New Posts For Thread: Greg Wood/Guardian and 1000Ghttps://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/23960854/greg-woodguardian-and-1000gWell worth a look. Who knew that the rules state that any ground lost by the horse causing interference "shall not count"? Surely both horses lost at least 2 lengths veering across the course which makes the Stewards decision absolutely right accordiWho knew that the rules state that any ground lost by the horse causing interference "shall not count"? It couldn't be any more straightfoward, could it?https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/23960854/greg-woodguardian-and-1000g?post_id=432073306#432073306Who knew that the rules state that any ground lost by the horse causing interference "shall not count"? It couldn't be any more straightfoward, could it?Tue, 04 May 2010 04:05:58 -0500Channon more or less defends the decision of the jocks on the unfavoured side not tracking across ("suicidal" he said it would have been) yet the first two home managed to go right across the course in the last furlong. What's the difference?https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/23960854/greg-woodguardian-and-1000g?post_id=432073302#432073302Channon more or less defends the decision of the jocks on the unfavoured side not tracking across ("suicidal" he said it would have been) yet the first two home managed to go right across the course in the last furlong. What's the difference?Tue, 04 May 2010 03:54:37 -0500the pundits on RUK were in no doubt.https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/23960854/greg-woodguardian-and-1000g?post_id=432073298#432073298the pundits on RUK were in no doubt.Tue, 04 May 2010 03:50:02 -0500More important than veering across the course was the bump that was administered by the eventual runner up,that alone should have left the pundits in no doubt that with a nose verdict, the result was always more likely to be changed than not !https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/23960854/greg-woodguardian-and-1000g?post_id=432073294#432073294More important than veering across the course was the bump that was administered by the eventual runner up,that alone should have left the pundits in no doubt that with a nose verdict, the result was always more likely to be changed than not !Tue, 04 May 2010 03:28:07 -0500Yes, the two biggest scandals were:1) the jocks not knowing where the best ground was2) the pundits not knowing the rules on interferencehttps://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/23960854/greg-woodguardian-and-1000g?post_id=432073290#432073290Yes, the two biggest scandals were:1) the jocks not knowing where the best ground was2) the pundits not knowing the rules on interferenceTue, 04 May 2010 03:22:02 -0500Well worth a look. Who knew that the rules state that any ground lost by the horse causing interference "shall not count"? Surely both horses lost at least 2 lengths veering across the course which makes the Stewards decision absolutely right accordihttps://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/23960854/greg-woodguardian-and-1000g?post_id=432073286#432073286Well worth a look. Who knew that the rules state that any ground lost by the horse causing interference "shall not count"? Surely both horses lost at least 2 lengths veering across the course which makes the Stewards decision absolutely right accordiTue, 04 May 2010 03:18:00 -0500