There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
14 Mar 14
17:07
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jul 07
So the stewards can sincerely state that the interference caused to the runner up didn't cost it the 2 inches it needed to win the race. Complete bollocks decision.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 8
|
By:
pointless having enquiries
 |
|
By:
Theres always the courts? Kings Lake / To agori Mou (or however you spell the stupid name)....
|
|
By:
Stewards are bottling decsisions and making a mockery of the rules.
|
|
By:
Brownes - they are not saying that, nor UNDER THE RULES do they need to. What they are saying UNDER THE RULES is that they cannot be sure (on the balance of probabilities) that the obvious interference cost the runner up the race. Simples really
 |
|
By:
If the stewards consider that there has been interference, which they did, they simply need to establish 'did it cost it the race'. If you are beaten a diminishing short head and there was interference then obviously it cost the runner up the race. It shouldn't matter whether it's the Gold Cup or a seller at Sedgefield.
|
|
By:
Blackbarn, that is precisely my point. You can never be 100 percent sure of anything but you have to you blindingly obvious common sense.
|
|
By:
Brownes - you have summarised the issue PERFECTLY in your 16.14 post. The problem is that on the balance of probabilities the stewards did not agree with you.
|
|
By:
Consistent with the rules of racing and that is what their job is. I backed the winner place only so made no difference to me financially. My only very small win bet was The Giant Bolster who was also unlucky in running.
|