WHAT A JOKE

[fat choy]

Macau gold cup today.

[hobbes]

better if you tell us why it was a joke else your post is meaningless.

[fat choy]

Interesting outcome from the protest and enquiry being second against first both horses being stablemates, both owned and trained by the same connections. Protest sustained...first past the post won by 2.5 lengths going away, eventual winner seemed only to be slightly inconvenienced.

[Homer J.]

ah Macau.....felonious one day - opprobrium the next :cool:

[hobbes]

Wednesday, May 29, 2002 ON THE RAILS
Macau a loser if bill to prop up turnover succeeds ALAN AITKEN
It will be interesting to know what, if any, notice is taken by punters of last week's Gambling (Amendment) Bill, but the only potential serious loser does look to be Macau.
Racing there continues to go forward, but not without the occasional step backwards. One Hong Kong-based reader has written to this column angry at last Sunday's goings-on over no less a race than the Macau Gold Cup, probably the season's second-ranking event. A protest by Glen Boss on the 2.25-length second placegetter and strong favourite, Gibson, was upheld against the 12-1 chance Nickson (John Didham) and might have resulted in the burning down of a grandstand had it happened in Hong Kong.
Now the margin did not tell the full story, as Gibson came from well behind Nickson to get within a half-length of him at the 150-metre mark, before Didham's mount cut off Gibson against the outside fence. The interference was clear but the major question was whether the stewards felt Gibson was going to keep on making ground or had come to the end of its run.
The Macau Jockey Club member said: "If this was, indeed, a decision made out of impartiality, here is one member of the MJC who is handing in his badge and strongly suggests that as this has become a boys club for a privileged few, it's time that ordinary punters give this Club and its paltry efforts at being a reputable racing organisation a very wide berth."
With the new gambling laws coming into force on Friday, the Macau Jockey Club does not need matters like these discouraging its punters. The Club faces a serious test as the Gambling Bill changes included some specific wording with regard to television coverage, and it is hard to see how these changes won't hurt.
No one may "for the purposes of dissemination or distribution in Hong Kong to the public or a section of the public, broadcast any forecast, hint, odds or tip relating to guessing or foretelling the result of, or contingency regarding any horse, pony or dog race at any time within 12 hours before the conduct of that race."
So no prices, tips or even comments positive or negative on the ATV Macau racing telecasts, at which this section appears to have been specifically targeted and against which it appears very much enforceable. The commentary should be riveting, but all this banned information will still be available on the MJC Website.
A huge proportion of Macau owners live in Hong Kong, but can't legally have a bet on their own horseracing in the same country, China, unless they ring a friend in Macau to place the bet, in which case they will not break any law. All very confusing and bound to bring some police reluctance to chase decent local citizens, while the overseas operators might be arrested if they arrive in Hong Kong.
Quite rightly, the whole thing has been criticised as unenforceable and not much more than a government policy statement, and similar laws in Australia and the United States have done little good.
But apart from harming Macau racing, what the law will do is stop William Hill or Ladbrokes opening up Hong Kong offices getting a foothold and touting for business from the small punters these organisations want - "big" British bookies are hesitant to meet bets much larger than $500 on Hong Kong racing.
The panacea for dropping tote turnover? Hardly. But the amendment may be the first step on the road.

[masun]

Now the margin did not tell the full story, as Gibson came from well behind Nickson to get within a half-length of him at the 150-metre mark, before Didham's mount cut off Gibson against the outside fence. The interference was clear but the major question was whether the stewards felt Gibson was going to keep on making ground or had come to the end of its run.
Sounds like a Macau version of the Exceptional affair!
The important question is how were similar cases ruled in the past? My understanding is that in the UK any form of interference can cause a horse to be disqualified. In HK, we take the winning margin into account. How about Macau before this incident?

[hobbes]

really it is a bit more extreme than the exceptional affair given the 2.5L margin. ( and the fact the protesting horse was supposedly favourite and owned and trained by same connections ).

