Home » Racing & Sport » Another Unglamorous Scandal?

Another Unglamorous Scandal?

Or a sensible call by Stipes?

There has been an outcry from some SP readers after what is seen as a marginal decision by the Stipes at Turffontein yesterday in the third race.


“The objection in race 3 was the worst I have ever seen and I have zero doubt that if the original winner was a hot favourite and lost the race there would have been a riot on course .There is no ways beyond reasonable doubt that Glamorous Scandal (4-1) would have beaten the winner Crystal Stream (36-1)  as she had every chance to go past,” writes vastly experienced poster Hilton Witz

The Stipes reported:(varied spelling of Strydom’s mount as per report):

From approximately the 300m, GLAMAROUS SCANDAL (P Strydom) was carried out significantly by CRYSTAL STREAM (K Zechner) which hung out from the 450m.

A race review was called by a member of the Stipendiary Board which was followed by an Objection lodged by Jockey P Strydom the rider of GLAMOROUS SCANDAL placed second against the winner CRYSTAL STREAM (K Zechner) on the grounds of intimidation and interference in the concluding stages.

The Objection Board, after giving regard to the evidence put forward by the respective parties, was of the opinion that the result had been affected by this incident. The Board took into consideration the significant ground that CRYSTAL STREAM carried GLAMOROUS SCANDAL outwards.

Furthermore, the Board after reviewing the side-on angle of the patrol film, felt that GLAMOROUS SCANDAL continuously made up ground while being carried outwards and after suffering interference at the 200m, GLAMOROUS SCANDAL lost momentum but gained ground on CRYSTAL STREAM in the concluding stages and would have finished ahead of CRYSTRAL STREAM.

Therefore the Objection was upheld and the Judges result amended.

Tell us what you think.

Have Your Say

Comments Policy
The Sporting Post encourages everyone to feel free to comment in the spirit of enlightening the topic being discussed, to add opinions or correct errors. All posts are accepted on the condition that The Sporting Post can at any time alter, correct or remove comments, either partially or entirely.

All posters are required to post under their real and verified names, you can adjust your display name on your account page or to send corrections privately to the Editor. The Sporting Post will not publish comments submitted anonymously or under pseudonyms.

The views of any individuals that are published are NOT necessarily the views of The Sporting Post.

23 comments on “Another Unglamorous Scandal?

  1. Steve Reid says:

    I have sympathy for the stipes, they are merely doing their job and calling it as they see it. Therein lies your problem, the problem is not the stipes, the problem lies with the rules that force the stipes to pull out their crystal balls and predict the outcome. This is clearly a recipe for unhappiness as consistency flies out the window and punters and connections can rightly question their decisions. Any horse that is demoted and the finding for the demotion contains words like “was of the opinion” and “felt” opens you up to all sorts of problems. Rightly so.

    Now we wouldn’t have this problem in France or (parts of) the USA. Ask Mike de Kock and The Apache if you have any doubts. There the interference rules are black and white, you cause interference you get punished. No mumbo jumbo and let’s hold hands and peer into the crystal ball to come to a decision. Why can’t we have those rules here? I will tell you why. We can’t have clear and unambiguous interference rules because the NHA consider these rules to be draconian. A few years back I tabled as a discussion item at their AGM the interference rules. In it I asked that consideration be given to changing our laws to those of France in this regard. I highlighted that this change would assist the stipes in both getting objections right every time, and give them powers to punish interference in races whether it was intentional or not. My discussion item was given extreme short shrift by the board with a lot of tut-tutting, in particular by one SC who declared the French rules “draconian”.

    Let them sit with their problem – it is self inflicted.

  2. Steve Reid says:

    Mr. Editor I am a fan of the virtual boardroom because in theory it should lead to more consistent decisions countrywide. It become a moot point when the rule is the problem.

