Takeover Target Controversy
 

I haven't posted my opinion until now as I have been monitoring the talk-back programs and reviewed this race innumerable times on video.
I have now come to the opinion/conclusion that the steward's have set a very dangerous precedent with their determination in this race.
How can they say that Takeover Target took the running of the second place-getter and eventual winner, Honor In War?
As I review literally hundreds of races per week I see similar instances a number of times and nothing happens from the officials.
One radio talk-back contributor stated that there was plenty of room for Bowman to take his mount to the inside near the fence....and I agree!
Therefore how did the events of this race differ from any number of similar instances which we all witness during the racing year?
Anyone have any comments on this matter?

Cheers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vyhegzXODI

the call was horrendous.

ive seen worse dq's that were never called down under.

I would have to agree with that comment, i could see that he did take the other horses running but he was a fair bit in front when he started shifting over.

I would have called it as just blocked for a run and a bit unlucky.

The horse would have won with clear running thats for sure, but so would 100 other horses in other races that never hear of a protest.

all just history now

What about the comment from some goose that if the stewards did not uphold the objection they would be seen to be incompetent!
Well, mate....how do they look now....!

Cheers.

Don't forget that the precedent for such silly protests has already been established. Some time ago in Melbourne Craig Williams successfully protested that another runner had run out and "intimidated" his mount!
No wonder there is diminishing turnover in wagering on the gallops!

Cheers.

Post some of them - let's have a look! - some where a horse is in the process of accelerating in the last 300m, but the eventual winner drifts out, taking his running, forcing him to check off that horse's heals, only to get going again and lose in a photo.

It's time the inconsistency of these stewards got pointed out in a public forum.

Yeah,

well said Filante, their inconsistency is their only consistentcy...if you know what I mean.
By their actions in this case they have completely undermined/disappointed the trust of the general public in the expected consistency and professional evaluation of all relevant evidence.
I think it is time for a government department to intervene and appoint an ICAC official to all committees.This suggests nothing more than the precedent has already been established in HK and look how they have dealt with associated matters.
Let's face it...the HK way of administration is the pearl of the international racing industry.
All I am saying is that their system works very well and we should duplicate this. No reflection is intended or implied on any of the current office-holders.

Cheers.

Decision was correct in my opinion, whatever the stewards do on other occassions needs to be looked at, but Takeover did take the other horse's running and the margin was a nose.

Clear cut.

Cannot agree CP,

very similar incidents occur in any number of races every day-be they city, provincial or country races.
Why, in this race did the officials decide to apply their "opinion" on the "virtual" finish of this race.
IMO they erred badly and have opened a 'pandoras box" of future potential frivolous objections.
May it fall on their heads.
What about the "battlers" who wagered their savings on Takeover Target?
No wonder turnover is diminishing on the gallops!

Cheers.

But on this occassion it was correct, if they fail to uphold or make a ruling on other cases, that's a case to answer for the stewards at the track.

The rules of racing state that a horse must be 2 lengths clear of the horse behind and Takeover was not and hampered the second horse which was beaten by such a small margin and was past Takeover just past the post.

Forget the battlers and their money, how dark would the owners of HIW be?

It's their horse. their training fees, their vet fees etc etc.

Cannot agree CP,

In this case the stewards have erred badly and subsequently(IMO) have undermined the confidence the betting public had in the decisions of the officials.
As I have stated previously, I have reviewed the videos and have have come to the conclusion that the stewards have created their own "cross to bear."
Don't forget, Takeover Target actually won the race and it was up to the runner-up to present their case......in my opinion not successfully!
Watch the video and you will come to agree that a major injustice has been perpetrated.

Cheers.

We must disagree then, I have viewed the head on and it's clearcut imho.

Well we certainly do disagree,

CP, I respect your opinion but on this occasion I respectfully suggest you, like the stewards have got it wrong.
This rubbish about a "designated run" is not valid......,
As per any number of similar races, why couldn't the rider quickly change to the inside and if his mount is good enough, it may challenge and eventually win?

Cheers.

For what it is worth, I am with Chrome, correct decision. It seems you have a fairly large axe to grind with the stewards Xanadu apart from this decision. I can guarantee you stewards decisions is not the major reason that gallops turnover may be falling.
But I am sure we will agree to disagree if you allow it.

G'day Top Rank,

I must disagree with your assetions that steward's decisions are not a major factor in the ever-decreasing turnover phenomenon,.
I refer your attention to some recent errent (IMO) decisions by the stewards which detrimentally affect we punters.
Don't forget, these officials get paid irrespective of dubious results or whatever...what about the punter.....?
I look forward to your response.

Cheers.

No worries Xanadu, opinion makes for debate, so it's all good.

There are several factors which make the decision right the way I saw it.

The rider could not have gone to the insede because the leader was tiring and could have carted him right back through the field.
Pasakatera runs second last.

Not only does TT take his running, he checks him 200m out.

Look at what the rider has to do on HIW 200m out. HIW's head goes right up in the air.

you cant tell off the video i posted but if you find and look at the side shot video that they were replaying during the decision you can see that HW was not even close to TOT's heels. this rule about being two lengths in front before crossin lanes- where did you here that from?if thats a rule then its being broken every day without judges calling foul. i saw mitch beadman veer in and take out angland and bowman one day while they were moving up the middle and the judges could of cared less. bowman didnt say a word that day.

plain and simple bowman freaked made a bad move and cost himself the race. he felt embarrased and whined to the judges to clear his own wrong doing and for some crazy reason the judges fell for it.

Yes, it happens everyday, but they aren't beaten a nose, which is why there's no protest.
But plenty of jocks get holidays for it.

