Yes or No - Did the stipes get it wrong?

Were Smoking Hot’s connections robbed?

I think they got it right - 2nd horse came up to a half-a-length behind after the interference, but never came any closer - so real doubt if she would have beaten the winner without any interference

Yes, Smoking Hot bumped 3 times in the closing (critical) stages of the race

Frodo wrote: I think they got it right - 2nd horse came up to a half-a-length behind after the interference, but never came any closer - so real doubt if she would have beaten the winner without any interference

The "winner" started towards the centre just inside the horse in yellow and continued to drift away from the stick onto the runner up such that it ended up closer to the inside rail...runner up never got a chance to get closer...but it's the way the rule is written...trying to apply a subjective assessment to something that should be objectively determined...

I go back to my standard...if they are giving Legislate the race over Wylie Hall where Legislate was also at fault earlier in the straight, then this is straight forward is upholding an objection and giving the runner up the race...

Having done this a long time ago I have to agree with Frodo and the stipes. Its not about how many times they make contact. The only question asked is because of the contact can they be sure that the interfered horse could have beaten the winner. Im not sure that he would have. So whilst they get a lot wrong I believe they got this right. Just my opinion of course.

I tend to agree with TNaicker, very subjective and for me, never consistent;
Legislate / Wylie Hall
Power King / Punta Arenas

The examples go on and on.....

Tigershark wrote: I tend to agree with TNaicker, very subjective and for me, never consistent;
Legislate / Wylie Hall
Power King / Punta Arenas

The examples go on and on.....

With all due respect - the question asked here was 'did the stipes get it wrong' - to which I still maintain - 'No - they did not get it wrong'

If the question was - 'is the stipes consistent in applying the objection rule' - I think we can all agree the answer would have been 'No, definitely not'

Cancel

I am not commenting on right or wrong. I don't know how it works. All I want to say from an engineer's perspective, any kind of interference from a horse should warrant an objection upheld. If a 450 to 600kg horse is travelling at a constant speed of 40 to 50km and hour has to suddenly check at a critical stage due to the horse in front of or next to him hanging, it is near impossible for him to re gather and pass that horse. So this should not have been would the interferred horse have passed had the other horse in question.

If this remains the stipes grounds then I regard this as Taxi Tactics. Travel on the fast lane and then witness a taxi in the slow lane trying to come out he puts on indicators and then slightly moves to the fast lane, immediately you as a defensive driver takes action, even if the taxi didn't want to come out. He just scared you, when you apply brakes the gap opens and then he takes it.

My 2 cent. Thanks to you all.

This is an argument / issue that has been around forever - imo it will always be a subjective opinion - unless the rule is enforced hard and fast - and then we would have the issue of a horse being bumped at the start by the eventual winner, but objects even if beaten 10 lengths at the line - so in this case should the horse that was bumped be given the race - even though it would never have beaten the eventual winner ?

Imo, there can't be a hard and fast rule - and it also becomes relevant with the 'new' rule where a jock is only allowed to strike a horse 12 times - I await the day that connections of a horse that has received less than 12 strikes, objects against a winner that received 13 strikes - even if beaten 5 lengths - a rule is a rule, or not - so should any horse that has received more than 12 strikes, be automatically disqualified - in which case Sheela would not have won the Nursery this weekend :huh:

So for me, in an imperfect world, common sense should prevail - in theory, the only case when an objection should be upheld, is when the 'board' (majority decision) is of the opinion that the objector would have finished in front of the offender, but for the interference.

At the 200m, SMOKING HOT (W Kennedy) which was hanging out, was bumped by DON’T LOOK BACK (S Khumalo) which shifted in away from the crop. Thereafter SMOKING HOT was carried in marginally by DON’T LOOK BACK which shifted in slightly.
Jockey W Kennedy (SMOKING HOT) accompanied by Trainer C Dawson called a race review regarding this incident which was followed by an Objection being lodged by Jockey Kennedy the rider of the 2nd placed horse SMOKING HOT against the winner DON’T LOOK BACK (S Khumalo) on the grounds of interference and intimidation in the closing stages. The Objection Board, after giving due regard to the evidence put forward, reviewing the patrol films and giving consideration of the margin of 0,6 of a length between the two horses concerned, was of the opinion that they could not be satisfied to the requisite degree that SMOKING HOT would have finished ahead of DON’T LOOK BACK had this incident not occurred and therefore overruled the Objection. Jockey Kennedy’s deposit was refunded.
b) Jockey S Khumalo (DON’T LOOK BACK) appeared before the Board and was advised that his mount gave every indication that it was going to shift ground towards the inside and that he is required to take all measures to keep his mounts on a straight course in future.

Correct call , no definite evidence that 2nd place would have beaten winner but i still feel for the connections. Winning jock will/should probably get some time off
Jockey on 5th place horse stopped riding 50m from the line and cost his mount a definite 4th place.... that is inexcusable