Its legitimate to hold a horse in and potentially cause a pile up but half ton beasts bumping into each other is a no no. Its supposed to be a sport, the decision is absolutely pathetic if truth be told and I have no investment in it. Bondi Beach has dogged two finishes in the his last two runs, he has won nothing, got bullied by a filly who wanted it more..
Atzeni is a great pro and a gentleman by the looks of it. It's not correct to say the decision was 'pathetic'. The interference especially the 1st time was very significant and to do it again. There was a head in it without interference I think on the balance of probabilities Bondi Beach would have won. If you're not gonna' reverse places in that case then when would you? It materially affected the result. just my opinion.....its tight.
I know that it is a rare event when I agree with Dexter, but it did look like the stewards were really only left with one option. Beckett has already announced that they will appeal the decision. The cost of an appeal is obviously no object to the owners and it was not just a Group 1 race it was a Classic; however, I do not see the appeal being successful.
You need a rule book Eddie. "..cause a pile up.."..what on earth are you talking about Eddie? How can a horse running in a straight line cause a pile up...the eventual second could have when he actively infringed the rules...
From a punting point of view it will only effect the punters on course but punting aside I hope what comes of it being such a high profile race is that we get some consistency, as this is the real problem with UK stewarding.
Holding a horse in thats going well causing it to run up the arse of one thats stopping, thats what im talking about. That to me is 10 times more dangerous than bumping.
Sadly the rules in the UK are sh*te At least in France its straightforward - if you cause interference you are dq'd, no ifs or buts about it
OK...so by your logic CO'D should just have just pulled aside and let the filly out to avoid the "pile up" that would have occured amongst the 4 horses in contention? Perhaps the jockey that was going so well shouldn't have been in such an awful position in a 7 runner 16f race on a course with a 5f home straight.
Disagree Ron...she had 2f to put the race to bed after knocking the eventual winner sideways. At least the converse contention is being articulated against the beast that was sinned on!
Of course not, holding in is race riding and you cant have people moving out the way for you, but if a horse has enough to barge its way out that should also be allowed. That would be consistent. Remember we are talking about a filly here against a colt, she outfought him and thoroughly deserved to win the race.
I dont agree, most horses who get boxed in dont have enough to get out of trouble. Allowing one potentially dangerous situation and not allowing another doesnt make sense to me. If we are throwing out winners for a couple of bumps then we might as well ban holding in as well and make everything all nice and cozy. If a jockey wants to put another jockey in danger by forcing him to run into a wall then he should also be risking the danger of getting knocked out the way.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the decision it is excellent to see the Stewards being televised and the chair explaining it to the TV presenters.
Jocks fault though, he allowed her to get boxed in and then pulled her into the 2nd. Best horse might not be in the book, but best partnership is. Atzeni got it wrong, and that is as simple as it should be
It was very clear that the jockey on the 2nd was far more of an expert in the stewards' room. It would have been interesting had the jockeys been reversed
