stewards?

toss it out

stands

stopped in it's tracks

got to be thrown out

nasty interference ,


maybe wd over a length , FA will keep it

winner eased down. Result stands shirley

only a neck down , when interfered with

not a hope in hell of this getting changed

Highly improbable they change the result.

Highly improbable they change the result.

Result probably stands but how would runner up be making up ground at the finish when he was nearly stopped to a walk half a furlong out?

Matt doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

In a us race, this would be well gone

in the states 1.01 winner chucked

over here 1.01 winner keeps it

Matt talks total b0ll0cks most of the time

Result stands. Jock 2 week ban. Nap.

stewards have no alls over here

oh, wow, can get get out of my bet now! Fantastic stuff.

The result should be reversed because RA has been denied a clear winning opportunity, regardless of whether he'd have got there or not. His momentum has been severely checked and an injustice done to him by the winner.

Yet as the rules are written to ensure bookmakers rarely have to pay out on a double-result, the result will stand. DISGRACE, imo.

the only inquiry should be whether that useless bitch ascott is allowed to ride again,,she is absolutly shockingly bad.....

taking there time though

Shut up Chapman how can you say you don't think Resplendent Alpha would have won? Ok you can't be certain but it looked like he was likely to get on top to me. Shouldn't matter though, the rules should state that with sort of interference so close to home, where the winner is stopped to a virtual walk, the "winner" should be thrown out.

the last time Resplendent won it  made the same run ,

and finished strongly on the rail , same was about to happen

if winner is thrown out does beneath get a place bookies?

i think the winner should be chucked but it just doesn't happen over here

i've seen worse than that not been punished because of the winning margin which seems to have to be minute for anything to happen.

Who thinks our rules are wrong in a case like this?

I think if you interfere like that then you should be thrown out end of  - none of this 'best horse won'

result stands

market suspended

thrown out

rules are wrong in this case

stands as we all knew

The idea that a panel of stewards should be deciding whether or not a horse would have won or not, had it not nearly been put through the rail by the winner, is fecking ludricous, imo.

result stands rules stink

poor show

totally wrong imo.....the winner caused interferance end of story

result stands rules stink

they got it wrong again

no one can say that  R.A would definitely have won and because of that the horse that finished first keeps the race

result stands

The layer at 1000-1 on Resplendent Alpha must need new pants by now......

result stands

You have to commit equine g.b.h. to get thrown out in the U.K.
U.S. and France that was gonner.

In a nutshell, the rules are WRONG because they heavily favour the offender.

This is what happens when the horse ruling authority gets into bed with the bookmakers.

safety out the window

all the chappers knockers should go do a one

Exactly, xmoneyx. The rules are encouraging jockeys to tighten others up against the rail, safe in the knowledge there's not a fecking hope in hell the result will be reversed.

sigge nice for the backer. If he didnt get out IR a nice lay at 6 on the stewards

i backed it but i dont feel too aggrieved,,wasn`t closing at the end..the only regret i have is why did i back that amy scott,,she is truly awful...

FFS, he's a 58 rated horse, he's not going to accelerate like Dayjur once he's been badly hampered like that.

Girl couldve lost balance,  fell off , fractured skull

but winner keeps race .. what does she need to do , tool up to whack the fecker next time ?

The rules are fine as they are. The reason? It lessens the chances of inconsistencies in the enquiries. You pretty much know anything beaten over half a length isn't likely to get a race and that's fine with me when it means that principle is applied just about all the time.

The rules of racing cover the safety aspect given that jocks will nearly always get a ban for something like that.

horseracing

In a nutshell, the rules are WRONG because they heavily favour the offender.

correct. under the current rules, to get the verdict in an an enquiry the beaten horse must finish within a short head or nose of the winner.

this means that all serious cases of intereference, where the beaten horse is absolutely crucified, the winning horse has virtually no chance of being disqualified because the beaten horse finishes too far back.

as with most of the crazy thinking BHA world, this is surely the wrong way round. It should be the enormity of the bump that determines disqualification, not the eventual winning distance.

well it's funny cos in 2 days i've lost out both ways in the states and over here.

last night my winner in states knocked a horse on its inside on the home turn at turf paradise and scooted clear to win easily, i had it to place and it was chucked out completely

over here today i have the 2nd badly hampered in a similar way and i know i will come out on the wrong end again

the joys of this game

you are right marcce, one good thing is over here you can be pretty sure of the stewards outcome.

winning jockey --3 day ban

best to remember--punishment  & race win are seperate

As with this and the Harry Redknapp case you new what the result would be.

marcce good post. With the rules of yesteryear plenty of horses that were easily the best on the day were thrown out and as you say on top of that you never knew what was going to happen.

Believe me you dont want to go back to the old rules.In my lifetime of betting I've had horses win by over 3 lenghts and thrown out just for crossing the 2nd with a faint brush,all the stewards ever needed was an excuse to change a result if it suited.