Railway Protest

jonesee · January 2012

It was very positive to hear the detailed and open explanation of the contraversial decision in the magic millions by the Queensland stewards.
What a pity our stewards felt no need to discuss the biggest protest decision ever made in Western Australian horseracing.

tony · January 2012

said:
It was very positive to hear the detailed and open explanation of the contraversial decision in the magic millions by the Queensland stewards.
What a pity our stewards felt no need to discuss the biggest protest decision ever made in Western Australian horseracing.

Did anyone in the media ask the WA stewards?

Semipropunter · January 2012

said:

said:

said:

said:
you need to stop coming up with idiotic analogies semi pro(
:lol: :lol:), they don't apply.

and PLEASE tell me exactly where it was that big ted was laying out(rather than in).
shifting out is probably more correct. BT shifts out creatring the gap and McEvoy takes the hole. The gap--and the interference was created by Kerrin's initial move. The defence you are using that McEvoy was on the rail before he went throught that gap is totally misleading. He shifted out, bumped into WS which stumbles badly, then shifted back to the rail because THERE WAS A BLOODY HORSE IN HIS WAY.
i just looked to refresh my memory and perhaps you need to too!!

big ted was hanging,laying, shifting(call it whatever you like) IN, the only time it went out was when mcevoy shifted out abrubtly( and that was AFTER the damage that had occurred).
and again you are implying stuff that didn't happen(or if it did was not visible), so don't crap on to suit your argument.
this whole post of yours is factually bullshit written to support what you want to believe, rather than what you saw(which was sweet fa)
Ok, so you don't see McEvoy take a half look at shifting out moments before the interfernce until Westriver Kevydon rolls in and keeps him on the rail?
.

So when I say this i'm re-writing history, but when someone else says it it's correct?

jonesee · January 2012

said:

said:
It was very positive to hear the detailed and open explanation of the contraversial decision in the magic millions by the Queensland stewards.
What a pity our stewards felt no need to discuss the biggest protest decision ever made in Western Australian horseracing.
Did anyone in the media ask the WA stewards?

Yes!!!!!
Repeatedly.

carey · January 2012

said:

said:

said:

said:

said:
you need to stop coming up with idiotic analogies semi pro(
:lol: :lol:), they don't apply.

and PLEASE tell me exactly where it was that big ted was laying out(rather than in).
shifting out is probably more correct. BT shifts out creatring the gap and McEvoy takes the hole. The gap--and the interference was created by Kerrin's initial move. The defence you are using that McEvoy was on the rail before he went throught that gap is totally misleading. He shifted out, bumped into WS which stumbles badly, then shifted back to the rail because THERE WAS A BLOODY HORSE IN HIS WAY.
i just looked to refresh my memory and perhaps you need to too!!

big ted was hanging,laying, shifting(call it whatever you like) IN, the only time it went out was when mcevoy shifted out abrubtly( and that was AFTER the damage that had occurred).
and again you are implying stuff that didn't happen(or if it did was not visible), so don't crap on to suit your argument.
this whole post of yours is factually bullshit written to support what you want to believe, rather than what you saw(which was sweet fa)
Ok, so you don't see McEvoy take a half look at shifting out moments before the interfernce until Westriver Kevydon rolls in and keeps him on the rail?
.
So when I say this i'm re-writing history, but when someone else says it it's correct?

you can't be serious.
what he said was correct, because i checked and he was, not that it had any relevance to the protest.
ditto with the rubbish you wrote, i checked and you were wrong.
if you were right then i would say so, it does not even come down to opinion, because for instance your nonsense about ranger improving around ws before the trouble happened, is complete and utter nonsense(verifiable from video).

quoting you:Must have made a ghost horse that made WS shift outwards? Laughing Laughing Can you tell me why Pike(Ranger) had WS fall back directly in front of him when he was going for a run AROUND WS just before the interference?

quoting me!: bullshit

i am happy for anybody to disagree, but when they speak crap to support their argument, then their opinion is worthless.

