stewards enquiry leicester

looked like it might have edged into 2nd

one thread only ta

spencer be good with the chat

that will get thrown out

should go delta imo but Spencer is useless

correct tom.


take your abridged version down

looks like the winner kept it?

yep

can't find the rewind button

not sure ive ever seen a result overturned, stewards inquires pointless

was a f ag paper though coop

RUK give us the head on AFTERWARDS

rachel stfu

comical eh - between that and leicester - we get the horses going down at hamilton for 8 mins and listening to the 2 gob****s on track

who the feck is that woman on ruk,,shes speechless ,, sack her ,,

Rachel,s absolutely speechless,we foooking wish

i know wicklow unreal. we got the hamilton time before the leicester result. they are so inflexible

shes saying jamie had his whip in his right hand so his horse came over   

RUK show us the head-on after the result of the enquiry.

Because she's wrong she now has to be seen to be speechless.  Derisory

Sorry Fear, I didn't see your post.

np

I wonder whos calling the shots at ruk with these photo finishes where we aint seeing the still on the line until well after the beating is open and balanced - and these stewies where we dont see the heads on or replays.

Had Faro Angel had an unimpeded run to the line ,there is little doubt that it would have won,I am speechless that Rachel was speechless.
I backed Faro in the photo ,at the admittedly bad price of 1.25 ,but was sure that there would be an inquiry.Then ,having rewound the race,backed the 2nd at between 2.5 and 3.1. .When the price seemed to leap from the shorter to the bigger price I wondered if somebody was playing with a marked card,but the price contracted again,back to around 2.5..Glad to see stewards being much more proactive,compared to the last 20 years ,when too many offenders were able to keep the race.

This may have been posted in one of the other 25 threads on the matter but....

The still posted on the BHA website is a lot different to the one shown on RUK

https://www.britishhorseracing.com/racing/results/fixture-results/result/#!/2018/1014/3936/1/

https://twitter.com/racing_uk/status/1044228958898851840

I should've pointed out you have to click on "Photo Finish" at the top right of the page on the BHA site.

yes blunder

Never noticed this won

a fine advert for hunting the inbreds and getting pro stewards, that was shocking (nap)

In the past 10 years we must have seen thousands of times where this sort of thing (horses drifting across the course) has happened, without a

Stewards' being called ,never mind a DQ. The mind boggles at the ineptitude of those responsible for running our sport.

that's the photo for 3rd and 4th shirley

What PHOTO-FINISH Print is THAT?

It says 2:50 Kegworth Novice Stakes - BUT ...

The PHOTO shows Number 1 (ONE) as the Winner - in LIGHT colours - EXTREME STATUS ...

When the PHOTO was meant to show the Disqualified Number [b]7 - in Hamdams (dark) BLUE.

unbelievable decision, how stupid and unknowledgeable do you need to be to come to that decision

rachel's been an embarrassment here.

the only thing i dont like is spencer, oisin and some others would be very good at the chat in the stewards.

Unbelievable to change that.

it was a nose, there's nth wrong with the decision. When it's that short a dist youre always in danger.

rachel clueless

Rachel has a good point,Fear. How do the stewards DQ the horse without giving days to the jockey when they've based their decision on the

'sustained' drifting of the horse without the jockey making an effort to correct?

Rachel says ,to paraphrase 'In British racing you have to be certain the 2nd would have won'. WRONG ,nowhere in the Rules of Racing
does it state this ,or anything like it.If you infer your own rules differently to the actual rules ,no wonder you will be amazed by certain decisions.

yeah it's all about the distance. When these ones that have mullered other horse/s keep it is because they have hosed up by a bigger margin.

Yes  - duncan

The PHOTO-Finish PRINT that they have put up on the BHA Results site IS for 3rd Place.

Are they trying to hide something here? ... or just, even more, incompetence?

Blunder. The rule is that the first across the line will only be disqualified if, in the opinion of the stewards, it improved it's placing.

So,if they decide that that's the case, it's the same thing as saying they have to be certain that the second would otherwise have won.

An enquiry was held to consider the placings in this race after interference from approaching the final furlong when the winner, NUBOUGH (IRE), ridden by Callum Shepherd, interfered with FARO ANGEL (IRE), placed second, ridden by Jamie Spencer. The Stewards considered that the interference had improved NUBOUGH (IRE)’s placing as the gelding had drifted left taking FARO ANGEL (IRE) notably off its intended line for a sustained period, before the colt rallied to be beaten by a nose. The placings were revised as follows: First – FARO ANGEL (IRE); Second – NUBOUGH (IRE). Shepherd was cautioned for careless riding as he allowed his mount to continue to drift left without timely or sufficient correction.

rograin - she has a fair overall point but it doesnt relate to the rules as they are.

photo took for ever to announce yet none of the connections,jockey of the fav,stewards objected or called an inquiry till after the photo,they must have all  been very confident they,d won

Roggain,you can stick to your interpretation of the rules,but I think you will find more horses getting thrown out than in the past.
Stewards have (in my interpretation of the rules)changed from "you must be certain the second would have won " to "on the balance of
probabilities ,the second would have won".

blunder is correct the burden of proof is definitely "on the balance of probabilities" which is much less than to be "certain"

it is probably v certainly