The appeal by Sky Lantern’s connections over the result of Newmarket’s Falmouth Stakes has been dismissed by the BHA.
Writing on Twitter the BHA said the disciplinary panel was satisfied Elusive Kate "did not improve [her] placing by virtue of interference, and the appeal has been dismissed."
As always punter, trainers, and connections will be hoping for consistency in any future rulings on interference, especially in the big races.
21 July 2013
15 July 2013
Falmouth Result Under Appeal
The result of Newmarket’s Etihad Airways Falmouth Stakes is to be appealed by connections of the runner-up Sky Lantern.
Sky Lantern (4/7f) was beaten by just a neck by Elusive Kate (3/1) in Friday’s race but was hampered in the closing stages by the winner, who hung left across the track.
Elusive Kate’s jockey William Buick was given a three-day ban for careless riding in the stewards’ enquiry which followed the race but the result of the race remained unaltered.
The stewards’ report read:
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference from one and a half furlongs out. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the winner, ELUSIVE KATE (USA), ridden by William Buick, had interfered with SKY LANTERN (IRE), placed second, ridden by Richard Hughes, and that the interference had not improved ELUSIVE KATE (USA)’s placing. They ordered the placings to remain unaltered. The Stewards found Buick in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of careless riding in that he allowed his mount to drift left. They suspended him for 3 days as follows: Friday 26, Sunday 28 and Monday 29 July 2013.
The Stewards noted that William Buick, the rider of ELUSIVE KATE, had struck the SKY LANTERN (IRE), across the nose once, one furlong out, but after viewing a recording of the incident they were satisfied that it was accidental.
It might seem strange that a jockey can be found guilty of careless riding and interfering with a rival but that the placings can remain unaltered when the winning margin is as small as a neck.
As a racegoer and a punter it is instructive to read the guidelines and questions the stewards consider when making their decision.
According to the BHA's rules, the stewards are required to consider “whether the sufferer [of the interference] would have beaten the interferer [i.e. causer of the interference] but for the interference.”
In attempting to do this the stewards should ask the following questions:
1. Where did the incident take place in relation to the winning post?
2. How were the horses involved in the interference going at the time of the incident?
3. How serious was the interference i.e. how much momentum did the sufferer lose and/or how much ground was lost?
4. If the sufferer had had an uninterrupted run to the line, might it have finished in front of the interferer?
If NO - order placings to remain unaltered
If YES i.e. there is some doubt - proceed to question 5.
5. How easily did the interferer beat the sufferer?
But more crucial in the deliberations are some of the guiding principles given to stewards. In particular:
Generally speaking, the longer the Panel discusses whether the placings should be altered, the less likely it is that they should be. If the Panel is unable to conclude one way or the other, the result should stand.
So, the longer it goes on, the less likely the result is to be changed. This should bring some comfort to those who have backed the first past the post next time there is a lengthy enquiry!
Remember: in amending the placings you are demoting the interferer not promoting the sufferer.
Other key guiding principles:
c) The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front.
Coupled with the idea above that the longer an enquiry goes on the less likely it is to alter the placings, this principle also explains when many ‘first past the post’ horses keep the race.
d) The Panel should have in mind that interference is likely to have impeded the sufferer to some degree and therefore a reversal of placings is more likely to follow where there is only a nose between the horses.
e) The further away from the winning post that the incident occurs, the less likely it is that the result should be changed.
i) If a horse is carried off its intended line, the effect will vary depending on the distance from the winning post.
One wonders whether or not technology might eventually take more of a part in determining the outcome of interference. In cricket hawk-eye tracks the path of the ball and predicts its trajectory had it not hit the batsman’s pad in LBW decisions.
In a similar fashion, would it not be possible to track a horse’s line of travel, speed at the time of interference, acceleration/deceleration, and extra distance travelled, in order to assess which horse would have gone past the post first had the interference not occurred?
Sky Lantern (4/7f) was beaten by just a neck by Elusive Kate (3/1) in Friday’s race but was hampered in the closing stages by the winner, who hung left across the track.
Elusive Kate’s jockey William Buick was given a three-day ban for careless riding in the stewards’ enquiry which followed the race but the result of the race remained unaltered.
