Can someone please explain LCRT to me> Says last chance to race truly but what are the ramifications of that statement?
Printable View
Can someone please explain LCRT to me> Says last chance to race truly but what are the ramifications of that statement?
Thanks, just as long as it didn't mean pet food factory :)
Kev wrote, Where does one keep an eye out for the results of an adjourned inquiry?.
I reckon their should be a separate adjourned inquiry section in the stewards reports in every state. As no one or very few would know when such an inquiry is or will be heard, it would help the general public out & Kev & me.
Of course I totally agree Trish and I have sent an email to HRV to request that adjourned inquiries have their own link on the Stewards Reports list instead of being tacked onto another meets report
Trish you and Kev are spot on!!!!! with this one, to date its like going fishing off Nobby's breakwall trying to find out what is going on with adjourned enquiries....I know HRNSW in particular are keen to be more transparent, and a separated file would assist greatly in that regard.
Cheers,
Dan
Maybe HISGEN65 could throw some light on this one for me. Waiting to see what the adjourned inquiry which was opened on 4/9/14 Race 7 at Redcliffe into the performance of Jaccka Lauchie driven by B Barnes, a concessional driver will reveal. We often hear different reasons as to why the sport is on the nose to the general punting crowd...but this drive gold plates how the sport is still viewed by many. A mate of mine (who doesn't mind a decent punt but rarely on a pacer) was straight on the blower asking did I see it, just so happens I had also had a small interest only bet on the horse in question. I was prepared to say the drivers inexperience may be a factor but by God it looked bad.
Trying to find information about when a date has been set down for the inquiry, or has been heard and a finding has been handed down is damn near impossible. I keep checking old stewards reports to see if anything has been tacked on but zilch.
Decide for yourselves, the replay link is below. Messenger speaks for a lot of us when it comes to finding this sort of stuff (which really should be much easier in 2014), keep it up.
http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...ld#REC04091401
Jesus that was a shocker Brad, You would have been counting your winnings coming to the corner.
I think you should wait until the enquiry is over before commenting
G'day Nina
As you say, we should wait until the inquiry is over...I agree...and give the driver the extreme benefit of the doubt.
My issue on this thread, is how the hell can anyone know what is happening with an adjourned inquiry when nobody, except apparently the stewards and the parties concerned in the inquiry. The rest of us are left to wonder what, when or where anything is happening in regard to a questionable drive...then out of the blue the results are tacked onto the end of a stewards report covered in cobwebs.
What we are asking for here Nina is more transparency/access to information that should be easily available to us...or for someone to point us in the right direction so we can access this mysterious murky world of adjourned inquiries.
Originally posted by Bronocobrad
Quote:
What we are asking for here Nina is more transparency/access to information that should be easily available to us...or for someone to point us in the right direction so we can access this mysterious murky world of adjourned inquiries.
It looks like it would be easy to do as the Australian Harness Racing web site already has a News Room page with a Stewards Wrap section in each state. All it would take is to upload the reports to this section, I would think.
Thanks Toni, I did not know about that Stewards Wrap section under the News Room tab on the AHR site. It seems to have titbits from several states. I am not sure what you mean by a Stewards Wrap section in each state - I am guessing you are meaning 'Stewards Reports'.
The big problem is that adjourned inquiries do not have their own separate report but are eventually tacked onto who knows what day's report. They just need their own separate title/link - my preference would be to put this with the relevant state's stewards reports but if they want to put it in the AHR's stewards wrap, I could get used to that.
Chairman of Stewards Victoria has got back to us
In relation to your question about the difficulty in finding out the result of an adjourned inquiry and subsequent recommendation, it is not possible to assign an adjourned inquiry it’s own report title. Stewards Reports are not populated on the website manually, but are formulated off the National database from the meeting calendar. HRV Stewards will post any serious matters or inquiries which generate considerable public interest under the ‘Stewards Wrap’ section of the www.harness.org.au website. Other adjourned inquiries will be posted on the Stewards Report at the meeting which they were concluded. I will also endeavour to ensure they are posted to the meeting at which the inquiry was adjourned so that they will be easier to follow-up for interested parties.
This may help.
Kev I'm sure that if you started up that I. T. business that I mentioned in another thread you would be able to add a Tab to click on and there would be all the adjourned inquiries. Imagine how much the Web site cost harness racing and they can't use a database to generate a field. But I bet you could Kev. :-)
At least you can't say they didn't reply.
