flockofewes2

~ R2 Ellerslie...

94 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, poundforpound said:

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 

Would there be many ex jockeys that straight A'd  bursary and University maths in enough numbers in order to fill the stipes panels up and down country.  You cannot be at every meeting unless they use the bunker system and centralise. Maybe the ex jockeys in NZ are educated to a higher level than other countries .Being small and maths genius is a tough quinella to find I'd guess .

NB , my maths ability only stretches to working out bets , darts finishes and snooker breaks ( up to 24  on a good day ) and I'm too big to be jockey so not coming from a position of strength on stipes front myself .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stipendiary stewards and JCA get it horribly wrong at Ellerslie

by Brian de Lore
Published 6th December 2019

Saturday at Ellerslie saw one of the worst decisions seen on a New Zealand racecourse for some years when stipendiary stewards reversed the first and second placings in race two, the Executive Travel Maiden Two-year-Old over 1100 metres.

To add insult to injury, the Judicial Control Authority (JCA) ratified the mistake by rubber-stamping the decision – bringing into question both the competence of the JCA officials on the day and the entire Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) structure which has in the past been the subject of criticism from key stakeholders.

Protests, upheld or dismissed, race interference, jockey penalties, etc., isn’t a domain to where The Optimist would typically venture. Too many grey areas exist, and too often, decisions are made on narrow margins of a controversial and debatable nature which often polarises racegoers. It’s better to stay away from the debate in those cases, and this blog has always attempted to deal with facts and make a neutrally fair evaluation.

It wouldn’t be an easy job being a stipendiary steward. Race day responsibilities are wide-ranging, and the requirements would generate a reasonable degree of pressure, often thought to be the reason why stipes are rarely seen to smile. Rule 204 of the Rules of Racing says:

“The functions of Stipendiary Stewards and Investigators are to: (a) maintain the integrity of Races and racing; (b) regulate and oversee all Race day matters and all matters related to Races and racing; (c) investigate potential breaches of the Rules; (d) assist in relation to licensing matters; (e) generally, to do all things necessary so that Races and racing are conducted efficiently and with integrity and in accordance with these Rules.”

But Saturday’s episode was blatant. It was a clear-cut error of judgment; should a protest even have been lodged? Grandstand critics are never wrong, and from the safety of a green leather lazy-boy chair in front of the big flat screen, I watched the race live. When the siren went, my thinking was that it would take only around 60 seconds to reach a ‘protest dismissed’ verdict.

How wrong can you be! Incomprehensibly the stewards and JCA went with it and turfed-out first-past-the-post horse Taroni and promoted Bordeaux Le Rouge into first place. Since the live viewing, I have revisited the video replay on the Love Racing website no fewer than a dozen times.

On every occasion, the same conclusion was reached. The two horses briefly came together right on the winning post, but Bordeaux Le Rouge was never ever going to run past Taroni and win the race. Had Taroni kept a straight line it would have won by more than a length.

So why did the stipes change the result and the JCA ratify it? Firstly, Rule 642 of racing says that to change the result: “the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred.”

In my view, that criteria had not been met – nowhere close to it. Could I be so wrong, after all, I had been studying races for over 50 years since the days of such greats as Palisade, Eiffel Tower, Kumei, Weenell, Daryl’s Joy, Jazz, Star Belle, Laramie, Royal Bid, Piko, Game Call, Spray Doone, Koral, Lindred, Teak, Pep and Brazil to name a few – what a fabulous era of great horses. Perhaps the years have dimmed my vision and fogged my judgment?

“If the punters out there don’t have any confidence in our judicial system they are not going to bet.” – Nigel Tiley

The only way to determine this was to consult others. As a top-class ex-jockey and now a highly experienced trainer, Nigel Tiley was my first call. Nigel also sits on the committee of the Trainers’ Association Committee and is the trainers’ representative on the NZTR Members’Council, and few horsemen would be better credentialled to review the incident.

Nigel said: “On Saturday’s decision, the fact that I had two phone calls from Australia questioning what the rules were in New Zealand. These were two experienced race watchers who could not get their heads around the reversing of the placings. They were both adamant that under their judicial system the protest would not have been upheld.

“But under our rules, it also should have been dismissed. We have discussed it in a conference call of the Trainers’ Association Executive, so I can’t speak on behalf of the Association, but I have spoken to a lot of racing people, and it’s 100 percent unanimous that the stipes made the wrong decision. I was appalled.

“If the punters out there don’t have any confidence in our judicial system they are not going to bet,” concluded Nigel Tiley.

Next, I phoned Racehorse Trainers’ Association President Tony Pike who was also willing to express his concern at the outcome of the race.  

