has nothing to do with me backing the winner i said it wouldnt get ammended on my thread jockey did everthing he could and i dont think it affected the result
has nothing to do with me backing the winner i said it wouldnt get ammended on my thread jockey did everthing he could and i dont think it affected the result
its all about opinions, firstly i'm glad you won mate.
i cant see that being pushed that far over the track in closing stages isn't worth a sht head though.
if that ever happens to me in future these stewards better be consistent and give the same decision!
its all about opinions, firstly i'm glad you won mate.i cant see that being pushed that far over the track in closing stages isn't worth a sht head though.if that ever happens to me in future these stewards better be consistent and give the same deci
if the winner had got passed and got back up i'd have thought fair play but the runner up could never get past and the head on suggests a plausible reason why imo.
anyways thats that, no more to say.
when would you ever ammendonly if runner up stops riding?if the winner had got passed and got back up i'd have thought fair play but the runner up could never get past and the head on suggests a plausible reason why imo.anyways thats that, no more to
bored with it now the problem with you lot is you see the betting change and all end up gobbing off saying it should get chucked out. the stewards took along time and made the correct decision
bored with it now the problem with you lot is you see the betting change and all end up gobbing off saying it should get chucked out. the stewards took along time and made the correct decision
you have an opinion on that race i have one. ive ridden horses and im telling you that being carried over the track is worth more than a sht hd.
i wouldn't ever expect much common sense for stewards looking at most of them.
thats condescending cr*ptotally no need for thatyou have an opinion on that race i have one. ive ridden horses and im telling you that being carried over the track is worth more than a sht hd.i wouldn't ever expect much common sense for stewards look
What has the odds got to do with it? What about the people that laid the winner at 1/3(that is what it opened up at) in the stewards are they following the betting as well?
You backed the winner well done but you got lucky in the stewards.
Eddie your making a fool of yourself now.What has the odds got to do with it? What about the people that laid the winner at 1/3(that is what it opened up at) in the stewards are they following the betting as well?You backed the winner well done but y
sec was Tony McGlone...former work rider for Cecil. Wonder if he's ever met Eddie. A quite ridiculous decision and one that Erik Penser will get in the nuthouse in London.
sec was Tony McGlone...former work rider for Cecil. Wonder if he's ever met Eddie. A quite ridiculous decision and one that Erik Penser will get in the nuthouse in London.
all saying its a disgrace should have been ammended odds on gonnabe chucked out so why didnt they disqualify it then enlighten me oh i forgot i just got lucky
all saying its a disgrace should have been ammended odds on gonnabe chucked out so why didnt they disqualify it then enlighten me oh i forgot i just got lucky
Just out of curiosity - I'm somewhat new to UK racing. Had the stewards decided that the 1 horse's veering impeded horses other than the 2nd place horse could he be moved back further? I know in North America if the winner interferes (say) with the 4th place horse then the winner would be put back to 4th with the others moving up.
However in the UK for races I've seen it seems that inquiries are rarely called unless it's the second place horse against the first. Also I've seen instances where the winner will have an inquiry against him and the BF odds will have movement on the horse to win and a horse that (say) ran 5th. If the stewards decide that the 5th place horse was interfered with by the winner then the 5th place horse takes top spot?? In North America the winner would be placed 5th, 2nd moves to 1st, 3rd to 2nd etc.
Just out of curiosity - I'm somewhat new to UK racing. Had the stewards decided that the 1 horse's veering impeded horses other than the 2nd place horse could he be moved back further? I know in North America if the winner interferes (say) with the
not saying you are a fool anfield am saying that you all jump on the bandwagon somebody says should be chucked out everybody joins in i looked at the race and came to my conclusion not follow everybody else good job the stewards did the same
not saying you are a fool anfield am saying that you all jump on the bandwagon somebody says should be chucked out everybody joins in i looked at the race and came to my conclusion not follow everybody else good job the stewards did the same
If the stewards decide that the 5th place horse was interfered with by the winner then the 5th place horse takes top spot??
No, unless the first 4 took the wrong course or carried the wrong weight.
If the stewards decide that the 5th place horse was interfered with by the winner then the 5th place horse takes top spot??No, unless the first 4 took the wrong course or carried the wrong weight.
i wonder if anyone backed the winner (who finished first and was chucked) that day and the runner up today
they'd be pulling their hair out!
didn't see your post earlier denai wonder if anyone backed the winner (who finished first and was chucked) that day and the runner up todaythey'd be pulling their hair out!
eddy, there is no point trying to argue against you as you are blinded by the bias of your bet on the winner. I doubt very much your opinion would be the same had you been on the 2nd horse.
Any sane racing person with half a brain would be surprised that the stewards did not throw the winner out.
eddy, there is no point trying to argue against you as you are blinded by the bias of your bet on the winner. I doubt very much your opinion would be the same had you been on the 2nd horse.Any sane racing person with half a brain would be surprised t
as with many things in life there are two opposite views here
we are all entitled to our opinions
no one should be derided for theirs.
its what makes life interesting.
as with many things in life there are two opposite views herewe are all entitled to our opinionsno one should be derided for theirs.its what makes life interesting.
look i ask again if it was such an obvious decision tell me why they didnt ammend the result we are just punters they get paid to be stewards so i am not the only person who thinks it didnt need to be ammended
look i ask again if it was such an obvious decision tell me why they didnt ammend the result we are just punters they get paid to be stewards so i am not the only person who thinks it didnt need to be ammended
I suggested it on RUK one night that where the stewards are unable to be sure that interference affected a result - and lets face it most of the time it is impossible to be 100% sure - then they should award a dead-heat.
That way, nobody can complain - not punters or connections.
Needless to say my idea was ridiculed...
I suggested it on RUK one night that where the stewards are unable to be sure that interference affected a result - and lets face it most of the time it is impossible to be 100% sure - then they should award a dead-heat. That way, nobody can complain
Was it detrimental to the runner up YES it was,was it beneficial to the winner again YES it was,the wainner carried the runner up off a true line not vice versa really should have been a no brainer whether the jockey did his best or otherwise they interfered with the runner up being able to run in a straight line,horses that are carried across the track by their own actions lose many lengths so??
Was it detrimental to the runner up YES it was,was it beneficial to the winner again YES it was,the wainner carried the runner up off a true line not vice versa really should have been a no brainer whether the jockey did his best or otherwise they in
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference on the run to the line. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race, they found that the winner, STAR COMMANDER, ridden by Eddie Ahern, had interfered with SAND SKIER, ridden by Nicole Nordblad, placed second, and that the interference had not improved STAR COMMANDER’s placing. They ordered the placings to remain unaltered. The Stewards found Ahern in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of careless riding in that he had allowed his horse to drift right without correction. They suspended him for 2 days as follows: Wednesday 30 and Thursday 31 May 2012.
I can't believe the official report:The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference on the run to the line. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race, they found that the winner, STAR COMMANDER, ridden b