I am on your wavelength Toni. I did wonder how you could add the adjourned inquiry result to the original meeting but you could not add it with its own heading :confused:
I may still ask them this but it was strange how a written email could have a tone to it that made me wonder whether I could even be bothered with them - I have little doubt that the Chairman sees me as nothing more than a bother
hi kev, i wiil try to put some light on your querying,...if jack sprat was the driver,straper or a stable hand etc,that was the subject of a inquirery ,the likes of you or i as just interested parties will be on a need to know basis.... we the public will get to know the outcome when the enquirery is completed.... but the licenced people such as the trainer,the owner or the manager of a synd.of owners through the trainer would be kept in the loop....now i will stand to be corrected on this but i think this is how it goes....
Hi Allan, I agree that we do not need to be kept in the loop - I just want it to be easy for us to find the result of an adjourned inquiry. Maybe the Stewards wrap always has this info but I doubt it (will be monitoring from now on) and as for having to read every stewards report in case the adjourned inquiry you are interested in, is tacked on to who knows what meeting - well that is joke and an indictment on Harness Racing's Stewards and Public Relations departments (unless covering up the fact that we are going easy on offenders!)
Let's say I was a punter and was affected by a drive which resulted in an adjourned inquiry - shouldn't it be easy for me to eventually find out the result of that inquiry. I do not see many driving inquiries in the Stewards Wrap up now
i totally agree with you kevin,surely the stewards don`t have that big a backlog of unheard inquiries,i can understand the more serious cases taking time to get through with appeals ,lawyers and vcat and such,but the lesser offences such as driving,track behavior etc,should be, you would think, got through quickly and made public for us to see...even a hot line to a public relations department would be very helpful....
Race 3 at Melton last Friday
http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...ic#MXM26091405
From the Stewards Report:
Driver Nathan Jack was questioned about the tactics he adopted on Smiling High, in particular his decision to surrender the lead in the early stages which appeared in contrast to the racing pattern established by this mare. Mr Jack stated that it was not a preconceived plan to surrender the lead as he was unsure whether he could cross Patchitupbaby (Greg Sugars). Mr Jack added that he drove the mare with the knowledge that he had been run down the previous week when leading and when challenged by Ultimate CC NZ early in the race thought it was a good horse to follow.
It all seems very reasonable.
What are the Stewards thinking but not stating?
I'm not sure about the "good horse to follow" bit as he never looked like he intended to hold the lead
Would it be disrespectful for me to say All Talk - No Action?
The adjourned Jason Lee did not make it into Stewards Wrap nor is it posted under the original Ballarat Stewards Report (not that I think that is the answer) so the only way you would know the result is if you stumbled across it tacked onto the Terang Stewards report (or this forum :D)
Easy solution : All adjourned inquiries should have their conclusions posted in Steward Wrap
Any Stewards read our forum?
It looks like being Wednesday at best before last Friday's Ballarat, Newcastle or Albion Park steward's reports are posted - slack!
Still waiting on an answer as to why ALL adjourned inquiry results cannot be reported in Stewards Wrap
From last Friday's Stewards Report that went up today but relating to Oct 24
http://www.harness.org.au/stewards-r...&fromstate=vic
Stewards concluded an inquiry into the conduct of licensed stablehand Craig Wight and licensed driver William Pace when the horses returned to the stabling area following the running of Race 2 at Tabcorp Park Melton on 24 October 2014. Initial evidence was taken from all parties on the night, with further evidence adduced at this inquiry. After considering the evidence of all parties involved, Mr Wight was issued with a fine of $250 under Rule 231(2) in that he misconducted himself by gestures and comments directed at driver Darren Pace. Mr William Pace was fined $500 under Rule 231(2) for subsequently engaging a physical contact with Mr Wight. Given the nature and location of the conduct, as well as the good records of both gentlemen, each fine was wholly suspended for 12 months provided they do not breach a conduct related rule in that time. All parties were reminded of their obligations to act in a professional manner and carefully consider any emotional comments and/or actions.
