|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
rograin - she has a fair overall point but it doesnt relate to the rules as they are.
|
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
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". |
|
By:
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 |