Poll - As a punter do you trust the Stipes?

And the overwhelming emphasis is placed on what happens in the LAST 0-600m of the race...I'm assuming the thinking is that if the interference occurred earlier, the horse and jockey have more than enough time to overcome the interference...I beg to differ...

eg. you have a front-runner that has its running taken up in the FIRST 0-600m...it then cannot obtain the position it wants and if it is chased up to lead, has little in the finish...interference affected outcome...but I see no objections in those circumstances even though, but for the interference, could/would/should (??!!) have finished in front of the horse that caused the interference...

I may bring up the Wylie Hall incident as it happened in one of the biggest races (and I'm talking from the pocket) only because Legislate never got it's head in front of Wylie Hall and was also the first to drift into Wylie Hall at the top of the straight and Wylie Hall moving a little twice further along the straight...so the stipes placed greater emphasis on the interference in the straight (last 0-450m) than that at the top of the straight...

It would be interesting to know what criteria is used when employing stripes......are they picked from an inner circle or what.An industry of this nature deserves people of the highest integrity and honesty......

Mac wrote: Get on with it, trust your stipe, you have no other choice. The next thing that you will want would be objection by jury, c’mon.

Today it is in the OPINION of the stipes that the aggrieved horse would have won BUT for the interference. You accepted this condition when you wagered your punt.
Before, if one transgressed another, irrespective if one would have won the race, then one got the chop. Bush Telegraph vs Main Man comes to mind, well according to Jean anyway, oh wait, but that is subjective to Jean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did not make the rules yet I must follow them or move on ( and the rules are vague) - I have watched just as many races as most stipes yet I cannot predict which way an objection will go and I am no idiot or money based objector - That is a problem because punting is dependent on a result - If the rules are vague then interpretation is needed - Why do you need interpretation ? First offense (eg first movement or first bump) you are gaining an unfair advantage -They changed the rules without consultation with punters now we have constant disputes - Bump me and you go behind me - Hit me or my horse you go behind me - Let's just remember that Racing is not a contact sport and there is normally enough room to give every horse a fair go -

The biggest problem is not the stipes but rather the suffocating impact of Moodley Inc.

What i find amazing is someone actually voted yes on this poll :sick:

Craig Pienaar wrote: What i find amazing is someone actually voted yes on this poll :sick:

Probably one of the Stipes that were on duty yesterday

the duke wrote: It would be interesting to know what criteria is used when employing stripes......are they picked from an inner circle or what.An industry of this nature deserves people of the highest integrity and honesty......

I think one of the criteria is to have adverse eyesight and refuse to wear glasses or contact lenses or wear ones of incorrect strength!! :whistle:

mr hawaii wrote:

Mac wrote: Get on with it, trust your stipe, you have no other choice. The next thing that you will want would be objection by jury, c’mon.

Today it is in the OPINION of the stipes that the aggrieved horse would have won BUT for the interference. You accepted this condition when you wagered your punt.
Before, if one transgressed another, irrespective if one would have won the race, then one got the chop. Bush Telegraph vs Main Man comes to mind, well according to Jean anyway, oh wait, but that is subjective to Jean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did not make the rules yet I must follow them or move on ( and the rules are vague) - I have watched just as many races as most stipes yet I cannot predict which way an objection will go and I am no idiot or money based objector - That is a problem because punting is dependent on a result - If the rules are vague then interpretation is needed - Why do you need interpretation ? First offense (eg first movement or first bump) you are gaining an unfair advantage -They changed the rules without consultation with punters now we have constant disputes - Bump me and you go behind me - Hit me or my horse you go behind me - Let's just remember that Racing is not a contact sport and there is normally enough room to give every horse a fair go -

100%...rules too vague...thus too open to interpretation...you cannot blame the Stipes for that...you need to make rules that are easy to adjudicate and you need to punish the transgressor. No mitigating factors...then we all know the result and the fine...
it will also encourage better riding...

I am going to say the obvious that I don't trust the stipes but perhaps for a different reason. I don't think that it has to do with incompetence or anything corrupt but rather the history of the hierarchy in racing and the fact that the senior stipe probably carries too much sway in debates and decisions reached.

Unless the assistant stipes are strong characters and happy to stand their ground when incidents are debated it might simply be a case of towing the line unless the decision is clearly controversial and indefensible. Victimization was a very real issue previously and in an industry where cost cutting is already clearly evident, hence fewer stipes, it might be a case of self preservation over bruised ego's and potential retribution.

I don't know how the voting is done or whether its a simple show of hands but perhaps the process needs some independence in reaching an outcome. Maybe sealed voting and simple majority and an on course and off course panel of a minimum of 5 stipes.

Please feel free to shoot me down if i am barking up the wrong tree

How difficult can it be? Centralize all objections lodged with the same stipes making the decisions, USE this virtual room. It will cut down on costs and bring some sort of consistency to the decision making process. The rules should be amended to eliminate most "grey areas" and once everyone knows what is expected of them, there can be no arguments about the outcome. Right or wrong decisions are not the "big problem" its the inconsistency with which they are made. The NHRA have brought this problem on themselves. Time for change, someone to grow a pair and take charge.

neigh wrote: How difficult can it be? Centralize all objections lodged with the same stipes making the decisions, USE this virtual room. It will cut down on costs and bring some sort of consistency to the decision making process. The rules should be amended to eliminate most "grey areas" and once everyone knows what is expected of them, there can be no arguments about the outcome. Right or wrong decisions are not the "big problem" its the inconsistency with which they are made. The NHRA have brought this problem on themselves. Time for change, someone to grow a pair and take charge.

Neigh you are spot-on. The problem is that these issues have been highlighted for years and nothing has been done about them. While it would be fantastic if changes occurred, I think is virtually guaranteed that nothing will change while the current lot are in power.

More faith in Jooste doing an Audit