This was the race in question which saw driver Darren Pace suspended
http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...ic#MXC24101405
William should have been belting Darren not the Wights for this effort which put the odds on fav out of biz
I missed this when it was first released but so must have most of the drivers because in most of the preliminaries I have watched, you will see at least a couple of drivers talking to each other.
http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=24555
Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Stewards remind drivers of their obligation under Rule 162(1)(c) which relates to talking or communicating with fellow drivers whilst performing the preliminary, at the start point and during a race.
Stewards have previously notified drivers to cease this practice, however will now be issuing cautions as a first offence and subsequent penalty if any further breach of Rule 162(1)(c) is identified.
Australian Rule of Harness Racing 162 (1)(c) states: A driver shall not once on the track speak, communicate or signal to any person other than an authorised official.
Of course it is all just PR as we know and expect drivers will be talking to their colleagues during the course of the day
I think we could all forget about it if investigation and penalties for collusion were so severe that only the fools would consider it
Melton (Ouyen) from Friday has still not had the Stewards Report posted - if every single Saturday meet and even yesterday's Hamilton has then it would want to be an extraordinary reason for us to have to wait until Tuesday for Friday's
From Saturday's Melton
Gavin Lang (Chilli Palmer NZ) was questioned regarding his tactics in the early stages when there was an option to move forward three wide to take a forward position when it was apparent that the speed was moderate. Driver Lang reported that he was mindful that the leader Cold Major and the horse racing to its outside Smudge Bromac NZ would be reluctant to hand up any forward position and he was then forced to race at the rear of the field but when the pace quickened from the 800m and the last half was run in 54.7 seconds, Chilli Palmer NZ raced wider rounding the home turn on the final occasion but was unable to make ground due the quick speed of the last 800m. Driver Lang’s explanation was noted.
Why would this be noted/accepted? If Smudge Bromac does not hand up the death he would be not only holding out Chilli but he would be putting the pressure on his stablemate in the lead. This is a FFA with a lead time slower than the C2 and a Q1 of 33. Geoff Webster was also questioned as to why he did not make a move. I know Chilli is suited to a late fast run at them but that was a joke. This horse was the Fav
(and NO I did not have a bet on it - I have just seen it now)
It is up to the stewards to insist on some competitive racing because this is a betting industry
Interesting that in the next race over the shorter distance Gav could get to the death despite a much faster pace
ps It would be interesting to know if the Stewart stable supported one of their runners in the 8th as the 'team' did a good job of stitching up the Fav and winning with their less fancied runner (Gav gets another 'noted' in the Stewards Report)
It's Chilli Palmer of course he was always going to stay back. No problem here.
The No's have it. The long and the short of it is that Chilli should never start favourite in a race as without a strong pace early he is never going to be able to finish over the top of them - Right?
I think that's exactly right Kev, I like the horse but just could not back him at any odds with confidence with his racing style, A fast pace is a must for him and should never have been the Favourite. Pretty sure that he will prove me wrong on the odd occasion though but it's risky backing him.
So I am guessing everyone thinks that Chris Alford had no alternative but to just sit there in the 1x1 on the $1.40 fav when the leader walked a 35.6Q in the 2nd Vicbred at Ballarat tonight
http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...ic#BAC06051507
I am not a big fan of driver's having to notify stewards of driving tactics BUT I am a big fan of stewards expecting drivers to give a horse the best possible chance of winning
In the last at Ballarat tonight, I see following out the leader on a track that has no sprint lane as a risky tactic when you are driving the best horse in the race - especially when you are the only horse on the 2nd line and had options
http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...ic#BAC06051501
My Kiwi Mate's first Oz run was considered spectacular because he had to come from so far back after breaking early
An inquiry was adjourned as to why he broke but why doesn't the Stewards Report (Kilmore 29/4) contain any information about the cause - surely there must have been some questioning etc before it was decided to adjourn it.
As usual we will be hard pressed to hear the wash up of this for despite requests to improve communication by posting the results of adjourned inquiries in Stewards wrap (see first 2 pages of this thread)
Weird abbreviated Stewards Comments at Gloucester Park - instead of abbreviating the death as 2 they abbreviate it as L1W - RIDICULOUS in my book
The form guide says that Senor Macray is ODM after his one and only start - is there a way that can be overruled without him racing as he is drawn 2 at his second start tonight
http://www.harness.org.au/form.cfm?mc=SP020615#3
He would need to trial satisfactorily twice Kev but it could be put back in draw without racing.