The stewards’ report read:
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference from one and a half furlongs out. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the winner, ELUSIVE KATE (USA), ridden by William Buick, had interfered with SKY LANTERN (IRE), placed second, ridden by Richard Hughes, and that the interference had not improved ELUSIVE KATE (USA)’s placing. They ordered the placings to remain unaltered. The Stewards found Buick in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of careless riding in that he allowed his mount to drift left. They suspended him for 3 days as follows: Friday 26, Sunday 28 and Monday 29 July 2013.
The Stewards noted that William Buick, the rider of ELUSIVE KATE, had struck the SKY LANTERN (IRE), across the nose once, one furlong out, but after viewing a recording of the incident they were satisfied that it was accidental.
It might seem strange that a jockey can be found guilty of careless riding and interfering with a rival but that the placings can remain unaltered when the winning margin is as small as a neck.
As a racegoer and a punter it is instructive to read the guidelines and questions the stewards consider when making their decision.
According to the BHA's rules, the stewards are required to consider “whether the sufferer [of the interference] would have beaten the interferer [i.e. causer of the interference] but for the interference.”
In attempting to do this the stewards should ask the following questions:
1. Where did the incident take place in relation to the winning post?
2. How were the horses involved in the interference going at the time of the incident?
3. How serious was the interference i.e. how much momentum did the sufferer lose and/or how much ground was lost?
4. If the sufferer had had an uninterrupted run to the line, might it have finished in front of the interferer?
If NO - order placings to remain unaltered
If YES i.e. there is some doubt - proceed to question 5.
5. How easily did the interferer beat the sufferer?
But more crucial in the deliberations are some of the guiding principles given to stewards. In particular:
Generally speaking, the longer the Panel discusses whether the placings should be altered, the less likely it is that they should be. If the Panel is unable to conclude one way or the other, the result should stand.
So, the longer it goes on, the less likely the result is to be changed. This should bring some comfort to those who have backed the first past the post next time there is a lengthy enquiry!
Remember: in amending the placings you are demoting the interferer not promoting the sufferer.
Other key guiding principles:
c) The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front.
Coupled with the idea above that the longer an enquiry goes on the less likely it is to alter the placings, this principle also explains when many ‘first past the post’ horses keep the race.
d) The Panel should have in mind that interference is likely to have impeded the sufferer to some degree and therefore a reversal of placings is more likely to follow where there is only a nose between the horses.
e) The further away from the winning post that the incident occurs, the less likely it is that the result should be changed.
i) If a horse is carried off its intended line, the effect will vary depending on the distance from the winning post.
One wonders whether or not technology might eventually take more of a part in determining the outcome of interference. In cricket hawk-eye tracks the path of the ball and predicts its trajectory had it not hit the batsman’s pad in LBW decisions.
In a similar fashion, would it not be possible to track a horse’s line of travel, speed at the time of interference, acceleration/deceleration, and extra distance travelled, in order to assess which horse would have gone past the post first had the interference not occurred?
08 July 2013
Choosing an online betting account
The UK has one of the most competitive internet betting sectors in the world. This means that UK customers are spoilt for choice when it comes to opening an internet betting account.
The only factors that come into the reckoning when choosing an internet bookmaker are trust and security. Do you trust the particular operator to look after the funds you deposit, pay you out when you win, and will they still be in business for the near future (three years at the very least)? All other considerations are secondary.
At present the majority of internet betting brands, with the exception of Bet365, are not actually regulated in the UK by the Gambling Commission. Instead most firms are located offshore in jurisdictions like Gibraltar (e.g. Ladbrokes, William Hill, Betfair, Coral, Stan James), Alderney (Skybet), and the Isle of Man (Paddy Power). As such, if you have a complaint or dispute with your bookmaker it is to the regulators of these jurisdictions that you must complain.
It is also worth checking if your chosen betting firm is a member of the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS). IBAS acts as a mediation service between bookies and gamblers in the event of a dispute over a bet. It is an invaluable service.
The situation as regards regulation of internet betting is likely to change following the publication of a new gambling bill in the Queen’s Speech 2013. From late 2014 the new regulation will require all operators wishing to target UK customers to hold a licence issued by the UK Gambling Commission.
When choosing a bookmaker also bear in mind that they are not your friend. However amusing their Twitter feed or Facebook page, however generous they appear to be with their bonuses or cashback offers, do remember these are just marketing activities to induce you to place bets you didn’t really want to place and to give back your hard earned winnings.
Of course, you need to choose a bookmaker that offers the type of bets you usually place. If you make a number of each-way bets you might choose a website that offers slightly shorter odds but regularly offers an extra place for each-way betting purposes in the big races (not forgetting that this is still secondary to the most important consideration stated above).
