Stalls 16, 18, 19, and 20 were impacted on the left in the Aston Martin Dash
What’s the answer after Dash debacle at Epsom where four stalls opened later than the rest?
By Sporting Life
14:50 · THU June 08, 2023
Our podcast panel discussed the Aston Martin “Dash” Handicap incident from Epsom on Saturday where four stalls opened later than the rest, but what should be done?
The stalls of Ancient Times (16), Lihou (18), Vintage Clarets (19) and Live In The Moment (20) opened fractionally later than the rest in the fast and furious contest that took just 54.23 seconds to be run.
A high draw is perceived as the place to be on the five-furlong track at Epsom, with three of the aforementioned quartet sent off at single-figure prices in the 20-strong field.
The stewards noted the incident in their report of the race, stating: “The stewards further noted that stalls 16, 18, 19 and 20 had opened fractionally slower than the balance of the field and having reviewed recordings of the start in normal speed, were of the view that none of those runners’ chances were materially impacted, and they therefore took no further action.”
Don't miss the latest from the team on all the hot topics in racing
However, the weighed in signal was given quickly after the contest, giving the stewards little time to assess the situation as Timeform’s David Johnson outlined on the Sporting Life Racing Podcast:
“There were a few things that weren’t necessarily clear and I reached out to the BHA and they were kind enough to clear a few things up,” he said.
“The BHA are saying they were aware of a potential issue that could’ve affected a fair start ‘immediately as the start was affected in real time.’
“My question to that would be why, if that was the case, with the possibility at that stage that could’ve meant that the race could be declared void, was no stewards inquiry called to inform punters and bookmakers to hold all bets?
“The off time of the race was 15:21 and 17 seconds, it took less then a minute to run and the result was called at 15:23 and 47 seconds, while the weighed in signal was given at 15:28 and one seconds, which gives them four minutes and 14 seconds for them to have been happy that nothing affected the placings when winning margins were a short head and a head, and to decide that those horses whose stalls opened late weren’t materially affected.
“That’s the BHA’s line but there is another theory that the stewards weren’t aware of the issues at the start until it gained social media attention, hence there was no stewards’ inquiry announced on course and that they had to conclude that the race wasn’t affected as they were already weighed in and were powerless to change it.
“You can study the timelines yourself and form your own conclusions.”
Ben Linfoot had a degree of sympathy with the raceday stewards given their hands are tied to an extent and wonders if they should be empowered to declare disadvantaged horses as non runners given certain situations.
He said: “It’s the fastest sprint track in the world and a fraction of a difference can make all the difference.
“And that’s the thing here, the language in the stewards’ report was probably misjudged when they were saying there was no material difference to the outcome, I think that is probably incorrect. It was only a fraction but that’s all it takes in a race of this nature.
“But what is the answer? Say an inquiry had been called before the weighed in signal, what could the stewards have actually done under the current rules?
“I don’t think voiding the race could’ve been an option in these circumstances, so you’re looking at should there be a rule change where the stewards have discretion to take out horses that they would deem as effectively non-runners?”
Graham Cunningham thinks the stewards should have the power to judge disadvantaged horses as non runners like they do in other jurisdictions, but feels the governing body are reluctant to go down that road.
“The worry is it appears that British racing doesn’t want that flexibility which I find somewhat alarming,” Cunningham said.
“If they gave them a bit more flexibility you could say A, B, C and D did not get a fair shake here, they are being treated as non runners for betting purposes, that would result in a hefty Rule 4 withdrawal, probably 40 to 50%, but that’s the deal I’m afraid.
“If you backed Navello at 25/1 you’re effectively getting half that price, but four of your main rivals had no chance.”
Frustrating
Richard Fahey was one of the trainers affected by the stalls malfunction as his Vintage Clarets broke from stall 19 before finishing 14th.
He’s reluctant to push for a rule change, but feels connections of the four horses should be compensated in such instances.
“I thought it was extremely frustrating and for them to say it didn’t make a difference is beyond belief,” Fahey said.
“I’m a big believer than you can give away weight but not a head start and we did give away a head start I’m afraid.
“I was shocked they didn’t give us our entry money back or something.
“I don’t want the race to be void but do I think I had a chance of winning the race? No I did not. End of story.
“In that situation there could be some rule that gives stewards discretion to call horses non runners, but I don’t know, there are too many rules as it is.
“I felt aggrieved for my owner. I think we ran the best of the horses affected. You miss a beat and you have to go quicker to catch up, so he ran really well, five furlongs at Epsom is not a place to give a head start and get out of your comfort zone.
“The high numbers were short prices as the punters thought they were great draws, so the punters have missed out as well. It’s not satisfactory.”
We are committed in our support of safer gambling. Recommended bets are advised to over-18s and we strongly encourage readers to wager only what they can afford to lose.
If you are concerned about your gambling, please call the National Gambling Helpline / GamCare on 0808 8020 133.
Fast Results
Scores
