DONCASTER STEWARDS UTTER DISGRACE

As I said, I was speaking in general terms - and that is there should never be anything in the rules that should suggest to jockeys that as long as "they're on the best horse", any interference will be excused.

Imo, we need to get out of the situation we're in now, whereby jockeys are walking back to the weighing room, and trying to justify the interference they just caused by saying to the interviewer: "I was on the best horse".

WHY?

Because you're then saying to jockeys, as is the situation currently 99.9% of the time, that so long as you win by more than a nose, pretty much anything goes - and that is compromising safety, encouraging gamesmanship, and weighing the rules too heavily in the favour of the OFFENDER!

HAD THE BETTING ON THE TWO HORSES BEEN REVERSED AND THE FAV HAD FINISHED FIRST PAST THE POST,THE RESULT WOULD HAVE STOOD,FACT!

bONDI BEACH WAS PENNING SIMPLE VERSE IN A FURLONG OUT,HE WAS FAIR GAME TO ME,INTERFERENCE IS NOT JUST 100 YARDS IN

The game is fast becoming the equivalent of La Liga, jockeys diving trying to get others booked. Half ton machines and we are trying to turn it inot a non contact sport.

Bondi Beach got beat up by a girl today.

Sos about cap locks

IT HAS GOT THAT BAD THAT EVEN THIS SITE WITHHOLD PAYMENT UNTIL THE WEIGH IN IF THE FAV IS BEATEN LESS THAN HALF A LENGTH,THE STEWARDS ARE A DISGRACE!

Offender and victim are words that don't really apply in this case though are they? I mean they are both guilty of barging the other. Bondi Beach was trying to keep the filly in, a legitimate riding tactic, but she got out and he wasn't strong enough to keep her in.

Then when she got out he still had a chance to go past her but couldn't, what you could do was hit Andrea with a ban, but don't reverse the decision for god's sake.

The more I think about this disgrace of a decision the more it disgusts me. And not pocket talking, I backed Storm the stars so it matters little to me which of them won.

But this is a classic, not a seller at Market Rasen. The stewards had to be completely certain that the "interference" affected the result. The result will stand forever in the history books, and Simple Verse's name should be in there, not Bondi Beach.

Well said Lewisham

Surely there's a good chance they will get it on appeal?

Should I appeal to betfair then?

duffyg, no point in appealing. However what you should do when you back a horse on Betfair is leave a 1.01 lay. (Apologies if you lost your money in running.)

Good point but betfair pay on official result so when simple verses connections get their appeal(and they will) will I get paid?

I don't think the BHA want results being reversed as it costs them money as it hits the bookmaker profits, who obviously pay out on both results, so I think there is a chance the BHA will reinstate the filly to teach the Donny stewards what they're meant to be doing, imo!

Shahdaroba and Islesman being 2 examples of horses who were reinstated on appeal, when the stewards had arguably been correct to disqualify them in the first place.

Simple Verse deserved to lose the race for one reason only, the complete ineptness of the rider in the stewards room. He completely shamed himself in the room and the case he put forward would not have been dissimilar to a 2yo child.
You just knew it was up for grabs after both jockeys spoke, O Donoghue excelled and Atzeni showed himself to have the brain of an ant.

Lewisham ranger the result was a 100% the right decision. The jockey is a complete cabbage...look at the ride he gave battersea the day before...he got himself in a similar position and made a balls of it to

Lewisham ranger the result was a 100% the right decision. The jockey is a complete cabbage...look at the ride he gave battersea the day before...he got himself in a similar position and made a balls of it to

JIMEEN THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT "SHAMED THEMSELFS" WERE THE STEWARDS THEMSELFS,UTTER DISGRACE!

If this had been a minor race at Lingfield the view would have been :- "A bit harsh, but I can see why they've done it". Apart from connections, and people not savvy enough to get paid first past the post.

Atzeni gave them every chance to throw it out and they did. If O Donoghue rode the original winner, then he wouldnt have lost it in the room.
If they are going to appeal they would be best advised to get a sick note for Andrea.

IF THE HORSE THAT FINISHED SECOND BEEN A 33/1 SHOT,THE RESULT WOULD HAVE STOOD,FACT!

The best horse lost because of the jockeys eloquence? Come on

If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle

Not a hope in hell of winning an appeal, Atzeni got stuck on the rail, then tried to barge his way out.
No need for him to be there, he had 1m2f to get of it. He deserved to lose the race for being a stupid dope alone and the owners deserved to lose it for hiring him.