The only factors that come into the reckoning when choosing an internet bookmaker are trust and security. Do you trust the particular operator to look after the funds you deposit, pay you out when you win, and will they still be in business for the near future (three years at the very least)? All other considerations are secondary.
At present the majority of internet betting brands, with the exception of Bet365, are not actually regulated in the UK by the Gambling Commission. Instead most firms are located offshore in jurisdictions like Gibraltar (e.g. Ladbrokes, William Hill, Betfair, Coral, Stan James), Alderney (Skybet), and the Isle of Man (Paddy Power). As such, if you have a complaint or dispute with your bookmaker it is to the regulators of these jurisdictions that you must complain.
It is also worth checking if your chosen betting firm is a member of the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS). IBAS acts as a mediation service between bookies and gamblers in the event of a dispute over a bet. It is an invaluable service.
The situation as regards regulation of internet betting is likely to change following the publication of a new gambling bill in the Queen’s Speech 2013. From late 2014 the new regulation will require all operators wishing to target UK customers to hold a licence issued by the UK Gambling Commission.
When choosing a bookmaker also bear in mind that they are not your friend. However amusing their Twitter feed or Facebook page, however generous they appear to be with their bonuses or cashback offers, do remember these are just marketing activities to induce you to place bets you didn’t really want to place and to give back your hard earned winnings.
Of course, you need to choose a bookmaker that offers the type of bets you usually place. If you make a number of each-way bets you might choose a website that offers slightly shorter odds but regularly offers an extra place for each-way betting purposes in the big races (not forgetting that this is still secondary to the most important consideration stated above).
06 July 2013
Race Day Betting: Coral-Eclipse
The winner of the Coral-Eclipse Stakes could be determined by how well the contenders take their racing. Six of the seven runners were engaged at Royal Ascot just over a fortnight ago, whilst the seventh, Pastorius, was running in Singapore in mid-May. Have the horses recovered from their races and can they deliver another full-blooded performance?
Aidan O’Brien has said of Declaration Of War that he “is in good form, he came out of Ascot well.” But he added: "Going a mile and a quarter at the top level is different. We should learn a lot about him for the rest of the year. It's very sharp after Ascot.”
Speaking to At The Races, Al Kazeem’s trainer Roger Charlton explained: "There are no rules [as to how fast horses recover]. Ideally you would probably want three weeks, but the fact is there is only 17 days and it is hard to tell. He's in good form and I think he's recovered, but who knows. The Fugue and Mukhadram all ran in the same race [at Royal Ascot], so it will be interesting to see how they compare.”
John Gosden is more upbeat about his charge The Fugue, the only filly in the race: "She did it all fine at Ascot and you'd expect her to come on for the run. The race has brought her on and we expect her to run well."
The Fugue was left with too much to do at Ascot, when trying to catch Mukhadram and eventual winner Al Kazeem. If Paul Hanagan tries to steal a lead on his rivals again this time they must surely be quicker to respond this time and William Buick will have to have The Fugue better positioned to cover the move. With Ascot being the filly’s first run of the season, there should be some improvement to come from that race.
Pastorius was poor in the International Cup in Singapore but trainer Mario Hofer believes the performance can be discounted and the horse finished the race with cuts to his front legs. Pastorius is the only horse to have had a good break since his last race and that could give him an edge over his rivals. He is a Group 1 winner and a double-figure price looks too tempting given his experience. Good ground is no problem for him but good to firm going is more of an unknown.
The selections are The Fugue (4/1 with Skybet) and Pastorius (10/1 with Skybet).
Aidan O’Brien has said of Declaration Of War that he “is in good form, he came out of Ascot well.” But he added: "Going a mile and a quarter at the top level is different. We should learn a lot about him for the rest of the year. It's very sharp after Ascot.”
Speaking to At The Races, Al Kazeem’s trainer Roger Charlton explained: "There are no rules [as to how fast horses recover]. Ideally you would probably want three weeks, but the fact is there is only 17 days and it is hard to tell. He's in good form and I think he's recovered, but who knows. The Fugue and Mukhadram all ran in the same race [at Royal Ascot], so it will be interesting to see how they compare.”
John Gosden is more upbeat about his charge The Fugue, the only filly in the race: "She did it all fine at Ascot and you'd expect her to come on for the run. The race has brought her on and we expect her to run well."
