Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
?
Show More
strange one this accidental interferance possibly i think will keep the race
1.1 to keep it
11s to get chucked
Probably about right, but second was surely coming to win it with a second wind
11s to get chucked
Probably about right, but second was surely coming to win it with a second wind
Certainly should get thrown out but our rules/stewards being what they are may well say that it 'didn't effect the placings' !
the odds say he will keep it but the runner up would had won....
hulk23 05 Dec 15 15:07
deserved the win, shame he'll get chucked out
post your bet on the 2nd its 8/1..tar
deserved the win, shame he'll get chucked out
post your bet on the 2nd its 8/1..tar
Interference at a fence when jumping is regarded as irrelevant to the result. Only interference on the flat is penalised and results changed.
More chance of me supporting the red shíte than that getting chucked..
how can you argue that almost knocking the runner-up over the stand didn't cost it less than a length ??
Should be disqualified, but the bookmakers will have to pay out twice in the biggest race of the day, which under the obscene gross profits deal will cost horse racing thousands, so it won't, imo...
roida, if it gets chucked out you were watching the waltons and missed it. luckily.
WAC
WAC
IS.......agree......should be thrown out but almost certain to keep it
Should be disqualified, but the bookmakers will have to pay out twice in the biggest race of the day, which under the obscene gross profits deal will cost horse racing thousands, so it won't, imo...
millhouse has summed it up
millhouse has summed it up
sire jumped to left at fence hampering 2nd...last 100yds 2nd gained nothing and sire was actually inchy away again..imposs to say 2nd would have won.
has hulk posted a bet yet? walofs
has hulk posted a bet yet? walofs
Xmoney. According to the rules accidental interference is no different from any other kind. It only affects the possibility of a jockey getting
days.
days.
Rule 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.
and this rule still applies whether the interference is accidental or not.
and this rule still applies whether the interference is accidental or not.
Outpost - you can hear Cunninghams bull .. about how it "wasnt closing at the line" trying to persuade everyone.
stewards are obsolete
totally irrelevant
free money when an enquiry is called
totally irrelevant
free money when an enquiry is called
No sour grapes. Dont play if you dont know how the rules will be applied. HTH.
knoxville stop woffling utter **** you clown..plenty been disq lately.
I backed the 2nd.I find it unreal how they can say the interference didn't change the result.the 2nd was basically stopped in its tracks and then was coming back at the winner in the closing stages strange rules.gary Moore's flying
You have hit the nail on the head,blackbarn. How can the stewards conclude that the runner up wasn't slowed down by more than the losing distance?
Nobody's listening ffs.
You try to help but they wont listen.
You try to help but they wont listen.
railroader 05 Dec 15 15:22
I backed the 2nd.I find it unreal how they can say the interference didn't change the result.the 2nd was basically stopped in its tracks and then was coming back at the winner in the closing stages
you need to find another hobby
I backed the 2nd.I find it unreal how they can say the interference didn't change the result.the 2nd was basically stopped in its tracks and then was coming back at the winner in the closing stages
you need to find another hobby
Intense preoccupation with a narrow subject - asking people to post yer bet.
Aspergers.
Aspergers.
The result is 'good for racing' - we should all just move on to losing some money in the next race, as far as the BHA and its bookmaker partners are concerned...
Roida are you always a self righteous prick or is it just how you come across in your posts?
knoxville 05 Dec 15 15:33
yes a liar and a coward. you post constant lies on here. everyone can see through you.
post 1 lie ive posted and i'll never post again.
yes a liar and a coward. you post constant lies on here. everyone can see through you.
post 1 lie ive posted and i'll never post again.
roids betting strategy will always give him the big man syndrome, 87 winners in a row makes him better than everyone else.
and then he drops 20 grand trying to win a fish supper.
and then he drops 20 grand trying to win a fish supper.
hulk23 05 Dec 15 15:07
deserved the win, shame he'll get chucked out
deserved the win, shame he'll get chucked out
Individuals with AS experience difficulties in basic elements of social interaction, which may include a failure to develop friendships or to seek shared enjoyments or achievements with others.
in this race last year vibrato knocked a horse sideways and they did'nt change it you have to jump allover a horse and you still won't get the race' i'm not talking through my pocket, this make's a pratt of having stewards.
Does anyone honestly think SDG would have won without the interference ?
