Consistancy in objections

I was rather surprised that there was no other comments on the Sunday Scottsville thread....have we become immune or apathetic to the unbelievable inconsistency in these decisions .....are stipes too afraid of upholding and reversing the final results for fear that they may offend the betting public by placing a longshot over a more fancied horse....I did not really back the 2nd horse for wins but places and nice swingers with the even longer shot....had it in my P6 but went out in a later race....so no more pocket talk....why did the trainer have lodge an objection..... this is the job of the stipes....so if the trainer did not object they would have declared no further action from the race review

Tank38 wrote: Hey guys, watching the racing today number 8 in race 3 La Suerte de Matar and everyone concerned or had a bet on her today was absolutely robbed no questions asked. Agreed everyone is intitled to an opinion and I'm not part of the stipes but it doesn't take a rocket scientist from the Big Bang theory to see that La suerte de matar was interfered with twice. The one bump the jockey lost his balance and almost got checked in the railing like ice hockey player. I'm actually shocked that the decision was not changed. Trainer had every right to be mad and should take the matter further and the owners. I also want answers or substantial evidence on how they came up with that decision or some sort of proof that I'm wrong and I'm sure a lot of people that watched the reply would agree too. This is just one race would hate to see what goes on daily??

....maybe Bob can post the race here for us to watch in case we missed something that led the stipes to overrule....

I thought watching the race that the winner just thought back on the side on

IMO the winner got back up because he or she hampered the second

But of course that's my opinion, just like it was the stipes opinion

Just watched now and i would have given to the second horse took its ground initially followed by massive bump to stop its momentum
IVMHO

Fark me sidewaze !!!!!! Those stipes make Zuma seem like JC !! Holy cow.

I missed this race on Sunday and just watched for the first time.
It is obvious that the winner interferes but I think the reason for the overrule is that,following the the first incident,the second horse actually hits the front anyway.
The eventual winner then comes again,and in passing, bumps the second horse .....but at that stage is coming from behind ...and we know that rule.

Dave Scott wrote: Just watched now and i would have given to the second horse took its ground initially followed by massive bump to stop its momentum
IVMHO

Agreed!!!

As an ex jock I see this very differently to you guys but I am not saying I am right. The first incident of intimidation is caused by Inyathi who ducks violently in the direction of Diamente causing her to move inwards onto the 2nd horse.

Watching the bump near the line. Look carefully. The winner hangs in and the runner up shifts out resulting in the bump which no doubt affected the runner up more severely. However she did shift out and had she stayed on a straight course I don't think they would have come together.

...don't seem to have the tools to copy and paste the stipes report....it is very interesting reading .....as it says winner made contact with runner up at 50m mark and unbalanced the runner up.....so if you judge that the horse is unbalanced due to contact you are inferring that the horse is unable to gather momentum or keep up the momentum and yet overrule because the winner was increasing the distance on the runner up after the infraction..... :huh:

Muhtiman wrote: ...don't seem to have the tools to copy and paste the stipes report....it is very interesting reading .....as it says winner made contact with runner up at 50m mark and unbalanced the runner up.....so if you judge that the horse is unbalanced due to contact you are inferring that the horse is unable to gather momentum or keep up the momentum and yet overrule because the winner was increasing the distance on the runner up after the infraction..... :huh:

Its a right joke .its clear to see that the second horse was knocked out of it's momentum.The jockey was also unbalanced , by the time she re gathered her stride it's obvious the winner would be ahead of her in the run to the line(and it obviously looks like the " winner was increasing the distance on the runner up ". The simple question is "but for the incident would the second horse have won?" Well had the second horse's momentum and stride not been affected by the winner the runner up would have won . Plain and simple.

The mediocrity never stops amazing me !

THE STIPENDIARY STEWARDS REPORTED (DA) :
a) DIAMANTE (B Lerena), the winner, was selected for the taking of specimens for analysis. Trainer M Dixon advised. (TN)
b) BRITAIN’S BEST (T Godden) was hanging in, over the final 400 metres.
c) LOVE LYRIC (A Delpech) and UPRISE (*D De Gouveia) raced green.
d) LA SUERTE DE MATAR (J Samuel) and DIAMANTE (B Lerena) shifted towards each other and brushed near the 200 metre mark.
e) Near the 50 metre mark DIAMANTE (B Lerena) shifted in making contact with and unbalancing LA SUERTE DE MATAR (J Samuel).
f) A race review was called by a Stipendiary Steward into the above incident which was followed by an Objection lodged by Trainer D Howells on behalf of the second placed horse LA SUERTE DE MATAR (J Samuel) against the winner DIAMANTE (B Lerena) on the grounds of interference in the latter stages. After viewing the patrol video and considering the distance of an increasing neck at the finish, the Board over-ruled the Objection and allowed the Judge’s result to stand. Mr Howells’s deposit was refunded.
g) In view of the performances of BRITAIN’S BEST (T Godden) (16.85 lengths) and MERCURY ANGEL (*A Arries) (21.35 lengths) the Veterinary Surgeon was requested to examine these fillies.

Reading the stipes report there is no mention that the first incident even formed part of the objection or entered into the assessment - so if you only consider the second bump, it appears that the winner is coming back at the second horse and objection hearings never uphold against a horse coming from behind(not saying that it should be a given,but seems it's the way it is)
It is the only reason I can think of , as at first glance and in real time,a reversal looks like a slam dunk!

Did the first bump effect the winner more than the runner up ?

The best horse probably crossed the line first ( but that's not relevant)