Newmarket July Meeting

Thanks, I backed her at Ascot and thought she ran a great race, good to see her win well today.

If Noble Silk runs well in the next at Ascot it'll be a great day already!
 
I think it is time for the rules to be changed on interference . Tom Queally must be regretting not pulling his whip through on Jacqueline Quest and giving Special Duty a couple of bashes in the face - he might have kept the race then if he had kept her at bay by a neck .
 
Ardross said:
I think it is time for the rules to be changed on interference . Tom Queally must be regretting not pulling his whip through on Jacqueline Quest and giving Special Duty a couple of bashes in the face - he might have kept the race then if he had kept her at bay by a neck .
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
sunybay said:
Ardross

I see you miss the Royal Gait times.....
Click to expand...

No not at all but I think the current rule which in essence requires that the Stewards must be certain that the result would be the same is encouraging intimidatory riding and causing unfairness .

If there has been significant interference as in this case I take the view that the stewards should apply a different test namely that if on the balance of probabilities the horse that was interfered with might have either won or forced a dead heat they should get the race.
 
baldeagle said:
I backed Elusive Kate but honestly felt she should have been disqualified after Wm Buick gets 3 days holidays that says enough stewards are wimps
Click to expand...

I agree.

By the way, it was interesting to be able to watch the enquiry live. The odds on Sky Lantern tumbled from around 10-1 to less than 3-1 after Mr Hughes had his say. The stewards, however, were not as open to persuasion as the betting public.
 
I wonder if they will appeal . I would be minded to have a go if I were as rich as Mr Keswick .
 
I don't think the argument about the winner's roll-call not containing the name of the best horse should be in the least bit relevant.

If the stewards deem that Buick broke the rules he and the horse should be disqualified.

I think the French get it wrong occasionally too but not as often.
 
Ardross said:
I wonder if they will appeal . I would be minded to have a go if I were as rich as Mr Keswick .
Click to expand...

There's no basis of appeal as the rules stand. Buick had the whip in the correct hand and was trying to keep his one straight (I actually think Buick was a little unlucky to pick up a ban). It was the horse that drifted against the efforts of her rider. Although I'd also agree SL was a little unlucky as she was intimidated from going through with her effort. She may have won and on that basis they would have probably made her the winner in France. But I don't think you could be adamant that she would have, you could say EK battled her out of it. A couple of slaps across the face wouldn't have helped SL, but you would have to prove it was intentional beyond reasonable doubt. An appeal would go nowhere.

The rule that covers “careless or improper riding” states that where a horse or its rider has caused interference by careless or improper riding, and the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse in relation to the horse, or horses, with which it interfered, the horse shall, on an objection to the Stewards, be placed behind the horse with which it has interfered.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
If the stewards deem that Buick broke the rules he and the horse should be disqualified.
Click to expand...

Not sure Buick actually broke any rules, unless he was deemed not in sufficient control. If he had had the whip in his other hand and made no attempt to correct his horse he would have been in breach (as Queally was on JQ). Buick actually seemed to me to do a pretty good job in trying to keep his horse going as straight as he could. If you want to disqualify the horse from running off a straight line that's another thing. But the rules would have to be changed to accommodate that.

The farce under the current rules is that they have handed Buick a ban for doing all he could to correct the position.
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
Not sure Buick actually broke any rules, unless he was deemed not in sufficient control. If he had had the whip in his other hand and made no attempt to correct his horse he would have been in breach (as Queally was on JQ). Buick actually seemed to me to do a pretty good job in trying to keep his horse going as straight as he could. If you want to disqualify the horse from running off a straight line that's another thing. But the rules would have to be changed to accommodate that.

The farce under the current rules is that they have handed Buick a ban for doing all he could to correct the position.
Click to expand...

I don't think he did 'all he could' - by his own admission in the enquiry he took a course of action (using the whip in the appropriate hand) but was trying not to lose momentum. It is clear what he could've done to stop the interference would be to stop riding the horse to prevent it carrying the other horse across the track - he didn't (and I can't think of a jockey that would) because he was pretty sure his course of action would result in them winning and in all probability keeping the race, whereby stopping riding (and interfering) would not.

No financial interest for me, but I wouldn't have been surprised or dismayed by a disqualification today.
 
I don't understand how Buick can get 3 days and EK keeps the race. His evidence at the inquiry seemed to be based around the fact he's done nothing wrong and "the horse always does this" - something John Gosden mentioned also. So by giving him 3 days the stewards are saying he has done something wrong in which case surely his whole case collapses.

Seems to me that he and his filly did cause interference and they did cost SL at least the neck margin as the horse was shying away from contact.

It's totally ridiculous to say she always hangs as if that somehow makes it alright.

And yes it is my pocket talking
 
SteveM said:
Not sure Buick actually broke any rules
Click to expand...

Nor am I, I have to say. But if the stewards deem that he did then my point stands. He - and the horse - should have been disqualified.

My own reaction on viewing the replay was that Buick brought his whip through to the other hand in an attempt to correct the horse but in vain. I don't think he did anything wrong. But I'm not a steward.

James Doyle on Al Khazeem deliberately allowed his mount to roll in on Mukhadram, compromising the latter's chances and ultimately costing him second place. That was much more serious and should have been dealt with more severely.
 
sunybay said:
Strongly disagree
They are wrong 90% of the times while in England is a 10%

There is not a perfect rule but I think England is the best place for this kind of events
Click to expand...

You probably see more French racing than I do, sunybay, so I respect your opinion, but the French seem not to care too much about what actually won the race but about whether interference took place, and I agree with that approach.
 
She was hanging across and intimidating Sky Lantern for 2f yet SL got as close as a neck and but for the whip in the face might have got closer .

The question is the meaning of satisfied -the problem is that the stewards are treating this like the criminal standard of proof i.e that they have to be sure she would have won rather than that on balance she would have got up .

I think when there has been such sustained interference it should be enough that the interfered with horse might have won - that I suspect would lead to a lot less intimidatory riding . Buick may well have pulled his whip through but he made little other effort e.g with the reins to get her off the second.

I think on balance SL was hampered by more than a neck - that should be enough for her to get the race.
 
I think this was a close call
Sky Lantern not gaining a inch in the last furlong
my feeling is elusive was the best on day


About Elusive
she has gone to her left in other races
if Richard Hughes would have done his homework he could have waited on the rail.


The rules of course are not perfect
my only complain in the latest season is the 1000G disq, other than that it works in most times.
 
I don't think that is really fair on Hughes - firstly , EK had not hung in her recent runs . Had he instead sat on her tail Soumillon surely would have move Giofra up and shut her in - had EK not then hung he could have found himself with no run in a four runner race .

It is difficult to make ground when a horse is constantly angling across you as the horse cannot move away and then go past.
 
reet hard said:
Win or lose, it was clear evidence that Sky Lantern was somewhat flattered by her Coronation run.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. An OR of 119 for a G1 isn't over the top. The sectionals people reckoned she got the best ride in the circumstances, sure, but she did it comfortably enough. Elusive Kate and Giofra are no mugs and arguably Sky Lantern should have beaten them, which her OR entitled her to do.

If she's flattered it's only by a pound or two.
 
Coronation Stakes was a fine performance but not a special one

Just remember Camelot won the Derby by 5 lengths
 
sunybay said:
Coronation Stakes was a fine performance but not a special one

Just remember Camelot won the Derby by 5 lengths
Click to expand...

The field that Camelot beat did not have the group winners in that Coronation field . I suspect had yesterday had a field of 10 and been run at a good gallop Sky Lantern would have won comfortably .
 
Back
Top