If Sigurwana keeps that race then we might as well pack up

Start packing. Another Ben Hur special.

was beat nearly a length cud go either way

Has to go

deffo slung out

Definitely will, imo - there are no rules any more, unfortunatly...

How much will disqualifying the horse cost 'the levy', imo...

Will definitely go. Ludicrous speculation in the ATR studio.
It's a tricky one.
What the phuk

forget about the winning distance , first two places have to be reversed

I think it will keep the race.Jockey had whip in correct hand and did nothing wrong.

100% will keep the race, mainly because I bet the second and the horse racing gods seem determined to never grant me a winner

first 2 will be reversed

was there interference.. yes    did the sufferer of interference lose more ground than it was beat... yes

1.7 in betting.. yes

case closed

keeps the race beat it fair and square

How are ye so confident when market is undecided??Not clearcut

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??????

"was the jockey weighed in light" - yes
"was it over 1 lb" - yes

RESULT STANDS - WEIGHED IN.

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

In the States, there would be no question or doubt in the winner being thrown out - are their rules better in this regard?

didnt aafect the result,Winner was affected more than the second.

Have you ever tryed to stop a horse swerving ? He had his whip in correct hand.What else do you expect him to do?

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.

Knavesmire. Are you a total retard?

millhouse     07 Aug 12 16:16 
How much will disqualifying the horse cost 'the levy', imo...
------------------
????

whip in correct hand / wrong hand completely irrelevant to rules
jockey trying to correct course also irrelevant

imo

6/4  fill your boots keeps the race

oh dear knavesmire

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

If it was a clear decision,it would not be 1.67,it wud be 1.1 or less,yer guessing

BOOOOOM.

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...

Betting tells the story

have the stewards  got  on yet

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

If the stewards are consistent (hardly certain) the winner will keep it and rightfully so as it would have won anyway.

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)

overturned

well done stewards

Proper Order

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..

Places reversed

probably the correct decision

easy money at 1.70

had to be

well done stewards...

1million percent correct call imo.

Unbelievable decision. How they could possibly think the first past the post improved its position in relation to the second is beyond me.

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)


So true. John Hunt and co I hope you are reading this.

Feck N. Eejit lives up to his name, AGAIN.

Hilarious stuff Jocked. How do you do it?

feck, how much interference would be acceptable to you before you throw one out?

stewardsenquirey
I think it will keep the race.Jockey had whip in correct hand and did nothing wrong.

Nobody is saying the jockey did anything wrong and is why he won't be banned but you still shouldn't benefit from taking out a rival.

brawbaws
keeps the race beat it fair and square

I'm typing this not knowing teh result yet so teh only accurate thing you have said there so far is it beat it.

themover
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

It wouldn't be 1.01 that far out and not in the lead. Bear in mind too it took the 2nd jockey longer to get reorganised.

knavesmire007
didnt aafect the result,Winner was affected more than the second.

LOL....apart from all of that being wrong, it doesn't matter if the winner was more affected, he was the one that was the cause of it so that's just bad luck on his part, the 2nd shouldn't be punished by not being given the result for doing nothing wrong.

stewardsenquirey 
Have you ever tryed to stop a horse swerving ? He had his whip in correct hand.What else do you expect him to do?

As in my first reply, nobody blames the jockey but it certainly wasn't the other jockeys fault and had they been on the opposite sides of each other and the winner swerved and the 2nd was therefore able to keep straight, they would have finished in reverse order due to the amount of ground lost, which was more than the eventually winning distance.

If the interference was accidental and the best horse won the result should never be changed.

Before they even brought in the current rules that result would have stood. I recall a race at Newmarket where Fallon was coming through on a horse (I'm sure the name contained the word fairy) to obviously p1ss in. It suddenly swerved, almost knocked the jockey on the 2nd off his horse yet it still kept the race because it was the winner on merit.

The only reason that one was thrown out today is because the clowns that were deciding it don't know the riles.

If the interference was accidental and the best horse won the result should never be changed

feck, how do you know the "best horse" didn't finish 2nd today?

Looked like was coming to win the race responding to pressure when the "winner" knocked it off the course

I don't know for certain but the rules are the stewards have to be sure the result was affected.

