Sunday Racing

Well done East on... IIL SAGIATORE.... Good call there.... U were very confident on that.....

Best horse won no matter how you look at it but taken away. He came from behind and won going away. I didnt object when Sunday Monday beat Highwaymans Gold by half a length after being taken 3/4 across the racecourse as was told I could not win the objection as he had come from behind me to win.Makes the case for the majority who want to take the subjectivity out of it and in all interference the objection is upheld and interfering horse is placed behind the interfered with horse.Many say Anton started leaning on the winner 1st. Very lucky to get the objection upheld. Will see if anyone agrees with the Stipes tomorrow,but by the time I left the course after the 9th, no one professionally in racing agreed with the Stipes decision.

Just another travesty of an objection......but not too many complaints as most backed Il Sagiattore.......

Kind of a joke really.

It now for me is confirmed. These 3 year olds are just not good enough in my books. Yet another differing result. They keep meeting each other and a different one keeps winning.

Still figure the 4 year olds will hold sway come next Saturday!

sage a better result for me but i believe the stipes were correct in their decision

Pirates,if the Stipes were right in this decision then why was I told that I had no chance of winning the objection with my horse against Ivan
Moores horse because he had come from behind me?There was 3 times the movement across the course and only beaten half a length. Michael Roberts was there to and just shook his head and saying impossible that it was upheld. If that race was run 100 times Colins horse would win at least 99. Anyway everyone entitled to their own opinion.

The objection rule is way too subjective....The term "but for the interference" seems to mean different things to different people.
The incident of Highwaymens Gold was a perfect example:
IMO Sunday Monday shifted of its own violition.There is no indication That HG would have run anything but straight .The maths says the effect was more than half a length.....change the result.
More importantly ,if the stipes did their job ,Craig would have not had to make the decision.The hooter should have blown as they crossed the line!

I will continue to be confused at how they can UPHOLD an objection they did not see worthy of lodging??????????? and they leave most to the connections

In the old days,Mr O would not allow any Trainers or Jocks to object on behalf of any of his horses as he believed it was up to the stipes......I wonder if he would still maintain that respect today?.

Immediately after the post, Marcus exchanged a few words with Muzi. In fairness Sage throne did get the better of IS and was going away at the end. You have to feel for the connections.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> The objection rule is way too subjective....The
> term "but for the interference" seems to mean
> different things to different people.
> The incident of Highwaymens Gold was a perfect
> example:
> IMO Sunday Monday shifted of its own
> violition.There is no indication That HG would
> have run anything but straight .The maths says the
> effect was more than half a length.....change the
> result.
> More importantly ,if the stipes did their job
> ,Craig would have not had to make the decision.The
> hooter should have blown as they crossed the
> line!
>
> I will continue to be confused at how they can
> UPHOLD an objection they did not see worthy of
> lodging??????????? and they leave most to the
> connections
>
> In the old days,Mr O would not allow any Trainers
> or Jocks to object on behalf of any of his horses
> as he believed it was up to the stipes......I
> wonder if he would still maintain that respect
> today?.


rob a stipe lodged the objection on behalf of ramsdens runner...craig in my opinion ilsag had plenty fuel in the tank and marcus couldnt assist him at all ...i have yet to see a horse go past another horse with it hanging all over it,,,as for highwaymans gold incident i didnt see the race so cant comment...as you rightly say we are all entitled to our opinions...

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> Best horse won no matter how you look at it but
> taken away. He came from behind and won going
> away. I didnt object when Sunday Monday beat
> Highwaymans Gold by half a length after being
> taken 3/4 across the racecourse as was told I
> could not win the objection as he had come from
> behind me to win.Makes the case for the majority
> who want to take the subjectivity out of it and in
> all interference the objection is upheld and
> interfering horse is placed behind the interfered
> with horse.Many say Anton started leaning on the
> winner 1st. Very lucky to get the objection
> upheld. Will see if anyone agrees with the Stipes
> tomorrow,but by the time I left the course after
> the 9th, no one professionally in racing agreed
> with the Stipes decision.

Craig, I sat in the enquiry and was not surprised by the decision. In fact I would have been surprised if it had been overruled. The first part of the evidence that was contrary to the popular opinion was that Sage Throne was not considered to have come from behind Il Saggiatore. Rather they joined forces at the 450m mark and from then on raced to the line together. At the 200m mark Sage Throne's jockey changes his stick to the left hand and the horse immediately hangs out and bumps Il Saggiatore. The jockey did not then change the whip to the right hand instead he carried on smacking it with the left hand. This meant Sage Throne carried on leaning on Il Saggiatore. There is a bad bump just before the line at which stage Il Saggiatore was about a head down but still fighting on. So in the enquiry the 0,75 lengths official distance was considered irrelevant. In the end the stipes, to put it in a nutshell, were left to decide on this evidence whether being leaned on for 200m had cost Il Saggiatore a head in distance. In the defense of Sage Throne, the jockey said that Il Saggiatore initially moved inward forcing him to change his stick to the left hand. This was correct as there is a slight inward movement by Il Saggiatore for a few metres but it was not as severe as the subsequent outward movement of Sage Throne and did not happen for nearly as long. The jockey said Sage Throne was also hanging away from "the shadow" (I presume the horse's own shadow) and was green. You be the judge but allow me to ask you that if all the professionals you mentioned had sat in the enquiry and heard this evidence, would the opinion have been more divided. Either decision would probably have been acceptable but having sat in the enquiry I have to say I left there and was expecting an upheld decision. However it was insensitive of me to then give my opinion when asked upstairs and I apologise to anybody there who is reading this (I had actually only gone up there to see if there were any July trainers around).

Hi Tipster, at the top of the straight was Sage Throne behind or in front of Il Sag? They joined so one was behind the other at that stage. When Highwaymans Gold was carried across the course was he not right with Sunday Monday and could his jockey ride him out? As I said he was carried 3 times as far across the course as Il Sag and still no objection. Must the Stipes now only use the distance between the horses at the time of the interference to judge whether to uphold or over rule the objection. You say there was a head between them when it happened and the final distance became irrelevant. What then if he had won by 3 lenghts,would it still be irrelevant?

It is surely too general to decide that any horse that "comes from behind" at any stage,cannot lose on an objection as it would suggest that it would apply to any horse that gets left at the start!! and that is obviously not right.
There are also cases of horses coming forward 400m out,and gasping for breath with 150 to go!

That is the reason I was given for them not objecting for Highaymans Gold. In this case I personally think the wrong horse was awarded the race anyway.