“I had no problem with the siren going off,” commented Tony, “but it should have been dismissed. There’s a lot of backlash out there and it will be interesting to see what the final outcome is.

“I was on-course in Perth watching on TV and didn’t see the head-on film until later but I was disappointed with the process in the room. The stipes shouldn’t be asking or assuming the connections are going to lodge the protest and when the connections didn’t lodge it, and they had to lodge it themselves and have gone down that path, they probably felt the need to uphold it.”

The process of which Tony Pike referred to went like this: In the hearing room, the Chairman John Oatham stated mistakenly that the connections of the second horse had lodged the protest. It was soon established that was not the case and that a protest would not be forthcoming from them, so the Stewards lodged it themselves. The siren sounding before the horses had returned to scale was also initiated by a steward, but Oatham was apparently not aware of that which raises a serious procedural question.

Other questions arising are: Was that initial mistake in the room a mitigating factor in making the final decision? Was the fact that Bordeaux Le Rouge was the hot favourite at $1.30 for the win a sub-conscious pressure on the stewards, and would that pressure not have been present had it been a $20 shot? No one is suggesting that this was anything but an honest mistake, but it should be noted the loser here has no grounds for appeal.

“My experience with the JCA is that they lack racing experience and an ability to read races.” – Tony Pike

Further second-hand anecdotal information received is suggesting that not all four stewards officiating agreed with the decision, but that cannot be confirmed. The same source also said that Bordeaux Le Rouge’s jockey Sam Collett was not questioned at all.     

Tony Pike further commented: “My experience with the JCA is that they lack racing experience and an ability to read races, and they have gone and upheld it. They are obviously intelligent people, but on the subject of reading races, they’re not really qualified.

“Mistakes are made and this may be a one-off case, but we have to make sure the process and the rules are adhered to – the decision by the JCA was blatantly wrong. It was a lower-level race, and the ramifications were not great, but racing is lacking confidence in getting good decisions, especially from the JCA, and there will come a time and place when this will happen in a significantly bigger race with far greater ramifications.”

The Stewards Report Said:

“Following the race a protest was lodged by the Stipendiary Stewards alleging interference by the 1st placed horse TARONI (D Johnson) to the 2nd placed horse BORDEAUX LE ROUGE (S Collett) inside the final 100 metres. After viewing films and hearing submissions the Judicial Committee upheld the protest relegating TARONI to 2nd placing. The final placings now read – 1 BORDEAUX LE ROUGE 1st, 8 TARONI 2nd, 6 DRAGON QUEEN 3rd, 5 TARGHEE 4th. BORDEAUX LE ROUGE (S Collett replaced T Harris) – Promoted to 1 st placing after suffering interference inside the final 100 metres. TARONI (D Johnson) – Relegated from 1st placing after causing interference inside the final 100 metres.”

Interestingly, if Danielle Johnston had failed to keep her mount straight enough to stop the second horse from winning and the interference was severe enough to warrant a change of placings, one might have thought that Johnson would at the very least received a warning if not a fine or suspension. But not a mention.

Further to that, the Stewards Report above is very sheepish in its wording. It states a reversal of placings takes place but doesn’t go as far as saying that, “in the opinion of the stewards the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first-mentioned horse.”

Everyone with an interest in the judicial system of racing should review the race themselves and make a judgment, Depending on your opinion, you may have a future on the JCA panel because they are clearly having problems with people who boast a series of letters behind their names.

Footnote:

On Thursday 5th December, Racing Bill No 2 was released which is due to have it’s first reading before Parliament adjourns for the year. Here is the link to read it:

http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0198/latest/d11427752e2.html

Share this post


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

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 

I work with triangulation every hour of every day, so you qualifications to impress me at all. Aside from that, I'm actually agreeing with you hahahahaha 

I've actually watched the race now. The first two home were very green weren't they. Much further and 3rd and 4th would of been 1st and 2nd one suspects. Or it would of been one great stockcar pileup. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, tim vince said:

Why do u need exjockeys can't u know a lot about the moon without being an astronaut.

 

The next time you have heart surgery just ask for a surgeon who’s read lots about thoracic surgery but never done an operation. .... or when you’re having a bet on formula one back a driver who’s spent years in the simulator but never been in the car .... you’ll do well ... and my last analogy / metaphor especially for you ....you might be the world masturbating champion Tim but it doesn’t make you a great rooter 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, poundforpound said:

The next time you have heart surgery just ask for a surgeon who’s read lots about thoracic surgery but never done an operation. .... or when you’re having a bet on formula one back a driver who’s spent years in the simulator but never been in the car .... you’ll do well ... and my last analogy / metaphor especially for you ....you might be the world masturbating champion Tim but it doesn’t make you a great rooter 

But a jury on a jury trial have hopefully never murdered anyone but they judge guilt in murder trial so have no experience in actually doing the deed , hopefully the rest of players in courtroom likewise bar the person in dock.  