The Steward said they listened to what the jockies had to say, then saw film of the incidents, and decided to reverse the placings. He also said that the jockies wouldn't admit if they were in the wrong, so it is really a pointless exercise interviewing them in the first place.

All the evidence they need is recorded.

factmachine     12 Sep 15 23:04 
IF THE HORSE THAT FINISHED SECOND BEEN A 33/1 SHOT,THE RESULT WOULD HAVE STOOD,FACT!

Why, so the stewards could do favourite backers a turn out of the goodness of their own hearts?

I love the way too people are saying the best horse won and are completely ignoring that if "the best horse" couldn't get off the rail without barging its way out then it wouldn't have won. That's almost as amusing as those saying the filly "got out" as if by some chance a massive gap suddenly opened up and the jockey couldn't believe his luck and so took the opening presented to him.

The jockey made his own gap.

As I mentioned in an earlier thread the geezer in charge who yesterday was on the telly trying to justify the decision should do the right thing and resign if this is turned over on appeal. What was more interesting is I don't think was a unanimous decision by the beaks. What does that say?

On a separate matter do any of them ever resign when they make a truly monster gaff? What do they do for their dosh - assuming they are remunerated? How much do you get paid. Giz a job I can do that.

Finally should the Stewards have interpreters? Not as mad a suggestion as you think. Anybody else would. About fair play and gathering the evidence and not disadvantaging or discrminating.

I was at Doncaster will post a full review later but I backed "the winner" at 1.17 during the enquiry for £2000 on here that's how sure I was the result should stand (and I don't play at that level or on those type of markets normally) that's how sure I was the result would stand!

I think from speaking to s pro punter later it was in the stewards room where the jockey lost came across as a rabbit in headlights that sealed the fate. A more accomplished performance of confidence he bumped me I bumped him we both kept riding etc would have seen the result stand.

I then after a couple of bottles of very good St Emillion got stuck into golden horn pre and post race which thankfully went my way plus bronze angel which turned a horror day into £366+

Why bother to interview the jockeys anyway, it's not a criminal trial

the stewards can see very well just from the video what happened in the race

Why bother to interview the jockeys anyway

They issue bans to jockeys (preventing them from working), the procedures would be deemed unfair without listening to the jockey's point of view.

But that part should be to ascertain if the jockey is guilty of careless riding or not

As far as changing or keeping the result is concerned, they should be entirely dependent on the video, what the jockey's say should be irrelevant

Plenty on her praising the jockey on Bondi Beach, and slagging off Andrea for not speaking his corner, but for me the result of a classic horse race should not be dependent on which jockey gives a better case at the hearing, if that is the case then it's just plain wrong

steward--said prize of race never taken into account

shouldn't it be?

Getting boxed in in a 1m6f 7 runner race, then barging your way out is fair is it? The first bump was significant and as Colm said it cost him half a length. He is coming back at the filly all the way to the line after getting another bump, then beaten less than a head.

I feel as soon as Atzeni decided to barge his way out he was opening himself to this possibility. He may well have been on the best horse, but due to his riding decisions he got it in a poor position. Thats racing.

I have to agree with Lewisham. Evidence is right their in front of the stewards! They can see what has happened, in slow motion and different angles. No jockey is going to go into an enquiry situation and do anything other than try to come out on top. If a steward needs to hear tales of mystery and imagination to come to a conclusion they are in the wrong job.

"THERE".

I have'nt seen the race but I would say the stewards have made the correct decision,in all cases where the FAV is involved in a stewards inquiry the FAV should always keep the race or be promoted to first place.

Sunday forum

Matt ---simple verse --should of kept
Weaver -right decision
a down  - simple verse--hard done by--won't win appeal

Out of that bunch, only MC understands the UK rules as they stand, it seems.

I watched the race for the first time today.  Simple Verse was interfered with.
I'm glad they are appealing the decision.

" I don't think it was a unanimous decision by the beaks. What does that say?"

In the TV interview afterwards he said we never reveal if it was a unanimous decision or not. And yesterday I certainly don't think it was. I reckon Simple Verse should have kept it. Andrea is a brilliant jockey but agree with some comments on here that he did not argue his case very well, but positively 100% agree with this comment, "the result of a classic horse race should not be dependent on which jockey gives a better case at the hearing."

crumbs its ding dong close, but my notion is it's going to be rev'd @ appeal...we'll see

Atzeni was very poor in  the stewards room, he was almost welcoming them to reverse the result.

