Stewards at fos las free money

could get reversed that

Scrap that, might go. Fair bit of barging

Had to move right to finish on the realigned track. Not fair if thrown out

might keep it but it's hardly free money imo

agree with arrested

'he's won by a good short head'- Catt   

Could easily go...moved over further than he needed to just to get by the rail imo

The line of the run in confuses this.

Would get thrown otherwise.

I would reverse that personally.

Whether it would have gone past means absolutely zero

depends who the stewards were on, doesn't it.

should still stand though

deserves to keep it for me

Cat thinks there could be a reversal..

he did move across further than required but it's not an exact science- you can hardly expect him to aim for a yard inside the rail/marker when fighting out a finish head down on a tired horse..think he's got to have his whip in that hand and get his horse to move in that direction

The interference has cost him the race, imo.

they didnt need to move back to hurdles track, winning line comes before then

Dec 14, 2015 -- 4:03PM, Breedingmad wrote:

Cat thinks there could be a reversal..

originally he said quick look and head home

odds about right, could go either way this one

that would put a different complexion on it, dan!

The other thing in the winners favour is that the stewards are more tolerant of interference in bumpers as the runners are so inexperienced.

why so long ffs comedians

Should go , kept on whipping his mount right even after they bumped

in the rules who bumped who 1st lump on!!!!! it keeps race

stewerds waiting for some evens on the winner .no way should he go

they were in a head down battle a few bumps that dont cause interference on heavy ground 1st run ,these never go evens is insane

dont see how anyone can be adamant about which way that should go

must be coz they think they will give it to the welsh trainer so they went through card

didnt bet in the race itself but have laid gayebury in the stewards

didnt bet but i had to back him at evens

6/4 the winner now

This is a very good example of why many think horse racing is bent.

started at 1/3 ish i think

yep

thought the best ride won the race be wrong to take it away

ring never used his stick

who won

chucked

Reversed

Gone

Reversed

This "sport" stinks

2nd won it..

Car Crash for jamesdean

Chucked.....................Like I said whether it would have gone past means nothing

the free money just got pretty expensive

stewards cleaned up just before the decision

Not your proudest moment jamesdean.

Let's hope no impressible types didn't wade in.

think i can count on one hand the number of times i've backed a reversal and got it in the stewards

only surprise is why gayebury was so short in the betting

always have another wee look before declaring an opinion young man, come on now.

All this easy money

shocking decision ,well it nrmally does if the hose had chance to go past and dosnt he never gets it .swap trainers and the result would of stood

*impressionable

home ref methinks

1st time out horses on heavy ground dont go for minor interference

they'll get that back on appeal - the interference clearly did not affect the placings - runner up was always being held and was making no impression at the line

yep

no chance of that happening imo

Jockey forgot his mum owned the runner up, stewards to the rescue

Well done Dan, a shrewd observation!

Of course it wasn't a shocking decision. Could easily see it had every chance of going

Would have won if allowed to run in a straight line. In my view the interference clearly affected the result.

Corrupt sport through and through

Right result for once.

normally u can cut a horse up make it stop to a standstill and still keep the race ,the 2nd never stopped riding

Stewards going home in a big limo

not so easy to go past when you are persistently being pushed sideways, so i dont agree with the 'wouldnt go past' argument...was a toss-up for me

Give it up - hellohello - That is three, insubstantiated, nonsense posts you have made.

The name Williams is a big clue...there, that's 4

i felt that was the right call myself

It doesn't matter whether it would or wouldn't go past. You could have the biggest dog in racing finish 2nd,if it was badly enough interfered with and the rules of racing were broken it should get the race

that happened a few weeks ago trd, even the comms said something like 2nd doesn't like to go past but it got it in the stewards, can't rem the race though

the winner was 9's in the photo,some bad bad judges on here,LV showed the head on straight away which is unusual for them,sour grapes,correct call

Gayebury's jockey rode as though he thought he had to get back on the hurdles track, he deserved to lose it.
Wonder what he said in the stewards.

elise That is the rule. The stewards cannot bring a horses tendency to go past or not  into the equation when deciding to chuck a horse or not

yes i know, just saying it was called on tv a few weeks ago in another example and got it in the stewards

The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into two possible instances of interference from half way up the home straight. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that in the first instance, approximately a furlong out, the winner, GAYEBURY, ridden by James Davies, had interfered with PRIME VENTURE (IRE), placed second, ridden by Conor Ring. They found that the interference was accidental, as the rider had made every effort to keep his mount straight.

In the second incident, inside the final half furlong, the Stewards found that GAYEBURY had interfered with PRIME VENTURE (IRE), and that the interference had improved GAYEBURY’s placing. They placed PRIME VENTURE (IRE) first and GAYEBURY second. The Stewards found Davies in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of careless riding, in that he had manoeuvred his horse right-handed carrying PRIME VENTURE (IRE) off its intended line for several strides, causing PRIME VENTURE (IRE) to lose ground and momentum and to be beaten by a short head. They suspended Davies for 2 days as follows: Monday 28 and Wednesday 30 December 2015.

A lot of pocket talking nonsense.

Was clear the decision could have gone either way so can't understand the shock expressed by some on here.

Its only a stewards opinion at the end of the day im sure if you have a horse like harchibald you would have to factor that in.

tomhunt    Joined: 21 Jul 10
Replies: 3882 14 Dec 15 16:27 
the winner was 9's in the photo,some bad bad judges on here,LV showed the head on straight away which is unusual for them,sour grapes,correct call

Yep, if there had been zero chance of contact in the run-in, it would've been at least a 100 in the photo.

To be fair to my knockers I corrected myself after 10 seconds! You're a harsh bunch...

Dec 14, 2015 -- 4:31PM, Wesdag wrote:

A lot of pocket talking nonsense.Was clear the decision could have gone either way so can't understand the shock expressed by some on here.

Think the market and the late scramble to get on the winner is probably iirking people.

You need to be correct before you post imo.

Was hardly a scramble imo.

Anyone who backed the first past the post at 14-1 or bigger should have immediately layed it in the photo and equalised their position. It`s no good shouting sour grapes after the enquiry. You know it makes sense.

The amount of posts on this thread told me it had gone t1ts up before I'd even looked!

anyone who backed on the photo market must be p1ssed off


not a chance after that

there was a curious incident at fsloss or plumpy today when the winner was quoted 3's on the photo
the william hill boys clearly saw it and shouted it the winner
anybody notice this? I did

free money that

no second chances on here james, the boot goes in good n proper pal

how much did james do in them 10 secs 

Took a red after a bit of trading initial mistake. Lucky they showed the replay instantly or would've been worse

Back subtotal:    -275.64
Lay subtotal:    247.26
Market subtotal:    -28.38
Commission :    0.00
Net Market Total:    -28.38


No mercy par, no mercy!