BBC Home

Explore the BBC

52 comments

user rating: 2 star

Shame on you stewards.

Flat racing
comment on the article

Disgusting. The only reason Special Duty won the 1000 Guineas is because she was one of the favourites and the Newmarket stewards should be ashamed of themselves. If anyone had their money on Special Duty, that`s not a winner to celebrate. There was marginal interference and Cecil`s horse is the worthy winner. A disgrace to racing.

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own
comment by Ron (U11298448)

posted May 2, 2010

I suspect the jockey will not be the trainer's nor the owner's best friend for a while. Clearly he should have had the whip in his right hand and there would have been no bumping, no disqualification, no ill feeling and no ban. And, no doubt about which was the better horse on the day. Sure, he might have been beaten but at least it would have been fair. Maybe the horse didn't deserve to lose but I'm afraid that the jockey did. He knows the rules and made no attempt whatsoever to correct the situation; in fact he switched his whip from his right hand just prior to the incident. I felt sorry for the connections losing like that. I think they would have rather lost in a photo without the stewards' enquiry.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 2, 2010

Lets put things ito context here. I bet the owners where hoping for a place at best for their 66/1 shot. The fact that he was involved in the highly controversial finish must have been mind blowing to Martin. Fair enough races should have their rules but im sure if Special Duty was anything 'special' he would have beat JQ fair and square and not be awarded the race just because the other horse had caused him to stray off a straight line. If Special Duty was forced off line then obviously JQ was off a straight line also so if both horses had stayed straight then surely JQ would have held on.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Tamerlo (U2388592)

posted May 2, 2010

I'm sorry, Craig, but I can't agree with your logic.
The outcome- as far as I'm concerned- has nothing to do with "how special" the French horse was, nor the transgressions of Queally (although the latter matters to the stewards).
If I run against you, say, in a hundred metres sprint- and lean on you, it's fair to assume that you're suffering more than me by having your impetus checked and suffering my weight pressing on you- as opposed to the opposite . It's academic whether I could have done better by running in a straight line.
Unfortunate though it is, it's fair to say that to let Cecil's horse keep the race would have been more unfair than disqualifying it- when only inches were involved.
I admit that some stewards in the past have "let the result stand" for far worse interference, but that shouldn't relate to the merits of a "one-off decision."

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 2, 2010

Exactly,Tamerlo.....it's not really rocket science,and Criquette Head must have been anticipating "payback" for the occasions in France,where an English-trained horse has either been demoted from 1st place or denied being promoted from 2nd place when involved in Stewards Inquiries with the locally trained horses !!

Justice was done....in the end !!

<smiley>

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 3, 2010

The article writer is completely out of order with the styling of his comments. The decision by the stewards was a just and fair one. I accept that there are people who would disagree, but there is no excuse for this sort of bile.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Joanna (U1673675)

posted May 3, 2010

IMO it wasn't the right decision and was overly harsh. I agree Quealy should of had a ban, but the horse shouldn't of been thrown out. I am with John Francome on this one, the best horse on the day won. At no point did Special Duty's stride stop or her jockey have to stop riding. Her jockey was living in a fantasy land with his comments he would of won easy. Jaqueline's Quest would of been the winner had she drifted or not, and also if they had gone any further. Unfortunately it looks like we are turning into the French stewards where no race riding is allowed. There was minimal interference, if you can even call it that. It was an over dramatic decision, which I hope wasn't swayed by the fact they didn't want a 66/1 outsider to win such a prestigios race rather than the favourite.

And before anyone jumps on my back about pocket talk. I backed Special Duty.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 3, 2010

Can someone clear something up for me.

It appeared to me that Queally had his whip in the "correct" hand initially, attempted to use it to straighten up the horse, which continued to hang into the whip. he then switched to the other hand and the horse continued to hang in the same direction.

Now I'm no jockey but I have heard it said that some horses will hang "into the whip" ie run the opposite way to that which a jockey would expect. In these circumstances Queally's switch of hands could be justified.

Anyone else have a view on this?

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Joanna (U1673675)

posted May 4, 2010

Interesting poll was conducted in Racing Post on Sunday. 51% Agreed with decision 49% didn't. Show's how torn people are over it.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Joanna (U1673675)

posted May 4, 2010

Ellandbackagain you are absolutely right to of spotted that.

The horse was running into the whip, which for me is why Queally switched it, unfortunately for him the horse continued to hang. IMO hankering for the company and something to race against, as soon as she met with SD (minimally) she raced again, and the French filly had no answer in which to get by her. With what happened behind, the farce of so many horses affected by the ground/draw bias, and the battling qualities shown by JQ, I would not be surprised if SD doesn't win another race, especially over here. My namesake has already beaten her comprehensively.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 16.67%
    1 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 83.33%
    5 votes

average rating:
1.67 from 6 votes