LuckyLongshots · January 2012

said:
It was very positive to hear the detailed and open explanation of the contraversial decision in the magic millions by the Queensland stewards.
What a pity our stewards felt no need to discuss the biggest protest decision ever made in Western Australian horseracing.

Where was that aired? Sky World or TVN?

Also jonesee, who was the media journalist who asked for an explanation from the WA stewards?

Ghurka · January 2012

I heard David Hensler give an explanation on Racing Radio two days later.

Semipropunter · January 2012

said:

said:

said:

said:

said:

said:
you need to stop coming up with idiotic analogies semi pro(
:lol: :lol:), they don't apply.

and PLEASE tell me exactly where it was that big ted was laying out(rather than in).
shifting out is probably more correct. BT shifts out creatring the gap and McEvoy takes the hole. The gap--and the interference was created by Kerrin's initial move. The defence you are using that McEvoy was on the rail before he went throught that gap is totally misleading. He shifted out, bumped into WS which stumbles badly, then shifted back to the rail because THERE WAS A BLOODY HORSE IN HIS WAY.
i just looked to refresh my memory and perhaps you need to too!!

big ted was hanging,laying, shifting(call it whatever you like) IN, the only time it went out was when mcevoy shifted out abrubtly( and that was AFTER the damage that had occurred).
and again you are implying stuff that didn't happen(or if it did was not visible), so don't crap on to suit your argument.
this whole post of yours is factually bullshit written to support what you want to believe, rather than what you saw(which was sweet fa)
Ok, so you don't see McEvoy take a half look at shifting out moments before the interfernce until Westriver Kevydon rolls in and keeps him on the rail?
.
So when I say this i'm re-writing history, but when someone else says it it's correct?
you can't be serious.
what he said was correct, because i checked and he was, not that it had any relevance to the protest.
ditto with the rubbish you wrote, i checked and you were wrong.
if you were right then i would say so, it does not even come down to opinion, because for instance your nonsense about ranger improving around ws before the trouble happened, is complete and utter nonsense(verifiable from video).

quoting you:Must have made a ghost horse that made WS shift outwards? Laughing Laughing Can you tell me why Pike(Ranger) had WS fall back directly in front of him when he was going for a run AROUND WS just before the interference?

quoting me!: bullshit

i am happy for anybody to disagree, but when they speak crap to support their argument, then their opinion is worthless.

Go watch it again, carey. You have no confidence in anything you say or otherwise you would not keep going back to the video. I've seen it enough times to remember by heart.

carey · January 2012

go away.
i have it on computer, the race, all the stewards footage, everything that is available.
i can watch it frame by frame, and I KNOW you are wrong.
it's not me that needs to watch it again....."I've seen it enough times to remember by heart."....ROFL
i am not so clever as you :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: , i need to watch it to be sure.......try it, you might get a surprise.

Semipropunter · January 2012

said:
go away.
i have it on computer, the race, all the stewards footage, everything that is available.
i can watch it frame by frame, and I KNOW you are wrong.
it's not me that needs to watch it again....."I've seen it enough times to remember by heart."....ROFL
i am not so clever as you :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: , i need to watch it to be sure.......try it, you might get a surprise.

No. You made comment of the protest and then you checked, checked & checked again. I can only hope the appeal lawyers are as prepared when they present their case so it can be laughed out of court.

LuckyLongshots · January 2012

Ok fellas - you've been going back and forth like a broken record - you both think you're right and you're both entitled to think that way!

But seriously 7 recent pages of this forum peer bashing is pointless.

Can we just let the appeals board and the owners of HR do their thing and see where that goes?

SuburbanPunk · January 2012

Great post LL

carey · January 2012

said:
Ok fellas - you've been going back and forth like a broken record - you both think you're right and you're both entitled to think that way!

But seriously 7 recent pages of this forum peer bashing is pointless.

Can we just let the appeals board and the owners of HR do their thing and see where that goes?

well, that's what makes a forum in case you don't realise.
perhaps we can just go away, and let it die a slow lingering death.
lost of posts i don't like too, but that's life.
as much as i know semi pro punter is talking nonsense, he has every right to have his say, as do i.
so perhaps you and the sp should go read other threads if it pisses you off so much.

great post SB

SuburbanPunk · January 2012

Great post Carey.

