Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ Mash Up & Buy Back
I don’t know about any potential conflicts of interest specifically but knowing the way the BTC operates, it would not be a surprise. I wondered if any of the Stewards have a relationship with the complainant, also it would be curious to know whether any cellular phone calls where made to a Steward from the compainant or received from a Steward by the compainant while the matter was under consideration/enquiry. That cant be too difficult to find out in Barbados and I fully expect Lord Taylor to come firing with both barrels loaded.
Perhaps a look at the 2011 Big Cap replay will help you correct this wrong
KPGM
Thanks for the information,however I would still like to know who were the stewards involved in this Gold Cup Fiasco.
I can’t answer that question exactly but what I can say is that from all reports I have received, Mr. Stephen Walcott (attorney-at-law) and Mr. Duane Burke (businessman) and Mr. Charles Leacock (DPP of Barbados) were Stewards on Gold Cup day.
Lord Taylor is no sweet bread ok?
After watching this race about seven times, from the start when apostle came across all the other horse, I can tell that trotman, was up to some dirty tricks, can the stewards disqualify apostle for this? or this is fair game in horse racing? please let us know. (2) now many years did these stewards had in judging the out come of a race of this caliber? (3) why the stewards took the race away so fast instead of imposing a fine on Jalon and trotman and let show me the money keep the cup thats all folks…..
max Goldstein
(1) There is a post a distancefrom the starting box that the horse can come over before he/she reaches that post. Apostle came over long before that post, without infringing on any of the other horses.
(2) I don’t know the actual names of the stewards for the Golg Cup but I know the stewards are chosen from a panel of stewards and ALL those who work for the Gold Cup would have been seasoned stewards. (3) The race was not taken away quickly from Show Me The Money, it took the stewards a considerably long time to make a decision because it was the first time this had happened and the magitude of the race meant that the right decision had to be made. The infringement was so serious that the stewards had no choice, had this been a regular day at the races, Samuels would have been disqualified immediately. Let’s face it he was wrong and he paid for it, it is not the end of the world and he can only learn by rectifying these mistake, just leave the young man alone and stop trying to make him feel that it is O.K to be wrong and be made right.
It is no point arguing without knowing the rules.
It is no point showing what a decision would be in another country e.g the Big Cap will not correct this wrong
It is no point arguing using the rules as you think they are or as you think you might like them to be.
Our rules are designed to protect the owner and not the punter.
We can of course argue this should be changed. I would agree.
Under our rules, it was sufficient that SMTM cost Apostle a place in the eyes of the stewards. This is hardly a controversial position to take.
That is all that is needed for his disqualification.
That is the rule as it stands.
It matters not one iota how far SMTM won by or who won on merit.
The rules do not provide for the merit winner to keep the race in such circumstances.
They provide that if you cause interference and the sufferer is denied a place as a result you shall be disqualified.
From the race booklet, the stewards are named and they do not own horses, all have experience.
There is no ‘fiasco’, all that has happened is a horse was disqualified after impeding another. And it clearly did impede the other. It is interesting to sit back and watch people attempt to make something from nothing.
The right decision was made, as the video above clearly shows. Have any of you ever ridden a horse, let alone at 35 mph and suddenly been impeded?
Bear in mind English jockey Hollan, riding behind on John Bryan, was quoted as saying that the interference was quite bad. So too did the jockey on Zoom, also behind.
So, all of these are wrong and Samuels right? Just the same way West Indies cricket throws out incompetents. Encourage them in the wrong things instead of being responsible and accepting what they did incorrectly and learning from it. Laughable. I can tell you though, what he did with Trotman, if it happened with some other jockeys, he would have ended up on the ground.
@Friendly and Racing Insider
Given your comments it makes Lord Taylor’s decision all the more puzzling.
The aggrieved owner has a right of appeal from the decision of the race day Stewards based on the Rules of Racing of the Barbados Turf Club and in law.
104 (a) When a horse or its jockey has caused interference by accident or by careless riding in any part of a race, the Steward:
(i) On an objection under Rule 114(d) shall if they are satisfied that the horse or horses which it has interfered with would not have obtained a better placing in the race, overrule the objection and order that the placing remain unalterered, or
(ii) On an objection under Rule 114(d) may if they are satisfied that the horse or horses which it interfered with would have obtained a better placing in the race, place it behind the horse or horses with which it has interfered;
(b) When a horse or its jockey has caused interference by irresponsible riding in any part of a race the Stewards shall on an objection under Rule 114(d) either:
(i) place it behind the horse or horses with which it has interfered; or
(ii) place it last;
except that the Stewards may order that the placings remain unchanged if the Judge has placed the horse behind the horse or horses with which it has interfered;
(c) When a horse or jockey has caused interference by reckless riding or foul riding in any part of the race the Stewards shall on an objection under Rule 114(d) disqualify such horse and place it last;
(d) For the purposes of application of paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of this Rule, the placings (before the consideration by the Stewards of any objection) of a horse interfered with shall be that decided by the Judge
Therefore we have to wait and see what class of infraction was the interference as determinded by the Stewards or the Judge. I am sure that Lord Taylor will rightfully demand an explanation from the Stewards as to their findings and the basis of what informed those findings, he will also be advised to seek a copy of the Stewards transcript (recorded detailed minutes) along with the patrol camera evidence (if considered by the Stewards) and the BTC will be obligated eith by way of fair play to the appellant or order of the Court to furnish such information.
From my experiece, I suspect the transcript will show that the Stewards concluded that the jockey beached the Rules of Racing of the BTC by either irrisponsible or reckless riding.