[Seabiscuit]

Good to see Macau is taking a USA approach to protests.
I cannot see the problem here. The fact that the owners were the same can be argued both ways in terms of any implications for the protest result. But I think it is a positive sign to see a protest upheld in a major race (major race by Macau standards). Usually in places where the margin is relevant the protest is dismissed 99 times out of 100 in a big race. The stewards just say anything and dismiss the protest as they feel bad about taking the major prize off the first horse past the post. Jockeys who ignore the rules of racing and ride for the pot of gold at the end of the race have an unfair advantage. It is fairer and simpler to say that if you break the rules of racing and interfere with another runner you are disqualified no matter what. Suddenly jockeys will start respecting each other's safety like they do in the USA. Protests will be less problematic as as stewards will have one less issue to consider. Also whether you physically interfered with another runner is easier to determine than the somewhat abstract issue of whether the interference affected the result.
I think a strict protest rule is good at least in big races. If Macau's rulebook says differently it should be amended to reflect the USA position. This is a golden opportunity to change the rules if they need changing.

[masun]

It is fairer and simpler to say that if you break the rules of racing and interfere with another runner you are disqualified no matter what.
In fact what are the rules in the US? Say a horse interfered another horse at the jump, and won the race by 20 lengths, will the horse still be disqualified?

[imaufo]

yes.

[thefonz]

I was told yesterday by a Macau client that the interference did not look accidental but deliberate. The jockey recieved a 10 meeting suspension for deliberate interference.

[thefonz]

I just found the following on the macau race sight.
Following the running of this race, the "Enquiry" sign was semaphored. At the same time, the Stewards also considered an objection lodged by Jockey G Boss (2nd placed horse) against Nixon (J Didham) being declared the winner for alleging interference over the final 250 metres. Evidence disclosed that over the final 250 metres, Nixon continuously shifted ground outwards crowding Gibson and from the 150 metres to the 100 metres, Gibson was unbalanced when racing tight between Nixon and the outside running rail. Then at the 100 metres, Jockey J Didham then looked to the outside with Nixon again shifting out with Gibson having insufficient galloping room between Nixon and the outside running rail and having to be steadied. In the opinion of the Stewards, Jockey J Didham's ride over the final 250 metres affected the result of the race, as such the objection was upheld and the placings amended to read as follows:
1st Gibson (G Boss)
2nd Nixon (J Didham)
3rd New Glory (J Byrne)
4th So Happy (Apprentice C C Chao)
After consideration, Jockey J Didham was found guilty to a charge under MJC Rule of Racing 132(i) for riding in an improper manner in that over the final 250 metres, he looked outwards on three occasions and took his mount out unnecessarily crowding Gibson between the 150 to the 100 metres. Then at the 100 metres after again looking to the outside allowed his mount to shift out taking the rightful running of Gibson. He was subsequently suspended from riding in races for a period of 11 racemeetings commencing after Tuesday, 28 May 2002. He may resume riding on Wednesday, 3 July 2002.

[fat choy]

Fonz the stewards report states CAUSED GIBSON TO STEADY. do you think that is worth two and a quarter lengths. And 11 days for improper riding.

[Seabiscuit]

TO MASUN:
The rules of racing vary in the USA from state to state. I cannot quote them directly as I don't have them to hand. However after years of watching USA racing it is clear that the general rule is that if you cause interference by running off your line etc you are demoted and placed behind any runner you interfered with. In general it seems that the winning margin etc is irrelevant. And yes, as imaufo says, in your example the 20 length winner would lose the race. I actually saw this at Philadelphia Park a few years back. A horse won easily but was then disqualified for causing interference at the jump. The horse it bumped ran nowhere. I also saw last year's Hollywood Gold Cup (Grade 1 race) winner disqualified after it won by about 4 lengths. The horse it interfered with was going nowhere at the time and ran a weakening 4th or 5th. The interference was really a mere brush as the winner ran in towards the running rail from the outside in the stretch. The winner was demoted to 4th or 5th. In other countries where the margin is relevant there would not have been even the hint of a protest.
There are few references to protest rules in books. However I am sure Andy Beyer touches on them once or twice in his books. He tells the story of him getting a winner home and winning $10000. However a protest was lodged and Beyer's horse lost the race. The horse that was interfered with was well beaten. He punched a hole in the wall of the press box in anger and frustration. The other journalists put a frame around the hole and added the inscription "Beyer's Hole". The reason Beyer was so angry was he felt the situation was unjust as the interference had no bearing on the result.