I've seen cases where the winner has deliberately leaned in on the 2nd pushing it towards the rail and keeping the race because the distance wasn't a sh hd (Dettori at Sandown a couple of seasons ago, Fallon on Spencer at Royal Ascot etc.). Today the interference was accidental.

Brilliant....
"The only reason that one was thrown out today is because the clowns that were deciding it don't know the riles."

Next post.....
"I don't know for certain but the rules are the stewards have to be sure the result was affected."


Couldn't make it up

that's the major problem with the rules. How can anyone ever be sure that the interfered horse would ever have won, as they obviously didn't?

Stupid rules, should be redrafted and be much more along US and French rules. Any interference and you're out.

Amazing how little interference occurs in those countries when the jockeys are "incentivised" to keep their horses straight

LordHoughtonLeSpring     07 Aug 12 16:29 
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
-----------------------

the horse shall, on an objection to the Stewards under Part 7, be placed behind the horse or horses with which it has interfered
---------------------

Given that above ^ sentence ....

Whrere do all these pundits get their ...

"He CANNOT Lose the race - because the horse he INTERFERED with did NOT finish 2nd? .... stance from?

It really shouldn't matter if interference is accidental or not other than to not do the jockey if it was, but you shouldn't be able to gain benefit from stopping the chance of another runner and years ago I would have fully expected the result to changed and left my bet to stand, but because they have been making such poor decision for years we've come to expect them to do the wrong thing, so when they get it right it's seen as a shock decision.

My main problem with them changing the result today is that later in the season We will see a few horses win which will have caused the same or even more interference than todays and they will get to keep the race.
I have no problem with placings being reversed,but just want consistency over the course of the season.At the moment it just seems pot luck which Stewards you get on the day currently.

LordHoughtonLeSpring what's your point rsole?

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

Clearly they could not change the result based on those rules.

^^^^^

You must be on a wind up Feck N. Eejit.

It's always the same when there's a bad bump. Everyone immediately thinks the result must be changed. Those who do must be the sort of people who burst out greeting if their wife slaps them because it made a big noise.

*greetin

Clearly a fishing expedition
Either way I am embarrassed for you
Have a lovely evening.

ima, that was dead funny you bolding Feck N. Eejit. Are you Jocked Off's wife?

Get well soon LordHLS.

The point that the rules, as currently constructed, encourage intimidatory riding is apposite. McCoy in particular under NH rules has perfected the art of riding across a challenging rival approaching the final light/fence.

It's dangerous and should be discouraged.

OK to make it easy ask yourself did the first past the post lose more ground that it won by when not keeping straight?

If you answer yes then surely the 2nd past the post did so too but why should the first benefit from that and the 2nd have to accept being hampered by it. There was less ground between the two horses at the start of the swerve than there was at the line and the first's jockey was the who had to take corrective action and straighten up, with the 2nd not being able to prevent being carried off line until that happened and so the first nicked a bit more of a lead up on him, with the 2nd's jockey only then being able to get organised and going once the other first had moved off of it.

Exactly parispike. It seems if you deliberately interfere with the runner up that's fine as long as you win by a hd or more but if it's accidental interference (especially if it makes a loud noise) that's not on according to the Wolverhampton p1ss merchants.

LOL....I always bold who I reply to Feck N. Eejit so that their names stands out to them if the choose to read it and so that others can choose not to if they see my reply is for someone else.

But no, I'm not anybody's wife.

ima, "where the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse in relation to the horse or horses with which it interfered". Did it improve its placing? I don't think so. I can think of a lot of cases where the interference did improve the horses placing but the result wasn't amended (because the winning distance was more than a sh hd) but that was not one of them.

My apologies on the bolding remark.

I would happily take you as my lawfully married partner as long as Feck N. Eejit does not get involved.
He would permit all manner of bumping and boring as you take me up the aisle.

I doubt your sense of humour would be able swing it JO.

Had a decent bet the placings would be reversed because it looked obvious but then listened to the lunatics in the studio and doubt crept in.

Fortunately for once, intelligence won the day and I collected.

Agree wholeheartedly with the author of this thread.

Lunatics indeed. Who is the clown next to the equally ignorant Boycie?