YOU CANT always CHOOSE WHERE TO CHALLENGE IN THESE top races but feihly went the wrong way ,the winner jumped just as far to his left at the 2nd last
breadnbutter 05 Dec 15 16:00
Does anyone honestly think SDG would have won without the interference ?
stewards have to be certain 2nd would have won...imposs to be certain..hence result stood.
Does anyone honestly think SDG would have won without the interference ?
stewards have to be certain 2nd would have won...imposs to be certain..hence result stood.
rules are rules, but despite SDG's popularity the result was roundly booed by the large crowd. that gives you an insight into what the racing public think of the rules.
not asking that roida ,am asking if anyone on here thinks that SDG would have beaten ST without the interference ?
its a simple question
its a simple question
stewards have to be certain 2nd would have won...imposs to be certain..hence result stood.
bb thats open to differing opinions..some will say yes some no.
well lets start with your good self ....yes or no ?
Ive stated my opinion..2nd was hmp jumping last but gained nothing in last 100yds with grugy inching away last few yards..therefore if i were a steward i'd of said imposs to conclusively say 2nd would def have won.
Shocking verdict by the stewards.
Without the interference the second would have jumped the fence and been away before the winner had recovered.
Not that I backed either of them.
What's the point of holding an inquiry. They practise first past the post racing in the UK.
It used to be illegal to bet fptp, now it's the norm.
Without the interference the second would have jumped the fence and been away before the winner had recovered.
Not that I backed either of them.
What's the point of holding an inquiry. They practise first past the post racing in the UK.
It used to be illegal to bet fptp, now it's the norm.
cant say a def yes or no...but if not convinced its a yes result has to stand.
all in my stride irish.
roida is a con artist. easy to see through.
spouts his opinions as facts. the fact is, he is a lying cowardly fook. no backbone in him whatsoever.
roida is a con artist. easy to see through.
spouts his opinions as facts. the fact is, he is a lying cowardly fook. no backbone in him whatsoever.
I think the second was coming up to jump into the lead at the last as SDG was slowing but because the second was brought to a standstill SDG picked up quicker and managed to hold on.
the second would probably have gone on to win by several lengths if he hadn't been completely stopped at the last.
only the Sandown stewards and Stevie Wonder couldn't see it.
the second would probably have gone on to win by several lengths if he hadn't been completely stopped at the last.
only the Sandown stewards and Stevie Wonder couldn't see it.
the second would probably have gone on to win by several lengths if he hadn't been completely stopped at the last.
it was 1L down a fur out..was still 1L down at the line.
it was 1L down a fur out..was still 1L down at the line.
the second would probably have gone on to win by several lengths if he hadn't been completely stopped at the last.
only the Sandown stewards and Stevie Wonder couldn't see it.
All Stewards have had it made clear to them, in no uncertain terms, by the BHA, through communications from the bookmakers, how much disqualifying horses in big races costs the bookmaking industry and so costs racing...
only the Sandown stewards and Stevie Wonder couldn't see it.
All Stewards have had it made clear to them, in no uncertain terms, by the BHA, through communications from the bookmakers, how much disqualifying horses in big races costs the bookmaking industry and so costs racing...
Roida ,if you were in full flight with a short distance to the finish and someone ran into you full pelt ,90% chance you would be at least winded, and it would take you a good few seconds to regroup by that time your opponent would have raced away and won.
roida 05 Dec 15 16:18
the second would probably have gone on to win by several lengths if he hadn't been completely stopped at the last.
it was 1L down a fur out..was still 1L down at the line.
You are having a laugh..looks like you dont have any race reading skills as I see you are sitting on the fence regarding wether the 2nd would have won or not...
it would have been 1L up after the last had it not been broadsided, it did well to get as close as it did having had the stuffing knocked out of it.
the second would probably have gone on to win by several lengths if he hadn't been completely stopped at the last.
it was 1L down a fur out..was still 1L down at the line.
You are having a laugh..looks like you dont have any race reading skills as I see you are sitting on the fence regarding wether the 2nd would have won or not...
it would have been 1L up after the last had it not been broadsided, it did well to get as close as it did having had the stuffing knocked out of it.
Think the Stewards wanted to continue the love affair with Gary Moore and Sire de Grugy owners just like Channe 4. Surely igf that didnt warrant being thrown out what does. If you look at the line 2nd was inching closer in my eyes and should have been awarded race!
Phuck me!