It appears we are all friends again even though our points of interest may differ.

jonesee · January 2012

said:

said:
It was very positive to hear the detailed and open explanation of the contraversial decision in the magic millions by the Queensland stewards.
What a pity our stewards felt no need to discuss the biggest protest decision ever made in Western Australian horseracing.
Where was that aired? Sky World or TVN?

Also jonesee, who was the media journalist who asked for an explanation from the WA stewards?

Greg Radlee amongst others.

[DeletedUser] · January 2012

Can anyone join this thread ? Lol

LuckyLongshots · January 2012

said:

said:

said:
It was very positive to hear the detailed and open explanation of the contraversial decision in the magic millions by the Queensland stewards.
What a pity our stewards felt no need to discuss the biggest protest decision ever made in Western Australian horseracing.
Where was that aired? Sky World or TVN?

Also jonesee, who was the media journalist who asked for an explanation from the WA stewards?
Greg Radlee amongst others.

Well, having a dig at the steward's (or suggesting they should have held a public news conference or the like) on his racing show and asking for an interview and having it declined are two very different things - I would be saddened if they declined him an interview if it was officially requested (just not sure an interview was requested and/or declined, maybe you can shed a light on this jonesee)

thefalcon · January 2012

investigative journos in wa...you must be joking.
if this was in melb., sydney, the uk, europe or the usa the journos would be on to it like a maggot onto a mutton chop....demanding interviews. as they should. can you imagine dear old ernie manning a probing journo? no offence to ernie, by the way.

its like getting burnt caviar to say one word against rwwa/pr.

DamienWyer · January 2012

said:
investigative journos in wa...you must be joking.
if this was in melb., sydney, the uk, europe or the usa the journos would be on to it like a maggot onto a mutton chop....demanding interviews. as they should. can you imagine dear old ernie manning a probing journo? no offence to ernie, by the way.

its like getting burnt caviar to say one word against rwwa/pr.

Ernie Manning looks after the Trots. Racing reporters are Robert Edwards and Jay Rooney.

The Sunday Times would be more likely to ask uncomfortable questions of either RWWA or Perth Racing, subject to any legal concerns that may arise out of a story being published. They don't have the same connection with Racing that the West enjoys.

Investigative journalism is now reserved for those publishing books, which almost nobody buys and book stores go out of business.

If any of the established writers here in the print media were to do an investigative story, it would be with crayola and most likely a pop up book format. Or as hard hitting as one of those sort of books tend to be.

thefalcon · January 2012

:lol: good one, damien...as usual

TheFunkster · January 2012

said:
It was very positive to hear the detailed and open explanation of the contraversial decision in the magic millions by the Queensland stewards.
What a pity our stewards felt no need to discuss the biggest protest decision ever made in Western Australian horseracing.

It was interesting (I don't agree) but good for them to openly announce that their (Qld stewards) decision was unanimous.
The MM protest raises another interesting issue:
Berry seemed reluctant to protest until the stewards said "well if you don't we will".
So why is it that stewards do not either protest on behalf of or advise connections when winning jockeys have breached the rules and whipped horses too many times :?: :?
Double standards :?:

H-BOMBER · January 2012

said:

said:

So why is it that stewards do not either protest on behalf of or advise connections when winning jockeys have breached the rules and whipped horses too many times :?: :?
Double standards :?:
Good point. As an owner you want to know that the stewards are looking out for you.

If your horse is in a tight finish in and you run second or third, can you request to look at the film to solely view whip use over the concluding stages. This of course could work against you, but if you were confident your horse has done the right thing then it should be available. Could get a bit like the 3rd umpire in cricket reviewing every decision however...

ICE · January 2012

said:

said:

said:

So why is it that stewards do not either protest on behalf of or advise connections when winning jockeys have breached the rules and whipped horses too many times :?: :?
Double standards :?:
Good point. As an owner you want to know that the stewards are looking out for you.

