The Rules Need Changing

Grey

Grey

Senior Jockey
Joined
Jul 4, 2004
Messages
9,471
Location
Dublin
It was good to see a fine horse coming back to form for a popular stable and connections.

But I think yesterday's Tingle Creek race was another example of why the present rules need changing.

Sire De Grugy was presumably allowed keep yesterday's race because the stewards couldn't be sure Special Tiara would have won without the interference. Even under the current rules that was a debatable decision because Special Tiara lost more than the length he was beaten by. But even if the stewards were correct they were answering the wrong question because it puts the burden of proof on the victim when it should be the other way round.

The question the stewards should have had to answer is whether they were sure that Sire De Grugy would have held on without the interference.
 
Last edited:
Also Jamie Moore picked up a whip ban. Obviously he wouldn't care about that too much having won a Grade 1 but it makes no sense to me to even have a rule if the cost of breaking it is less significant than the prize he and connections gain as a result. Not that I'm in favour of the whip rules but just think if they're there they should be enforced in a meaningful way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Problem is you'll be throwing horses out left right and centre. Would you police it from the off throughout the race, or just at the business end? Very difficult imo.
It's one of those, we all know ST would have won, or should I say most likely have won, but SDG was never going to have it taken off him rightly or wrongly.
 
Last edited:
Connections are considering an appeal.

considering how much of a gent Henry De Brom was after Sizings controversial last fence in the QM a few years ago, if they do appeal, it shows to what extent they feel aggrieved.
 
SDG would have won regardless, that mid air clash brought about the same amount of inconvenience to him as it did to ST.
 
I can't agree with that Grey. Interference over a fence is completely different to interference in running. There's not a whole lot a jockey can do if his horse jinks over a fence, but a jockey on another horse can consider where he positions his own horse if his rival is jumping to the left or the right.

In this instance Sire de Grugy has always had a habit of jumping right at his fences and Noel Fehily chose to challenge over the last on the right of Sire de Grugy. He could have challenged to the left or he could have pulled wider. His choice, whereas Jamie Moore was completely unable to do anything about Sire de Grugy.

Noel Fehily is a jockey I rate really highly, and for me he's the most underrated on the circuit, but he is more to blame for the interference when he had choices, whereas Jamie Moore is entirely blameless as he was in front at the time and simply running his own race.
 
Last edited:
Frankel said:
You've obviously started early today then :D
Click to expand...

its a contact sport just as this is an opinion based discussion, mine is horses should do the talking on the track and only in v. special cases should stewards intervene. If good enough ST had enough chances to get past SDG after the last, the clash was just as worst for SDG but he kept on finding to the line.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPhb1OFZJeI

I think Fehily thought about switching to the inside after the second last but changed his mind when SDG started edging that way.

Special Tiara was gaining coming into the last and pulled back perhaps three quarters of a length on the run from the last, albeit he wasn't closing the gap inside the last 100 yards.

In any case I don't think interference should have to be deliberate before a result gets changed.
 
They are right to appeal. No questions asked ST would have won the race if not for SDG jumping blatantly across him. Fehily, rightly, after the 2nd last tried to grab the rail knowing SDG had been jumping left. SDG cut him off so Fehily was forced out to the centre of the course but was still gaining rapidly. Jumping the last he was within a half length of SDG and in mid air he was taken out when SDG torpedoed him.

When the both landed SDG had gone 1-2 lengths in front so the collision obviously had more of an affect on ST. He lost the race by a 3/4 of a length having again made up the deficit after that collision.

Simple matter of fact is that if SDG could jump straight ST would be a G1 Tingle Creek winner


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ST would have won the race without the coming together. No doubt. BUT jockeys will claim they are not fully in control when the horse leaves the ground. BUT that shouldn't matter - if the horse makes such a extensive move even off his own steam then the result should be reversed.
 
I've always been of the opinion that the stewards are too keen to allow the FPTP to keep the race. I've long advocated the disqualification of horses when riders contravene the whip rules, etc.

Yesterday's incident was a completely different scenario. While I would disqualify SDG because Moore broke the whip rules, I wouldn't over the incident at the fence unless there was clear evidence that it was a deliberate move by the jockey to jump across the other horse. You could argue that since Moore said SDG tends to jump left anyway that ST's rider should have known that and should have anticipated the possibility and taken his mount to the other side.
 
I don't think it's as clear-cut as some suggest, that ST would have won. SDG didn't stop and might have found more if ST had come onto his quarters.

If an appeal goes ahead, it is highly-unlikely to be successful. ST was beaten 3-parts of a length (always held) - not a short-head - and there's no way you could conclusively prove that ST would have won without being hampered at the last. On this basis, I would expect any appeal to be thrown-out.

