Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 58 comments are related to the topic:
Stewards - this might be interesting

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 58
By:
xmoneyx
When: 13 Nov 13 13:15
just saw race,stewards must of had a good lunch
By:
dave1357
When: 13 Nov 13 13:18
have had, much have had a good lunch with drinks including liqueurs I would imagine
By:
TheJudge
When: 13 Nov 13 13:18
If you reverse the prices my money says the places remain unaltered

British racing make it up as you go along and as suits
By:
pipedreamer
When: 13 Nov 13 13:20
Put this race alongside the Goring Goring race,and you can see how ridiculous the reverse was!!!!.
By:
metro john
When: 13 Nov 13 13:21
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.
By:
xmoneyx
When: 13 Nov 13 13:22
there was no gap,yep
By:
metro john
When: 13 Nov 13 13:36
Lingfield just became a no bet zone for me,they can pull  track down for me while those stewards ruling the roost1
By:
metro john
When: 13 Nov 13 13:38
Just heard no jokey Ban(says it all)
By:
bilbobaggins
When: 13 Nov 13 13:40
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.
By:
alayaday
When: 13 Nov 13 14:00
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
By:
roggrain
When: 13 Nov 13 14:00
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.
By:
Poppydog.
When: 13 Nov 13 14:19
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
By:
dave1357
When: 13 Nov 13 14:23
I can't begin to think how many place positions should be amended given the precedent of this decision.
By:
dave1357
When: 13 Nov 13 14:36
that race just there the fav interfered with the 3rd twice
By:
Marcce
When: 13 Nov 13 15:05
Just seen the race for the first time.

That really was an horrendously bad decision.
By:
TheJudge
When: 13 Nov 13 15:10
How hard does everyome think the Jockey protested against the well backed trainers mount imo
By:
boyce
When: 13 Nov 13 16:25
worst decision ive ever seen,,surely an ivestigation is warranted,,that is just blatant robbery
By:
Poppydog.
When: 13 Nov 13 16:35
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.
By:
BESTMATE44
When: 13 Nov 13 16:43
Completely agree boyce.
Page 2 of 2  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com