Point taken CP,
we agree to disagree....,
N.B. couldn't you have included an attachment of Pamela Anderson or some other well-endowed nubile personality?
Well called pharfromoz,
these incidents occur literally in 2 out of 5 of every race run,,,,,so, how come the stewards decide to "enforce" their "interpretation" in this particular race?
I am not happy with the responses I've heard from officials so far......,

Cheers.

i think you should find a side shot before you make final decisions about what happened that day. on the side shot HW front heels were 3 feet from even touching TOT's back heels. the whole reason bowman lost that day had to do with the route he took to get there.

he got beat by a nose from a champ that was carrying 61 kilos.

I've seen the side shot and the direct head on the stewards worked with, nothing changed my mind, in fact it reinforced what I thought.
It doesn't matter what route the jockey took, he was cut off by a drifting TT (almost three horses wide in the front on shot).

Ive read a few different topics on this race over the last couple of weeks, i didnt bet in the race, i watched it as i was running out of the house saw TT win, thought good stuff and left. didn't know till that night there was a protest. Ive watched that video on youtube a few times and im of the same opinion as xanadu, i cant see how this was upheld. watch after the race is finished and they show the replay, TT doesn't move out untill the leader shifts out, you can see TT holding his line untill this happens and he is forced a little wider, that coupled with the fact Miss P moves in slightly. It was just bad luck. Watch the movie at 1.20 and 2.40. These are the same moment, front on and on the angle that show when TT moves out, but only to avoid colliding with the tiring leader. Does the rules state you have to keep you mount straight if your not 2l clear of a horse behind when a horse is shifting out beneath you??

I haven't been betting pretty much given it away but I truly can't see what the uproar over this decision was IMO it was a clear cut upheld protest, The rules state a runner must be 2 lengths clear of another runner before they are able to veer across that runners line and this clearly wasnot the case here.

I have seen the front on view and when Takeover Target moves out the side on view shows that he is at best 1 1/2 lengths in front of Honor In War, Miss Pageantry did not help by moving in but even with her interference Honor In War still had a clear run there until Takeover Target moved out around about 3 horses, I have heard people try and suggest that consessions should be made for the fact that Takeover Target was carrying 61kgs which would have to be the most ridiculos thing I have heard if they don't like the weight the horse is carrying don't back it simple as that they run handicaps for a reason.

I am now hoping that this can make the stewards grow some balls and make the right decisions on protest regardless on the stature of a race, You almost never see protests upheld in GR1 races and there have been plenty of chances where the decision should have gone to the horse who has protested only to be dismissed because stewards simply don't have the balls to make the decision and instead suspend the offending jockey for a stack of meetings.

Amazing!
So many people watching the same thing and coming to different conclusions.
I'm not complaining because I backed the eventual winner, but if any horse can be blamed, in MY opinion only of course, it would have to be Miss Pageantry, as I saw it, that did more to hinder Honor In War, than anything else, but what's the use of protesting against third when you came in second?

I don't know why you are surprised, it happens in Rugby League all the time. Some say try others say no try - same piece of video.
As for the stewards adversely affecting turnover, it certainly has'nt stopped mine, nor others that I know. Only anecdotal evidence I know.
Xanadu are suggesting the stewards are bent or just incompetent? I believe neither and believe racing here is run as well as anywhere.

Keep smiling, business is booming.

Raw, you have more insight than instinct ;)

Miss Pageantry???

She held her line against a bullocking and checked Honor In War, they bumped maybe four or five times, it looked like she was holding him in, but she was in the wayand wouldn't have been if TT didn't drift more than three horses wide.

If anything the jockey on MP might have protested against HIW, but it was pretty equal buffeting so it's even.

I'm with you Chrome. In the end the stewards are the people charged with making the decision and they went that way. I certainly don't see this decision as being reflective of some far greater problem with the stewards.

As the cricketers should do. Umpire has made his decision, move on. They are on again tomorrow.

Wyong R3,
it didn't take long to witness a similar example of the Takeover Target debacle,
No.3 comes out in the straight and clearly takes the running of No.9......we'll see what happens. Don't forget...stewards can lodge their own independent protest even if the connections of the second horse do not.
We'll just wait and see how consistently the rules of racing are applied in NSW.
2:02p.m.AEDT correct weight.
Hmmmm........

As a side issue to this controversy I ask other forumites - what about the rides of the jockey on the eventual winner....I can't catch him........can you?
In the above race in question he rides "like a man inspired," yet, if you studied his other rides on the program you would definitely be underwhelmed!
As I have stated in another thread, I study form ...both equine...and human and this rider has me in a quandry.
On numerous occasions I witness him putting his whip away in a tight finish and rising in the saddle....definitely not the normal stance of a rider.
Any thoughts on this matter?

Cheers.

post15,

Top Rank,
No, I have no specific "axe to grind" with the stewards-nothing could be further from the truth!
Look at my thread: "Congratulations To the Stewards" which would confirm I usually actually support their actions/determinations.
However, in this case I cannot and I feel that I must declare my opinion.
That is: "they got it wrong."
For example look at my post regarding Wyong R3.

Cheers.

Come on fellow form-students....CP and Top Rank!
View the video of this race and you will confirm this was similar to the race in question!
Look at the head-on film and you would agree there was no difference in this race and the controversial race.
I await your response.

Cheers.

Xanadu, can you provide a link to the video replay, I can't find it anywhere, I'd like to compare.

Sorry CP,

No I cannot assist in this case. I either tape the race "live" or later that evening on "Today's Racing Tonight" on Skychannel.
I think the only way to get these videos is to subscribe to particular providers.
I will be diligently reviewing every race possible into the future to highlight such occurrences.

Cheers.

Why?

I am sorry, it is was the first thing that came into my head.