Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Winner to get chucked?
Show More
Howe can anyone know these days, thats the problem
the 1.01 moneybuyers certainly know when not to get involved .... 
It should be thrown out, we cannot have horses drifting right across the track and bumping into horses especially when said horse is beaten a head
It should be thrown out, we cannot have horses drifting right across the track and bumping into horses especially when said horse is beaten a head
It should be thrown out, we cannot have horses drifting right across the track and bumping into horses especially when said horse is beaten a head
Mark Johnston training the 2nd certainly helps its chances of getting amended imo
could go either way
could go either way
Think it should go,but gut says will keep it. I've backed the 2nd pre race and traded out in the run,taken a little more out of it now
No different to yesterdays except yesterdays got bumped 3 x so if this one keeps the race we then have the farcical situation that 1 bump is not enough but 3 gets you thrown out
Clever ride by Gibbons - will cost him a couple of days - should be thrown out!!!!!
san depends what you mean by the 2nd would not go past
Gibbons has whip in wrong had. 2nd bumped against the rails. Giving the winning distance I think it should get amended
why did gibbons constantly whip it with the right hand , when he had a chance to change whip hands half a furlong or so out , which may have prevented the big drift and stewards ?
thought initially would keep but watching again..cant see how it wont be amended tbf
any one know if wolves stewards usually throw em out?
I'm pretty sure 2nd would have won without the bump
That bump unbalanced the second - surely it will get the race ......
betting suggests it can go either way, so there is a Question
who is better in the stewards room, Gibbo or Ady Nicholls ?
Has to get the race. Bump slowed momentum and lost by a very small margin. Not sure what will get amended if this doesnt.
yeah cause the stewards aren't me, but if i was in charge, there would be no question.
if id backed either id be hedging and i guess most people are
the inability by Gibbo to change his whip didnt help..has to go tbf
lol if this was american dirt racing, out before you could say yeehaa cowboy.
LOnger it takes means they can't decide. Should be straightforward thrown 
Dec 21, 2015 -- 5:49PM, roida wrote:
50/50
very shrewd
absolutely no doubt , it would get chucked out if it had gone on to win a length after that bump.
If it doesn't go then not sure what one has to do to get thrown out
Gibbons did something similar at Redcar towards the end of the turf season - and got away with it!
And as he's not a 7lb claimer...
And as he's not a 7lb claimer...
particularly when one of the horses is trained abroad ...
Interestingly just like yesterday prices changed quite significantly just before market closed
A lazy effort from Gibbons, deserved to lose the race.
over evens on that, there really was no question, should have put more on in hindsight
Assault on rome was very slight odds against for almost all of the stewards then matched down to 1.88 just before suspend. They get just enough on in just enough time imo
nonserviam89 21 Dec 15 18:03
over evens on that, there really was no question, should have put more on in hindsight
great stuff...isnt it easy post result.
over evens on that, there really was no question, should have put more on in hindsight
great stuff...isnt it easy post result.
Just shows the inconsistency of the stewards when Gibbons was allowed to get away with those 'tactics' on Play Gal at Redcar, but this evening he's not. Should have been reversed both times imo.
jockeys play that drift every day, if you win more than a neck they can't chuck you out, win a short head and you're toast ....
He KNEW he was tightening up his rival against the rail yet continued to use the whip in his right hand. For me those sort of 'tactics' should be properly punished with a ban that will act as a deterrent eg 14 days
All Gibbons got at Redcar for doing virtually the same thing was a caution:
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference inside the final furlong. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the winner, PLAY GAL, ridden by Graham Gibbons had edged left and that SOLDIER IN ACTION (FR), placed second, ridden by Paul Mulrennan had lugged right, both interfering with each other. They further found, that having had contact on his hind quarters, PLAY GAL continued to lean onto SOLDIER IN ACTION (FR). They found that the interference had not improved the placing of PLAY GAL, in that SOLDIER IN ACTION (FR) initially had a part in the interference and had lost little momentum. They ordered the placings to remain unaltered. The Stewards found Gibbons in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of careless riding in that he failed to take reasonable steps to correct his mount when lugging left. They cautioned Gibbons as to his future conduct in races.
Because the Redcar stewards failed to deal with him as they should have, he thinks he can continue to get away with it...
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference inside the final furlong. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the winner, PLAY GAL, ridden by Graham Gibbons had edged left and that SOLDIER IN ACTION (FR), placed second, ridden by Paul Mulrennan had lugged right, both interfering with each other. They further found, that having had contact on his hind quarters, PLAY GAL continued to lean onto SOLDIER IN ACTION (FR). They found that the interference had not improved the placing of PLAY GAL, in that SOLDIER IN ACTION (FR) initially had a part in the interference and had lost little momentum. They ordered the placings to remain unaltered. The Stewards found Gibbons in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of careless riding in that he failed to take reasonable steps to correct his mount when lugging left. They cautioned Gibbons as to his future conduct in races.
Because the Redcar stewards failed to deal with him as they should have, he thinks he can continue to get away with it...
