MY CALL: I'M GOBSMACKED! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?
By David Fowler | Tuesday, April 9, 2019
David Fowler is the principal thoroughbred caller for Radio TAB. David, who is a keen form student and punter, has enjoyed a lifetime involvement in the racing media. His personal blog, ‘My Call’, appears exclusively on HRO.
The devil is certainly in the detail.
This writer, like all, could not fathom how the stewards' panel declared correct weight on the last race in Toowoomba last Saturday with the placings incorrect.
They did not make the mistake but they are ultimately responsible that no mistakes go through to the keeper before the all clear is given for payments to be made by betting organisations.
It was only proactive behaviour by Tabcorp and some corporates that has seen a First Four dividend declared for the "correct" result rather than the "incorrect" one sanctioned by the stewards' panel.
I was also gobsmacked that so many parties failed to pick up this glaring error along the way but they can't be held to account.
Many of you might recall how I bemoaned a few months ago why it takes an inordinately long time for correct weight to be declared in South-East Queensland thoroughbred races.
One would consider the correct placings, the correct weight of jockeys and the absence of a protest claim would be the only factors involved in giving the green light for punters to get paid.
Yet they couldn't even get that right in the last at Toowoomba!
So, if the mother of all things can go wrong like waving through the wrong result you have to wonder if there are other errors are made along the way.
****************************************************************************************************
Well, the apples don't fall far from the tree.
The Racing Queensland website results of the Toowoomba meet identify Tyzone racing three wide in the Weetwood.
This is under "stewards comments" so I presume it hasn't been made up from someone at RQ.
Tyzone raced hard on the rail until shifting wider at the top of the straight. This information is blatantly incorrect.
****************************************************************************************************
But wait, there's more.
Those who are more forensic in their analysis of raceday details will notice only the first and last race were electronically timed yet the other seven were manually timed.
This writer believes the timing sensor was upset when Crusher played up in the barriers in the second race and was subsequently scratched.
This writer will assert the stewards were made aware of this malfunction yet no action was activated until the last race.
No big deal you might say except the track was reassessed from a good 4 to a good 3 and Sexy Eyes was manually timed to run 1:10:5 in the Weetwood which was a track record yet not accepted because of the manual timing method.
An electronic figure will always be marginally slower yet there is a reasonable argument that an electronic figure would have nudged inside Amanaat's 1:10.95 track record.
These sort of stats are vital for a mare's CV with a view to a broodmare career.
****************************************************************************************************
I dislike pile-on criticism as a rule but one can't avoid reporting a significant fail for the stewards panel at Toowoomba on Saturday.
One significant question has to be asked.
Commissioner Barnett, how do you respond to this?
The Australian racing industry watches more intently every day.
More articles
|