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
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Jockey making no effort to correct his mount , he had the whip in his correct hand and whipped the sh*t out of it , and if you go by his opening answer the ( winner) should have been placed behind the three he carried across the course.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 44
|
By:
He is a total embarrassment. Professional centralised stewards is a must now.
|
|
By:
tbf public speaking is not part of his job
|
|
By:
he's never seen a horse go across the track like that at goodwood from the near rails in a finish
 plenty do it though admittedly this example was extreme jock was trying to correct it but had no impact |
|
By:
tbf public speaking is not part of his job
spot on. imho they made the morally correct decision |
|
By:
Racing queen, it's not about morals. It's about making the correct decision under the rules of racing.
|
|
By:
Well Oli and Steve didnt let him have an easy ride (and correctly so) yet a bookies rep can spout bollax @ free will without being challlenged wonder why that is?
|
|
By:
well said geoff
|
|
By:
The jockey comment was the only thing he got right. Jocks are meant to put down the whip and pull the horse back to a straight course (altho the horse might not co-operate)
|
|
By:
Asparagus we as amazing humans have brains and minds to be used. And personally I think we all should think with our intuition too... I think its a correct decision.
|
|
By:
spot on trident
|
|
By:
do you think the countless decisions for quite substantial interference where the winning margin was a neck or less have been the correct decisions too trident?
|
|
By:
all i ask for is consistency of thought and application
that result was just mnot on the normal curve and i'm pretty sure plenty that think that was a correct decision today will be bemused in the near future why they haven't got a race that they simply must get with the same train of thought. |
|
By:
Striding this was a exceptional case, was it not?
|
|
By:
it was an exceptional winning distance to match trident
i had a horse on the aw carried right across to the near rail a couple of years back beaten just over a hd and nothing happened |
|
By:
Trident, what a load of rubbish. A steward is employed to use the rules of racing to get to the correct result. Not use his own intuition.
|
|
By:
anyway it's done now, i am firmly in agreement with mellish's thoughts about consistency think he nailed it.
time to move on wd anyone who profited from it |
|
By:
mellish just totally embarrassed the steward..cringeworthy
|
|
By:
A correct decision only if you apply American rules.
|
|
By:
steward cited 'visual effect' to melly,not really a rule is it but that's what i was talking about on the lingfield thread
|
|
By:
What I'm trying to say is, as a punter im glad the stewards are using some intuition in some cases. That doesn't necessarily lead to inconsistencies.
|
|
By:
i'm not so sure trident, there were a couple of points in his chat there that didn't sit well re their ability to judge it,
first, ok they think the fptp has hampered several horses but decide not to place it behind clear spring if it's hampered the 3rd by that much how do you not stick it behind the 4th across the line when it's had pretty much the same interference and is sod all behind the 3rd? if your logic is sound for the 3rd horse then what made i not apply to the 4th, he wasn't clear secondly, if these people are making rulings on a professional sport, surely it makes sense to employ people that fully understand the rules and also can draw on similar examples when interpreting what they are seeing it's ok saying tracks are different, camber rails or whatever effect a finish, but having a working knowledge of previous precedents set must be essential if they want consistency? to me that's where we fall down by using a few amateurs with a rule book |
|
By:
Of course intuition leads to inconsistencies. This particluar steward seemed not to know the rules. He seemed to think that what matters is (a) what it looks like, and (b) how far across the track a horse is carried. The rules make no mention of either - perhaps they should, but they don't. I doubt he'll ever be allowed out to explain a decision again.
|
|
By:
It was the correct decision based on logic and what they should do under these sort of circumstances but it was the wrong decision based on the current stupid rules.
|
|
By:
ima_mazed66 talking bollocks as per
|
|
By:
might be correct ima if you felt he fully understood what they had done and why, but to me he seemed to be just waffling
|
|
By:
Also, placing the horse between Huntsmans and Clear Spring is ridiculous, not just wrong. He gave the impression couldn't even be arsed thinking about it.
Then there's the question Mellish asked him about cutting across at the start - again "didn't bother looking at it". |
|
By:
LOL...right dave1357 because a horse that was carried almost halfway across the track through no fault of its own is beaten a head, but using your logic (or lack of) you reckon that horse has not been forced to cover more distance or ground than the equivalent of the head that it was beaten by.
I really hope you're not a in carpets or a builder 'cos I'd fcuking hate to see you measure up or put in an estimate ffs! |
|
By:
Another factor is we are dealing with horses that are very temperamental at times, they are not machines. Each steward should be taking their own thoughts into consideration too. I had not financial interest in the race, but on this occasion IMO the correct difficult decision was made.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
The Steward will cringe if he has the stomach to listen back to this interview. He came across as a dithering buffoon. What he did get right was the disqualification of the winner. How it was placed 3rd is just plain ridiculous when it should have at least been placed behind the 4th horse. The Steward hasnt done much to his chances of being an " After dinner speaker either".
|
|
By:
ima absolutely spot on
|
|
By:
racingqueen embarrassing himself horribly
|
|
By:
A lot of posters who have lost financially / some posters who obviously disagree with the current rules drawn to post on the various threads relative to today's high profile stewards enquiry. Some posters of course just enjoy seeing others lose (nature of the beast).
The rules (right or wrong) should have been followed. It would be no surprise to see this amended result quashed and the race finishing positions being re-instated relative to the current rules. RUK started the ball rolling with Mellish today, it will be interesting to see how the Racing Post and Channel 4 cover the issue tomorrow. |
|
By:
The start made no difference wotsoever..nothing was impeded...What is plainly wrong is the inconsistancy of stewarding in this country. Over the years ive seen dozens of instances where a runner has been impeded by the winner but unless winning jocking done for dangerous riding the race is never given to the 2nd what had an uninterupted run. Today the stewards have decided that huntsmans close was sufficiently impeded to disq the winner. What absolute and utter bolloxx..watch the race,it was only slightly hmp and the winner beat it over a length going away...theres no way anyone could say huntsman would have won that race.
Respect to Mellish for having the balls to question the steward who made an utter fool of himself. |
|
By:
Yes roida. Goes against the grain of every similar incident we have witnessed in recent years. This kind of stewarding is farcical and only goes to further the assumption that they are a law unto themselves.
The BHA can't possibly seek to promote this sport, whilst the supposed rules that govern it, for one reason or another, are in a constant state of flux. |
|
By:
Without question this is the worst decision since the one at Stratford between Dolatulo/Benbens when the idiotic stewards disqalified the former for keeping a straight line.
By disqualifying Seeking Magic in favour of Go Far who was NEVER hampered, they are going against EVERYTHING that has gone before since the rule change many years ago now. Indeed, the Stewards must have had too much to drink and thought they were in Paris, because this is exactly the decision that would have been taken there. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Of course what must be considered is that Seekimg Magic has been placed behind Go Far whom he beat without interference despite hanging badly left and then badly right. Got to be reversed at Portman Square.
|
|
By:
1.01 to be reversed and value at that price imo
|