  3. james says:

    you gonna see more of these in the future with the incompatant staff a board that the nhra has

  4. hilton witz says:

    With the risk of repeating myself again for the majority of race meetings held in south africa only 3 qualified stipes are on duty including yesterdays meeting when the objection took place so MATHEMATICALLY A STIPE CANNOT OBJECT AS THIS WILL LEAVE ONLY 2 STIPES TO MAKE THE DECISION SO THEY HAVE TO ASK THE CONNECTIONS TO LODGE THE OBJECTION IN ORDER THERE TO BE 3 STIPES TO MAKE THE DECISION OF 2 1 OR 3 0….The objection rule is very clear and in 95 percent of cases very easy to predict the outcome however in this case those on the panel have definitly got it wrong and if the connections of the original winner do not appeal the outcome then they only have themselves to blame …

  5. Roderick Mattheyse says:


    Dick Francis needs some inspiration – I think you two should get in touch.

    Strydom objects “half heartedly” in your opinion, and then goes on to deliver evidence substantiating his grounds in such a half hearted manner to win over the board room, I suppose you think Zechner was in chorus.

    I don’t think the right conclusion was reached with this objection, but to state that firstly: Strydom did not try and then covers it up with a flimsy objection only to be thwarted by the stipes, is stuff for Nollywood.

    Scriptwriters for Trackers are searching for your contact details as we speak, we all loves a Sunday fairy tale.

    2 days of non-punting will restore your bank balance to where it was projected to be on Saturday 10 November 2019 at 23h59

  6. Joe King says:

    maybe if the stipes had watched the race they would have noticed Strydom riding 3 wide for a large portion of the event and that is why Glamorous S was not able to pass the winner as there was nothing left after the very average ride..

    1. Editor says:

      Are you guys all former jockeys?

  7. PL.NEL says:

    A valid question editor. I think your question needs a proper answer, an experienced answer and a honest answer. There are ex riders that qualify.
    All stripes and jocks should be available for lie detector.

  8. Roderick Mattheyse says:

    @ Brendon, I think I will stick with my current prescription, its set on fact, a setting I prefer to fairytales and text book theories which I am unable to make others carry through. It has also given me the uncanny vision to spot a good free-range tjop a mile off.

    I never commented anywhere that I thought it was a good or bad ride, but it suits your fairy tale, may I suggest chapter 3?

  9. Clinton says:

    Strydom kept the horse wide as he couldn’t get in . I don’t think it’s his greatest ride however the objection was clear as daylight
    As he made his run Carl horse took him of his true line and then came back at him .He lost by a head .
    Well done stipes

  10. Daryl says:

    Guys if any of you had been at turfontein would of realised as soon as Strydom weighed in he jumped into golf cart to go and object . Guys it good to criticize if there is reason to however l believe this is a load of hogwash .

  11. Anton Marx says:

    I think what we need is consistency, I have seen a lot worse not upheld, so please just be consistent. My personal view the same as Darryl, bad decision

  12. Rian says:

    As a learned fundi after watching thousands of races and the outcomes of hundreds of so called objections I feel it was the wrong result
    Karl didnt give the horse a hiding and he keeps her going easily to win,
    Lets hope tmw racing clean and our stipes go to HK for training
    When last did we have a objection overseas anybody ????