Atzeni was also poor in the saddle, should never have got himself boxed in.

stewards split

new rule has to be unanimous to change result

ANOTHER ONE IN IRELAND TODAY,BET YOU CANT GUESS WHO GOT THE RACE,FAV FAV FAV FAV FAV FAV FAV

UTTER JOKE,TOTALLY CORRUPT!

dry your eyes smaller than the machine

BIGMO GOT U SUSSED LITTLE MAN

get a new box of tissues hulk said

OK

When the Head Steward came on TV to justify his decision he made no mention of BB leaning into the Filly. It seemed very one sided into what SHE'D done. Hope she gets it on appeal and I would think most people feel the same. Also Colm in his interview was going on about steady pace, weight allowance etc she got but I thought she never 100% relaxed in the race and probably also used energy by not doing so. BB just didn't have the balls to pass her end of.

can't understand what the weight allowance has got to do with it...

Nor I but this was one of Colms excuses in his interview for the filly having a better turn of foot over the distance!! Make a great salesman or politician when he retires!!

Think both sets of stewards call it right yesterday (UK & IRE) imo.

Both got it wrong for me - Golden Horn should've been demoted behind Free Eagle, & Simple Verse should've kept the race.

Both got it wrong for me - Golden Horn should've been demoted behind Free Eagle, & Simple Verse should've kept the race.

IT WAS JUST A COINCIDENCE THEY WERE BOTH FAVS

Simple Verse will get the race but punters skint..that's the game...Golden Horn maybe Golden Balls...

Over the rainbow makes a very important point. The stewards seemed to completely ignore that after the initial bump it was Bondi Beach who was leaning into Simple Verse for an extended period. Simple Verse then lightly bumped Bondi Beach. At no time in the last 2 furlongs did Bondi Beach look like getting past Simple Verse. She was undoubtedly still holding him at the line. If the original bump is considered dangerous riding or that alone cost Bondi Beach the race you could argue for a disqualification. Neither of those things seemed the case for me. It was simply a very bad decision under the rules. Quite possibly Atzeni was too 'nice' in the stewards but this should have no effect.

I agree Asparagus to my mind the best horse past the post first. As I saw it the first incident had little effect on the outcome and the second was six and two threes. Obviously the stewards saw it different and given the margin of defeat overruled it. That is fair enough even though I dont agree with it but I would hate to think that ODonogues assertive and persuasive argument swayed the stewards. To my mind jockeys should be there to answer questions not put forward cases.

I agree Asparagus to my mind the best horse past the post first. As I saw it the first incident had little effect on the outcome and the second was six and two threes. Obviously the stewards saw it different and given the margin of defeat overruled it. That is fair enough even though I dont agree with it but I would hate to think that ODonogues assertive and persuasive argument swayed the stewards. To my mind jockeys should be there to answer questions not put forward cases.

If you're upsides another horse on your inner and that horse barges you out of the way to get a clear run, and in the process of doing so you go from upsides to one length down but still manage to reduce that new one length deficit to only a head at the line, can you not see how meaningless it is to say "oh but the 2nd never looked like passing" when without the bump and losing the extra one length then it probably would have passed?

I'm a bit bewildered as to the relevance of favourites getting or keeping races via the stewards too and what's supposed to be going on here, they are doing punters a good turn or something so as to punish the big bad bookies? We all love a conspiracy theory but if they were actually throwing favourites out then it might make a bit more sense.

when the winning jockey was being interviewed straight after the race ,sitting on the horse ,
he looked up at the big screen replay ,and his face almost turned white he new he had lost the race ,
by the worried expression on his face ! it maybe ungentlemanly conduct keeping a horse penned in ,but the winning jockey breached the rules end of chapter !

The inconsistency is the only part of the decision to reverse the result which annoyed me.
At the time my thought was 'this could get thrown out' but when does that ever actually happen?
I would imagine my lay of Bondi Beach was one of the last matched on here before the final suspension at 16.07 on Saturday for a score at 3.7 after the stewards had made their decision.
I'd like to think the shrewdie who got that had just woken from a coma bearing in mind the price never went below 5.0 for the entirety of the betting in the aftermath of the race. But we all know that isn't as probable as some toff or connection to those that knew the decision spiking the price down just as the market finally suspended.
 
In summary i would say these two things to those that lost money on Saturday due to the stewards.
Either... 1) Give betting a knock on the head when in the lap of the gods aka the stewards.

