Jockey P Strydom, the rider of RAGING PRINCESS, in the company of Trainer B D Botes, called for a race review into this incident and after viewing the patrol films of the race decided to take no further action.
Jockey K Zechner signed an Admission of Guilt for a contravention of Rule 62.2.7 in that he failed to ensure that he did not cause interference to RAGING PRINCESS (P Strydom) at the 100m whilst riding CHINA BEACH. He was suspended from riding in races for a period of 7 days. (Dates of suspension: 12 January 2015 to 18 January 2015, both days inclusive).
Try explain how an objection was never raised by the stipes before the horses had been pulled up. I did my money in cold blood. Things like this sour people.
Pirates when last did you see a horse win a race and it got taken away? I think the July was the last. The stipes of today clearly do not have the stomach. In days gone by the hooter would have been sounded before the horses had been pulled up and the stipes would have objected. How can it be that a horse is interfered with so badly that the jockey gets a holiday yet the stipes do not see enough to raise an objection?
The following user(s) said Thank You: STAYTOMATOSTAY
Over the Air wrote: Pirates when last did you see a horse win a race and it got taken away? I think the July was the last. The stipes of today clearly do not have the stomach. In days gone by the hooter would have been sounded before the horses had been pulled up and the stipes would have objected. How can it be that a horse is interfered with so badly that the jockey gets a holiday yet the stipes do not see enough to raise an objection?
ota the fact remains there were no grounds for an objection so the stipes got it right yesterday..as for the old days the rules regarding objections these days have changed so no use comparing ...
You are right the rules have changed and imo for the worse. Now lets compare the July vs this race. In the July the race was taken away from the winner and again the stipes did not object. Why is it that the rider of Wylie Hall was not suspended? It is all about consistency. Try explain this to the illiterate. Good luck with that
Over the Air wrote: You are right the rules have changed and imo for the worse. Now lets compare the July vs this race. In the July the race was taken away from the winner and again the stipes did not object. Why is it that the rider of Wylie Hall was not suspended? It is all about consistency. ota seriously you need to go read the rulings pertaining objections whereby how they get lodged by whom and by when and secondly maybe the jockey who rode wylie took all precautionary measures with wylie where as yesterday zechner didn't take all the precautionary measures...its all there read it up
Titch wrote: There was interference but obviously not enough to change the result...
So how do you explain the punishment handed out to the jock. Are we saying that interference bad enough to incur a suspension for a week isn't enough to warrant an objection?
WHO DECIDES ON THIS AND WHAT GUIDELINES ARE USED?
WHERE IS THE CONSISTENCY?
ota seriously you need to go read the rulings pertaining objections whereby how they get lodged by whom and by when and secondly maybe the jockey who rode wylie took all precautionary measures with wylie where as yesterday zechner didn't take all the precautionary measures...its all there read it up
Pirates do you think this is crying for no reason at all? My pal I have been around this block a few times now for the record lets look at the stipes report from the July before we post the crapn that we do. Once again I am asking about CONSISTENCIES in stipes actions
i) Approaching the 250 metre mark LEGISLATE (R Fourie) shifted inwards and brushed the hindquarters of WYLIE HALL (AUS) (M Byleveld) and was straightened. Leaving the 200 metre mark WYLIE HALL (AUS) (M Byleveld) shifted outwards and brushed LEGISLATE (R Fourie) outwards and thereafter between the 100 metre mark and the 50 metre mark WYLIE HALL (AUS) (M Byleveld) continued to shift outwards brushing LEGISLATE (R Fourie) on two occasions.
j) An Objection was lodged by Jockey R Fourie, rider of the second placed horse LEGISLATE, against the winner WYLIE HALL (AUS) (M Byleveld) on the grounds of interference over the final 300 metres. The Objection Board after considering the evidence were of the opinion that but for the interference LEGISLATE ( R Fourie) would have beaten WYLIE HALL (AUS) (M Byleveld)and therefore upheld the Objection and amended the result.
So in one race they suspend a jockey for interference but let him keep the race, in the other they acknowledge the interference, take the race away, but take no action against the jockey?
Last edit: 10 years 5 months ago by Over the Air.
The following user(s) said Thank You: STAYTOMATOSTAY
Topic Author
