There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Well 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 according to the rules.
More contentious is the fact that so many jocks didn't know where to find the best ground. Didn't they walk the course asks Wood.
More contentious is the fact that so many jocks didn't know where to find the best ground. Didn't they walk the course asks Wood.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5
|
By:
Yes, the two biggest scandals were:
1) the jocks not knowing where the best ground was 2) the pundits not knowing the rules on interference |
|
By:
More 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 ! |
|
By:
the pundits on RUK were in no doubt.
|
|
By:
Channon 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?
|
|
By:
Who 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? |