Flamingo Park Monday

Bushy Wrote:

---

> 3rd time in 3 weeks I have gone down because of a
> ridiculous #@?!en decision by the judges. At my
> whits end now, had enough of this game. There
> needs to be a SERIOUS review of the way things are
> run, there needs to be EQUALITY THROUGOUT the
> country, and decisions to be based on PAST
> decisions. Just like when a court case is to be
> decided, it is not looked at on face value, but
> the decisions of previous cases will be the
> deciding factor in similar cases going forward.
> Yes I'm talking out my pocket, but I accept defeat
> when I feel its fair, and accept human error and
> individual decision now and again because that's
> life...but from an objective point of view(and
> please anyone try correct me if they think I am
> ludicrous) but the last couple decisions within
> the past month of race reviews have been shocking.
> I lost money in the 4th race, but not once did I
> ever think the fav had any chance of being
> promoted up a position, I accepted that as being
> the right decision, but as for this one, along
> with Cape Royal the other day, and looking further
> back to the Royal Ben/Pom decision at Turfles(even
> thou I never had a cent on the race) that was
> probably the most shocking decision I have ever in
> my life seen, and the two following it have been
> bad enough to raise this issue as I think it has
> become a serious problem within the industry.
>
> Please feel free to comment if you think I am
> wrong

Bushy you are 100% correct ......todays result must be their most embarresing moment this year ......how do someone become a stipe...Then you work just limited hours,can fuck up as you want and nothing /no-one can do anything about it...

Englander Wrote:

---

> Not a lot of value on Zulu anymore Loopy as the
> daily farce is served up in the last... and bang
> goes any hopes of me having a nice win today cos
> my double is now farked. Another round of applause
> for the brilliantly efficient and safe SA stalls
> (td)

Yeah what a pity I did have a nice double there going...
and if I could pick a favorite in a race 6 I would have called the PA as well

I watched the Prideofanation race and the reason I believe they could not have upheld the objection is the following:

They needed to establish if they thought the runner up could have beaten the winner if it were not for the interference.

IMO the answer is very simple....no. She would perhaps have run a little closer but not win.

That is the final reason, I believe (I could be mistaken) for their decision.

The Cape Royal objection was a joke no doubt but this one, at least for me was pretty cut and dried. The correct decision was reached.

Bushy, you probably know I was on Cape R and Royal B... if you are talking about the one earlier this week that got upheld I was also on that winner that was thrown out, the name escapes me and if you have read any of my posts of late you will know I am 100% in accord. I don't know the review today...?

I think that the change of objection rule to one of subjectivity has been a bad one................when racing has the Hawk-eye type technology that predicts how fast each horse is travelling......... how the leader is slowing,the effect in distance of being pushed off course etc etc,then fine,but until then interference should be an absolute judgement
How many times have we seen a race change dramatically,and without warning ,in the last 100m ?............and we have our geniuses forecasting what might happen............consistency is impossible and the arguments are not good for the game..........with the old rule you could correctly forecast the outcome of objections most of the time.

Gunter had just changed his stick and his horse was running on to win the race when his running was taken up causing him to switch and ease, he then regathered the horse and ran on again, considering that the horse was taken completely out of his stride,had to be switched and regathered again and then challenge again,all inside the last 70 meters to be beaten 1,50 L I think is reason enough to believe that we would have beaten the winner all things being equal...:S

Not the worst "stop him in his tracks" I have ever seen.

He did have to switch no doubt but he would have gotten within maybe half a length of the winner, that is, IF the winner had nothing to come.

These objections are just horrible. The SAF stipes have dug themselves a hole of note here. The rules are just farcical, HOWEVER in this case, imo, they got it right.

Both Titch and Tommy's argument have some merit and could be correct..........with 2 completely different outcomes............reinforces the problem of subjective rules!

Agreed.

100% correct..strengthens the argument for a single Objection board to ensure consistency..

Titch Wrote:

---

> 100% correct..strengthens the argument for a
> single Objection board to ensure consistency..

Titch, to me it has nothing to do with one "board", it is one set of easy to interpret, know where you stand, set of rules that is the "must"... the "board" as such then just confirm those rules when called upon. All this "in my opinion" is utter cr@p and can only lead to anger and corruption, assuming that is not already prevalent though, sad to say, I suspect it is.

There is absolutely no logical reason for this not to be implemented immediately unless people are "on the take". At worst, just copy the UK rules cos they seem to work 99% fine. Any one know of a decent reason why this can't be actioned with immediate effect?

The "old" rules we talk about are similar to the french.................the "new" ones we moan about are the one we changed to ........the UK rules!
It's the implementation we seem to battle with.