Perhaps Eddie and a top trainer but he hadn't seen the incident inside the two then. Ultimately this discourse is going nowhere. We have been calling for the stewards to stand up and when they do we complain. I remember one poster saying STS should have lost the GV for impeding BB and winning by half a length. The same poster today says the winner should have kept the race after costing the promoted victor the race. Who would be a steward. I just get a little sensation that the fact that a Coolmore colt prevailed didn't suit some peoples agenda on here. A rather big sensation.
I havent been calling for the stewards to change anything, I have always said that I believe our common sense stance on amending results is one of the few things we have right over the rest of the world. The fact its a Coolmore horse has nothing to do with my opinion on the incident, cant speak for anyone else.
A cracking race Stick but she was no more gutsy than the colt fighting back at the line and losing by a diminishing head after being impeded. I'm happy with the result and although they will never meet again,I'd be happy to side with the 5 times raced colt. Deserved winner ultimately...we are getting carried away with the fact the second was a filly..she had an allowance to level the field.
Deserved winner my arse! sounds like perhaps the fact its a coolmore horse might be effecting your position on the event!
Just my feeling that she gutsed it out, dug really deep, and deserved the win. If you set out to keep another horse hemmed in and lean on it you should expect a battle. If you cant handle that battle you shouldn't expect the stewards to give you what you do not deserve. Best horse was first past the post....that ****ing simple for me!
Spot on Stick, I cant see it any other way, she won the war and looking back no one will care what it says on a piece of paper, she won the race.
A battle or the the jockey to break the rules in a 7 runner race over 16.5f with a 5f home straight? She made her own trouble and the colt would have prevailed otherwise..closing at the line and closer than he was when knocked sideways inside the 2...so she gutsed it out and BB closing at the line and beaten a head threw it away and didn't show any guts? If anything he came back from being cost the race and closed on the filly. Two tough horses and a cracking race but the best horses name will be on the trophy.
Rose tinted glasses Dex, he leant on her and O'Donohue tried to keep her in. The Coolmore horse lost a monumental race and the deserved winner was thrown out. Had they not touched each other at all she would have beaten him in my opinion.....we will never know! The stewards are meant to reverse the result when they feel the outcome has been affected, in my view they got it wrong today. Finally I really don't like the fact that unsporting behaviour was rewarded and I don't think anyone can argue that!
Anyhow,I am biased since I sighted this colt on the Royal Ascot thread on the day of the Queens Vase,before the race. He didn't run in the event but it was patent he was better than Bantry Bay who AO'B did run and who he snugly dispatched on debut.
Not unsporting Stick..!! He rode his horse on a straight line from entering the interminable Donny home straight. AA got boxed in and panicked...he was the reason the filly lost..CO'D rode a great race. I've watched the race several times and O'D knew exactly what he was doing and even more cleverly what AA was doing. This guy is hugely underrated and had ridden winners all over the world. AA ****ed up...simple as..he did the same on Thursay on Battersea. The Arabs seem intent on promoting these young jocks before their time. Not a bad thing but it does backfire sometimes.
I agree Stick, I think CD had every right to keep him in for the first incident but when he was not getting to her in the final half furlong he tried to get his mount to lean by driving her in on the filly, partly in my view to say to AA I'll get you back for what you did earlier. The filly had the measure of him however and gave a bash back. I felt AA could have argued better and I feel the stewards must answer the question of why CD has not received any sanction for his breach of the rules and interference he caused for his part in the second incident. My main issue is that I recall so many incidents that I feel were so much more obviously in need of reversal than this and were not and it is the lack of consistency in stewarding that gets me. Although I also agree with you that there was a lack of class about CD. In the appeal I would ask four questions 1. Would you have taken away the race if the first incident were in isolation. 2. Do you acknowledge that Bondi Beach was guilty of interference upon the filly before himself receiving the second bump? 3. Do you feel the second bump from the filly would have happened were Bondi Beach not already hampering her and leaning? 4. Why were such basic errors in stewarding made in not sanctioning CD for blatent interference. That they took away the race is not beyond the realms of reason and in fact were it in France we would not be even having this discussion, my only contention is did the best horse pass the post first and I feel it did, and in the UK that usually surpasses for enough to allow the placings to remain unaltered.
Dear oh dear my old chums..who is CD btw?.and the lack of class? So lets imagine the first incident didn't happen and didn't result in a ban for her pilot..lets imagine the second barge didn't happen either..lets imagine BB wasn't gaining at the line...lets all close our eyes and imagine that we're in bed with yoko ono and john lennon.. The result by the stewards was a great one. Q.E.D. Shocked by your response Blue..but as we have said it is all about interpretation..for me?..this was a two minute job by any official.
Dex - You know full well CD is Colm O'Donoghue, just as AA is Andrei Atzeni, FD is Frankie Dettori, it's an abbreviation of names used to save time when those within the discussion are clearly aware of who and what is being discussed. Your asking however is a very tacit attempt at moving away from the debate in question into personal engagement, not quite wanting to, but not being able to resist temptation. Back to the very good debate about stewarding, interpretation of rules and this particular incident. I do completely see your view Dex, you would have to be crazy or never watched horse racing before to suggest there is no case for a reversal of placing's because there most certainly is, but in my view on account of previous stewarding decisions and the supposedly all important in UK racing aspect of would the second have beaten the first had interference not taken place there is also a view for placing's remaining unaltered. There is no correct view as unlike France we have an element of interpretation and it is this we are discussing, ultimately it's the stewards interpretation that counts on the day and an independent appeal board in the case of an appeal, but for you to suggest that the interpretation you hold is clear cut must be wrong on account of there being such division between viewers, commentators and I would imagine trainers. Even the steward who explained his decision afterwards admitted it was not a clear cut decision. I also note you even went as far to suggest you may be biased due to an emotional investment in the promoted horse on account on account of previous tipping. I however have no interest in either horse as backed neither and see it as a debate about stewarding, the inconsistency found within the UK and the need of clarity. In France no question of the result, in the UK if using other races as precedent there is a big question, I imagine over the coming days we will see other subsequent occurring enquiries used in mitigation.
Reading between the lines in a report from the stewards, it would seem there was not total agreement on the decision. I thought there had to be no doubt as to whether or not the result was affected. Clearly there was some doubt. I hope the decision is overruled on appeal. The filly deserved the win in my opinion and that is based purely on watching the race; I had no interest in either horse, nor who trained them, owned them or rode them. COD's articulation in the stewards room, and AA's lack of, clearly influenced the stewards (or most of them). It was obvious when listening to the jockeys in the stewards' room that the stewards' decision was going to be against AA. I said to my wife as the one sided discussion progressed "They will ****ing reverse the places". There were 3 totally unbiased people watching on our TV - all disgusted with the decision. As for consistency - that is a joke
ATR showed the head on during the sunday forum. COD did not appear to stop riding when the initial interferenece/barging took place Bondi Beach then appeared to lean on Simple Verse and went off a straight line. COD did nothing to prevent his horse leaning into the filly and had his whip in the wrong hand The owners of Simple Verse have said they will appeal and I think it likely a different set of stewards would change the result
Blue I really think you are reading too much between the lines and being over sensitive. I think this has been a good and sensible debate with great points from all sides. The transcript from the post race hearing is in the RP if anyone is interested. I am curious as to why you accuse CO'D of a lack of class?..the guy was signing racecards while deliberations were ongoing and he and Andrea sat and talked together which was nice. Regarding getting personal,it was you after all who deviated from the argument and insulted one of the jockeys and accused him of a "lack of class".
