I did not watch the entire race but looking at above insert it looks like a ding dong bumping tussle between the two and could have gone either way via the Stipes ? a bit like the Summer Cup with Striker and Shea if my memory serves me right.
I find that it's probably a bigger issue due to the family connection between jockey and Stipe.[/quote
I agree - objections often controversial - but for me as a neutral the Pettigrew horse (even though it was alleged to 'first claim the gap') intimidated the other runner - another way of looking at it is why the 'family connection' did not instigate the objection? As Dave says, it can never be ok to have a perceived biased panel judging objections, but imo the objection was warranted and could have gone either way - the narrow margin of victory probably also played a part :huh:
.....I have no dog in this debate.....as ESKOM ended my participation in that meeting with their all too usual 16h00 power cut ......so never saw the race but only the final result and did not know WTF was going on with t(w)eets on t(w)itter etc.....however this family connection angle is really concerning....as in the past during the racing clubs era and the then structure (pre-phum days)....my late uncle was an honorary steward out at the Vaal and they filled in as judges on race days and also presided on objection panels....he would often invite me to be wined and dined in their well appointed lavish dining facility and have premier wines(my 1st introduction to Meerlust Rubicon) top ports (Farrerias) and oak aged superior brandies....at one of these visits while swilling brandy and smoking a club sponsored Monte Christo....my uncle announced that he had to step down as a judge in the last race as he had an interest in a horse in the Tony Millard yard which came in for heavy betting support....the horse dually cake walked it ....and without any incident....but there was even back then an obligation for stipes, stewards and judges to declare before a race a possible conflict of interests..... no matter how sh!t faced they were at that time of day.....:ohmy:
My dog in this fight was the useless Mike's Chick, so I wish they objected and made this horse win the race from the last place it probably got.
One thing that is clear from this thread, is that many people don't understand the objection rules in this country, and confuse it with overseas rules. There can be no way to pin this fully on the yellow one, if at all, and yet, the stipes decided that BEYOND ALL DOUBT, but for the interference that the jock on the second horse himself caused, the second horse would've beaten the winner. I read now in Sporting Post that two jockeys agree with the decision that was taken, and shows why jockeys are jockeys, and not stipes. To think that you can cause interference from ahead of another horse while keeping straight is a concept I have not seen, and yet is now the precedent. In future objections, I want to see this rule applied fully, since the decision has now been doubled down under, This will be the new case law going forward.
Certain objections will always be controversial including this one.
There is a definite conflict of interest though.
On another note there is so much nepotism by all three operators including others in the racing industry it is unbelievable. Its not what you know its who you know definitely rings true in our horseracing landscape.
Pettigrew is correct on both counts... the nhra should throw out this objection on review .. firstly because the conclusion was incorrect and secondly because the stipe should have excused himself. I know both the stipe and trainer and both are good eggs but bias could have occurred
instead of having cosmetic changes to try attract new people to the game maybe top priority should be that racing is run properly.no1 reason the majority of the population are not interested in racing is because they think it is crooked
