St Leger - Haskoy demotion to fourth

barjon

barjon

Rookie
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
3,893
An enquiry was held to consider the placings in this race after interference approximately 2 furlongs out involving HASKOY, placed second, ridden by Frankie Dettori, and GIAVELLOTTO (IRE), placed fourth, ridden by Neil Callan. The Stewards considered that the interference had improved the placing of HASKOY as the steadily improving GIAVELLOTTO (IRE) had been severely checked in his run at a crucial stage of the race and become badly unbalanced as a result of HASKOY drifting across his rightful running. The Stewards deemed that the ground and momentum lost by GIAVELLOTTO (IRE) was greater than the official distance of a closing ¾ of a length between the runners at the line. The Stewards therefore revised the placings as follows: First – ELDAR ELDAROV, Second – NEW LONDON (IRE), Third – GIAVELLOTTO (IRE), Fourth – HASKOY. Dettori was suspended for 5 days for careless riding as he had allowed his mount to drift left without sufficient and timely correction, causing GIAVELLOTTO to be severely checked in its run.

Fair or harsh?
 
Very unfair to punters who lose out when these things are not sorted out on the day but by appeal

Really all enquiries bar doping can be descided on the day with all the modern tech avaialble to the stewards
and appeals disallowed
 
Last edited:
I agree with this. There's is no reason why an appeal can't be heard on the day using technology.

My horse won at Warwick on the 7th May only for the places to be reversed. He jumped out to the right at the final flight and across Mourzouk who wasn't hampered and there was daylight between them. That should have been irrelevant anyway as horses jumping across at hurdles is part of the game and no justifiable reason to reverse placings. The rider of the other horse said in the stewards room that he didn't believe that Jeff had interfered with him, yet the Stewards still reversed placings. Jeff had played up badly at the start, going on a massive wander and caused the race to start very late, and the feeling was that this may have caused some bias in the decision, which clearly it shouldn't have done. I won't share what Dan, and Tom Messenger his assistant thought, but pretty much everyone I've spoken to agrees it was a truly appalling decision, and not even the kind of interference the Stewards should rule on when it was caused by Jeff jumping right at a hurdle and continuing across to the rail without causing any interference or loss of stride from the other horse. Literally nobody thought there was likely to be a Stewards Enquiry.


The problem if I appealed it is I have to be represented and lose a day out in London. Which in reality would have ended up with Jeff getting the race back, but costing considerably more than the lost prizemoney, which is impossible to justify. Therefore the Stewards know they can make whatever decision they like with no repercussions. Hardly a fair system when the people making the decisions aren't held to account.

Just as Tanlic suggests, a quick referral somewhere on the day to check the decision is all this needed, and if that system was in place in this case I have no doubt the Stewards would never have looked at it in the first place, and only did so because they can get away with whatever the hell they like. How hard would it be to have a 'Stockley Park' type review. It's not even like Football or Rugby where the decision needs to be instant. Three on the day reviewers can look at any of this in a timeframe that works for a days racing. They can inform people instantly that something is being reviewed (at the request of Trainer or Owner), so people don't throw winning betslips away, and owners horses don't lose a coveted '1' against their name.

The link to the end of the race is below for anyone so minded to watch.

https://www.racingtv.com/racecards/...obe-novices-hurdle-4?non-runner_display=false
 
Last edited:
Can’t believe that, Maruco, no wonder you won't share what Dan, and Tom Messenger his assistant thought. If you had I guess you’d be chucked off the site for foul and abusive content :). Although you did not appeal I hope you drew the attention of the powers that be to such an incomprehensible decision.
 
Maruco said:
I agree with this. There's is no reason why an appeal can't be heard on the day using technology.

My horse won at Warwick on the 7th May only for the places to be reversed. He jumped out to the right at the final flight and across Mourzouk who wasn't hampered and there was daylight between them. That should have been irrelevant anyway as horses jumping across at hurdles is part of the game and no justifiable reason to reverse placings. The rider of the other horse said in the stewards room that he didn't believe that Jeff had interfered with him, yet the Stewards still reversed placings. Jeff had played up badly at the start, going on a massive wander and caused the race to start very late, and the feeling was that this may have caused some bias in the decision, which clearly it shouldn't have done. I won't share what Dan, and Tom Messenger his assistant thought, but pretty much everyone I've spoken to agrees it was a truly appalling decision, and not even the kind of interference the Stewards should rule on when it was caused by Jeff jumping right at a hurdle and continuing across to the rail without causing any interference or loss of stride from the other horse. Literally nobody thought there was likely to be a Stewards Enquiry.


The problem if I appealed it is I have to be represented and lose a day out in London. Which in reality would have ended up with Jeff getting the race back, but costing considerably more than the lost prizemoney, which is impossible to justify. Therefore the Stewards know they can make whatever decision they like with no repercussions. Hardly a fair system when the people making the decisions aren't held to account.

