G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 8 Non Members

GP 3/5 Race For The Roses Standing Start Race 9

Harness & Greyhounds

Comments

  • JayJayJayJay    5,331 posts
    Markovina said:


    Interesting runner at Bunbury tonight - last race - no 11 Shadows Image - 1st up for 2 years - decent stable - no trials - shocking field  $151 and $19 the place - but theve got G Hall jnr driving - just for fun ive had $15 the win and $5 the place - that driving engagement intrigues me - watched one of its runs at GP about 2 years ago - its got some ability

    Ironically Marko, from the Boom Or Bust family.....Pure Steel is the sire off Boom Baby Boom.
  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    1,462 posts
    btw ...not knocking OAOH earlier ....very good mare but she has been guilty of some tractability issues leading to below par performances so I don't think that against the best opposition she is ever a good thing..

  • MarkovinaMarkovina    1,093 posts
    JayJay said:

    Markovina said:


    Interesting runner at Bunbury tonight - last race - no 11 Shadows Image - 1st up for 2 years - decent stable - no trials - shocking field  $151 and $19 the place - but theve got G Hall jnr driving - just for fun ive had $15 the win and $5 the place - that driving engagement intrigues me - watched one of its runs at GP about 2 years ago - its got some ability

    Ironically Marko, from the Boom Or Bust family.....Pure Steel is the sire off Boom Baby Boom.
    Junior hung on like a rodeo horse for half a lap - then the inevitable happened - that thing was uncontrollable

    JayJay likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    5,331 posts
    He was keen alright, charged of the gate. Pierre from 4 back the pegs charged home like Quinnie, bolted in like a good horse off a handy steer.
  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    1,779 posts
    Curmudgeon, Our Angel of Harlem beat Rosies when it led untroubled and Our Angel of Harlem looked fatter than me.
  • JayJayJayJay    5,331 posts
    Yes it did Chariots....by less than a head but in my opinion, Rosies better suited not leading but its one of those circular arguments. More importantly, you are close to the camp I think, is Angel Of Harlem okay?...results aside, she is an awfully nice mare and the owners have made a pretty big investment in harness racing, so hopefully all good.
  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    1,462 posts
    You have been in a real good paddock though Chariots. I don't think there is much between those two at their best. Our Angel Of Harlem is a bit peculiar at times though.....she cruised around them on friday until she got half a length on the leader then wanted to knock off. Mark had to get after her a bit to force her to run to the top. No condition to report after the vet post race so a bit of a mystery. When Chop angled her inside the pegs ......she threw out an anchor Popeye couldn't lift.
  • MarkovinaMarkovina    1,093 posts

    Curmudgeon, Our Angel of Harlem beat Rosies when it led untroubled and Our Angel of Harlem looked fatter than me.

    Yeah Chariots - but your theory on how that race would have panned out - is like Horse no 12 in race 1 at Hobart harness tonight
  • MoonrakerMoonraker    44 posts
    what was the handicapping error?
  • MorganJamesMorganJames    139 posts
    Handicapping error im led to believe is that the Winner Miss Sangrial should have been off 30 meters not 20 meters
  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    1,779 posts
    JayJay said:

    Yes it did Chariots....by less than a head but in my opinion, Rosies better suited not leading but its one of those circular arguments. More importantly, you are close to the camp I think, is Angel Of Harlem okay?...results aside, she is an awfully nice mare and the owners have made a pretty big investment in harness racing, so hopefully all good.

    Suspensory I believe.
  • JayJayJayJay    5,331 posts
    Lousy luck, I read the choked down report but she didn't appear to be pulling that hard in front. Nice mare, hope she gets back.

    Can't believe that they would incorrectly handicap Miss Sangrial, surely not.

    VillageKid likes this post.

  • 2lifetimewinners2lifetimewinners    368 posts
    When you sack the only handicapper with an ounce of idea and put yes men and little minions in his place this is what you get
    Reap what you Sow

