Lady Lynette

just got home and re-watched it

geee, glad you can't bet on the protest result

She won't be gettin me again, though

I finally got to see the race and have only seen the side on but he looked across three times and still crossed, that's blatant interference, cost it at least a half lenght and momentum and was a certainty to be upheld especially when it all but nailed it late. They dont get too many right but this one was 100% correct, sorry boys. I didn't have a bet in  the race either but i wish they had been betting onthe protest because I would have unloaded on it being upheld.

The idiot completely shelved himself looking across 3 times which even blind freddy couldn't miss and then still crossing.

All three TVN panelists, including an ex-jockey, suggested "dismissed" as their opinion

before the result was announced . Not sure if their views were as confident as yours, four

hours after the decision but it's amazing how differently people see the same thing, isn't it.

Just like a decision at the footy , I suppose

When you watch the replay from an unbias perspective it had to be upheld it's as simple as that, Richardson Gateley and Sam Hyland hardly qualify as experts judges in my opinion, sam was a good honest toiler as a jockey nothing special. but is not bad judge of them in the yard. I 've been in the business and would 100% declared on air as I have inthe past that protest just had to be upheld it was that clear cut.
Like I said initally watching it live I didn't see the race from the start I saw from it about the 500m onwards and after watching it from the start and you know I reckon most stewards have got zero idea with some of the bizarre decisions they come up with, there is zero doubt in my mind that this one was absolutely spot on spoon.

lets you must be fckn joking.
There is interferennce , but it's at the 1200 and They both end up settling exactly where they were going to settle. The eventual winner gets a beautiful suck run behind the leader, a dream inside run in the straight, AND STILL CAN'T WIN!
If we uphold all protests like that one we'll have a protest every fckn race!!!

cost it at least a half lenght and momentum
Your opinions would be meaningful if the interference happened anywhere near the straight.
It's at the 1200 Lets.....the 1200!!!!!!!!!!
half a length at the 1200 when you settle behind the leader = zero at the finish!
Lost Momentum....that would matter in the straight...NOT AT THE FCKN 1200.
How about we protest all the bumps at the start, every time a horse shifts out or lays in at the 1400m, etc etc.
We can have protestathon today!!

Iam with you whoopi
Feel for connections as they have been on the end of few strange decisions in the stewards room before..

Whoop you are spot on.......this happened @ the 1200m and if they are upholding these ones, fark there will be plenty of protests coming through.
Not sure if any of you watched it, however on TVN when Nash was accepting his Golf Clubs (fk me), they raised the protest. He said that if the intereference did not occur, his horse MAY have won in her own right..
Was there interference? Yes there was.
Should Guthrie get a holiday? Yes, he should.
Did that interference cost Nash the race? No fkn way!!
DISMISSED was the correct call.

Unfortunately, a low profile jock such as MG was always going to made an example of. He was a soft target to be thrown under the bus IMO.

Non the less, as per thread title, tribute to LL. She was a tremendous horse and always gave punters a run for their money.

I think nash actually landed in better spot due to the trouble
The daley horse seemed worse off was going to leaders back got push back to 3fence

terry bailey at his best again to say it cost nashs horse a length is a joke it only had 1199 metres to beat it and still couldnt get past it no wonder he was a failure at the trots

so people are saying it should be anything goes until the turn???

trainer of the winner said the right thing during the protest, doesn't like racing inside horses, made it sound like he wanted ridden outside the leader - the interference made that impossible

Nash caught Michael as well when he asked how far clear you need to be - Michael had said he was 1 and 1/2 lengths clear

Nash caught Michael as well when he asked how far clear you need to be - Michael had said he was 1 and 1/2 lengths clear 

that's it in a nutshell womble .. plus brunton also used the word "checked" in his pointless comment when asked if he wanted to add anything

however ... at the 1200m ffs .. give me strength

... nash surely must have thought to himself at the 1200 ... gee im inside a horse that is racing 3 deep and probably will want to get in closer ... he was a smart arse (and entitled i guess) and tried to hold lady out there ...

he overchecked his mount also causing trouble to mceveoy (i think it was)  ... but then ended in the box seat

a political decision ... and possibly quite correct ... but don't tell me the check cost the horse the race

it had it's chance to run down Lady in the straight .. and was going to ...

BUT she found courageously and with massive heart and determination FOUGHT OFF her challenger late .. and was going better on the line ... she would not be defeated and wouldn't have been

(and did nash get a million dollar fine please for the frivoulous protest at the 100m  )

it's only the box seat if your horse likes racing there Thebas - although I do think that's where he would've ended up anyway

would've copped a couple i think - the 100m protest AND the celebration on Foxwedge

it's only the box seat if your horse likes racing there Thebas 

well nash is a complete and utter fkwit .... as all he had to do then ... was rein in his mount and let lady lynette cross him ... and he could have been racing outside her !!!!!!!

(was he ever going to get to his "preferred position" by keeping lady lynette OUTSIDE him lol )

he was keeping her 3 wide a bit longer, sensible riding imo

so nash WAS partly at fault lol ...

the motor vehicle insurance policy calls that ... contributory negligence ... 