Just as Tanlic suggests, a quick referral somewhere on the day to check the decision is all this needed, and if that system was in place in this case I have no doubt the Stewards would never have looked at it in the first place, and only did so because they can get away with whatever the hell they like. How hard would it be to have a 'Stockley Park' type review. It's not even like Football or Rugby where the decision needs to be instant. Three on the day reviewers can look at any of this in a timeframe that works for a days racing. They can inform people instantly that something is being reviewed (at the request of Trainer or Owner), so people don't throw winning betslips away, and owners horses don't lose a coveted '1' against their name.

The link to the end of the race is below for anyone so minded to watch.

https://www.racingtv.com/racecards/...obe-novices-hurdle-4?non-runner_display=false
Click to expand...

How the fu*ck did that get thrown-out? Disgraceful decision, Paul.
 
Tanlic said:
Very unfair to punters who lose out when these things are not sorted out on the day but by appeal

Really all enquiries bar doping can be descided on the day with all the modern tech avaialble to the stewards
and appeals disallowed
Click to expand...

A racing equivalent to VAR. Maybe FAR? (Fuckup Alteration Referee.)
 
In the case of Jeffery's Cross he just fell foul of the way the rules are written.

He jumped across the other horse he switched and was beaten a short head,

The srewards had little coice in the matter and followed the rule of law.

Bit then you get that horse was it the Riddler> That Paul Hannagan crossed in front of the entire field
with absolutely no attempt to correct his mount and he gets to keep the race.

Cross the Atlantic and you'd get tossed out without a moments hesitation and the jockey would get a much longer ban than PH did,

That ruling really needs looked at because what it says is you can use a professiona foul and keep the race.

One day one jockey will put someone through the wings thinking ok I will get ban but I'll just have won the King George or whatever.
 
Here’s the stewards guidance and then the race stewards report.

THE STEWARDS HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SUFFERER WOULD HAVE BEATEN THE INTERFERER BUT FOR THE INTERFERENCE.

There are a series of factors to take into account. The questions and Guiding Principles (below) provide a framework within which the Panel work in order to come to their decision. They do not provide the answer but try to ensure that the Panel addresses the correct questions when making a decision.

The Panel should ask themselves the following questions, being mindful of the relevant Guiding Principles:

Where did the incident take place in relation to the winning post?
How were the horses involved in the interference going at the time of the incident?
How serious was the interference i.e. how much momentum did the sufferer lose and/or how much ground was lost?
If the sufferer had had an uninterrupted run to the line, might it have finished in front of the interferer? If NO - order placings to remain unaltered If YES i.e. there is some doubt - proceed to question 5.
How easily did the interferer beat the sufferer?
Having considered those factors relevant to the incident in question, if the Panel is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the interference did improve the placing of the interferer in relation to the sufferer(s), the placings must be altered. Otherwise, the placings must remain unaltered. Generally speaking, the longer the Panel discusses whether the placings should be altered, the less likely it is that they should be. If the Panel is unable to conclude one way or the other, the result should stand.

An enquiry was held to consider the placings in this race after interference shortly after jumping the final hurdle, when the winner JEFFERY’S CROSS (IRE), ridden by Jack Andrews interfered with MOURZOUK (IRE), placed second, ridden by Charlie Price. The Stewards considered that the interference had improved JEFFERY’S CROSS’s placing as Andrews maneuvered his mount right-handed towards the rail when insufficiently clear of MOURZOUK (IRE) causing Price to concurrently ease and switch his mount left handed off the heels of JEFFERY’S CROSS (IRE). Having switched his mount for clear running MOURZOUK (IRE) proceeded to gain all the way to the line to be beaten by a diminishing neck. The Stewards were therefore of the opinion that MOURZOUK (IRE) had lost more ground than a neck when taking into consideration the momentum and ground lost. They revised the placings accordingly: First: MOURZOUK (IRE), Second: JEFFERY’S CROSS (IRE). Andrews was suspended for 3 days for careless riding as he moved right-handed when less than a length clear causing interference to MOURZOUK (IRE).
 
"....causing Price to concurrently ease and switch his mount...."

The suggestion the second was "eased' is a gross exaggeration, imo.
 
Agree Grassy but the way it is written the fact he had to switch and come of a straight line is enough to justify a disq.

In reality Jeffery's Cross lost more cgound than the other horse and if they both ran in a straight line he would have won by at least a length imo
 
Jeff jumped right at the last which took him to the rail after a few strides, causing no interference doing so. Connections of Mourzouk didn't object or call the enquiry, and Mourzouk's rider said he didn't have to stop riding or change his line. I've seen the head on and the head on confirms that Mourzouk didn't change line, and the side view confirms that there was daylight between the two horses as they crossed.

Despite all that, places were reversed and Jack Andrews got 3 days, which is totally unfair given a right-handed jump and the natural momentum took Jeff to where he was. Jack had his whip in the correct hand and to my eye didn't do anything wrong. The decision in my opinion (and of everyone else I've spoken to), did not reflect what happened, or how the rules should have been applied.
 
Back
Top