The Fugue was left with too much to do at Ascot, when trying to catch Mukhadram and eventual winner Al Kazeem. If Paul Hanagan tries to steal a lead on his rivals again this time they must surely be quicker to respond this time and William Buick will have to have The Fugue better positioned to cover the move. With Ascot being the filly’s first run of the season, there should be some improvement to come from that race.
Pastorius was poor in the International Cup in Singapore but trainer Mario Hofer believes the performance can be discounted and the horse finished the race with cuts to his front legs. Pastorius is the only horse to have had a good break since his last race and that could give him an edge over his rivals. He is a Group 1 winner and a double-figure price looks too tempting given his experience. Good ground is no problem for him but good to firm going is more of an unknown.
The selections are The Fugue (4/1 with Skybet) and Pastorius (10/1 with Skybet).
04 July 2013
Racing Preview: Coral-Eclipse Stakes
The Coral-Eclipse Stakes is run at Sandown Park over a distance of one mile, two furlongs (10 furlongs) and in 2013 has a first prize of £241, 018. It is a Group 1 contest and forms part of the Qipco British Champions Series.
The race was first run in 1886 and takes its name from a great racehorse of the 1760s. Eclipse was unbeaten in 18 races and went on to sire three of the first five Derby winners. The race pitches the Classic generation of three-year-olds against the older horses in a middle distance contest.
In the last 12 runnings of the Eclipse there have been three three-year-old winners: Sea The Stars (2009), Oratorio (2005), and Hawk Wing (2002). Oratorio and Hawk Wing were both trained by Aidan O’Brien and he enters the only three-year-old in the 2013 race in the form of Mars. The Galileo colt has finished sixth in the 2000 Guineas, sixth in the Epsom Derby, and third in the St James’s Palace Stakes.
It is common for runners in the Coral-Eclipse to have raced at Royal Ascot just a few weeks before, often in the Prince Of Wales’s Stakes over the same distance. Indeed, Al Kazeem, Mukhadram, The Fugue, and Miblish all lined up in that race at Royal Ascot 2013 with the first three listed filling the places.
Aidan O’Brien’s other runner in the race, Declaration Of War, won the Queen Anne Stakes over a straight mile (8f) at Royal Ascot but has also won over 10 furlongs.
The final contender in the seven runner field is the German colt Pastorius. The four-year-old has been a globe-trotter in recent months, contesting the Group 1 Qipco Champion Stakes at Ascot last October, the Group 1 Prix Ganay at Longchamps in April, and the Group 1 Singapore Airlines International Cup at Kranji in May.
Recent years have seen several short-priced favourites win the race, a sequence broken last year by Nathanial (7/2), who denied 11/4 favourite Farhh (subsequent winner of the 2013 JLT Lockinge Stakes) by half a length.
The race was first run in 1886 and takes its name from a great racehorse of the 1760s. Eclipse was unbeaten in 18 races and went on to sire three of the first five Derby winners. The race pitches the Classic generation of three-year-olds against the older horses in a middle distance contest.
In the last 12 runnings of the Eclipse there have been three three-year-old winners: Sea The Stars (2009), Oratorio (2005), and Hawk Wing (2002). Oratorio and Hawk Wing were both trained by Aidan O’Brien and he enters the only three-year-old in the 2013 race in the form of Mars. The Galileo colt has finished sixth in the 2000 Guineas, sixth in the Epsom Derby, and third in the St James’s Palace Stakes.
It is common for runners in the Coral-Eclipse to have raced at Royal Ascot just a few weeks before, often in the Prince Of Wales’s Stakes over the same distance. Indeed, Al Kazeem, Mukhadram, The Fugue, and Miblish all lined up in that race at Royal Ascot 2013 with the first three listed filling the places.
Aidan O’Brien’s other runner in the race, Declaration Of War, won the Queen Anne Stakes over a straight mile (8f) at Royal Ascot but has also won over 10 furlongs.
The final contender in the seven runner field is the German colt Pastorius. The four-year-old has been a globe-trotter in recent months, contesting the Group 1 Qipco Champion Stakes at Ascot last October, the Group 1 Prix Ganay at Longchamps in April, and the Group 1 Singapore Airlines International Cup at Kranji in May.
Recent years have seen several short-priced favourites win the race, a sequence broken last year by Nathanial (7/2), who denied 11/4 favourite Farhh (subsequent winner of the 2013 JLT Lockinge Stakes) by half a length.
