There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
07 Aug 12
16:14
Joined:
Date Joined:
11 Mar 04
imo
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 100
|
By:
Start packing. Another Ben Hur special.
|
|
By:
was beat nearly a length cud go either way
|
|
By:
Has to go
|
|
By:
deffo slung out
|
|
By:
Definitely will, imo - there are no rules any more, unfortunatly...
|
|
By:
How much will disqualifying the horse cost 'the levy', imo...
|
|
By:
forget about the winning distance , first two places have to be reversed
|
|
By:
Will definitely go. Ludicrous speculation in the ATR studio.
It's a tricky one. What the phuk |
|
By:
I think it will keep the race.Jockey had whip in correct hand and did nothing wrong.
|
|
By:
100% will keep the race, mainly because I bet the second and the horse racing gods seem determined to never grant me a winner
|
|
By:
first 2 will be reversed
|
|
By:
was there interference.. yes did the sufferer of interference lose more ground than it was beat... yes
1.7 in betting.. yes case closed |
|
By:
keeps the race beat it fair and square
|
|
By:
How are ye so confident when market is undecided??Not clearcut
|
|
By:
Liam Jones did nothing wrong.
He was unable to keep the horse in a straight line. He was unable to stop the horse bumping the runner-up. What did he do right?????? |
|
By:
"was the jockey weighed in light" - yes
"was it over 1 lb" - yes RESULT STANDS - WEIGHED IN. |
|
By:
couldn't say for sure Junior Diary would have won that, in all probability it looked like it would but not 100%. Result stands for me. Junior Diary would have been 1.01 if it was a sure thing it would have won, only hit 1.5 i/r
 |
|
By:
In the States, there would be no question or doubt in the winner being thrown out - are their rules better in this regard?
|
|
By:
didnt aafect the result,Winner was affected more than the second.
|
|
By:
Have you ever tryed to stop a horse swerving ? He had his whip in correct hand.What else do you expect him to do?
|
|
By:
I layed the FPP but then backed it after to cancel out my bet to break even and even though I feel it should be thrown out, I haven't trusted the stewards to make a decent decision in years and so would rather do that then risk losing.
|
|
By:
Knavesmire. Are you a total retard?
|
|
By:
millhouse 07 Aug 12 16:16
How much will disqualifying the horse cost 'the levy', imo... ------------------ ???? |
|
By:
whip in correct hand / wrong hand completely irrelevant to rules
jockey trying to correct course also irrelevant imo |
|
By:
6/4 fill your boots keeps the race
|
|
By:
oh dear knavesmire
|
|
By:
I agree.
Just sed to my old man... if this isnt reversed i will never place a bet on the gg's again. ' in the long run i hope result stands' :) Surely every1 can see without the bump Kelly gets that home by at least 1/2 length |
|
By:
If it was a clear decision,it would not be 1.67,it wud be 1.1 or less,yer guessing
|
|
By:
BOOOOOM.
 |
|
By:
Onlooker, many of the bookmakers have to pay out twice on disqualified horses, and as the industry's returns are linked to their profits, this results in less levy.
It would be hugely naive, imo, to think that this has at the very least not been pointed out by the bookmakers to the BHA, which may well explain why barging into your rivals is now a legitimate riding tactic, imo... |
|
By:
Betting tells the story
|
|
By:
have the stewards got on yet
|
|
By:
it's only 1.67 because exchange players know how rarely stewards throw these out.
Race ended moons ago, and they'r still discussing it. Should be straightforward decision |
|
By:
If the stewards are consistent (hardly certain) the winner will keep it and rightfully so as it would have won anyway.
|
|
By:
If we had sensible and fair rules, where the benefit of the doubt was given to the 'victim' rather than the 'offender'. the concession wouldn't exist (nap)
|
|
By:
overturned
|
|
By:
Proper Order
|
|
By:
well done stewards
|
|
By:
54.5 Where
54.5.1 a horse or its Rider has caused interference by careless or improper riding, and 54.5.2 the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse in relation to the horse or horses with which it interfered, the horse shall, on an objection to the Stewards under Part 7, be placed behind the horse or horses with which it has interfered. 54.6 For the purposes of Paragraph 54.5.2 54.6.1 the reference to the placing of any horse interfered with is to the placing decided by the Judge, and 54.6.2 if the Stewards are not satisfied the interference did improve the placing of the horse, they must overrule the objection and order that the placings remain unaltered. 54.7 In deciding whether the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse, the Stewards shall make no allowance for any ground which the incident may have cost the horse causing the interference. There could only be one outcome under these rules... which are our rules.. |