I have most of my savings in building society accounts that are being dwindled by inflation but paying 3.5 per cent. My ordinary day-to-day bank account is only paying 1 per cent, which is why there is just enough in it to keep pay bills. Let us not start a discussion about how the Bank of England has screwed up the last 15 years...
No and that's why it didn't get overturned but I'm looking at it more from how dangerous it was. Neither the 2nd or 3rd deserved to be declared the winner of the race and you can't have a race without a winner hence the issue with what I'm suggesting.
The way the rules are the two issues are completely disconnected. The right horse is the winner so that is the fair outcome. The second issue is disciplinary action against the jockey as he is deemed to be in control (not sure they are with Pyledriver). McDonald was suspended for 3 days for careless riding as he allowed his mount to shift right-handed without sufficient and timely correction causing Moore to have to take a check resulting in Spencer being carried off his intended line. Seems reasonable enough to me
I had no financial interest in the race either but agree the interference was dangerous. Later post (Stick) explaining the process is understood but I do think the 2 issues - correct winner/dangerous riding - shouldn’t always be completely separate. Probably opens a can of worms though. Agree that the stewards enquiry was a complete waste of time in the current circumstances.
Now I've never ridden a horse but I think McDonald is a bit unlucky to get a ban. Rewatching the race as they come to the furlong pole, McDonald has his whip in his right hand and administers a stroke. Pyledriver immediately veers left (away from the whip) and McDonald pulls his whip through to his left hand, I assume in fear of his mount veering even further left which could cost him the race. As his jockey is pulling his whip through (and before he has any chance to administer a stroke with his left hand) Pyledriver decides to correct himself, over-corrects and swerves violently across the path of the other two. I don't think anything the jockey did caused the horse to swerve like that and suddenly he finds himself going badly right with his whip in his left hand. He seems to want to administer a stroke with his left hand but thinks better of it (as his mount was already going left) and had no time to swap the whip to his right hand as the deed was already done. I guess in "real time" that all happened very quickly and I think he has been a bit hard done by.
Ruby Walsh said McDonald shouldn't have used his whip as the correcting element, as it was that that accentuated his dive one way then the other. He should have ridden him out with hands and heels. He deserved his 3 days but the horse did not deserve to lose the race.
This is one of those arguments that I can see going on for a while as it seems to be mostly about perspective. I have ridden a horse but that is irrelevant. This particular horse has a previous history of hanging when in the lead. He hung away from a right handed drive (has previous for this that the jockey knew about), so he switched the whip to the left hand. He also pulled the reins to try and straighten the horse (that is the rules). The horse then went to the right (arguably that is the jockey’s fault) and caused the third to press the second but did not impact either horse’s placing. So my case here would be that the best horse won (the stewards clearly agreed); however, they deemed that the jockey over did the correction of his mount and gave him a ban for careless riding. I am with you that I feel that his ban was not proportionate to the offence (at a midweek meeting at Warwick he would just have got a warning) but it is dead easy for us armchair jockeys watching slow-motion replays.
Whose hindsight? I responded minutes after the race ended (in response to Chaninbar's comment) and well before any enquiry took place. Walsh's comments were before the jockeys were interviewed and the enquiry announcement made. Throughout the week Walsh's comments have been a highlight of the ITV show.
Now the meeting is over I'd like to say on the whole it was a very successful spectacle and a great credit to Ascot and ITV. Having said that I begin to worry about the quality of horses on display. There were good performances, yes, but were there any real top class performances? Maybe one and that was Paddington. King of Steel won well but it was a second rate King Edward. Tahiyra's performance was underwhelming. The Gold Cup looked to be competed for by a bunch of handicappers. I'm delighted for Julie Camacho but is Shaquille really the best 3yo sprinter in these Isles? So I have to ask myself 'are we breeding mediocrity?'. Are we fed a diet of porridge and when we get a bit of fruit go overboard? I fear that's the case
I tend to agree Bustino. Seems to be going in the opposite direction to NH where we seem to have been blessed over the last decade with some of the great performers of all time.
Scenic Blast in the King's Stand would he a personal highlight of mine. Always very dubious about performances such as Harbinger's victory that day.
