ENGLISH RACING HAS FALLEN INTO DISREPUTE,BADLY

I disagree, i watched the race from Aintree, and there's no doubt the irish horse got a bump..it was not intentional, and there was plenty of time for the 2nd to recover the 2nd was just unlucky, I for one will always want the stewards to side with the winner unless blatant?ive won and lost plenty on such descions..the most recent was @Chepstow when a king horse won but was demoted into 2nd to a nicholls horse, I disagreed with the stewards totally..but had to accept it..that was a lot closer than todays race..

i wasnt at sandown today but was aware of the booing, in all my years racing i have never heard booing at the out come of a stewards enquiry,even the bad decision in topsham bays whitbread at the same course and the farcical one at exeter a few years ago,there are of course many other poor decisions.

so what got the crowd at it like that today ?

tony,there were TWO incidents.The winning jockey broke the rules,so what are they in place for?(Whip use)
Re. betting,the last time I bet on the outcome of a stewards enquiry was over 10 years ago on a novice hurdle at Bangor.
   It means the "win at all costs" situation pays off.
  "What got the crowd going"?Seeing a horse nearly brought down,then catching the eventual winner with every stride,and knowing bar the incident that in all probability it would have won.They were responding to what they had seen,and thought it unfair.Obviously they didn't know,at that time,that the winning rider had used more strokes of the whip than were allowed.
  They probably will never know that,but the booing would have been even stronger.
   Racing most certainly brought into disrepute.

I have to say on rules about the whip you are correct, but as someone who thinks its ridiculous to punish a rider for how many smacks he gives a horse anyway, I,d be against horses being slung out because the the jock give it too many..

I had no financial involvement in this race but my take on things is that the runner up was 3/4 length down at the last and when they had sorted themselves out after the interference he was 1.5 to 2 lengths down. He then finished up 3/4 down at the line. Now as far as I am concerned that suggests that he would have won the race. Yes its not certain but in all cases we can only make estimates and I think the inference I have just made is better than simply saying if a horse is not short headed or headed we cannot award him the race. Cunningham made an incorrect comment when he said that there was no precedence for interference caused in the air. Well I can tell you he wrong on that, I had a horse beaten due to interference in the air at the last which was then given the race albeit because it was beaten a head.

I only learnt today that whilst jumping a fence any interference is classed as accidental. The whip rule has always been the same, so i dont see your point.

Also, we dont know whether SDG would had rallied or had more up his sleave as close to the line he was running on better again (if the runner up had a clear run)

and there's the the point..only beaten a head?..he was beat length, brave stewards to give a race to a 2nd beaten that far, with accidental bump jumping the last?

if accidental when in the air,why the stewards?

I can assure you that a horse has been disqualified for interference over the last fence. I expected the FPP to keep the race what In am syaing is that with this race I think the runner up can feel aggrieved