There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
11 May 12
13:39
Joined:
Date Joined:
18 Apr 08
?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 37
|
By:
yes.
|
|
By:
If they don't it'll only undermine the stupidity of the current rules where the guilty always gets the benefit.
|
|
By:
No
|
|
By:
Betfair paid out.
 |
|
By:
koukash their biggest supporter
 |
|
By:
Stands for me.
|
|
By:
If they dont, I aint a real person !
 |
|
By:
anybody who has an opinion is guessing
|
|
By:
2 elderly gents staring at a screen rsponsible for the outcome of all those bets nationwide, lol
|
|
By:
They should, but they won't - would have won if it hadn't been interfered and was finishing
|
|
By:
lets bet on it on the exchange ... oh we cant
 |
|
By:
They should, but they won't - would have won if it hadn't been interfered and was finishing
|
|
By:
anyone guessing has an opinion
 |
|
By:
Francome talking boll!cks as usual.
Spencer had whip in the wrong hand should sway the result, if they don't overturn it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, the current rules as they stand are wrong imo. |
|
By:
stand corrected
|
|
By:
Ought to be turned-over, me thinks. Surely that interference cost more than a shd?
|
|
By:
special duty had a furlong and a half to get past the horse in the guineas and the interference was less than that imo
|
|
By:
David Allen didn't really sell the idea of overturning the result
|
|
By:
if it was up to emma the result would be overturned
|
|
By:
Rules are stupid here. The benefit of the doubt is given to the horse causing the interference.
|
|
By:
ridiculous
|
|
By:
some bird in the stewards room texting!!
|
|
By:
Every other major racing country in the world - winner placed 4th
|
|
By:
should of been overturned me thinks.
|
|
By:
you don't want to upset the good doctor especially at chester.
|
|
By:
The connections of the r/up should appeal, a disgraceful outcome.
|
|
By:
Pocket talking but wtf? Mugged.
|
|
By:
english racing is a laughing stock
|
|
By:
Correct decision, imo.
|
|
By:
fairly typical (but not always) outcome to an enquiry; the rules are at fault
|
|
By:
English racing is indeed the laughing stock worldwide with its emphasis on the second having to prove that the acknowledged transgression DEFINITELY stopped him from winning the race.
It's incredible when you think about it. Defies logic. Silvergreaser, rock on! |
|
By:
That was a complete joke,spencer is a ****,"it had over a furlong to get up"
One word MOMENTUM,takes a good while to get going again & it was in front a stride after the line!! That is why ive lost all faith in horse racing!!!!! |
|
By:
That was a complete joke,spencer is a ****,"it had over a furlong to get up"
One word MOMENTUM,takes a good while to get going again & it was in front a stride after the line!! That is why ive lost all faith in horse racing!!!!! |
|
By:
That was a complete joke,spencer is a ****,"it had over a furlong to get up"
One word MOMENTUM,takes a good while to get going again & it was in front a stride after the line!! That is why ive lost all faith in horse racing!!!!! |
|
By:
The current rules are also a safety net cop out for the stewards, you get beat a short head ffs and they still can't be sure the interference effected the result??, boll!cks!.
|
|
By:
Anyone would think the majority of the bookmaking industry have to pay out twice on disqualified horses, and that the people running racing have a gross profits share in their businesses, imo...
|
|
By:
The rules should be simple, you get placed behind the horse you interfered with, it eliminates any grey areas, whats good for the goose etc.
The current rules as they stand almost encourage jockeys to deliberately cause subtle interference knowing full well the chances of getting chucked out are virtually nil. |