Doomed Posted December 17, 2022 Share Posted December 17, 2022 That certainly sets a precedent, relegated for whip use. Have we ever had a winner relegated in NZ for excessive use of the whip? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomates Posted December 17, 2022 Share Posted December 17, 2022 Never , but it is just a matter of time , and then the next will be a horse losing a G1 for over use of the whip . Many will say that the whip doesn't make a difference , so why use them in a finish , it's a big debate , had many times on many forums . But rules are rules . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted December 17, 2022 Share Posted December 17, 2022 https://www.news.com.au/sport/superracing/stewards-uphold-whip-protest-after-dead-heat-at-flemington/news-story/e1c10fac62dac1f10388facca9e4137e 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLB2.0 Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 The thing is that it doesn't set a precedence.... this happens how often? It seems like the stipes do it every 2/3 years to remind people that the rule is there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bid Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 I just can’t work out why it was only relegated to second, who’s to say by breaking the rule it was only the horse it dead heated with was the only one that it would have beaten. Not saying that I agree or disagree with the rule however. But think it maybe should be disqualified and not relegated if they are taking this approach… if a rider took an electrical device and won the race I’m sure it would be disqualified not relegated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomed Posted December 19, 2022 Author Share Posted December 19, 2022 It would have been interesting to see what happened if it won clearly and not a dead heat. The dead heat probably made it easier for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy connolly Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 And the aggrieved connections won't allow their jockeys to carry whips in future which will cause an uproar, half the field with whips and half without. Half-baked rules enforced by half-baked stewards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 7 hours ago, Doomed said: It would have been interesting to see what happened if it won clearly and not a dead heat. The dead heat probably made it easier for them. Of course. As with interference related relegations, stewards must be certain that the rule breach affected the result. Much easier when that was a deadheat and this is the first time such a protest has been upheld since 2016 but rightly so in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 Very hard to prove though that an infringement more than 100m out cost a horse a win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy connolly Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 Most interference in races occurs in the first 200/400 metres, the stewards have all the head-on footage of this interference but are too dense/dumb to take it into account with regards dividend bearing placings. Early interference is also more deliberate, whereas home straight interference is mainly attributable to horses moving under pressure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.