Is there something more sinister than incompetence

The more I think about Saturdays objection incident ,the more I cant help worry that a number of very highly unlikely situations had to arise ,for the result to be changed.
I have kept rejecting any thoughts of that nature ,but it is only when you consider the possibility of something more sinister that all the pieces fall into place!
a) an experienced stipe comes to the conclusion the "almost no interference" and zero percent chance of the 2nd horse finishing in front of the 1st,was worthy of an upheld objection.
b) One stipendiary steward could not form an opinion so abstained-why does that seem like someone not prepared to participate in whats going on!
c) When explaining the decision on Tellytrack,the stipe who ultimately voted twice, strongly objects to answering any questions ...........is he envisaging unanswerable questions in a cross-examination type scenario,perhaps?
d)the only way the original result could be changed was with this ludicrous finding ...but in order for that to occur, it was necessary that an objection be lodged.
e) the starting point of the enquiry is to establish who convinced Zechner to object?
I don't believe for one moment that he suggested the objection or believed there was any conceivable chance of it being upheld,but somebody,who maybe knew better,forced his hand!

So we had to have a "no chance" objection lodged which recieved a "no chance" result!
If it looks like a duck ,and walks like a duck ........etc etc!

It is unfortunate that the only conclusion that could explain this decision other than incompetence is corruption or vested interests in changing the result.

There was a post on the other thread saying there was a past between the Stipe and Mr Ferraris

Rob, it may just be as comical as Mr Azzie highlighting how ridiculous the system is.....considering what has happened to him.

This weekend you had two trainers and two sets of owners as well as thousands of punters prejudiced by incompetence. The fact that there is money involved makes it a bit more sinister.

No one could anticipate this event.

So how can the stipes benefit? I can believe many things, but I have never believed the stipes to be corrupt.

The is no evidence and there is always a more plausible theory than corruption. In this case, error in judgement or confusion.

So even if you could anticipate an objection by the Zechner horse, or anticipate an objection against a favourite, who pays who, how, why, how much...just ridiculous and for the conspiracy theorists.

Some bookmakers paid out the winner and refunded the hold on the favourite, so just huge extra loses.

My gut feeling and first instinct tells me there is something other than incompetence going on and as someone said in another thread, very important to find out if Zechner lodged the objection on his own accord or was told to lodge the objection by someone else.

rob faux wrote: c) When explaining the decision on Tellytrack,the stipe who ultimately voted twice, strongly objects to answering any questions ...........is he envisaging unanswerable questions in a cross-examination type scenario,perhaps?
d)the only way the original result could be changed was with this ludicrous finding ...but in order for that to occur, it was necessary that an objection be lodged.
e) the starting point of the enquiry is to establish who convinced Zechner to object?
I don't believe for one moment that he suggested the objection or believed there was any conceivable chance of it being upheld,but somebody,who maybe knew better,forced his hand!

So we had to have a "no chance" objection lodged which recieved a "no chance" result!
If it looks like a duck ,and walks like a duck ........etc etc!

Here’s an idiot ‘that lurks in cyberspace’ that absolutely agrees with you.

Why did it take so long to announce the objection? Not even a whisper until long after the on-course interviews were concluded.

Cannot believe that either the trainer or the jockey had a firm opinion that they should object – from what I see there is no interference or bumping,
I cannot see that the runner up was “steadied for a number of strides” after been crossed – he was only switched to obtain a clear run.
Nobody can say with 100% certainty he would have beaten the winner.
Somebody that “knew something” persuaded the jockey to lodge the objection
This is sinister
This is a clear case of cor

---

(i.e. it IS a duck)

I agree with you Rob. That stipe cannot be that incompetent to get it so wrong. Surely Azzie and Zechner are not that clueless either. They were most likely encouraged to lodge an objection so that something personal can be settled.

Nha must act swiftly and get all involved on the polygraph

toontony wrote: I agree with you Rob. That stipe cannot be that incompetent to get it so wrong. Surely Azzie and Zechner are not that clueless either. They were most likely encouraged to lodge an objection so that something personal can be settled.

Azzie I believe is on record that Azzie Racing Does Not Object. Even though Zechner is technically the object, it's reported that it was Azzie being objectionable. How quickly we give up the high ground Michael!

Interesting point fingers. Is there not a time limit on how long after the horses cross the finish that you are allowed to object? In the past it was a certain amount of minutes[maybe 5min]??