poor decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous decisions still being made...

Anyone remember the 1980 Royal Stakes and Arethusa.?

She was going to win easily but ran about and caused some interference. After the interference happened, Arethusa ended up being (from memory) a length or so BEHIND the 2 horses she caused the interference to but came back again and still beat them.....but got relegated back to 3rd.  (tried to find old video but to no avail).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to me that Mr John Otham seems to be the main catalyst in nearly every poor judicial decision in racing in this country. 
 

Over the years on Race Cafe I have made quite a number of comments about his poor actions. 
 

It’s not a pick on Mr Otham by me, simply a further acknowledgement that he seems to have the midis touch for poor judgement!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 100 1 said:

Tim I think they need a bunker system like the league that does all races. No jockey trainer input.

They make a decision and explain the rule.

To be fair, the NRL Bunker had made some howlers as well.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with camera shots from four different angles it gets down to interpretation and how good your argument it. Over the years in cases like this I've noticed the decision more often than not goes the way of the short-priced favourite which it did in this case. Comparitively fifty years ago with no cameras, at the merest touch the jockey on the second horse would immediately stand up in the stirrups and give a tug on the reins. To all watching the horse would obviously be "badly checked" and then being beaten only a head and without any re-plays the decision would go his way without a second thought. I would say a few of you out there would relate to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to blame j Latham  he makes the decision to protest and not the decision.you could say he was correctt as the decision went his way.im no stipe lover but overall in b9th codes and especially I know  more of the harness they are very professional but 9f course half the crowd  hates the decision and the  other half think it's correct. The boss of the referees in league comments on decisions where is the riu boss he should comment good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim,go and have a look at the NZTR Web site and have a look at the stewards 4 videos. Then you will see this is the worst decision by both the RIU/JCA, the incident happened 3 strides before the post and how anyone can come to the conclusion the best horse didn't win the race is beyond belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have been interesting to be an observer in the Protest hearing. It’s often said that a very eloquent and articulate Jockey can sway a protest hearing his/her way. I wonder if the relegated horse’s Jockey had the thought that “there’s no way I can lose this protest” and didn’t argue the case for retaining the race forcefully enough to convince the panel? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tim vince said:

I'm told and I ain't seen it th he backview at the 100 was relevant.my point 8s in a case like this it should be out there and the riu could take it to trackside  with the stipe and give their view.it ain't that big a deal.defend their position.

Hey Tim are you suggesting contact was made at the 100 :rcfe-surprise: no way Josè

If Taroni had run straight it wins , as it looked the entire way down the straight, did the contact cost the the other horse the race? No, and i had the multiple units on the straight trifecta going against the Alagant satin factor , ticket should of been in the bin :rcfe-like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Gruff said:

Hey Tim are you suggesting contact was made at the 100 :rcfe-surprise: no way Josè

If Taroni had run straight it wins , as it looked the entire way down the straight, did the contact cost the the other horse the race? No, and i had the multiple units on the straight trifecta going against the Alagant satin factor , ticket should of been in the bin :rcfe-like:

100 percent Gruff,it was 3 strides before the winning post, this remains the worst decision of all time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This suggestion that had Taroni run straight, or not lost momentum just before the line, it would have won easily, is interesting but is it relevant?

I don't know the rules very well so please correct me if I'm wrong.  Surely it is not Bordeaux Le Rouge's fault that Taroni ran around.  What would have happened had Taroni run straight is therefore irrelevant.  It didn't run straight therefore that is a moot point.

By running out over the last 100m Taroni forced Bordeaux le Rouge to cover extra ground.  Pythagoras can help with the maths.  Lets say Taroni ran out 10 metres over the last 100 metres, then it has forced the runner up to cover roughly an extra 0.5m.  What was the winning margin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Kloppite said:

This suggestion that had Taroni run straight, or not lost momentum just before the line, it would have won easily, is interesting but is it relevant?

I don't know the rules very well so please correct me if I'm wrong.  Surely it is not Bordeaux Le Rouge's fault that Taroni ran around.  What would have happened had Taroni run straight is therefore irrelevant.  It didn't run straight therefore that is a moot point.

By running out over the last 100m Taroni forced Bordeaux le Rouge to cover extra ground.  Pythagoras can help with the maths.  Lets say Taroni ran out 10 metres over the last 100 metres, then it has forced the runner up to cover roughly an extra 0.5m.  What was the winning margin?

The point is the rider took corrective action and as a result lost momentum hence the small winning margin

How can you say he would have beaten the other horse with no interference,  It would have been beaten by far more.

They are obviously saying because the margin was a head, without the interference it would have won.  No, without the interference it would have lost by a length

https://loveracing.nz/Common/SystemTemplates/Modal/Video.aspx?v=https%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2fembed%2faEy83L6XK1s&i=%2fCommon%2fImage.ashx%3fw%3d565%26h%3d314%26a%3d1%26o%3d1%26z%3d1%26bg%3deeeeee%26p%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fimg.youtube.com%2fvi%2faEy83L6XK1s%2f0.jpg&r=Stewards' Vision Race 2 - EXECUTIVE TRAVEL 1100&rs=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kloppite said:

This suggestion that had Taroni run straight, or not lost momentum just before the line, it would have won easily, is interesting but is it relevant?