If your horse is in a tight finish in and you run second or third, can you request to look at the film to solely view whip use over the concluding stages. This of course could work against you, but if you were confident your horse has done the right thing then it should be available. Could get a bit like the 3rd umpire in cricket reviewing every decision however...
Very True 8)

tony · January 2012

said:

It was interesting (I don't agree) but good for them to openly announce that their (Qld stewards) decision was unanimous.
The MM protest raises another interesting issue:
Berry seemed reluctant to protest until the stewards said "well if you don't we will".
So why is it that stewards do not either protest on behalf of or advise connections when winning jockeys have breached the rules and whipped horses too many times :?: :?
Double standards :?:

Two things here.

When Hensley talked on radio after the Railway he also said the stewards decision was unanimous.

In the MM case it was obvious that there was interference and that because the 2 horses had the same trainer the stewards wanted to ensure all was looked at.

I would doubt it is obvious that whip breeches have occurred without studying the film first and as the last 100m is unrestricted a protest because of earlier whip use would be pretty hard to uphold imo.

thefalcon · January 2012

Mmmm, it crossed my mind when jim cassidy recently got x weeks suspension for excessive use of the whip on 2..or was it 3 occasions at the same meeting as to why connections of the placed horse did not protest.
i know it would open up a large tin of worms.....but....

Semipropunter · January 2012

The breaches with the whip would only be applicable events prior to the final 100m though so it's unlikely to result in any protests being upheld. Because once the red(or yellow/blue) paint on the inner rail appears unlimited use is permitted(provided the whip is not raised above the shoulder).

TheFunkster · January 2012

Imo it should be easy to uphold, especially if a short margin:
Q) "Why did you break break the rules and whip your horse more times than allowed prior to the 100m mark?"
A) "Because the horse was not responding to the limited whip use at this point"
Q) "So your saying that if you didn't break the rules thereby gaining an unfair advantage and your horses wouldn't have responded as well as it did and therefore wouldn't have finished in the position it did?"
A) "Emm err :oops: "

Personally I will be asking to view race footage of any race I have a runner who finishes within half a length of earning a better cheque.
Someone needs to set precedence and challenge this ambiguous rule

Rodent · January 2012

said:
Imo it should be easy to uphold, especially if a short margin:
Q) "Why did you break the rules and whip your horse more times than allowed prior to the 100m mark?"

A) I got excited as my horse was bolting and I wanted to make a good thing of it. The funny thing is, it nearly cost me the race as he seemed to resent it and not stretch out properly from that point.

The smarter ones will have prepared answers for most eventualities.

carey · January 2012

said:
Imo it should be easy to uphold, especially if a short margin:
Q) "Why did you break break the rules and whip your horse more times than allowed prior to the 100m mark?"
A) "Because the horse was not responding to the limited whip use at this point"
Q) "So your saying that if you didn't break the rules thereby gaining an unfair advantage and your horses wouldn't have responded as well as it did and therefore wouldn't have finished in the position it did?"
A) "Emm err :oops: "

Personally I will be asking to view race footage of any race I have a runner who finishes within half a length of earning a better cheque.
Someone needs to set precedence and challenge this ambiguous rule

it's actually a terrible rule.
you either enforce it or get rid of it.
the simple thing to do would be to take the offenders number down if it was in the money.
it's blatantly unfair for one rider to obey the rule and get beaten and another to beat it by disregarding the rule..
one day maybe it will end up in court.
just reinforces my opinion that we need a proper ruling body rather those guys over at arb, that have a long history with this sort of thing.

TheFunkster · January 2012

said:

said:
Imo it should be easy to uphold, especially if a short margin:
Q) "Why did you break the rules and whip your horse more times than allowed prior to the 100m mark?"

A) I got excited as my horse was bolting and I wanted to make a good thing of it. The funny thing is, it nearly cost me the race as he seemed to resent it and not stretch out properly from that point.

The smarter ones will have prepared answers for most eventualities.

Q) If he resented it then why did you continue to use it? :P
"The smarter ones"..... please explain? :lol:

G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

Railway Protest

Comments