2)Have a look at all Bondi Beach's previous races and if you're patient enough when probably 95% of it's offspring are turning out in low grade races at the likes of Fakenham and other such gaffs in 2020 onwards remember yesterdays decision and make money from it as i suspect B Beach is a NH stallion in the mould of Scorpion.

Ima Mazed, you may need to go back and look at the race again. If what you said was true about a horse being level with another and coming out of the bump a length ahead before going on to win a race by a head then of course you have a case for disqualification. That simply wasn't the case. I've watched it 20 times+ and Simple Verse was already ahead of Bondi beach before the bump and doesn't come out of the bump any real distance further ahead. Certainly a matter of inches and not more than the head Simple Verse won by. In addition Atzeni is clearly not all out in the final few strides and the winning distance of a head could almost certainly have been a tiny bit more.

There is no doubt that under our rules as they stand it was a terrible decision. The stewards clearly looked to have been influenced by the more persuasive jockey.

A very unsatisfactory affair, imo.

Two good jockeys: one filly stronger and faster than a colt.

Sadly, I think that the pilots must be interviewed. When there's an accident, drivers are asked for their versions of what went wrong, eg. the Glasgow bin-lorry driver ( yes, a much more serious event).
We have to hear if they say something went wrong, etc.

On the other hand, action speaks louder than words.
The head-on video I saw showed BB with his head in and his ar se sticking out as he leaned on.
The filly made contact with her ar se. I'd say the filly had her head in front at this stage.
But roolz is rules, I guess, though I prefer to see barging allowed in such cases. In NH we see it all the time, even when animals jump across in front of another. McCoy was great at it.
I doubt much will be done to prevent a repetition.

I'm sorry asparagus but I stand by my version of events regarding how the race panned out.

At both the 4f and 3f poles Bondi Beach is ahead of Simple Verse and just before the 2f pole the 4 horses involved at the end are in two pairs, with SV on the rail in 4th tracking Fields Of Athenry and BB in 3rd tracking Storm The Stars, with both of those last named runners one off the rail. After the bumping match BB and SV go from around level to BB around a length down or at least three-quarters of a length anyway, as it's hard to tell exactly from the camera angle.

It was this bump that effectively opened up the gap by knocking BB to the side and getting him unbalanced that made the opening for SV to go through. I don't really agree either that Atzeni wasn't all out on the filly and maybe inside the final 2f he felt he would take the leader and also hold off BB, yet in the end around the half a furlong pole he had to get serious with her and go for the whip and even bumped BB again, which made him (Atzeni) pull his whip through to try to correct her after she shifted right late on.

I'm also not as convinced as some that the stewards based their decision on how effective each jockey spoke in the enquiry and even if some feel O'Donoghue was better, it doesn't necessarily follow that that was the reason for their decision anyway. 

Whether the appeal is successful or not if the decision on the day can be deemed wrong based on the current rules, either way I still feel the correct decision was made based on how things should be.

I been going  racing  before most of the current racing  pundits. i.e.Morning  line,were born,
Sadly that doesn't make me  any  richer financially,experience doesnt count   in racing.
With only  the benifit of  that experience i can say this.Over the last few years i have seen   horses keep   race after race  when 20 years ago they  would  have been  without  doubt  disqualified. We have been  brainwashed by  the  pundits that the  horse that  wins,  will  not be  thrown out,under  almost any circumstances,to my way of understanding ,it  has too be pretty bad to get  yourself  disqualified racing  in the U.K.  today. Sadly last Saturday at Town Moor the  goalposts were moved.A worthy winner was greeted by 'Objection Sustained'   Even  if the appeal is sucessful and  the filly gets the  race the damage  has been  done.
That memory for Ralph Beckett ,Andrea  Atzeni, The Owner, and all their stable staff will have been tarnished for ever.

Ima Amazed, you may think that the correct was made based on how things should be. I would probably agree with that. Personally, I think the rules should be in all cases that the horse who gets interfered with gets the benefit of any doubt. Ie if its a 50/50 decision the interferer gets disqulaified. However, that's not how our rules currently stand. My understanding of the hundreds (if not thousands) of stewards enquiries i've seen before is that unless the stewards are very confident the placings have been affected the result stands. That's why to me this decision was a very very poor one.
I'm not sure either whether Atzeni should be allowed to bump his way out of a gap but as our rules stand that in itself isn't enough to cause a disqualification unless its deemed as dangerous riding. In this case compared to the precedent of so many others i don't think it could be considered dangerous. Peslier at Goodwood was one to me that could have been considered dangerous and disqualified as he almost knocked horses over to get out of a gap.