It's all about opinions I suppose Feck N. Eejit and to me it looked as if there was ½L between the 2 horses with the then 2nd coming upsides to challenge, the interference took place and then there was over a length between them before again being ½L at the finish, so you would have to think if the 2nd had been able to keep straight (say if it had been on the inside) then it would have won.

I layed the FPP and then backed it to cancel the bet and be on the safe side and so for psychology in betting reasons I would have preferred the result to have stood so as not to make it seem I threw away a wasted bet, but although I do think the right decision was made, I didn't want to risk taking the chance and let my bet stand to find out.

LordHoughtonLeSpring 

I am NOT being contrary - or anything like that ....

But asking a  GENUINE question -   re: my posting, above - in regard to your posting of the RULES >

Just WHERE DO we stand with the? ...

...the horse shall, on an objection to the Stewards under Part 7, be placed BEHIND the [/b]horse[/b] or horses with which it has interfered

OUR RULES - USED to be like France, USA, et al - whereby if you interfered with a horse who eventually finished THIRD - then you were then placed BEHIND that THIRD - even if you finished FIRST.

NOWADAYS - We CONSTANTLY hear people say ...

'He CANNOT Lose the race - as the horse that he INTERFERED with did NOT finish SECOND ... so the winner is SAFE.'

Yet the CORRECT GRAMMATICAL interpretation of the the RULES that you posted  -
CLEARLY, both STATES and IMPLIES, that .....

....'be placed BEHIND the [/b]horse[/b] or horses with which it has interfered.

So a WINNER INTERFERING with an eventual THIRD - COULD be placed BEHIND that THIRD - on the above WORDING.
-------------------

Does ANYBODY KNOW the DEFINITIVE answer ?

NO Guesses, or 'Opinions' - please .... BUT the ACTUAL True/Correct  State of Play

It's jockey Steve Drowne in the studio with Boycie but I've noticed that once one gives the initial view or makes a statement like "surely that one can't be thrown out" that the guests sometimes tend to just go along with it and put the views of why it might not be, yet if the initial comments had been "surely that will be thrown out" you wonder would they have given the possible reasons why it would.

This ruling as it stands has allowed the most ridiculous decisions to be made by some of the least sensible people on planet earth.

Interference occured it stopped another horse making a legal challenge, thats all you need to know.
Today they got it right, tomorrow??????

Moondan. Spot on. Oh how I wish you had been involved earlier and now listened to the ATR 'lunatics'.
They have taken over the racing asylum.

Thanks for telling me it is Drowne. No wonder Roger C is happy with James Doyle.
Drowne and out, I say.

* Apologies for posting this again  -

But - when you post something that ends up at the bottom of a previous page -
It can become 'LOST' - and not properly responded to - with many people only reading the current page.
-------------------------

LordHoughtonLeSpring -

I am NOT being contrary - or anything like that ....

But asking a  GENUINE question -   re: my posting, above - in regard to your posting of the RULES >

Just WHERE DO we stand with the? ...

..."the horse shall, on an objection to the Stewards under Part 7, be placed BEHIND the horse or horses with which it has interfered"

OUR RULES - USED to be like France, USA, et al - whereby if you interfered with a horse who eventually finished THIRD - then you were then placed BEHIND that THIRD - even if you finished FIRST.

NOWADAYS - We CONSTANTLY hear people say ...

"He CANNOT Lose the race - as the horse that he INTERFERED with did NOT finish SECOND ... so the winner is SAFE."

Yet the CORRECT GRAMMATICAL interpretation of the the RULES that you posted  -
CLEARLY, both STATES and IMPLIES, that .....

...."be placed BEHIND the horse or horses with which it has interfered."

So a WINNER INTERFERING with an eventual THIRD - COULD be placed BEHIND that THIRD - on the above WORDING.
-------------------

Does ANYBODY KNOW the DEFINITIVE answer ?

NO Guesses, or 'Opinions' - please .... BUT the ACTUAL True/Correct  State of Play

Since 1st Jan 2009 20 winners have been disqualified on the flat in the UK. The winning distances were

sh, ½, ns, hd, 1, sh, ns, ns, nk, ns, sh, hd, ns, sh, sh, ns, 2¼, sh, ns, sh

The 1 and 2¼ were down to weighing in light. Anyone who thinks the above data makes Sigurwana odds-on to lose the race should seek treatment or get their wife to give them a good slap. You got lucky today.