I don't know the rules very well so please correct me if I'm wrong.  Surely it is not Bordeaux Le Rouge's fault that Taroni ran around.  What would have happened had Taroni run straight is therefore irrelevant.  It didn't run straight therefore that is a moot point.

By running out over the last 100m Taroni forced Bordeaux le Rouge to cover extra ground.  Pythagoras can help with the maths.  Lets say Taroni ran out 10 metres over the last 100 metres, then it has forced the runner up to cover roughly an extra 0.5m.  What was the winning margin?

Can you use Pythagoras here Klopps :rcf-rich-1:

and yes because as 100 explained the head margin is used AGAINST  the winner,when that point is moot because of the efforts by Danielle to correct , i think somebody suggested earlier about riding through the interference increasing the winning margin thus removing its relevance,you wouldnt do it but would of strengthened Taronis position arguably .

BLR Cateorically wins without the interference :rcf-rich-1:   you just cant see it that way surely ..... Klopps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’d be amazed how little ground is lost using Pythagoras theorem..

Use 200m ( duration of interference ) as A and 10m ( width forced wider ) as B and you’ll find the distance C is only a few inches further, 25cm to be exact, the length of your foot, and that’s after being forced 10m or 7 full horse widths across the track 

What unusually decides it is was the affected horse bumped off stride and did it lose momentum ? 

B9F9C02F-DA9C-441C-B26E-D71FD4C8E5D0.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, poundforpound said:

You’d be amazed how little ground is lost using Pythagoras theorem..

Use 200m ( duration of interference ) as A and 10m ( width forced wider ) as B and you’ll find the distance C is only a few inches further, 25cm to be exact, the length of your foot, and that’s after being forced 10m or 7 full horse widths across the track 

What unusually decides it is was the affected horse bumped off stride and did it lose momentum ? 

B9F9C02F-DA9C-441C-B26E-D71FD4C8E5D0.jpeg

 You say it "is only a few inches" then state "25 cm to be exact". 25 cm is roughly 10 inches. I'm sure any good lady will tell you that there's quite a noticeable difference between "a few inches", which "a few" would generally translate to around five, and the other bloke that was offering 25 cm. Your "few inches" would run second every time hahahahaha 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, poundforpound said:

You’d be amazed how little ground is lost using Pythagoras theorem..

Use 200m ( duration of interference ) as A and 10m ( width forced wider ) as B and you’ll find the distance C is only a few inches further, 25cm to be exact, the length of your foot, and that’s after being forced 10m or 7 full horse widths across the track 

What unusually decides it is was the affected horse bumped off stride and did it lose momentum ? 

B9F9C02F-DA9C-441C-B26E-D71FD4C8E5D0.jpeg

And on a more serious note, obviously the ground lost increases as the distance 'a' reduces, especially if 'b' remains the same. Late interference is more costly as there's no chance to make up the ground, the momentum closer to the line would generally be greater I imagine, and the angle of the interference is likely greater than when running out over the length of the straight.  

Disclaimer. I did not see, and have not see video of, the race in question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, poundforpound said:

 

B9F9C02F-DA9C-441C-B26E-D71FD4C8E5D0.jpeg

So many variables. Did jockey B take evasive action when he thought contact was going to be made? Was contact actually made? Did either or both riders stop riding? Then there’s the judiciary, the odds-on favourite which shouldn’t come into it but I believe it does, the human element being who presents their case the best, the $$ factor and then Leo’s mathematical equation which may or may not have relevance also.

It reminds me, just like the maths used in building the pyramids, and of the prominent Indian Chief who was about to choose a successor. His three wives each with a son sat around him, one on a hippopotamus hide, one on a buffalo hide and the other on a zebra hide. He used the theorem of Pythagorus to choose the first in line who was twice as important as the others. How?

Basically,  the son of the Squaw on the Hippopotomus was equal to the sons of the squaws on the other two hides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Idolmite said:

And on a more serious note, obviously the ground lost increases as the distance 'a' reduces, especially if 'b' remains the same. Late interference is more costly as there's no chance to make up the ground, the momentum closer to the line would generally be greater I imagine, and the angle of the interference is likely greater than when running out over the length of the straight.  

Disclaimer. I did not see, and have not see video of, the race in question. 

Leave it to the ex jockeys who’ve ridden a lot and then straight A’d through bursary and University math, pure and stats if it matters 

FYI though the horse in question drifted left over about 50m, and he drifted out about 6m, so the hypotenuse is the square root of 2536 which is 50.35 so there’s a 35cm difference 

In other words the winner won on merit unless you could prove the second horse lost momentum or became unbalanced, and that’s clearly what the JCA thought 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now