02 July 2013
The Un-dead Heat
Last month we drew attention to some of the tools and information available on the BHA's website www.britishhorseracing.com. One of the features we mentioned was the ability to review photo finishes and this tool came in very handy at the end of June.
The BHA has amended the result of a maiden stakes race at Kempton on 26 June 2013. The race was originally called a dead-heat by the judge between Extra Noble (Evens f) and Fire Fighting (16/1).
There was immediate disquiet among bettors about the result and BHA spokesman Robin Mounsey subsequently revealed that 'punter power' had resulted in the BHA requesting a high-resolution image of the finish in question.
"The British Horseracing Authority contacted the judge Mr David Smith and asked him to reconsider his original decision of a dead-heat for first place between Extra Noble and Fire Fighting in the £200 Free Bets At Betdaq Maiden Stakes at Kempton Park on 26th June 2013."
"After further consideration, within the time period laid down in Rule (B)62.2 of the Rules of Racing, Mr Smith agreed that the result was incorrect and that Extra Noble should be placed first and Fire Figthing second. The BHA confirmed the revised placings."
"When we heard there were concerns about the result we requested that [high-definition image] and got it. We looked at that."
It has subsequently transpired that Mr Smith has had his contract terminated by the BHA. A statement read:
"The British Horseracing Authority has established that Standard Operating Procedures were not followed, and has today informed Dave Smith that it has terminated its contract of services with him".
Following the amended result, Sky Bet, Stan James, Paddy Power and William Hill agreed to pay out on single bets on Extra Noble, who was declared the winner.
The BHA has amended the result of a maiden stakes race at Kempton on 26 June 2013. The race was originally called a dead-heat by the judge between Extra Noble (Evens f) and Fire Fighting (16/1).
There was immediate disquiet among bettors about the result and BHA spokesman Robin Mounsey subsequently revealed that 'punter power' had resulted in the BHA requesting a high-resolution image of the finish in question.
"The British Horseracing Authority contacted the judge Mr David Smith and asked him to reconsider his original decision of a dead-heat for first place between Extra Noble and Fire Fighting in the £200 Free Bets At Betdaq Maiden Stakes at Kempton Park on 26th June 2013."
"After further consideration, within the time period laid down in Rule (B)62.2 of the Rules of Racing, Mr Smith agreed that the result was incorrect and that Extra Noble should be placed first and Fire Figthing second. The BHA confirmed the revised placings."
"When we heard there were concerns about the result we requested that [high-definition image] and got it. We looked at that."
It has subsequently transpired that Mr Smith has had his contract terminated by the BHA. A statement read:
"The British Horseracing Authority has established that Standard Operating Procedures were not followed, and has today informed Dave Smith that it has terminated its contract of services with him".
Following the amended result, Sky Bet, Stan James, Paddy Power and William Hill agreed to pay out on single bets on Extra Noble, who was declared the winner.
01 July 2013
Dettori Lands On His Feet
Having written recently about a new generation of jockeys coming to the fore at the Royal Ascot meeting, the old guard then went and landed a top job with the appointment of Frankie Dettori as the first jockey to Sheikh Joann Al Thani.
At the age of 42 Dettori should consider himself very fortunate to have landed such a prominent role for a leading force in European racing. He has had a distinctly lacklustre return from his French racing ban for a prohibited substance and it would have been refreshing to see the Sheikh opt for a younger, up and coming jockey for the role.
Dettori said: "I'm thrilled to have taken a job for an outstanding new owner and I'm looking forward to the association. I went over to Chantilly and had a nice meeting with Sheikh Joann. We've started an agreement and I'm looking forward to this new venture for me."
"He seems a very ambitious owner. He's got plenty of horses and he's got plans to expand, so it's a good opportunity for me to get back in the big league."
At the age of 42 Dettori should consider himself very fortunate to have landed such a prominent role for a leading force in European racing. He has had a distinctly lacklustre return from his French racing ban for a prohibited substance and it would have been refreshing to see the Sheikh opt for a younger, up and coming jockey for the role.
Dettori said: "I'm thrilled to have taken a job for an outstanding new owner and I'm looking forward to the association. I went over to Chantilly and had a nice meeting with Sheikh Joann. We've started an agreement and I'm looking forward to this new venture for me."
"He seems a very ambitious owner. He's got plenty of horses and he's got plans to expand, so it's a good opportunity for me to get back in the big league."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)