OBJECTIONS

What a JOKE . South African Horse racing is seriously going backwards
There is NO consistency when objections are made
Tonights Greyville race 4 objection was totally unexpected
The winner was the main cause , old days the winner would have been demoted to 5th and rest move up a position
No5 Aznerak also looked like she was trying to bite no9 National Agenda

Winners movement caused all the problems - and NO PUNISHMENT

NOW IS THE TIME FOR RACING TO IMPROVE STANDARD OF STIPES
What are their qualifications ?? Any qualified ?

Cape Town race with Horizon objection was also absurd
Does the rule not state "would the 2nd horse have won if the interference did not happen'???

Jockey Andrews came all the way across horses and Horizon had to severely check at a crucial time , then continue to the line only to loose by minimal distance

So in my opinion Horizon would have won if he ran straight down the outside railing without having to move inwards of the winner

Was Jockey Andrews punished for interference ??

What are your thoughts ??

Hi Mark can't comment until I watch, but sometimes I feel the tripes are just lacking consistency

YES - Consistency all provinces
Think a central boardroom is required with video conferencing from courses
Surely this will save a lot of salaries /expenses having one team to hopefully make consistent outcomes

Similar cases should be remembered/used like in Law (previous cases are referred to during court hearings)

Do any Stipes have any legal qualifications ??

This is the official stripes report 

) At about the 250m FIFTY CENTS (A Andrews), which was hanging out, shifted out and crossed WINTER PRINCE (C Orffer), which was forced to check losing position. Thereafter FIFTY CENTS (A Andrews) continued to shift out, carried CAPTAIN’S FLAME (R Fourie) and HORIZON (G van Niekerk) outwards.
f) Approaching the 150m HORIZON (G van Niekerk) switched inwards to continue its run, brushed CAPTAIN’S FLAME (R Fourie) inwards onto the heels of CHEVAUCHEE (AUS) (G Cheyne) becoming unbalanced and was forced to ease.
g) The Stewards called a race review, which was followed by Jockey G van Niekerk (HORIZON), the 2nd placed horse, and after reviewing the patrol films Jockey G van Niekerk lodged an Objection against the winner, FIFTY CENTS (A Andrews), on the grounds of interference in the latter stages. The Board, after considering the evidence heard and reviewing the patrol films was of the opinion that but for the interference HORIZON (G van Niekerk) would not have finished ahead of FIFTY CENTS (A Andrews) and therefore overruled the Objection. The Judges’ result was allowed to stand and Jockey G van Niekerk’s deposit was refunded. An Inquiry will be opened regarding the reported interference.

Horse racing is difficult enough  without having to have someone  else in the boardroom room help the punter lose his money.  Watch the race and then read the paragraph at the 250 metre  mark.  It's an absolute joke how this horse kept the race. The interference that  it caused could have lead to 3 separate objections.  The stripes summary is fake narrative of impact that riding move had on the entire outcome of that racemail and further shows that the report perhaps is  a tool used  as justification rather than a reflection of the actual incident. 

Regardless whether horizon could have caught  and passed 50 cents is immaterial as the interference caused effectively impacted more than a single horse 

Reminds me of Highland Night winning Gold Cup after moving across horses to inside...Badger's Coast came 2nd...loved that horse...took my Dad to that Gold Cup and he saw it charging from the back of the field to come 2nd...he thought we were in for some serious (relatively speaking !!) money...

Old interference / objection rules then so don't know what impact would be using new rules...

markg wrote: Cape Town race with Horizon objection was also absurd
Does the rule not state "would the 2nd horse have won if the interference did not happen'???...

I think the rule says something like "would, in the opinion of the stipendiaries, the 2nd horse have won but for the interference"

Was the interference not too late to make a difference?

markg wrote: What a JOKE . South African Horse racing is seriously going backwards
There is NO consistency when objections are made
Tonights Greyville race 4 objection was totally unexpected
The winner was the main cause , old days the winner would have been demoted to 5th and rest move up a position
No5 Aznerak also looked like she was trying to bite no9 National Agenda

Winners movement caused all the problems - and NO PUNISHMENT

NOW IS THE TIME FOR RACING TO IMPROVE STANDARD OF STIPES
What are their qualifications ?? Any qualified ?

The stipes were 100% correct. Under the current rules this horse could not lose the race, because despite causing massive interference, WAS ALWAYS GOING THE BETTER AND NO OTHER HORSE WOULD HAVE BEATEN THIS HORSE ON THE NIGHT.

The real question is whether this rule is the right rule. I am an old racing man and to me the old rule was fairer on all concerned, and more importantly, was easy to adjudicate.

.....I'm with OTA.....no way under present rules could they take the race away from the winner last night and give it to the 2nd horse that was not interfered with .....and because the other placed horse that suffered the interference could not have won the race but could have finished at best in the 2nd or 3rd place....with this being said now with MarkG gripe as I agree.... W(hy)TF then grant the objection to the 5th placed horse over the 3rd placed horse.....it is exactly the same rational of the 4th placed horse having suffered interference by the winner.....no consistency with decisions in the same race....never mind different races and different racing centre's....the officials need serious training until they get the consistency right.... :blink:

The objection rule is just an example of why rules should be as clear cut as possible!
Subjective ones are ambiguous and create controversy which is not good for the image of racing (as this year has proven)
We have all seen races whereby the final result was highly unlikely ,even a hundred metres out,and yet this rule relies on knowing what would DEFINITELY have happened,but for an incident.
Our regulators battle with understanding and enforcing their own written rules so including CLAIRVOYANCY into the equation is crazy!