Stewards - this might be interesting

no way , great ride from Atzeni , proper good race riding

Definitely interesting as BSAT certainly moved left under the whip and closed TIUT off from coming through. Only a millimetre but I would throw it out.

I am sure Michael Wigham will be quite releived, as he stated his stable hadn't had a penny on before the race.

Hushwing not if he took his ground it isnt

should be changed. result would have been different

He will keep it, 4s on good price!

He was never level with the winner!

Any Horse with Tommo in his name can't be fav to get any favours imho

was more santadelacruz closing gap , that was never really there . what are these fav mugs on atr watching

Would have won 3 lengths without BSAT coming across.

If they reverse this, then the rule must be you have to leave a gap for horses behind, when you make a move!?!

Surely no chance

lol biscar.

for what its worth i think thw winner has come across enough to deny the fav a run and atzenis whip is in his right hand - winning distance a nose. its hard to argue the fav wouldnt have won that nor his chance comprimised by the winner.

that said who knows what the stewards will do they are SO inconsistent. i wouldnt be surprised either way although i do feel the fav should get it.

Agree with Poppydog. Would be a joke decision if it's reversed.

agree with poppy, they can't reverse that according to the rules. doesn't mean they won't though! but 1/2 looks a good bet to keep it

wouldve won 4 lengths if he hadnt tried going for a millisecond gap that was never going to be his. a poor crowley ride imo.

reverse angle shows it aint really a gap.

BloodSweetandTears plummeting. Steward Xmas money

Think it was good race riding, it's not like he carved him up.

Isn't the first question the stewards ask, "Did interference take place?"  And if the answer is no then you can't reverse the placings?

So, did interference take place?  In my opinion no it didn't.  The winner edged left and denied the second a clear run.  That is massively different to interfering with a horse, surely.

wow fav got it!

I would have thought that was the precise definition of interference.

Excellent - right result.

Harsh.

Nov 13, 2013 -- 12:51PM, bilbobaggins wrote:

The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user.               

[Manage blocked users]

surprised at that tbh

One of the worst decisions I've seen. Little Sarah's post sums it up pretty well.

Sarah that doesnt make sense imho if a horse edges left and denies a horse a clear run surely that is interfering with its run ?

ffs,what rules are they looking at,the winner made a positive move,they have ignored the other horse hanging also,and hardly any contack,ffs this takes the sport back to the dark ages

Seen a lot worse than that , I am shocked. Presenter on Atr said 94% sure result would stand, shows what the experts know.

always infront when he made his move,just like the old ,lingfield and york steward,what c u n t s

the stewards where all on the fav no way should that have been reversed

biscar was never really a gap and santa  moved across more then BST

Market was strange during inquiry imo, someone knew what was coming?

Hushwing I think thats the question. Was there a gap? If yes had to go, if no then no case to answer

Quite shocked at that

Fuel for those jockeys that like to make exaggerated dramatic switch-moves

Seems obvious to me who backed BST here.

strange decision and strange betting , i doubt anyone involved expected a reversal

I  remember the dark days of the old rules,it was always at lingield and york you had most of the very poor reversals,the jockey on the eventual winner tryig to win it with a bit up the sleave,did not go early enough too put it to bed,the jockey who was trying was penalised,and may i had I think the trainer of the disqualified horse a moron for opening his mouth in interview with Matt?

If they ever bring back the old rules i will pack this in and go birdwatching instead!

I had one win 5L at york one year ,and got disqualified for interference in the first furlong.

Interesting one, because if he had flown home and been beaten a neck you could be sure he would have won still without the interference, but would he have got it then? And if the interference had taken place on the bend instead of 2f out, and beaten a nose, would he have got the race then? I didn't think Atzeni did anything wrong, he just shut the door on a horse he had position on. No doubt the best horse won, just looked a case of a good ride and an unlucky loser to me, rather than a ride that deserved to be chucked out.

just saw race,stewards must of had a good lunch

have had, much have had a good lunch with drinks including liqueurs I would imagine

If you reverse the prices my money says the places remain unaltered

British racing make it up as you go along and as suits

Put this race alongside the Goring Goring race,and you can see how ridiculous the reverse was!!!!.

The winner was knocked right off final bend ,the jockey had to switch whip to keep it going off the track,(in fear the horse on its left came out again? but regardless of that, the horse behind had no right to go for that gap,for ffs if he had not of pulled it back he would have charged between two horse costing them the race? well maybe not,but the inconsistency in stewards ship starting to rear its head.

there was no gap,yep

Lingfield just became a no bet zone for me,they can pull  track down for me while those stewards ruling the roost1

Just heard no jokey Ban(says it all)

Correct decision for me - gap was definitely closed. That was more than race riding . If BSAT had kept straight and left the gap it would have lost anyway so correct decision.

think the stewards were too influenced by the runner-up being clearly the best horse in the race, and not enough influenced by the lack of interference. the gap did close, but who decided the gap belonged to crowley? don't think he was upsides the pair when short of room, thought he was behind them

Interference must have been deemed accidental,metro.
The intereference doesn't have to be deliberate or through careless riding for a runner to be dq'd.

Still don't understand, why you have to leave a gap for a horse which is behind you?

Fellow jockeys commiserate with Atzeni, saying he rode a great race

I can't begin to think how many place positions should be amended given the precedent of this decision.

that race just there the fav interfered with the 3rd twice

Just seen the race for the first time.

That really was an horrendously bad decision.

How hard does everyome think the Jockey protested against the well backed trainers mount imo

worst decision ive ever seen,,surely an ivestigation is warranted,,that is just blatant robbery

I agree in a way.

But the betting was only 1.5 vs 2.5 (strangely)

Seen dozens of bigger prices win Stewards over the years.

Completely agree boyce.