The price to stand was crazy (hindsight etc) didn't get involved so no after timing, the price being so big looked dangerous. Shouldn't think like that but hard not to in stewards
The price to stand was crazy (hindsight etc) didn't get involved so no after timing, the price being so biglooked dangerous. Shouldn't think like that but hard not to in stewards
They type where they always seem to keep it but shouldn't. Jockey was happy to keep interfering with the 2nd and any benefit of the doubt in those circumstances should go to the horse that's been interfered with.
They type where they always seem to keep it but shouldn't. Jockey was happy to keep interfering with the 2nd and any benefit of the doubt in those circumstances should go to the horse that's been interfered with.
Don't agree with that. It's nearly always better for punters that the a horse that's by far the best keeps the race. The other would never have won bumps or not.
Don't agree with that. It's nearly always better for punters that the a horse that's by far the best keeps the race. The other would never have won bumps or not.
Howard, i would agree in cases where a horse is by far the best. That one didn't look the case to me and i was on the winner. Consistent interference from the last to the line and only 3/4 of a length so a tough one to call. Therefore rules should be changed in favour of the one who adhered to the rules.
Howard, i would agree in cases where a horse is by far the best. That one didn't look the case to me and i was on the winner. Consistent interference from the last to the line and only 3/4 of a length so a tough one to call. Therefore rules should be