Raging Princess Race review

Over the Air wrote: Tipster thanks for clarifying, lets move on.

I was thinking of the changes over the years and in my opinion the rule changes have done us no good. We are in the situation that forces stipes to be SUBJECTIVE when it comes to ruling on interference. I agree with a previous poster that we cant be half pregnant. To be fair to ALL we should have a zero interference policy or a "anything goes" policy. At the moment we are giving the stipes an impossible choice and it shows in their reluctance to call race reviews/objections.

Now humour me for a moment and let me show my age. One of the greatest races that I ever witnessed was the Gr1 Smirnoff where an unbeaten Main Man finished in front of an unbeaten Bush Telegraph and had the race taken away, fairly I might add, imvho. I ask the question, and once again its subjective, would the objection been upheld had todays rules and stipes been adjudicating. I reckon Bush Telegraph would have got beat in the boardroom too!

Thanks OTA, he was carried a long way and lost narrowly so don't think it would have been a particularly tough decision in any era imo. Interesting footage of an amazing horse, thanks Countrymember.

Countrymember wrote: Thought some may like to see the race video...!!......... :ohmy:

racingmuseum.co.za/1986-gr1-smirnoff-plate-2/

I was there! I backed Main Man...

Thanks OTA, he was carried a long way and lost narrowly so don't think it would have been a particularly tough decision in any era imo. Interesting footage of an amazing horse, thanks Countrymember.

I agree and say as much in my post. In fact in later years Gerald Turner admitted the only way he could have beaten Bush Telegraph was to do what he did. So we agree, the stipes did what they were expected to do.

Now take a look at the following race, it is more clear cut than the Smirnoff way back when. In your own words "dont think it would have been a particularly tough decision in any era". Except the current era. And this is my entire point.

Here's a more recent one.

stsp.co.za/tir/race.aspx?raceid=71237

And comments from the stable

Mathew felt that Akii Bua was unlucky not to have won Race 4 over 1800m, in which the winner Enchanted Silk shifted out and drifted across the track. The race replay shows that Akii Bua is carried out for a run as he moves up to challenge Enchanted Silk and then forced to switch twice while Enchanted Silk runs, in the words of the race caller, “all over Turffontein racecourse.” All of this happened in the last 150m.
One has to take a balanced view of race objections, but in the interest of fairness the National Horseracing should consider retaining an optometrist so that racing enthusiasts can rest assured that there are no eye disorders or defects in vision among the Stipendiary Stewards in their employ.

:lol:

Over the Air wrote: Here's a more recent one.

stsp.co.za/tir/race.aspx?raceid=71237

And comments from the stable

Mathew felt that Akii Bua was unlucky not to have won Race 4 over 1800m, in which the winner Enchanted Silk shifted out and drifted across the track. The race replay shows that Akii Bua is carried out for a run as he moves up to challenge Enchanted Silk and then forced to switch twice while Enchanted Silk runs, in the words of the race caller, “all over Turffontein racecourse.” All of this happened in the last 150m.
One has to take a balanced view of race objections, but in the interest of fairness the National Horseracing should consider retaining an optometrist so that racing enthusiasts can rest assured that there are no eye disorders or defects in vision among the Stipendiary Stewards in their employ.

:lol:

Yes the consistency has always been the problem. Would you believe that the following one was upheld! Princess Of Light

Now we are on the same page Tipster!

To be fair to the stipes they are not God and cannot predict the "what if" outcome of any race regardless of the amount of interference suffered by the aggrieved horse/s. I have said on many occasions that it is my belief that the rules are what is wrong, not necessarily the stipes. They have to after all, be guided by the rules and these rules force them to be subjective. This is why I believe the rules should change. Would it not be fantastic to know that no subjectivity would play a role in objections going forward. Apply the "any interference and you're demoted rule" and that would be the end of the story. It is fair to all, would assist the stipes, and most importantly, would take away any subjectivity. I can see no reason as to why this cannot occur as I can see no downside to the change. The NHRA change their rules on a regular basis as and when the need arises, this would be a welcome change for many. Can anyone give reasons as to why this rule change would be detrimental to any party?

so ota according to your way if a horse interfered with another horse and still beat it by 6 lengths it must be demoted...there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current ruling so let it be ,,,

Pirates I beg to differ - there is everything wrong with the current ruling. It is subjective. It has been shown to be inconsistent. It is not fair on the stipes having to decide on an outcome, and similar interferences have resulted in different objection rulings.

If your horse causes interference and wins by 50 lengths I have no problem with it being demoted. At least with this suggestion everyone plays on a level playing field. Seeing you are pro keeping the status quo, could I have your views on the SA Derby objection posted here please.

pirates wrote: so ota according to your way if a horse interfered with another horse and still beat it by 6 lengths it must be demoted...there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current ruling so let it be ,,,

It is not just "my way" this rule exists in racing jurisdictions. I am told but I am not 100% that France, Hong Kong and Japan applies this rule.

yes I would like to see the public reaction when legislate bumps a no hoper at the 600m mark in the queens plate wins by 4 lengths and is demoted...horses are flesh and blood they weigh 500kg and when under pressure and are in a finish will hang sometimes they not motor cars..they are also entitled to race green or spook or hang in or out for any particular reason such as floodlights advertising boards etc...another scenario for you horse a bumps horse b who in turn bumps c and that bumps horse d must they all be demoted?

Pirates if the rules are there and applied the public reaction should make no difference to the outcome. I fail to understand why you make excuses when my suggestion will be fair to all horses in a race. Surely the fact that subjectivity is removed will be a good thing. Talking about how the public feel, imagine how the connections and punters of Wylie Hall felt in the July? With my suggestion Legislate wins the race without the emotions and subjectivity. The Greyville boardroom furniture and stipes ears would also be in better condition :lol: :lol:

pirates wrote: yes I would like to see the public reaction when legislate bumps a no hoper at the 600m mark in the queens plate wins by 4 lengths and is demoted...horses are flesh and blood they weigh 500kg and when under pressure and are in a finish will hang sometimes they not motor cars..they are also entitled to race green or spook or hang in or out for any particular reason such as floodlights advertising boards etc...another scenario for you horse a bumps horse b who in turn bumps c and that bumps horse d must they all be demoted?

Your scenario is simple to answer. The horse causing the interference gets demoted. Horses affected by the interference do not even though they cause interference because of it. Its not difficult