Even Roida is refusing to listen.
CONTACT AT AN OBSTACLE IS IGNORED WHEN STEWARDS ARE REVIEWING INTERFERENCE.
How many phucking times do I have to spell it out, ffs!
Good night.
Even Roida is refusing to listen.
CONTACT AT AN OBSTACLE IS IGNORED WHEN STEWARDS ARE REVIEWING INTERFERENCE.
How many phucking times do I have to spell it out, ffs!
Good night.
Not doubting you loper but can you just copy and paste that part of the rules? I genuinely can't find it.
If I was being pedantic I'd say forcing a rival off the course approaching an obstacle would be disqualification and contact at an obstacle. Dunwoody and Maguire springs to mind.
It's not written in the rules, The Fear.
The Stipendiary Steward will guide the stewards panel toward that interpretation.
Having spent 20 years on the racecourse on a near daily basis (until the on course markets went tits up) I have been given that info as an explanation when I have questioned the result of past inquiries.
The Stipendiary Steward will guide the stewards panel toward that interpretation.
Having spent 20 years on the racecourse on a near daily basis (until the on course markets went tits up) I have been given that info as an explanation when I have questioned the result of past inquiries.
I backed the winner, simply because I thought it was a big price, stable in form and I didnt fancy the fav. On the approach to the last I was preparing for a neck and neck war to the line. Blood pressure job! That pressure dissipated when SDG ran into the runner up. Did it affect the result? I think it affected the distance between the two at the line. Would I have thrown a wedge at any on the approach to the last? No chance. Did SDG deserve to win? It certainly didn't deserve to lose. Did Special Tiara deserve to lose? Probably not. Conclusion? One has to accept that on this occasion the first past the post collects. This is jump racing, and sometimes these things happen. I still dislike all concerned with the winner though!
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference at the final fence. Having
heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the winner, SIRE DE GRUGY (FR),
ridden by Jamie Moore, had interfered with SPECIAL TIARA, placed second, ridden by Noel Fehily. They
found that the interference was accidental, in that the gelding had jumped left-handed and the rider was
unable to prevent him from doing so. They considered that the interference had not improved SIRE DE
GRUGY (FR)’s placing as, although the interference cost SPECIAL TIARA some ground and momentum,
the winner appeared to be holding him comfortably on the run to the line. The Stewards ordered the
placings to remain unaltered.
heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the winner, SIRE DE GRUGY (FR),
ridden by Jamie Moore, had interfered with SPECIAL TIARA, placed second, ridden by Noel Fehily. They
found that the interference was accidental, in that the gelding had jumped left-handed and the rider was
unable to prevent him from doing so. They considered that the interference had not improved SIRE DE
GRUGY (FR)’s placing as, although the interference cost SPECIAL TIARA some ground and momentum,
the winner appeared to be holding him comfortably on the run to the line. The Stewards ordered the
placings to remain unaltered.
all correct as far as the rules go,but what they should be asking is if the 2nd hadnt been broadside at the last do you think he,d have been a length down at the line
so why are more jockeys not jumping across a rival thats travelling well and coming to challenge at the last ?
what a thick shower they are ,should be standard procedure ,jump across your rival at the last ....every fckn time and without fail ,they cant do anything about it .
what a thick shower they are ,should be standard procedure ,jump across your rival at the last ....every fckn time and without fail ,they cant do anything about it .
Poor Special Tiara was practically turned sideways by the interference. I'm sure it was accidental but theres no way the STs connections should lose out as it must have cost the poor horse at least 3 lengths. Perhaps in circumstances of serious doubt (as in the St Leger too) the stewards should be able to call a dead heat. Prestige and prize money shared and punters get relief too.
Poor Henry DB - I feel for him as I remember him getting the thin end of the wedges in a stewards at the Cheltenham festival a few years ago. He bore that with great dignity as I'm sure he did todays events - hope it doesnt stop him bringing his horses over.
Poor Henry DB - I feel for him as I remember him getting the thin end of the wedges in a stewards at the Cheltenham festival a few years ago. He bore that with great dignity as I'm sure he did todays events - hope it doesnt stop him bringing his horses over.
When I watched live, I said to myself, jockey aimed left on purpose, to hamper the other horse, that is my opinion, it should have been chucked out and the jockey given a lengthy ban, AP used to do it a lot
100% not on any wind up or i wudnt have stated it wont get disq...or is that difficult to decipher?