    TrackBias, Kane_26, Offthebit, VillageKid likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    5,331 posts
    Just thinking out loud but IF the handicap was incorrect, would the connections of the 2nd horse have a case to claim the winning stake? Would that make Miss Sangrial ineligible? Would they have to pay out two winning stakes? If it is true, it unearths a potential can of worms. That said, there is no doubt Miss Sangrial won the race fair and square and it isn't them  at fault for contesting and winning as it it presented.
  • JayJayJayJay    5,331 posts
    Was listening to Racing Radio this morning and "they" were talking about the incorrect handicap assigned to Miss Sangrial....and that the extra 10m handicap that Miss Sangrial should have had would not have affected the result. I am not sure how you could possibly reach such a  hypothetical conclusion. They further remarked that it was remarkable that the handicapper did not pick up on the error. My understanding is, and I will happily stand corrected on this, is that there isn't a Harness Racing Handicapper subsequent to Warren Wishart's position being made redundant under the previous reign of Harness Racing Manager Barry Hamilton, and that field selection is now handled by 2 other persons in the Harness Office.
    Gareth Hall  further commented that he thought that the Race For The Roses standing start handicap should have had the entire field all off the front, with two lines, a front and back line. Perhaps, it was just a thought bubble but a fairly shallow one in my opinion.With the current criteria for the race (as explained to me over the phone last Friday week) not including standing start form as a consideration in obtaining a start, and with 8 of the 12 acceptors having never started in a standing start race, I will put on my hypothetical hat and suggest that 2 lines all off the front would be a recipe for chaos. A lot of the horses that were "qualified from the stand" had achieved that status in a rush to the trials in the weeks preceding the race to complete a "jump out" from the stand, in many instances with just a few runners (as little as 3 or 4) around them and any fair overview of that situation must conclude that there is a vast difference between a jump out at a trial to a full blown race in a field of 12 on race night. I think the potential for galloping horses to cause interference from 2 rows all off the front would be almost certain. As it was, 3 horses galloped out ....at least spread over 50m, there was the chance to avoid any miscreants. Some horses (mine included) were denied a start in spite of having impeccable recent stand manners and form and I would think that for a standing start race, that must hold some sway. I was informed that wasn't the case and that city form was the factor that determined the make up of the field. I would like to think that in the future, there may be a change in thinking on how to select standing start fields ....but Gareth, it is a HANDICAP race....the all of the front mobile affairs with a RBD are not by any stretch of the imagination a "handicap". And before someone suggests otherwise, no, I don't think my horse could have won the race, she would have been very competitive but because of the criteria surrounding the field selection, she wasn't afforded the opportunity to compete.  This whole Race For The Roses situation has been most unfortunate, not a good look for Harness Racing and I would hope a scenario that is not repeated. I am hopeful that RWWA will be looking to tidy up what has been a messy affair.
    None of this would seem to be the fault of either the Miss Sangrial or Back To The Beach camp and perhaps a fair outcome may be to pay out winning stakes to both?? I don't know what the answer is, I am just suggesting that with proper checks and balances, it was avoidable.

    VillageKid, Ridersonthestorm33 likes this post.

  • MarkovinaMarkovina    1,093 posts
    Im not anti standing starts( i use  to like backing the square gaitors off big handicaps )  - why i am negative on them - is as outlined above - they dont have proper qualifying rules - feature race - dont even need to have a standstart - and jumpouts hey - not a true test - farcical

    Re the wrong handicap- if i was the 2nd horse - id want 1stprize - and when we had that terrible episode ( happened about 10 times ) where the judge put the wrong numbers for the placings ( and TAB dividends were paid out on those errors ) the connections would advise the stewards and say -my horse actually ran 2nd not 3rd - and i expect to be paid 2nd prizemoney - and in every case they got it

    Ridersonthestorm33 likes this post.

  • maybesomaybeso    10 posts

    HARNESS STEWARDS INQUIRY RACE FOR ROSES

     HARNESS


    The Stewards have been notified by the Racing Office of a handicapping error in the Race For Roses at Gloucester Park on Friday 3 May, 2019. 

    A Stewards investigation will be undertaken and further advice provided in the near future.

    Ridersonthestorm33 likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    5,331 posts
    Miss Sangrial disqualified from the Race For The Roses after handicapping error.
  • maybesomaybeso    10 posts

    On Saturday 18 May 2019 RWWA Stewards opened an Inquiry into the
    circumstances surrounding MISS SANGRIAL racing in Race 9 at Gloucester
    Park on Friday 3 May 2019 starting from a 20 metre handicap.

    Under the conditions of the ‘Level 9’ standing start race horses with
    a HWOE of 55,000 to 69,999 are handicapped off 20 metres and horses
    with a HWOE of 70,000 to 84,999 are handicapped off 30 metres.

    The inquiry heard that MISS SANGRIAL had been nominated for the race
    on Monday 29 April and was handicapped in the system at the 20m mark on
    HWOE $66,163.50. MISS SANGRIAL then raced at Pinjarra that same day and
    won $4,483.50, increasing its HWOE to $70,647.00.

    The Harvey system automatically calculated the change to MISS
    SANGRIAL’s HWOE however the system is not designed to automatically
    re-handicap standing start marks.  This is a manual task undertaken by
    the Handicappers.

    When preparing the field for the Race for Roses the Handicapper
    failed to check if this horse had raced and won at the race meeting on
    the Monday and therefore the 20m handicap mark applied at nomination was
    not altered to reflect the recent win.

    After hearing evidence from Trainer/Part Owner Michael Brennan and
    Part Owner Michael Maxwell the Inquiry was adjourned to permit Stewards
    to fully consider all relevant matters.

    After carefully considering all evidence including the handicapping
    conditions of the race, the evidence of the mare’s connections and the
    race itself stewards disqualified MISS SANGRIAL from the Laurie Kennedy
    Race For Roses Fillies and Mares SS Pace acting under HRR 64.