If I am correct, then the aggrieved owner (Lord Taylor) cannot seek to rely on Rules other than those in force at the time the race was run but will have to call into question the judgement of the Stewards in determining that the jockey was guilty of irresponsible or reckless riding.
Curiuosly both irresponsible and reckless riding have a mandatory penaly of either demoting the merit winner or disqualification, their is no descretion permitted when the apply the rules following a finding of irresponsible or reckless riding.
For my own part, I expect Lord Taylor to take this matter all the way to the Courts if necessary, as Melnyk did, and like in that case I fear the BTC Stewards will be found wanting.
Quart-R
It would be a sad day in horse racing in Barbados, I see this as a backward step. The two foreign jockeys in the race, who has no brief for any of the jockeys or owners, admitted that it was a serious interference, therefore if the matter is reversed, internatinal jockeys would consider riding in Barbados to be too dangerous and would refuse to ride here which would cost the Gold Cup to lose it’s international attention and maybe it’s sponsorers.
@The Scout
Why are you being an alarmist?
What happened in the race was caused by a jockey committing an infringement, in a way, it is good it has happened because it has provided the opportunity to bring transparency to the rules, and how those rules are enforced.
Racing should be better because of it.
Quart-R,
You are reading from an old rule book. 104 has since been revised.
It does not matter the class of the infringement if in the opinion of the stewards the sufferer (Apostle) was denied place money.
On ALL three classes of infringement, the horse shall be disqualified if the sufferer has been denied place money.
If Samuels is deemed guilty of reckless or irresponsible riding, in the former it matters not what happened to Apostle and in the latter it is sufficient that the interference caused Apostle to record a lower placing (obvious !) for SMTM to be disqualified.
If Samuels is deemed guilty of the lowest infringement, that of carelessness or an accident, once Apostle is denied place money (not as obvious but a very reasonable view) he shall be disqualified.
David, I suspect that Taylor is doing exactly as he says. He is obliged to his trainer and jockey to investigate it thoroughly.
I doubt he will go to court. He has no grounds unless denied a proper hearing. The court will not interfere with a stewards decision. They will interfere if a man is denied justice by a lack of a proper hearing.
Melnyk won his case in court not by proving his horse did not infringe the rules but by deficiencies in the hearing that followed.
@friendly
Ref:Comment”It is interestimg to sit back and watch people attempt to make something out of nothing”
It is not as simple as that.! trying telling that to Lord Taylor !
Friendly, for once it appears we agree.
There is no fiasco.
Hardly a controversy.
The Rules have been followed. As David would say, a little more transparency and there would be no fuss at all.
@ Racing Insider
Question 1: Did Eugene Melnyk appeal the decision the Stewards?
Question 2: If yes to #1 above, did Eugene Melnyk win the appeal to the Appelate Body of the BTC?
Qustion 3: If no to #2 above, did he take the matter to the Barbados Courts?
In general are you saying an owner or aggrieved party cannot go before the Courts in Barbados so long as he is given an hearing (by the Appelate Body of the BTC) to appeal one or both of those finding?
The argument Lord Taylor is likely to advance is whether his horse or jockey is quilty of interference or not. I certainly think Lord Taylor has a right in law to seek recourse in the Barbados Courts and more importantly providing the Courts have jurisdiction then it can substitute the decision of the Stewards an award the race to Lord Taylor if, in their opinion an injustice has occurred.
On the point, what is the benefit of automatically disqualifying a horse if not remedy is given to the objecting party. In other words, if Apostle would have placed in a better position then why are the placings not altered to place the objecting horse in a better place?
The reason, in my humble opinion, is because it is very difficult to say where any horse would have place even when accepting that it was likely to place higher but for the interference.
In BTC should and must, for the sake of tranparency, change the rule to the more accepted principle, which is that in the event the horse or jockey benefitted from that interference then that jockey or horse shall be disqualified.
It is clear that Show Me the Money did NOT improve its position from the interference, if in fact it occurred, and that is more likely that Show Me The Money would have won by a greater distance had it kept a straight line and did not hang.
Apostle was a spend force by the top of the stretch and that Anderson Trotman made a meal of the alleged interference and maybe even guilty of not riding out his horse to the benefit of the wagering public. A jockey with safety concerns does not pull up his horse, stand upright in the stirrups when there is a wall of horses behind him closing fast. This rule is being abused to the detriment of merit winners and the wagering public.
Also, I fully expect Lord Taylor to take the matter all the way to a conclusion, wherever that ends up.
If you knew how to watch a race then you would realize that Apostle, like Twirling Candy in the “Cap” was fatigued and done at the time of alleged infringement thus eventual outcome would not have been different. Clean your glasses or better yet get some!!!
Quart-R and Observer,
No, Apostle was indeed not spent. As I pointed out, Trotman had only used the whip ONCE. Indeed the suggestion that Show Me The Money would have won easier is out. Samuels beat him nine times after leaving the incident, he stretched him out full and he only won by four lengths, in front of a horse that was behind Apostle when he was hindered.
And yes, observer, I can watch races and horses and know horese very well thank you, Apostle clearly had running in him.
David
Alarmist? Sometimes you really causeme to think if you are right in your head. Did you hear the report of the two foreign jockeys? I’m sure if you did you would not have labelled me ALARMIST. The problem with a lot of you that all of a sudden every law in Barbados should be changed to suit a person or an issue, next thing all of you will want changed is the traffic laws. The point is you abide by the present rules and forget the arrogance, we don’t live in the Wild Wild West or Tombstone Country.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.