I have to say I backed Special Tiara and watched it with my family who couldnt believe what happened and that he would have won given an uninterupted run to the line..
the stewards explanation that they didnt reverse the places because they ruled "that the interference had not improved SIRE DE
GRUGY (FR)’s placing as, although the interference cost SPECIAL TIARA some ground and momentum,
the winner appeared to be holding him comfortably on the run to the line" kind of misses the point in that if he hadnt been interfered with he wouldnt have lost momentum and would have been closing all the way to the line.
In addition the jockey gets a whip ban for overuse. Enough said.
the stewards explanation that they didnt reverse the places because they ruled "that the interference had not improved SIRE DE
GRUGY (FR)’s placing as, although the interference cost SPECIAL TIARA some ground and momentum,
the winner appeared to be holding him comfortably on the run to the line" kind of misses the point in that if he hadnt been interfered with he wouldnt have lost momentum and would have been closing all the way to the line.
In addition the jockey gets a whip ban for overuse. Enough said.
THE STEWARDS HAVE TO BE CERTAIN THE 2ND WOULD HAVE WON...
impossible to say that.
impossible to say that.
breadnbutter
so why are more jockeys not jumping across a rival thats travelling well and coming to challenge at the last ?
what a thick shower they are ,should be standard procedure ,jump across your rival at the last ....every fckn time and without fail ,they cant do anything about it .
You obviously don't watch much racing. When they hit the front national hunt jockeys regularly edge across a to intimidate a horse in 2nd place both before the last and afterwards. McCoy was a great exponent of this. I'm sure Moore didn't intend to broadside the second like that but I'm equally sure he knew his horse would jump left which would not help the second.
so why are more jockeys not jumping across a rival thats travelling well and coming to challenge at the last ?
what a thick shower they are ,should be standard procedure ,jump across your rival at the last ....every fckn time and without fail ,they cant do anything about it .
You obviously don't watch much racing. When they hit the front national hunt jockeys regularly edge across a to intimidate a horse in 2nd place both before the last and afterwards. McCoy was a great exponent of this. I'm sure Moore didn't intend to broadside the second like that but I'm equally sure he knew his horse would jump left which would not help the second.
ah right ....so intent is established ....thank you ....no more questions
Special Tiara didn't have a hope cos he's irish - probably the same lot who threw out Cahervillahow .
Think the interference was wholly accidental - but think Tiara's momentum was going to carry him throught to win. Also think these rules that operate at the minute are edging us closer to an incident that leaves either a jockey and or horse seriously injured on the run in. It will be openly seen by all there and it will undoubtedly seriously damage racings image.
That's my two cents anayways
Think the interference was wholly accidental - but think Tiara's momentum was going to carry him throught to win. Also think these rules that operate at the minute are edging us closer to an incident that leaves either a jockey and or horse seriously injured on the run in. It will be openly seen by all there and it will undoubtedly seriously damage racings image.
That's my two cents anayways
Mayoman I agree
imo the current rules are flawed and are encouraging a "win at ALL costs mentality" amongst riders unfortunately it is probably going to result in a nasty incident(s) before the rules are reviewed
imo the current rules are flawed and are encouraging a "win at ALL costs mentality" amongst riders unfortunately it is probably going to result in a nasty incident(s) before the rules are reviewed
' but think Tiara's momentum was going to carry him throught to win.'
not certain to win then? so decision was correct.
not certain to win then? so decision was correct.
Not sure the stewards have to be certain the 2nd would have won.
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,
satisified is not certain
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,
satisified is not certain
No one can be certain of what would have happened,it is only conjecture after. My opinion is Special Tiara would be about 85% the probable winner if no interference.
I tend to agree with previous posters with the double results and bookmakers,i think the result would have been changed in Ireland.
Poor call for racing and fair play overall.
I tend to agree with previous posters with the double results and bookmakers,i think the result would have been changed in Ireland.
Poor call for racing and fair play overall.
In Ireland the second gets the benefit, in UK winner gets the benefit.
Mightn't have been a foregone conclusion in Ireland but likely.
Accepting that the interference was accidental it still almost certainly cost the runner up, no wonder Henry de was so disappointed,it just isn't right.
Accepting that the interference was accidental it still almost certainly cost the runner up, no wonder Henry de was so disappointed,it just isn't right.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539