Raging Princess Race review

Over the Air wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote: Was China Beach Disq?

No - Hence my assertion that the stipes are inconsistent in ruling on interferences in races

But the stipes use a rule book to assertain whether to disq a horse?

I did my money in cold blood! That sentence tells it all
The rule is quite clear
i.e "The board shall be satisfied that but for the interference the horse that suffered the interference would have beaten the horse that caused the interference"

The call for a review is a great idea introduced a few years ago

watch how many times a review is called and no further action is taken
Also the jockey penalized is still guilty of and offence in some cases

Read my first sentence again Strydom is no fool

China beach remained the winner. After the obvious interference there wasnt even an immediate call if objection. That puzzled me. And after that the result appears on tellytrack....not even an explanation or the objection has been overruled....nothing. just the final result! I am talking from the pocket as well tho

Bob Brogan wrote:

Over the Air wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote: Was China Beach Disq?

No - Hence my assertion that the stipes are inconsistent in ruling on interferences in races

But the stipes use a rule book to assertain whether to disq a horse?

Bob the key phrase in the stipes finding is

"The Objection Board after considering the evidence were of the opinion"

Opinion? FCUK Opinion! Opinions can and will be wrong. Some of the bunch we have as stipes should not be allowed an opinion they are that bad. There should be no subjectivity allowed in interference related objections. Where is it that if you cause interference you are immediately disqualified? Hong Kong?

While I am having my rant let me ask the learned what there OPINION is on the resignation of McGillvary. There are some juicy rumours doing the rounds.

Over the Air wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote:

Over the Air wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote: Was China Beach Disq?

No - Hence my assertion that the stipes are inconsistent in ruling on interferences in races

But the stipes use a rule book to assertain whether to disq a horse?

Bob the key phrase in the stipes finding is

"The Objection Board after considering the evidence were of the opinion"

Opinion? FCUK Opinion! Opinions can and will be wrong. Some of the bunch we have as stipes should not be allowed an opinion they are that bad.

Exactly the point im making pal

The subjectivity in the objection rule is the cause of the problem...either allow all interference and don't amend results or change results on basis of any interference...even when left to the discretion of supposed impartial arbiters, there are always going to be aggrieved persons as two people, dependent on their perspective, can arrive at different conclusions...

Didn't have a cent on the race in question but did on Wylie Hall...

Pirates, maybe I don't know enough so would be grateful if you could correct me.

Striker lodged objection of which the stipes decided not enough interference to change the result, then same stipes suspend Karl for 7 days? Do I have this right or did Striker not go through with objection?

Richie77 wrote: Pirates, maybe I don't know enough so would be grateful if you could correct me.

Striker lodged objection of which the stipes decided not enough interference to change the result, then same stipes suspend Karl for 7 days? Do I have this right or did Striker not go through with objection?

Striker / Botes asked to review footage of the race
after reviewing footage they didn't pursue with the objection

Anyway thats what Julie said this morning when watching the replays on tellytrack

Harry Oppenheimer forbade his trainer/s or jocks to ever lodge an objection on behalf of his horses as his belief was that it was the job of the stipes to ensure a fair and just result.
In this day and age, and with our regulators, that would be laughable.

The other day the stipes did a race review on circumstances very similar to the Wylie Hall/Legislate incident, except the interference was greater.........result: no objection lodged. The connections then did a race review and lodged the objection............what chance did that have of been upheld??? :huh:

IMO ALL objections should be left to the stipes OR to the connections..........this situation of sitting back and hoping the other party lodges is crazy!

I have always wondered how an objection can be upheld in circumstances that the stipes didn't think was worthy of laying an objection..........if it clear enough to uphold, its clear enough to have laid the objection.

Some times we all get upset at the seemingly 'inconsistencies' that abound regarding objections.

However in the case of Raging Princess I can't see what the fuss is about. During the race Strydom probably thought he was prevented from winning the race. Turns out that the Stipes agreed and they 'punished' the culprit - and there will never be agreement on whether 7 days is just right, not enough, or far too much.

However to me it is clear (and watching the replay, Striker and the trainer obviously saw it as well) - there is not even a suggestion that RP would have finished in front of CB but for the 'interference' - so why object?

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. Try explain this to the illiterate. Good luck with that

In the July the jockey rode over to a stipe before going back down the chute to tell him he was objecting, so the stipes had no reason to object. The routine is usually a race review and the stipes then decide whether to object after watching all the footage. However if the connections pitch up for the review (or ask for a review in the case where one wasn't called for) they can object before the stipes decide whether they are objecting or not. The hooter only sounds after an objection. A race review is usually just announced by the commentator.