The rules are you you have to be clear to corss it was an absolute no brainer  like I said i he had just crossed intitallyh he may have got away away with it but idots and you being idiots in this case he deliberately loked not once but twive vut three times it odds on to be upheld spirit song beats it in another line it doesnt matter whther the intererence is at the 1200m the margin was all but nothing it clearly costs it a tthe time in waht was a clearly illegal manouveuvre which advantaged the horse first past the post. absolute no brainer, think a lot of you blokes were on the intitial winner and I'm sorry but for you but it had to be upheld.

exactly LE ... it's the rules ...

did you think the interference at the 1200m cost the 2nd horse a win on its merits ?

Also nash had the position the other bloke didnt and nash is entitled to kick up, Guthrie didn't kick up anywhere what he need to do to cross he simply put on his left hand indicator signalled three times and cam down and you can't do that if he uses up the juice he would have had to cross legally , he doesn't win it's that simple.

absolutely it cost the horse the win on its merits the inital winner obtained a better position easier than what it would have have and the margin was a bit more than an eyelash with 2nd horse going home over the top of it the last 50m, he didnt even try to make it look good by getting at least a length in front before crossing.

startruesse pampelonne and small lichenstein for me here

something back, didn't have enough though I was going to have more in the run but it was travelling too well in the run to get on really at the price

how did it cost it  a better postion ??? it settled 3rd fence BOX SEAT

Nick lady lynette crossed illegally without having to use up as much juice as it would have by crossing legally and unlike a good jock it wasnt even subtle, it was simply brain dead stupid and in particular dangerous and blatant when he's looked three times knew it wasn't there with really kicking up and then still crossed, he may have well waved a bloody great neon sign in front of the stewards face, I can't imagine what the protest hearing would have been like with nash arguing against guthrie woule been like a QC against aginst a 1st grade primary school kid.

Maybe you should look at the same race last year..

been a tragic race for them nick ...

lady wins by a head at the line ... and not ridden out hard as she had the other covered ...

nash was thrashing the eventual winner to get closer at the end ... lady had it beat just after entering the straight by pinching a winning margin ... lovely mare

but ... the rules are the rules ...  (the 1200m ffs lol)

last year is irrelvant you shoul judge each portest on its merits I have no diea what happened last year what if he brings nash down when corrssing how long you think s he gets then and in the process spirit song now a vry valuable broomare snaps a leg!!! It was stupid idiotic thing to do after you looked three times and then still crossed, got his right whack.

anybody watch watch terang i was on billy esprit for a very tiday result opinion on pretest it was going home all over the top of it it just about has to get it doesnt it???

damn wrong thread sorry.

lets you have trouble answering points that people make. you should be a politician. you keep repeating the same irrelevant bullshizer. we know the rules.
IT HAPPENED AT THE 1200!!!!!!!!!

NO.2- IT DIDN'T CHANGE THEIR POSITION IN RUNNING.
Lady Lynette was always gonna cross

NO.3- The eventual winner had 1199m with a PERFECT RUN to win

NO.4 I know W.A. thinks this sort of rubbish protest is the norm...THE REST OF US DON'T

so Whoopi does anything go before the turn???

No. In this case the iterference didn't have any influence on the way the race was run.

depends if u listen to the trainer or not, he said he didn't want to be on the fence

If two horses want the lead and one tries to put the other through the fence...that's a protest...not a horse crossing when only a length and a quarter in front and they both end up where they were always gunna be

he has won on the fence womble

p.s you see plenty of jocks suspended and not have a protest against them
just because the jockey should get time doesnt mean he should lose the race

exactly nick...it should've been a mention in the stewards report, jockey fined...move on

but the trainer said he races better off the fence and he wanted to be outside the leader, the interference meant he couldn't get there

trainer was trying to win a seemigly unwinnable protest. Would've said his uncle is his aunty.
The other horse was always gunna cross

it worked Whoopi

and Lady Lynette crossing was fine as well, if he doesn't get chopped off on Spirit Song he would've ended up one off either outside the leader or Kieran's horse that was on the rail before the incident and would've been behind the leader if it didn't happen

answer the questuion did cross illegally and did it cost ita half at least and momentum and was the manoeuvre dangerous. The answer to all three questions is yes. Quite simply if he use the juice required to cross legally he doesnt win as it fell over the line in the end and I haven'st the head on in the straight but by the look of it it crowded the 2nd horse inthe straight a bit as well.
Looking three timse before crossing and then falling in cost it the race. There is no way it wins if it has to be used to cross without causing interference.

aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

a ½ len check at the 1200m .. is worth about a half head at the finish ... no more

lady went to the line under soft hands .. had the other covered ... have a look at nash 'nuking' spirit over the final 75m ... but couldn't get closer than a head

agreed that you must be 2 len clear to cross .. the rule is there for the safety of everybody (NO other reason)

protest upheld ... correct as per the rules ... but lady would have won regardless imo

Lets you do not  know THAT horse all that well then

LOL re momentum