Gibbons was absolutely clueless. He straightens the horse and changes whip hand and he wins imho
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference on the run to the line. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the winner, ARCHANGE (FR), ridden by Graham Gibbons, had interfered with ASSAULT ON ROME (IRE), placed second, ridden by Adrian Nicholls, and that the interference had improved ARCHANGE (FR)’s placing, as ASSAULT ON ROME (IRE) was making ground inside the final furlong when he was impeded on the run to the line, to be beaten by a short head. They placed ASSAULT ON ROME (IRE) first and ARCHANGE (FR) second. The Stewards found Gibbons in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of careless riding, in that he had allowed his horse to drift left from approximately 1 furlong out and, although he straightened him ½ a furlong out, he used his whip again in his right hand causing his mount to drift left once again, which resulted in ASSAULT ON ROME (IRE) running out of room and losing his balance approaching the line. They suspended Gibbons for 3 days as follows: Monday 4, Tuesday 5, and Wednesday 6 January 2016.
...so is that 3/7 susp inclusive of the Red warning 'They cautioned Gibbons as to his future conduct in races' or further repercussions likely ?
i backed both classic mission and archange . did the rules change or something ? i cant recall the name but i also backed a horse on the aw last year that was taken from one side of the track to the other and then pinned to the fence ,losing by a head . the placings remained unaltered . cm would have won his race well imo but the conditional didnt have the talent to switch hands . archange ridden by pro was a blatant attempt at intimidation . one had swooped past to win the other was hanging on for dear life . i think they should just scrap stewards enquiries on course as they are all too inconsistant . freeze the funds let it go to portman square they can sit weekly and ajudicate all the weekly enquiries
i also smell a rat when bsp returns 9.81 archange and the on course layers made it 5-1 fav something has a wiff about it
'Cautions' and 'noting explanations' that are issued / reported by British stewards is the biggest pile of bullsh*t in the world of racing.
Imo what Gibbons did was bordering on dangerous, continuing to flail away on a horse that is hanging away from the whip and into the path of another horse, yet doing NOTHING to correct his mount and potentially putting Nicholls' mount in danger of clipping heels.
But this is the sort of riding that the British interference rules is encouraging, because jockeys know that if they can win by more than a head they are highly likely to keep the race regardless of the significance / extent of the interference.
Gibbons had unbelievably (imo) been allowed to escape with a 'caution' when doing the same at Redcar as he did tonight, yet when he does the same offence again, where is the reference in tonight's stewards' report to the Redcar incident, and how is he able to get off relatively lightly with what looked to me to be a serious riding offence that was put another jockey in danger of clipping heels / having to snatch up.
Imo what Gibbons did was bordering on dangerous, continuing to flail away on a horse that is hanging away from the whip and into the path of another horse, yet doing NOTHING to correct his mount and potentially putting Nicholls' mount in danger of clipping heels.
But this is the sort of riding that the British interference rules is encouraging, because jockeys know that if they can win by more than a head they are highly likely to keep the race regardless of the significance / extent of the interference.
Gibbons had unbelievably (imo) been allowed to escape with a 'caution' when doing the same at Redcar as he did tonight, yet when he does the same offence again, where is the reference in tonight's stewards' report to the Redcar incident, and how is he able to get off relatively lightly with what looked to me to be a serious riding offence that was put another jockey in danger of clipping heels / having to snatch up.
It was a win at all costs ride from Gibbons. The horse had not come over from Ireland for nothing and the money was obviously down.
Spot on, George B.
You can even imagine an owner or trainer saying to a jockey, 'win at all costs because the money is down. However, the jockey says 'But sir, I might get a ban'. Reply could well be, 'Don't worry, we'll see you won't be out of pocket'.
The change to our rules was designed to stop ludicrous disqualifications for offences which had no bearing on the result.
But, until very recently, the stewards have spent years misinterpreting those rules and have been frightened to disqualify.
If the current rules cannot be subject to better interpretation then they need to change back so that disqualification is the result for almost ANY offence - like US and France. This would also improve riding standards.
We also have the stupid situation about horses being prevented from reaching the frame by the winner and nothing is done except for a possible jockey ban. Just because a horse would have won anyway, doesn't mean it should go unpunished if it has stopped another horses reaching the frame behind it.
Like so much in this la-la land we now live in, in an attempt to be fair to all we have made it unfair to the majority.
You can even imagine an owner or trainer saying to a jockey, 'win at all costs because the money is down. However, the jockey says 'But sir, I might get a ban'. Reply could well be, 'Don't worry, we'll see you won't be out of pocket'.
The change to our rules was designed to stop ludicrous disqualifications for offences which had no bearing on the result.
But, until very recently, the stewards have spent years misinterpreting those rules and have been frightened to disqualify.
If the current rules cannot be subject to better interpretation then they need to change back so that disqualification is the result for almost ANY offence - like US and France. This would also improve riding standards.
We also have the stupid situation about horses being prevented from reaching the frame by the winner and nothing is done except for a possible jockey ban. Just because a horse would have won anyway, doesn't mean it should go unpunished if it has stopped another horses reaching the frame behind it.
Like so much in this la-la land we now live in, in an attempt to be fair to all we have made it unfair to the majority.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539