[imaufo]

Question mark over future of Macau racing 31 May 2002
By Phillip Quay
Racing in Macau - one of the biggest export markets for New Zealand horses - is facing an uncertain future.
Macau-based New Zealand racing commentator Bruce Sherwin said a new law passed by the Hong Kong Government has banned its people from off-shore telephone and internet betting as from today.
"There is no doubt such a law is going to hit hard on Macau's racing industry where up to 50 per cent of its betting turnover has come from Hong Kong residents," he said. "But I don't believe it will force a total closure of racing in Macau."
"Such a law is absurd and I'm sure it will be challenged through the courts and is going to cause a lot of backlash from within and outside of Hong Kong," Sherwin said.
Sherwin said Macau officials were anticipating the original downturn in betting turnovers on its meetings in the next few weeks could be as much as 20 per cent.
The Macau club is expected to try to maintain stakes at existing levels but if the turnovers continued to fall it will be under increasing pressure to reduce prize-money.
"The betting ban could not have come at a worse time for Macau as generally our biggest turnovers of the year occur when Hong Kong racing shuts down for a break in a couple of weeks time," said Sherwin.
Cambridge-based bloodstock agent Stuart Hale said the Macau situation will be of major concern to New Zealand.
"It is one of our larger thoroughbred export markets especially for trials winners," Hale said.
"I've been told to stop purchasing horses for Macau at present until the picture becomes a lot clearer," Hale said.
Sherwin said that up to 25 per cent of the horse population in Macau are New Zealand-breds.
The Macau Jockey Club is the second largest employer of people in Macau.

[masun]

Cambridge-based bloodstock agent Stuart Hale said the Macau situation will be of major concern to New Zealand. "It is one of our larger thoroughbred export markets especially for trials winners," Hale said.
Trial winners!!!

[hobbes]

quite so masun. i very much doubt the WA fix was an isolated one and i would guess that the NZ racing authorities are far more lax than the already lax Aust ones ( no bookies and much lower turnover so not too much incentive to get up to mischief ).
hence it would not surprise me at all if some winners of trials in NZ did not win on their merits.
re the macau gold cup, it is certainly very unusual for a horse beaten 2.5L to have a protest upheld so i have some sympathy for that case.
despite the somewhat ludicrous protests seabiscuit has quoted i do tend to favour the american style where the horse who transgresses gets relegated without the near certainty that the other horse would have won the race.

[baldric]

There's been plenty of Asian-based owners who purchased NZ and Aussie trial winners (for inflated money) only to realise later they obviously had some help - either medically or from the opposition. Oops...buyer beware!

[thefonz]

To Fat Choy: You started this discussion with nothing to offer.
Did he only have to steady? You only seem to see what you want to.
"Evidence disclosed that over the final 250 metres, Nixon continuously shifted ground outwards crowding Gibson and from the 150 metres to the 100 metres, Gibson was unbalanced when racing tight between Nixon and the outside running rail. Then at the 100 metres, Jockey J Didham then looked to the outside with Nixon again shifting out with Gibson having insufficient galloping room between Nixon and the outside running rail and having to be steadied.
In that report there is is crowding, unbalancing and another steady. Seems a little more to it than what you make out.
An opinion of any kind will do from you.

[fat choy]

Fonzie: Have you viewed the race in question or reilying only on stewards report