Most courtrooms judge acts they have never done themselves  so a stipes room similar , maybe an ex jock as SME might be idea .

Share this post


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

The next time you have heart surgery just ask for a surgeon who’s read lots about thoracic surgery but never done an operation. .... 

Hmmmm… would you also want to know that they'd had heart surgery themselves?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would all ex jock stipes panels be a problem with conflict of interest or perceived conflicts of interest . Ex stable jock chair of panel in protest against Derby winner  from his ex stable might not look good . Not saying they would be bias but perception is important .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in race 6 at Tauranga yesterday Soft Hearted the winner knocks down the 4th horse costing it at least 3 lengths.

It (Mersey Beat) fly's home to get within 1 length of the winner.

Where is the protest? Crickets

Time for the Bunker system

https://loveracing.nz/Common/SystemTemplates/Modal/Video.aspx?v=http%3a%2f%2fwww.racingreplays.co.nz%2fmedia%2f202001%2fTAUR-R06-020120.mp4&i=%2fCommon%2fImage.ashx%3fw%3d565%26h%3d314%26a%3d1%26o%3d1%26z%3d1%26bg%3deeeeee%26p%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.racingreplays.co.nz%2fmedia%2f202001%2fTAUR-R06-020120.jpg&r=Race 6 - BULK LINES LIMITED 1600&rs=1

A Calder (SOFT HEARTED) – Defended a charge of reckless riding in that he angled and rode his mount SOFT HEARTED inwards when not sufficiently clear of MERSEY BEAT and CAUGHT THE EYE which were both checked near the 275 metres. After viewing films along with hearing submissions and evidence the Judicial Committee amended the charge to one of careless riding which they found to be proven. Following penalty submissions A Calder was suspended from the conclusion of racing on Saturday 4 January until the conclusion of racing on Friday 24 January, 15 riding days.

 

Time to review the interference rules to cover the Ellerslie debacle.

Also things like if the winner knocks me down just after the start and cost me 3len and I get beaten a head what are the ramifications?

Why is protests confined to the straight?  illogical

Share this post


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

So in race 6 at Tauranga yesterday Soft Hearted the winner knocks down the 4th horse costing it at least 3 lengths.

It (Mersey Beat) fly's home to get within 1 length of the winner.

Where is the protest? Crickets

Time for the Bunker system

https://loveracing.nz/Common/SystemTemplates/Modal/Video.aspx?v=http%3a%2f%2fwww.racingreplays.co.nz%2fmedia%2f202001%2fTAUR-R06-020120.mp4&i=%2fCommon%2fImage.ashx%3fw%3d565%26h%3d314%26a%3d1%26o%3d1%26z%3d1%26bg%3deeeeee%26p%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.racingreplays.co.nz%2fmedia%2f202001%2fTAUR-R06-020120.jpg&r=Race 6 - BULK LINES LIMITED 1600&rs=1

A Calder (SOFT HEARTED) – Defended a charge of reckless riding in that he angled and rode his mount SOFT HEARTED inwards when not sufficiently clear of MERSEY BEAT and CAUGHT THE EYE which were both checked near the 275 metres. After viewing films along with hearing submissions and evidence the Judicial Committee amended the charge to one of careless riding which they found to be proven. Following penalty submissions A Calder was suspended from the conclusion of racing on Saturday 4 January until the conclusion of racing on Friday 24 January, 15 riding days.

 

Time to review the interference rules to cover the Ellerslie debacle.

Also things like if the winner knocks me down just after the start and cost me 3len and I get beaten a head what are the ramifications?

Why is protests confined to the straight?  illogical

They’re not in Australia - remember Poetic Prince? Lost a 4 length easing down Caul Guineas win for interference to Marwong at the 1000m peg. If ridden out he would have won by 10 lengths and probably the protest is dismissed! 

Share this post


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

Did the siren go.

 

No  Tim

It was enough for the JCA to give Calder 15 days but not enough to lodge a JCA inquiry appparently

Go figure 

Lost 3 and finished a quickly diminishing length.away....no doubts would have beaten the winner and fav owned by Hogan BTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 10:30 AM, poundforpound said:

Jockeys are conducting a procedure in riding a racehorse.....are you arguing they should be ridden and whipped themselves to have any credibility 

Yep ... :)  and a few ex jockeys  .............

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