We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
'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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |