G'day Punter!

Sign In Register

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 118 Non Members

Well Done Stewards

West Australian Racing

Comments

  • careycarey    6,424 posts
    said:

    I thought this might have died down by now, but I have had people ring me this afternoon on it and this morning at trials, everyone had an opinion, and no two were the same. They were either dismissed or upheld, but the reasoning was different in every single case.

    The one consensus was the vision on hand seems to be lacking in its ability to put matters beyond a reasonable doubt and into no doubt at all that this is what happened. But that requires investment from RWWA or the host club or both. In an age of digital vision, where a Melbourne Cup winner can be declared with a margin that 10 years ago would have been a dead heat, we here in Perth have the technical ability to match that of the early 90's at best, it would appear.

    So if folks want to want to argue, lets argue over something we can change so that in the future this sort of incident doesn't get repeated regularly.

    you are half right, they need the equipment.
    it beggars belief that you can't properly see what happens on the home bend, arguably the place they would need it the most
    it also beggars belief that stewards can infer what they CAN'T SEE.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    but carey, surely thats why they interview the jocks involved? to paint the picture?

    you can go to a court of law without video evidence....and hence you take evidence from witnesses to figure out what happened?

    Id love to see the whole protest on tape....that would make for interesting viewing!
    +1 -1
  • lets_elopelets_elope    299 posts
    One more time as we are not arguing direct interference but rather referred or indirect interference in this instance they need to be 100% certain to uphold that protest, acting on hearsay and supposition is unprefessional and simply not good enough, if they have in fact based their decision upon jockey testimony when all the vision shown has proven totally inconclusive.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    thats not true. our legal system is based on evidence given by witnesses. You dont "need" video evidence in our courts of law, but it can help.
    In this case, you "may" be right, the video did not conclusively say.

    Hypothetical: What if......Marco says "i didnt shift in". Harvey says "Marco didnt shift in".
    Harvey says "mcevoy shifted out and took my ground".
    Mcevoy says "i shifted out slightly".

    then, whether you can see it on the video or not, you have enough evidence to infer where and when the interference was caused.

    The above is all hypothetical ofcourse as none of us could hear 100% of what was said in the stewards room.
    +1 -1
  • DarkDark    909 posts
    said:

    thats not true. our legal system is based on evidence given by witnesses. You dont "need" video evidence in our courts of law, but it can help.
    In this case, you "may" be right, the video did not conclusively say.

    Hypothetical: What if......Marco says "i didnt shift in". Harvey says "Marco didnt shift in".
    Harvey says "mcevoy shifted out and took my ground".
    Mcevoy says "i shifted out slightly".

    then, whether you can see it on the video or not, you have enough evidence to infer where and when the interference was caused.

    The above is all hypothetical ofcourse as none of us could hear 100% of what was said in the stewards room.

    Some logic to the argument - how refreshing.
    +1 -1
  • joneseejonesee    715 posts
    Diva are you serious.... sorry mate but thats a nightmare--it is not a court of law and we just dont have time to call in special experts, trainers, psychologists etc etc. Lets Elope is right ---to uphold the protest in the case of incidental interference the stewards NEED to be bloody sure--- and given the vision they could not be! regardless of what the various hoops may or may not have said.
    +1 -1
  • DarkDark    909 posts
    said:

    Diva are you serious.... sorry mate but thats a nightmare--it is not a court of law and we just dont have time to call in special experts, trainers, psychologists etc etc. Lets Elope is right ---to uphold the protest in the case of incidental interference the stewards NEED to be bloody sure--- and given the vision they could not be! regardless of what the various hoops may or may not have said.

    Jonesee - read Diva's post again. He's saying in the absence of vision you make the most of what is available to you, the witnesses, a la every court room in Australia.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    why do you think they interview jockeys paul?
    to gather evidence ofcourse! Its not for entertainment value!

    add to that:

    how do you think they decided protests in the old days when there was not 20 different cameras?
    +1 -1
  • joneseejonesee    715 posts
    said:

    why do you think they interview jockeys paul?
    to gather evidence ofcourse! Its not for entertainment value!

    add to that:

    how do you think they decided protests in the old days when there was not 20 different cameras?

    20 different cameras --- seems like we have 2 in perth!

    What did they really think maroc chui was gonna say?
    they had vision --- just inconclusive vision and to uphold a protest with
    INCIDENTAL interference..they need more than circumstantial evidence they needed to have concrete vision to uphold it...they should have dismissed the protest
    +1 -1
  • joneseejonesee    715 posts
    said:

    why do you think they interview jockeys paul?
    to gather evidence ofcourse! Its not for entertainment value!

    add to that:

    how do you think they decided protests in the old days when there was not 20 different cameras?

    in the old days seems to me irrelevant ---in the old days there was bugger all drug testing and it was a different time
    +1 -1
  • careycarey    6,424 posts
    said:

    but carey, surely thats why they interview the jocks involved? to paint the picture?

    you can go to a court of law without video evidence....and hence you take evidence from witnesses to figure out what happened?

    Id love to see the whole protest on tape....that would make for interesting viewing!

    so you depend on jockey's being entirely truthful in a million dollar race and then say how much it cost them.
    that would be farcical, for several reasons, not the least being,.....their perception could be ENTIRELY WRONG, even if they truly believed it to be so.

    as for the protest i have everything that was shown on sky world, but it is a huge file even compressed.
    so if you want it then you think of a way.
    +1 -1
  • careycarey    6,424 posts
    said:

    Diva are you serious.... sorry mate but thats a nightmare--it is not a court of law and we just dont have time to call in special experts, trainers, psychologists etc etc. Lets Elope is right ---to uphold the protest in the case of incidental interference the stewards NEED to be bloody sure--- and given the vision they could not be! regardless of what the various hoops may or may not have said.

    yes, LE IS correct, as are you.
    +1 -1
  • DarkDark    909 posts
    Sorry lads but this is descending into a farce.

    Why even bother bringing in the jockeys?
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    never have i made a comment which way i think the decision should have gone.
    what i did say is that you dont need to rely on the video when there are witnesses.
    im still to hear anyone make comment about what Harvey's evidence was. I think it would be crucial.
    +1 -1
  • LuckyLongshotsLuckyLongshots    4,270 posts
    I'm not sure they could have had enough vision to make everyone happy with their decision.

    Because if I say the sky is Blue, someone will say it is Turquoise, someone else will say it is Cyan, and another will say it is Light Blue - see the problem here - no decision no matter how much anyone thinks is right or wrong - could ever give 100% of people satisfaction!
    +1 -1
  • joneseejonesee    715 posts
    said:

    never have i made a comment which way i think the decision should have gone.
    what i did say is that you dont need to rely on the video when there are witnesses.
    im still to hear anyone make comment about what Harvey's evidence was. I think it would be crucial.

    Diva -- harvey protested 4th against first.
    +1 -1
  • tonytony    2,436 posts
    said:

    never have i made a comment which way i think the decision should have gone.
    what i did say is that you dont need to rely on the video when there are witnesses.
    im still to hear anyone make comment about what Harvey's evidence was. I think it would be crucial.

    The other factor would be evidence from the stewards who were around the course
    +1 -1
  • careycarey    6,424 posts
    said:

    said:

    never have i made a comment which way i think the decision should have gone.
    what i did say is that you dont need to rely on the video when there are witnesses.
    im still to hear anyone make comment about what Harvey's evidence was. I think it would be crucial.

    The other factor would be evidence from the stewards who were around the course
    yeah, and i'm sure they saw it all in the finest detail!
    +1 -1
  • HenleyBrookHenleyBrook    408 posts
    I am with Carey, Jonesee and Lets Elope on this one. The benefit of the doubt should have been given to He's Remarkable. The stewards in their right mind need to be 100% convinced with their decision. From the footage displayed and the evidence given, how can one deliver a stone cold verdict on this. I reckon they should have put this case in the too hard basket and let it be. To make things clear i am a close friend of Donger's and i am happy he had got the chocolates.
    +1 -1
  • wedgewedge    269 posts
    edited November 2011
    dont know if anyone has noticed, but viewing the railway on the youtube replay shown on perthracing website is missing a few 1/100ths of time? :?
    +1 -1
  • LuckyLongshotsLuckyLongshots    4,270 posts
    said:

    dont know if anyone has noticed, but viewing the railway on the youtube replay shown on perthracing website is missing a few 1/100ths of time, conveniently at the exact time of the incident. watch the timer, easy to see. hard to draw conclusions from that footage :?

    Nothing suss - but the timer is breaking up throughout the whole race, stuttering the best way to describe it, but can't see any frames missing!
    +1 -1
  • wedgewedge    269 posts
    said:

    said:

    dont know if anyone has noticed, but viewing the railway on the youtube replay shown on perthracing website is missing a few 1/100ths of time, conveniently at the exact time of the incident. watch the timer, easy to see. hard to draw conclusions from that footage :?

    Nothing suss - but the timer is breaking up throughout the whole race, stuttering the best way to describe it, but can't see any frames missing!
    ah thanks, and my computer is f#$#ed....
    +1 -1
Sign In or Register to comment.