@foxcatcherintel They came home in 36.23 in the JJ over 1600m
They came home in 36.09 in the Stradbroke over 1400m
Yet here Royal Supremacy walks them and comes home in 34.67 over 2200m
Worse still the other jockeys gave it more than 5 lengths start.
The other jockeys should be ashamed
ROYAL SUPREMACY has gone around 30 lengths below par to the 600m mark. And still has a 5 length lead. Not sure I have EVER seen that in my life #AsleepAtTheWheel
@justideal No idea in this case. But I have seen examples where say a 30% owner wants out. List it online buy it back, just provides transparency/fair market on pricing for that 30% owner. Especially in this case where it looks like it has gone for 15% of the original price.
I have just reviewed last Saturday's Illawarra Grange meeting (new inside track at Kembla), in a week where 7 meetings across NSW were abandoned. Rosehill was as heavy as it gets. It raced as a dead track bordering on good. Incredible effort by all involved—the track couldn’t have been fairer, with all horses getting their chance. Now for the crazy bit: no meetings scheduled in the entire month of June. Kembla outer track has only 1 meeting, while Newcastle has 3/4 Saturday provincial meetings. Who is doing the programming at RNSW? Are they even aware how good this track looks for punters compared to what we are facing? Can @beermitchell or @kemblaraces or anyone let somebody know please?
@111AKing111@PeterLawrence18 Think both work, but as the great man said. Think we can all agree current isn’t working and a solution needed. Trust your well and finding some winners.
Agree current isn’t working, always better to stop at source. In my example trainers will continue to instruct to break rules. Riders just won’t. In your solution trainers will instruct not to, riders still may as penalty if any (depending on margin) is borne by all connections not just themselves. Your solution also opens up a nightmare can of worms with In play betting etc which would also impact turnover negatively.
@111AKing111@PeterLawrence18 I’m talking about in all instances also. I doubt if you ran 3rd and jockey got hit with rider fee loss and 60k fine (3 over) any owner happy to stump that up.
@111AKing111@PeterLawrence18 With the above implemented, in the rare instance that it came to that, stewards could be far more willing to uphold a protest. I doubt it ever would though.
Need to penalize rider who is the one breaking the rules. Very harsh on connections who haven’t. Still does encourage some breaking of rule if you feel can get more out of your horse than the amount of the penalty. Loss of rider fee/comm + a fine would completely eliminate any breaking of the rule. Riders love money too much.
Why not make the penalty really punitive? G1 race: $10k or even $20k per strike over the allowed limit. I still think the best course of action is increasing the penalty for the riders. If it’s punitive enough, they won’t do it.
Absolute nightmare when 1st past the post gets overturned, not to mention they are clearly not really prepared to go down this route.
Agree with Peter though: at the moment, too many examples of it just happening without recourse. No question—punters on the 2nd horse, which played by the rules, only feel one way: cheated.