More generally, I'm with Maruco on this. It's a contact-sport with animals involved, and 'interference' of this type should be accepted as an occassional, occupational-hazard, and there is no need to change legislation to cater for it, imo.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
I don't think it's as clear-cut as some suggest, that ST would have won. SDG didn't stop and might have found more if ST had come onto his quarters, and ST always looked held.

If an appeal goes ahead, it is highly-unlikely to be successful. ST was beaten 3-parts of a length (always held) - not a short-head - and there's no way you could conclusively prove that ST would have won without being hampered at the last. On this basis, I would expect any appeal to be thrown-out.

More generally, I'm with Maruco on this. It's a contact-sport with animals involved, and 'interference' of this type should be accepted as an occassional, occupational-hazard, and rhere is no need to change legislation to cater for it, imo.
Click to expand...

totally agree

when SDG took off he was in front..what happens when actually over a fence is hardly a jockeys fault..when they landed SDG did land in front of ST..but he was nearly brought down and jockey got thrown out of saddle..must have lost 2+ lengths himself.

Have we got to start throwing chasers out that clash with others whilst actually over a fence?..would be quite busy i think..which part of the race as well would this apply tol? all of it?....last two fences?

We have all seen horses carried full width of a track and not get a race given em..this was clearly a clash that suited neither horse...both lost momentum..it weren't like ST stopped and SDG didn't
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
I don't think it's as clear-cut as some suggest, that ST would have won. SDG didn't stop and might have found more if ST had come onto his quarters, and ST always looked held.

If an appeal goes ahead, it is highly-unlikely to be successful. ST was beaten 3-parts of a length (always held) - not a short-head - and there's no way you could conclusively prove that ST would have won without being hampered at the last. On this basis, I would expect any appeal to be thrown-out.
Click to expand...

This.

SDG was pulling out more all the way to the line. ST wouldn't have got past him in any event.

I can't agree with Grey's assertion that the question should be changed either - turning it around would leave the sport open to "professional fouls" - deliberately getting a bump knowing fine well you'll be given the race in the stewards rooms.
 
A shame this debate detracts from what a great comeback performance it was from a proven winner (as opposed to chancer).

No disrespect but it seems the folks who didn't fancy the horse before the race are more convinced he shouldn't keep the race post-race?

Its hard for any of us punters to be objective. This is why we have independent stewards.
 
Last edited:
We have had a spate of these "controversial " finishes this year more than any other, in top races more over.
That a horse can more or less turn a rival sideways yet keep the race is becoming a bit more common.
Many a Whitbead winner was thrown out over what seemed less of a hampering at the end of 3 miles 5 is what is befuddling a lot the folks here imo.
Great performance by the winner and runner up none the less; it shows the benefit of minding your horse when the horse is having an off day 9 for whatever reason ) as both had on their return runs.
 
The only Whitbread winner I can recall getting thrown-out was Cahervillahow.....and that was a bleedin' injustice........though I'm obviously a lot younger than you, Eddie. :whistle:

:lol:
 
Last edited:
Good question and good discussion. I agree that sdg might well still have won. Only seen it the once live but impression was same as grass in terms of what he may well have had left and the fact that the last 100 yards is always so significant at sandown .
 
Good question and good discussion. I agree that sdg might well still have won. Only seen it the once live but impression was same as grass in terms of what he may well have had left and the fact that the last 100 yards is always so significant at sandown .

agree with edgt. The trainer does bring them back which I think is the mark of real quality . Vino Grigio the other day was another example
 
marble said:
A shame this debate detracts from what a great comeback performance it was from a proven winner (as opposed to chancer).

No disrespect but it seems the folks who didn't fancy the horse before the race are more convinced he shouldn't keep the race post-race?

Its hard for any of us punters to be objective. This is why we have independent stewards.
Click to expand...

I think you are unusually wide of the point M. Grey's position is interesting and intelligently added to by DO et al. I disagree with both of them as it happens - I think aerial duels are fundamental to jump racing and 'may the divil take the hindmost.' I also don't think horses should be disqualified for misuse of the whip, the owners/trainers/horse have no choice in the matter - organ grinders shouldn't be punished for the misbehavior of the monkey. The jockey should be much more severely punished though.
 
Last edited:
edgt said:
We have had a spate of these "controversial " finishes this year more than any other, in top races more over.
That a horse can more or less turn a rival sideways yet keep the race is becoming a bit more common.
Many a Whitbead winner was thrown out over what seemed less of a hampering at the end of 3 miles 5 is what is befuddling a lot the folks here imo.
Great performance by the winner and runner up none the less; it shows the benefit of minding your horse when the horse is having an off day 9 for whatever reason ) as both had on their return runs.
Click to expand...

It's no coincidence that far fewer horses are disqualified since bookmakers paid out on double results.
 
Back
Top