race 3 cambridge

[the galah]

So the eventual winner causes 2 false starts and delays the start by over 6 minutes,43 seconds.

Then the starter on the 3rd attempt has the tape on the front hand held and the person holding it lets it go about 1/2  a second after the tapes on the 10m,then after 50m we have a horse in front who started off the 10m,presumably it got a running start, as well as the advantage of the tape going slightly earlier.

The other thing was the starter waited,then as soon as the winner straightened up, let them go.

The starter ,seemingly having no interest in the horse drawn 2 off the front,who  clearly was back from the tapes by about 2 1/2 to 3 lengths,also impeding the horse who started behind it off 10m.

Compare the winner to the other horses on the front,especially number 2,and you would ask why the preferential treatment?

Edited 8 hours ago by the galah

[Brodie]

28 minutes ago, the galah said:

So the eventual winner causes 2 false starts and delays the start by over 6 minutes,43 seconds.

Then the starter on the 3rd attempt has the tape on the front hand held and the person holding it lets it go about 1/2  a second after the tapes on the 10m,then after 50m we have a horse in front who started off the 10m,presumably it got a running start, as well as the advantage of the tape going slightly earlier.

The other thing was the starter waited,then as soon as the winner straightened up, let them go.

The starter ,seemingly having no interest in the horse drawn 2 off the front,who  clearly was back from the tapes by about 2 1/2 to 3 lengths,also impeding the horse who started behind it off 10m.

Compare the winner to the other horses on the front,especially number 2,and you would ask why the preferential treatment?

You are right that the tapes were not released at the exact same time, I have seen worse.

The winner snd the transgressor that went through the front tape was meant to be UNRULY but when the front tape was released that horse was effectively on the tape snd not back from it.

The 2 horse was well behind the unruly horse and that is the  point that I have made previously, that we should seriously be not holding standing starts if they continue to dish out unfair starts.
 

[the galah]

The stipes report makes for interesting reading.

According to it,dragonstone,the winner,did not in fact cause the false start the second time.

Yes,i know,everyone watching on trackside could see he did cause the false start.

Have these people not heard of trackside?.

Do they not realise people can record the races and watch them again?And that includes the false starts.

so,anyway, the starter blamed the 10m horses(not the 10m tape) for the second false start. Even though the winner went through the front line tape when the starter had not tried to start the race on either occasion. Thats why the 10m tape was still there. 

 

The starting regulations i read say this

'in the event a subsequent recall is sounded,any horse involved in the reason for a previous recall shall be declared a late scratching."

it also says....

."if a recall is caused by the failure of any equipment or mechanism then the starter shall order that the barriers be hand held for the restart"..."

So the stipes report clearly says the starter blamed the 10m horses,not the 10m tape for the second false start.so why hold the tape?

Now the video says that is false,but if it were true,then why the need to hand hold the tape?After all,the stipes are telling us there was no tape problem at the second false start.

Then theres this.The stipes report says...

Run forest run(number 2) stood on the mark briefly. Well hullo,the video shows his drivers back was almost making contact with the 10m tape>He was slow was because he started behind the other front line horses,he wasn't given a chance to start in his correct position as the starter was too foccussed on the winner getting the perfect start.  

 

Edited 4 hours ago by the galah