  • MarkovinaMarkovina    1,093 posts
    The onus - who is   it on the trainer - if you win a race after nominations have been made - is there a rule stating that

    Mentioned it once before - Wayne Honan many many years ago had a horse called New Mexico - drew the front in a stand at HP - Doing the prelim - he said to the steward - my horse won a stand during the week - i think im on the wrong mark - the stewards promptly rehandicapped him to 10 metres - or it might have been 12 yards - thats how long ago it was

    Maybe Brennan if he was aware that his horse after winning that race midweek ( thats why i ask is there a rule - and who the onus is on ) should have informed the stewards that his horse should start off 30 metres- or if the handicapper makes a mistake - thats the clubs fault - and the trainer doesnt have to become a quasi handicapper - to pick him up on his error

    Betonme, VillageKid likes this post.

  • BetonmeBetonme    133 posts
    Wow. If I was the owner, id be devastated. Doesn't sit right with me that the onus be on the trainer rather than the system. 

    Kane_26, Offthebit, VillageKid likes this post.

  • savethegamesavethegame    1,435 posts
    No blame attached to the trainer he nominated for a race he was eligible for,,not his fault the handicapper put the horse on 20m not 30m, looks like no-one has picked up on it till after the race, but if it was simple as...………. hypothetical. 80 rater off 20m prior to its pinjarra win, and becames 85 rater after its win which makes its hcp.30m lot easier to follow then hwoe blah blah hwoe, which  why it had to start off 30m...………... bet it would have come to someones attention prior to the race…using the rating system…  .
  • ToepuntitToepuntit    209 posts
    Pi** poor, clearly the blame should lie with a incompetent handicapper, if it were my horse I’d be after said handicapper for the stake money,
    Negligence

    Offthebit, Kane_26, VillageKid, Cant_Refuse likes this post.

  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    1,779 posts
    Not a god situation but I understand that the stake money was paid to the connections of Miss Sangrial.

    So to put it in perspective connections have received the stake money, not been penalized under HWOE but the win will not appear on Miss Sangrial's career record.

    As I said far from ideal but in the end fair to all parties.
  • Ridersonthestorm33Ridersonthestorm33    9,663 posts
    Sounds like all's well that end's well Chariots...well sort of. Was full stake money paid to the runner up and right down the line ? Am taking it was.

    Punter's who backed the winner all beer and skittles. If on the runner up - they are shafted. That's why the onus lies not on Miss Sangrial's connections but the people running the show.

    Miss Sangrial still may have won - but try telling that to runner up punter's. Do they have a case ? Their wouldn't be a judge in the world that wouldn't say yes. But alas will never get that far and be swept under the carpet and then placed in the punter's shafted file cabinet.

    No apologies above to punter's who were on others in the race ? No ? Funny that. There the least of their worries.

    VillageKid likes this post.

  • Ridersonthestorm33Ridersonthestorm33    9,663 posts
    edited May 25
    As far as Wayne Honan and New Mexico back in time - oh yes that's great I've had 200 bananas on New Mexico at 5 o'clock and now in the prelim 3 mins before start time am told as a punter I'm going back ten metres.

    Envisage having 1k ( inflation haha ) on Miss Sangrial and the driver or connections then saying "look stewards I should be back a further ten metres".

    Rehandicapping a horse in preliminary. Oh seriously. Cmmmmmmmmon. They ( must have ) thought as little of punter's back then as they do now.

    Next day - "mate I had a big bet on Miss Sangrial how did she go ?"
    Reply " ran second - beaten a nose but was rehandicapped back ten metres in the prelim"
    Silence.

    VillageKid, sonny likes this post.

  • getthechangegetthechange    114 posts

    Sounds like all's well that end's well Chariots...well sort of. Was full stake money paid to the runner up and right down the line ? Am taking it was.

    Punter's who backed the winner all beer and skittles. If on the runner up - they are shafted. That's why the onus lies not on Miss Sangrial's connections but the people running the show.

    Miss Sangrial still may have won - but try telling that to runner up punter's. Do they have a case ? Their wouldn't be a judge in the world that wouldn't say yes. But alas will never get that far and be swept under the carpet and then placed in the punter's shafted file cabinet.

    No apologies above to punter's who were on others in the race ? No ? Funny that. There the least of their worries.



    stuff up that should have been picked up but disagree with you  that punters were shafted

    Miss Sangrial was assessed by punters as being off 20m and  she started from 20m so their assessment doesn`t change- if she had been down to start off 30m and punters had assessed her off 30m and then she had started from 20m then I would agree with you

    sonny, Cant_Refuse, Betonme likes this post.

  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    1,779 posts
    The full $30,000 has been distributed after the disqualification of Miss Sangrial so I assume RWWA picked up the Tab.

    So far as the betting is concerned the rules of racing in all codes are very clear that no challenge can be made once correct weight has been declared. on rare occasions ex gratia payments have been made but are not compulsory.

    Legal action would be doomed to failure similar to punters taking action against a trainer of a winner that has returned a positive swab. Correct weight is the end of the argument so far as betting is concerned.
  • Ridersonthestorm33Ridersonthestorm33    9,663 posts
    Yes understand all that chariots, since I was seven.

    I'm missing the point : what mark did Miss Sangrial step from ? What mark should she have stepped from ?

  • rooster321rooster321    168 posts
    Started from 20 should of been 30
Sign In or Register to comment.