Did running 25.2 give EOTE every possible chance to win? He was gone at the 600 so that answers itself
Did running 25.2 give EOTE every possible chance to win? He was gone at the 600 so that answers itself
Another intersecting part is if we change tactics we have to notify the stewards and they notify the public, but when you have 2horses in a race the trainer has to notify the stewards of how both will be driven ,I've done this heaps giving hem the best possible scenario and even plan b but this is never disclosed to the public
Are you giving the 6 months to the driver or the trainer who instructed the driver to lead at all costs, I don't think that you can call this a deliberate breach requiring a 6 months penalty..........the other drivers and their trainers that also forced the issue of the extreme fast 1st quarter also need to be brought into the equation.........
In the 1st race, they went exactly the same first half of 53.8, but the leader and 2F who put the speed on both went well, with the leader winning the race!.......poorer horses chasing then the MM field. I have heard the argument of an extreme 25.2 to not so extreme 26.1 quarter.......but this was the MM and there is a take no prisoners attitude, maybe they were overwhelmed by the race, and over did their tactics!
Back to the 1st race, poor Joshua Aiken came out blazing from his wide gate on real Bonus to get outside the lead, unfortunately the fast 1st quarter and racing wide early took it's toll and the horse dropped out and ran last............do we give him time for this?.........of course not!
So hypothetically, are you putting forward that if you go the 1st Q in under say 26, and drop out, you are going to get time, up to 6 months!
I am not saying anything I stated there was a rule that used to be enforced my view is no they didn't give the horse every chance in the company it was in , time only counts in jail
Its all got to do with class your racing
,I never questioned any change in tactics I questioned that when you change tactics the public is notified but they are not notified of tactics when a trainer has 2 in a race betting would have been a lot different had punters known EOTE was on a suicide mission[/QUOTE]
....just putting up a case..........would it not be plausible that the Tritton stable were looking to give the lead to SSL on EOTE, but unfortunately Avonnova spoilt the plan? I think that the stable put out the statement that EOTE was holding the lead to perhaps put the Avonnova camp on notice of their intentions, and hoped their ulterior plan would occur!
The Tritton stable always said that EOTE would be leading!
The stewards have not questioned or indicated any inquiry into these 3 horses, drivers or trainers for the 1st quarter..........as the premier mile race at Menangle.... you would want a very slippery 1st Q to set up a record attempt..........the directors are probably very happy with the 1:49.1 time recorded.
What the directors need to look at is the absolutely disgraceful TAB holdings on the race...........is the race worth it for $750,000 prizemoney. I would not be thinking of a prizemoney increase in the near future, but more likely a reduction is warranted...........unless betting turnover improves.......they would probably of not made enough from the race to pay 3rd prizemoney!
Last edited by teecee; 12-02-2014 at 02:20 PM. Reason: quote editted
My old man got DQ for 6months once for sitting behind the leader on a horse the stewards said should of lead. he didnt give the horse best possible chance to win bit harsh but those were the rules, he got caught in ran 2nd a nose as odds on fave
That is a ridiculous penalty!...........I remember your old man driving........for some reason I have in my head, I can see him at Liverpool Gymkhana driving horses.......I used to sit it in my car in the back straight opposite the winning post watching the trials.............I suppose you were their also?..............I always remember a guy named Ernie Anforth from Liverpool gymkhana....a very nice man!