chuck that out

Dead heat, not a chance that will get disqualified.

Dead heat, everyone happy.

i wont be happy

minimal interference. if that gets chucked its total BS - horse yesterday swept across and could have killed someone and kept it - shouldnt all be about the winning distance. imo

cmon winston object you absolute muppet

Market reopened

more of a 1.2 than a 1.4 imo ,,, but im already in

denmead swung wide coming round final bend and masterson give it a hefty bump and denmead momentarily stopped riding..on that basis bearing in mind was dh it would have to get race..but it did swing wide coming round bend of its own accord.

another inch and it would have won...lost more than an inch....easy one for all concerned

exactly if it's a dead heat ANY thing made a difference. FFS i give up if i dont get this one

So it's either dh or chucked?

easy for stwds tbf

but it did swing wide coming round bend of its own accord.

whats ur verdict willie... no bet?

I'll be amazed if the result doesn't stand.

I have greened out on both,

layed the fav and if left at dead-heat I'd have lost money,

thank you stewards enquiry

silvestres english aint great imo. cmon winston

I was on Masterson, will be shocked if he doesn't get demoted

taking some time if clear cut

who won the photo finnish

Taking their time...

i betted the fave with paddy power frist past the post with tham

if they cant change that result given the dh and the bump must have cost the Winston horse at least an inch then god help us..but the time delay suggests nothing is clear cut

disgrace if it doesnt get it outright. might as well give up SE betting

Suspended

Result stands.

stands...laughable

BENT

May 2, 2017 -- 7:50PM, jackboo wrote:

who won the photo finnish

Holy sh

what a game...

Did the big bookmakers ring up and say we'd prefer no change as we have to pay twice?

shocking

im looking forward to how they spin the stewards report

yes that seems likely, Chandler rang up the oncourse phone...

In America, France, Australia etc that would have been disqualified, we don't toe the same line.

Willie Shafter.    02 May 17 19:43 
denmead swung wide coming round final bend and masterson give it a hefty bump and denmead momentarily stopped riding..on that basis bearing in mind was dh it would have to get race..but it did swing wide coming round bend of its own accord.

Astounded that wasn't chucked - how can they possibly say it didn't cost Winston's mount a millimetre?

steve you certainly like the sound of your own voice

what do you have to do to get chucked out ? total bottle job but sadly comes to no suprise

not sure why the outcry on here. interference amounting to a brush should be reversed because its a dead heat but a smash bang get the fcuk off your horse should stand because the horse won by a length hahaha

I will bet less in stewards after that. Disgusting decision. Unless the bump was imaginary.

keefter, we don't write the rules on here. We just try and bet by them. But if they make it up as they go along well,,,

if you know it's so varied why do you bet on them in the first place?

if colm had ridden denmead  he d advised those stips which way to have gone

I don't know it's varied mate. dead heat any interference you go

Willie Shafter.    02 May 17 19:45 
but it did swing wide coming round bend of its own accord.

but there are so many variables to a stewards inquiry, the interference, the individual stewards interpretation of the interference/rules, the jockeys arguments etc. Obviously easy to say after but we know the rules seem to change daily on what is and what isn't interference.

that's like getting punched in the face and blaming your face

mccarthy imo this one should have been straightforward. The fact the bookies pay out twice on reversed results is a conflict of interest. first and second favs

I don't think conspiracy theories come into this decision

1. UK racing depends on bookmaker profits for funding.
2. A result standing is better for bookmakers' profits than paying out twice (especially when it's the first and second favourite involved)

i'm pretty convinced by the conspiracy tbh.

fear,high street bookies  would have preferred the fav to be thrown out to halt  running up bets from other winning favs.obviouslypaying out half winnings/stake on both is no different than paying  100% on one or tother, only relevance is which horse would have been better or worse result before race and generally fav winning is worse result therefore they wanted fav demoted  so no need for conspiracy theories. in truth.having said all this i think anyone laying the fav or backing deemed can feel a touch unlucky not to have got the suitable result in the stewards room, clearly could have gone either way.

At the time of the bump Den. was 1/2 length behind. In view of that and the dead heat how can it be argued that the interference did not

improve Mast's placing?

sick... dont they pay double result?

Astonishing decision imo. Worst ive ever seen. We separate horses by a pixel in a photo dont we?

THE FCL GLOBAL FORWARDING MAKING LOGISTICS PERSONAL HANDICAP STAKES (CLASS 5)

The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference off the final bend. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the dead-heat winner, MASTERSON (IRE), ridden by Silvestre de Sousa, lugged left-handed before being quickly corrected by de Sousa, and gave a light bump to the dead-heat winner DENMEAD, ridden by Robert Winston. They found the interference was accidental and had not improved MASTERSON (IRE)’s placing, in that the incident occurred approximately 1½ furlongs from the line and DENMEAD did not appear to lose any ground or momentum as a result of the contact. They therefore ordered the placings to remain unaltered.

Race 5 - 8:00pm

Unless Denmead was bumped into from behind and knocked forward without any impairment of its momentum there must be some physical effect from a bump and therefore what appeared to be a dead heat would most likely result in Denmead returning a time fractionally faster then he did and therefore logically should be assumed the winner – UNLESS there is a history of it refusing to go past horses or Masterson being a tenacious fighter that never gives in.

Add a course of logic for all stewards' training plz - along with geometry as they can't seem to work out the effect of horses being knocked or pushed sideways across the width of the track either!

let's forget it was a dead-heat and assume it got beat a nose,

would they have come to the same conclusion ?!

THEY DONT THROW FAVS OUT AT WOLVS,THE PLACE IS A FLAPPING TRACK,END OF!

By failing to make Denmead the outright winner, what the rules are saying is you can bump a rival and get away with it. That is a dangerous precedent, imo. The rules are essentially promoting poor jockeyship.