    1. Editor says:

      Melbourne Cup

    2. Editor says:


      Il Paradiso was denied a winning opportunity, according to Racing Victoria stewards after they upheld their own protest against second across the line Master Of Reality.
      In the first stewards’ protest at a Melbourne Cup, jockeys Frankie Dettori and Wayne Lordan were called to give evidence after their mounts made contact in the final 50 metres of the race.
      Master Of Reality laid in significantly, closing the gap on Il Paradiso who was making ground between Dettori’s horse and winner Vow And Declare.
      Stewards decided to change the result, promoting third-placed Prince Of Arran to second and fourth-placed Il Paradiso to third, demoting second-placed Master Of Reality to fourth.
      Dettori told stewards that he put two hands on the reins when he saw Il Paradiso there but said the gap remained open and Lordan’s horse had every chance to get through.
      “He was looking for company so he was going left and when I saw Wayne, I put both hands on the rein, I straightened him up,” he said.
      “We came close, there was plenty of room to go through, he was already in there.”
      Lordan vouched for Dettori, saying he didn’t feel like Il Paradiso lost any momentum in the final few strides.
      Adding to the drama, Master Of Reality is trained by Joseph O’Brien, the son of Aidan O’Brien, who is the trainer of Il Paradiso.
      But stewards disagreed with the jockeys’ versions, relying on the footage to uphold their own protest and deciding to hand Dettori a nine-meeting suspension.
      “With respect to this objection lodged by the stewards, we’ve taken evidence, viewed the video control and carefully considered the matter,” chief steward Robert Cram said.
      “It’s our view, passing the 50 metres, that Master Of Reality shifted in and took Il Paradiso in off its course. It’s the stewards’ view that had that interference not occurred, Il Paradiso would have beaten Master Of Reality.”
      The overhead vision was damning.
      Il Paradiso was closing fast on the leaders, even drawing level with Vow And Declare, before the interference denied the northern hemisphere-bred three-year-old a crack at the winning post.
      The margins, before the protest was upheld, were a head between Vow And Declare and Master Of Reality and a nose to Il Paradiso.

  13. Space Invader says:

    Why should we trust the reasons and decision of the objection board when these officials cannot accurately report the names of both horses? The embarrassing errors are there for all too see and smirk about.



    If the stipes take no care in checking their spelling, I wonder how much care they take in adjudicating an objection.

    I find the report to be very scant on the facts.
    Why weren’t we told what happened with the review as it was called and should have been finalized before the objection. Why weren’t we told of the names of the stipes that sat on the objection board. Why weren’t we told whether the decision on the objectionwas unanimous or not. Why weren’t we told of the rules in terms of which the objection was lodged and upheld. Why weren’t we told whether Strydom lodged the objection on time and paid the prescribed fee to object. Why weren’t we told about the decision made by the objection board about the prescribed fee. Why were no steps taken against Zechner for not keeping his mount on a straight path.

    The worst part about this whole affair is that the rules preclude an appeal for a decision based on an objection.

  14. Steve Reid says:

    There’s going to be some real pressure on the stipes now – the favourite Singforafa looks like she drifted off a straight line……..

    Consistency will be tested now

  15. Roderick Mattheyse says:

    @ Brendon you use words like clearly, and then inquire about whether I have bionic limbs – so like most of your other babble input, nothing is clear at all.

    My 5 other trainers have raised their concerns as to why Candice should be singled out for special treatment. Luckily I had a good defence in that I was not that clear which Candice you meant.

    In the Nollywood dictionary a tjop is CLEARLY defined as one whom portrays the characteristic of telling porkies and living in a fantasy world where his/her theoretical diatribe spewed out in reams does not deliver any results other than an un-polished middle finger, if any doubt may exist review whether the word cake was used not in the context of a desert or celebratory treat.

    May I request that you keep your response until tomorrow, I have had my daily ablutions and I won’t have any “stock” to help me through reading it.

  16. B d says:

    There is only one “man van staal “ en hier

    is ek Don’t confuse the accountant with mere mortals his pencil is sharp

  17. J J Cale says:

    Yoh Brendon you got balls ,brains I’m not sure of .,taking on the accountant in a war of words is a big task ,you up to it ……..no I don’t think so.His appetite for sustenance is far less than his love of finding factory faults which he normally deposits out back.Dont fall into the pit the odour never leaves

    In light and love

  18. Roderick Mattheyse says:

    I bask in the comfort of knowing I have no need to be fit, as I don’t have to run anywhere not from the cops not from Kenilworth racing.

    You seem to know me well, I can’t seem to remember you – and I have had a few memorable curries!

  19. Steve Reid says:

    You two ladies should be ashamed of yourselves taking over a fairly interesting thread with your crap. Get a room if you so fascinated with each others bowel movements.

Leave a Comment

‹ Previous

Kimberley – Praying For Stay Of Execution

Next ›

Watson’s Meydan Record

Popular Posts