I WONDER HOW THEY WOULD BET ON THE RESULT BEING REVERSED????? KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE LITTLE CREDIBILITY THE SPORT HAS LEFT WILL EVAPORATE ON A AMENDED RESULT AND PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE STEWARDS CAN NOT BE TRUSTED TO DO THE JOB!

Cant see this result being changed now not in a Million years......And i do think the it was the right decision by the stewards.These Big Races are getting rougher and it's time it was stamped out

Right decision imo - Appeal has next to no hope!

moanmachine still crying....get over it

I'm arguing more though that it was the correct decision in general or morally more so than whether it was correct based on the current rules asparagus because I don't think the current rules are logical, so I think we are in agreement more than not so.

I understand why the old rules were changed but now think it's gone too far the other way and jockeys have free rein to break the rules, as in ride dangerously or recklessly just as long as they still win and are willing to do so and take their chance with the stewards when knowing more often than not they will keep the race regardless, even if it means getting a ban. Ask Atzeni would he have been happy to take his jockey share of the almost £400k prize money for winning the Leger but also take a ban and I'm sure he would have settled for that.

The current rules almost encourage poor riding and yet if a jockey does get a ban then that is the stewards admitting he has done wrong but he is still rewarded for doing wrong by being allowed to keep the race. That's like a footballer already on a yellow card using his hand to score a goal and the referee gives him a second yellow and sends him off for breaking the rules but lets the goal stand anyway.

You are right about jockeys regularly breaking the rules,ima.

I just watched 15 international top flight races, 5 from Longchamp, 5 from Canada and 5 from Australia.

As far as I could tell there was only one piece of (minor) interference that took place in the last two furlongs of all those races.

The Australian races were particularly bunched,close finishes, but every horse ran straight. Not one rider barged his way out or allowed

his horse to drift across the course from one side to the other,something which in 40 years of watching American racing I have never seen

apart from Frankie's ride in the Breeder's Cup one year. (Forget the horse's name).

It's not that our jockeys are incapable of correcting a horse that drifts out,it's that they know the chances are they will keep the race.

Atzeni would have got 21 days at least in Australia, but then again he wouldn't have done what he did in the St Leger because he would know

that he would lose the race and get a hefty suspension.

Well, yes, from a punter's point of view, this allowing the result to stand while giving the jockey even a huge ban is what sickens many of us, imo.
In this case, I had no bet, but thought the first over the line was the winner and would stay the winner, despite all the bumping and barging.
I was wrong about that, and, as has been said, we have got a bit complacent about these things just being allowed. A bit like bikes on the footpath; driving through amber and red lights; parking any place, etc.

Now that there has been a tightening up on enforcement, I cannot see the authorities reversing this one. I'd guess there'll be plenty of diplomatic telephone calls to the Qataris, though.


\|

That's my imagined bird's eye view of the "lines" of the two runners.
Which one isn't going straight?

I still believe in barging to get out or through.

\|

heads are this end.

would be sensible to hear the appeal promptly...can't see it being in anyone's interest to delay the hearing until next month.

To get an idea of just how much the interpretation of the rules has changed, have a look at this race from 15 years ago, in which the first past the post was disqualified for an incident more than 3F from the finish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsMWukLyQqM

The interference, which was adjudged serious irresponsible riding, occurs at about 2m 33s into the video.

election    Odds    Stake(£)    Bid type    Placed    Profit/loss(£)
Bondi Beach    *    5.05    220.20    Back         891.29
Storm The Stars    3.30    100.00    Back    12-Sep-15 15:40    -100.00
*Average odds: On  Off    Back subtotal:    791.29
Lay subtotal:    0.00
Market subtotal:    791.29
Commission @ 4%:    31.65
Net Market Total:    759.64

Fully appreciate Bondi Beach was leaning in but that's not an offence. Filly gives her two hefty bumps undoubtedly causing Bondi Beach to lose more ground than was beaten by. Final margin a head. WHERE'S THE CONFUSION?? Correct decision and no chance of being reversed IMO.

anorak.....disqualification seems a tad harsh ! in fact a ridiculous decision which certainly should have been appealed.

The promoted winner interfered with the filly and was leaning towards her and STS who was on the rail. This is a contact sport and the tracks aren't dead flat like in US or AUS so of course there's going to be alot more horses that won't keep the idiotic straight line. If the favourite had just kept his line in the last 1-2f and hadn't veered into the filly then the filly wouldn't had been forced to make room so that she woulnd't kill the horse on the rail STS. The head-on is quite revealing but the stewards were fooled on the day by the favourite jockey. I'm sure this atrocious decision will be reversed.

