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.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 412,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/12/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

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.