It seems to me the issue is not whether a horse has won by default but wheather the rule is now ridiculous and confusing and down to pure opinion which can change from idiot to idiot.
Common sense has become a complete stranger in all this, surely sanity should rule the rules.

Correct moondan. There will never be consistency until they have a central panel of drunks.

Feck,   That made me laugh

Its about this time of night that I do my best to enable me to join that panel.

The winning distance isn't the only criteria for affecting the result and apart from anything else, I've seen horses when by a head or neck and have kept the race despite interference so unless we also had those stats then the ones above don't really mean much. If a horse is a length behind and suffers interference from the winner that causes it to lose 3 lengths and then he ends up beaten half a length, then do you let the result stand because of the winning distance?

I've also seen horses drift the width of the course and lose races they would have won had it kept straight and then one safe away from the drift had kept straight and won instead but might not have done if the drifting horse had taken it with it too.

If a horse is a length behind and suffers interference from the winner that causes it to lose 3 lengths and then he ends up beaten half a length, then do you let the result stand because of the winning distance?

It's not the rights and wrongs we're discussing here ima. Surely the point is they have been letting it stand under similar circumstances for years now.

So with that last race at Bath the 2nd and 3rd places will be reversed going by what most on here thinks the rules stand ?

They have but then I've always thought that was wrong.

You can see why the changed them if say a horse interfered with another but still won by a street with the other one still 2nd, it was deemed unfair to take the race off the horse when clearly the best horse still won but you hear that "best horse still won" line regardless nowadays, as if it must be the best horse by default by virtual of it hitting the winning line first and disregard everything else.

The other clichéd line is "it didn't affect the result" when it wins as if first place was the result and nothing else matters, but if you interfere with one that costs it its best possible finishing position and in same cases is the difference between 2nd and 3rd, 3rd and 4th or 4th and 5th then apart from the people who might have backed it each way, there's also the owners who suffer too when getting less prize money than they might have if their horse wasn't hampered.

As I said though, we're not discussing the rights and wrongs of the rules. Personally I'd rather bet first past the post than have to rely on the inconsistent rulings of drunks.

So the Stewards didn't think that Modernism stopped Mizbah getting 2nd by swerving over to the rail and forcing De Sousa to snatch up?
It was plain to see it did(still nearly got 2nd even after having to stop)
This is why I said earlier that Racing needs consistency,at the moments rules for one,rules for another.

Good point stewardsenq.. I didn't know what you were talking about earlier as you said Bath rather than Ripon.

My mistake Feck,yeah meant Ripon.

And that's why I said the result isn't just first place.

Def think Mizbah would have won at Ripon tonight.
That said, de Sousa should have come down the middle in the first place.

Since 1st Jan 2009 20 winners have been disqualified on the flat in the UK. The winning distances were

sh, ½, ns, hd, 1, sh, ns, ns, nk, ns, sh, hd, ns, sh, sh, ns, 2¼, sh, ns, sh

The 1 and 2¼ were down to weighing in light.

Those stats tell you how bad British interference rules are. Just 18 disqualifications then in over 24,000+ flat races?

Only 1 verdict given to a horse that got beat more than a neck and just 1 by a neck?

I would suggest there will have been at least 100-200 races in that time where a loser got beat by more than a neck, but suffered more than the losing distance through interference from the winner

Any interference by any horse, accidental or deliberate, throw them out as in the US and France imo.
Especially now the horses are wandering less through restricted use of the whip, far fewer excuses for jockeys not to keep straight

I think giving the drunks even more power to overturn results would be a disaster for the sport pedrobob. The sins of the jockeys should be visited upon the jockeys not the punters. The current rules are inconsistent but are far less likely to result in a winner on merit being disqualified than in days of old (even if that wasn't the case yesterday).

possibly Feck, but if you watch French or US racing, jocks seem to have far more respect for each other and far less interference takes place in their racing.

Can only deduce that jocks in this country flagrantly breach the interference rules because they know little chance of getting pulled up.