Posy,

Connections were furious on the day, but eventually decided not to appeal and I've no idea why, although the way the sport was run back then, appeals were rarely successful. Nowadays, I doubt if that incident would even result in a stewards enquiry, although maybe they would have a word with the jockey and give him a two day ban.

The bloke in charge of the discplinary system actually wrote a letter to the Post defending the disqualification and claiming that their decision not to appeal proved the stewards were right.

I still feel the disqualification from 15 years ago was right too because the winner is trapped on the inside once again and whilst that helps with saving ground, you still need to sit and suffer and hope a gap comes, yet if you do that then you are running out of time to get out, get balanced and then ride a finish.

If the jockey on the FPTP in that video felt he could sit still for another 2f and get out when a gap appeared and still win then surely he would have done that. The fact that he forced his way out and only won by half a length having got out around 3f from home whilst the 2nd went wide and always had a clear run, suggests the jockey on the FPTP knew he couldn't afford to sit and wait.

The FPTP had 3 runners ahead of him (including another in similar colours who did have to sit and wait) and plenty to his outer and so wouldn't have been best positioned to take any gap first even if he did sit and wait and that's the very reason he forced his way out and knocked other runners backwards and out of the race. Look what happens to the one in the nose band to his right and the other one in the two shades of blue colours two runners to his right.

Interesting footage, Alan! Thank you.

Back to recent events, and getting into "what if" and "if only",
how would things have ended

a) if there were a "cut-away" in the rail, as at Chester or Newmarket?

b)if the Haggas horse had been able to motor on a bit further, instead of coming back and completing the block?



I'm now convinced that there should be a rule change: if 'tis fine to lean on another with the front of a horse, but not allowed to bump with the hind-quarters, then 'tis not very fair, imo.
The main danger of horses coming together in close proximity is clipping heels. This is the one that brings them down and does damage to horse and rider.
Barging would only harm the pockets of those who backed the blocking animals.

Let's have barging!

Sounds good Sean ,, BB jock knew how well SV was travelling and knew he was the one to beat so tried to block him in , SV didnt gain ground with the bump on barge but opened the door to be able to run into space ,,,, barging ,,why not and as lng as know horses are hurt first one across to line keeps it ,,,,simple  ,,,, anyway that BB was never ever gonna go past SV with no barging bumping or leaning in ,,SV wins that by over a length with a clear run ..    Secret Guesture disq was worse for the stable ,, what a brutal few weeks for one of the smaller stables (in comparison ) breaking into the big time

Sadly, jon, one lesson I learned in life was that those who barge in DO prosper. Anybody in and around jockeys or even showjumping eventer gals knows that the fkrs always get in before ye if there's a queue!
They get between your legs or any which way to get in front; and they don't hang about long enough to pick up the tab and pay the bill.

This sort of behaviour even applies to those in some supposedly non-contact sports like basketball or soccer. There is all manner of jostling and wrestling that's surely not in the rulebooks.

Natural racing is what greyhounds do. 'Tis the excitement of the chase and the will to be first.
I agree that seeing one knocked ar se over bolli x isn't particularly pleasant, but neither would be racing with a total "after you, madam" approach.

Just my opinion.
There is no way the rulebook will ever be written to suit what I like, so I guess 'tis time to say "end of.."
( I hate that expression. )

Of course SV gained ground with the bump, as the two horses where side by side before it and BB ended up a length down after it.

Even if after the bump they were still on level terms though, SV gained an advantage via the bump by escaping from the pocket she was in when trapped on the rail, Even Frankel wouldn't win if he was on the rail and blocked in by those up ahead and with a horse to his outer that was holding it's line and keeping him in.

How many times have you seen an unlucky loser when a horse is stuck on the rail and something else gets first run on it after the unlucky horse had to sit and suffer or take pull and go around other runners to get a run? Then when it's flying at the finish but the line comes to soon, that's the very reason it gets considered unlucky.

Matt Chapman-The Sun




http://favourite.thesun.co.uk/article/6646451

Booom Matt!!

anyone know how do i get my money back/winnings if it was a bet on the exchanges?

Just contact your friendly layer.

As Derek says, money talks.

don't know if you're being ironic TripleB but Betfair markets are settled on the result on the day.

SHOCK! CORRUPT STEWARDS FOUND OUT AGAIN,WHAT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AGAINST THEM,NONE

So what happens when money talks and both horse's connections have money?