There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 129 comments are related to the topic:
stewards sandown
stewards sandown
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 129
|
By:
greenteethnarrabacktroutmoy 25 Jul 19 15:05
im not convinced 2nd would have deffo won..but as winner started moving left it made it look like 2nd was joining it...the hd on looks terrible so for that reason it gets disq..but nowt would suprised me. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
But we're in good 'ol Blighty
|
|
By:
Shafty, talk about covering your bases..
 |
|
By:
Green. Interference is interference even if it is accidental. The only relevance of what the jockey did or didn't do is whether he should get days.
|
|
By:
The wd & dist from line probably swayed the decision but where the margin is so tight, the hampered horse should get any benefit of the doubt
|
|
By:
But greenie, you also said
25 Jul 19 15:13 Joined: 23 Nov 02 | Topic/replies: 277 | Blogger: Uberalles's blog It looks so bad if the second doesn't get it, FPP may well have held on but it was a coin flip. Benefit should be given to impeded horse Rate reply: | greenteethnarrabacktroutmoy 25 Jul 19 15:15 Joined: 04 Jun 09 | Topic/replies: 754 | Blogger: greenteethnarrabacktroutmoy's blog i concur entirely uber.. well done to slippyblue though, he did call it correct from the start |
|
By:
very rarely i doint have a strong opinion and bet on a stewards..no bet they're.
|
|
By:
Anywhere else in the World it would. wesdaq, but not here!
|
|
By:
post ya no bet
tar |
|
By:
correct james..it looked terrible on the hd on..but i wasnt convinced 2nd would have won.
|
|
By:
Horse Racing: £143.21 Total P&L: £143.21
Horse Racing Showing 1 - 7 of 7 markets Market Start time Settled date Profit/loss (£) Horse Racing / Sand 25th Jul : 1m6f Hcap 25-Jul-19 14:50 25-Jul-19 15:16 1.50 Horse Racing / Yarm 25th Jul : 1m2f Hcap 25-Jul-19 15:10 25-Jul-19 15:13 34.51 Horse Racing / Yarm 25th Jul : 6f Nov Stks 25-Jul-19 14:35 25-Jul-19 14:43 29.18 Horse Racing / Sand 25th Jul : 7f Listed 25-Jul-19 14:15 25-Jul-19 14:22 2.32 Horse Racing / Yarm 25th Jul : 6f Hcap 25-Jul-19 14:05 25-Jul-19 14:14 56.43 Horse Racing / Sand 25th Jul : 7f Mdn Stks 25-Jul-19 13:45 25-Jul-19 13:48 7.71 Horse Racing / Sthl 25th Jul : 2m4f Mdn Hrd 25-Jul-19 13:30 25-Jul-19 13:37 11.56 won a nicker delty  |
|
By:
The Panel should ask themselves the following questions, being mindful of the relevant
Guiding Principles: 1. Where did the incident take place in relation to the winning post? 2. How were the horses involved in the interference going at the time of the incident? 3. How serious was the interference i.e. how much momentum did the sufferer lose and/or how much ground was lost? 4. If the sufferer had had an uninterrupted run to the line, might it have finished in front of the interferer? If NO - order placings to remain unaltered If YES i.e. there is some doubt - proceed to question 5. 5. How easily did the interferer beat the sufferer? Having considered those factors relevant to the incident in question, if the Panel is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the interference did improve the placing of the interferer in relation to the sufferer(s), the placings must be altered. Otherwise, the placings must remain unaltered. Generally speaking, the longer the Panel discusses whether the placings should be altered, the less likely it is that they should be. If the Panel is unable to conclude one way or the other, the result should stand. For me, there was definitely enough doubt - you couldn't be SURE the 2nd would have won - therefore, it was the right decision. Thank you to those who pointed me to the relevant site. VERY useful. |
|
By:
No facetime today from sandown then greenie?
|
|
By:
also, for the person who mentioned "benefit of doubt", the guiding principle states - "d) The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front."
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Currie should have made more effort the last few yards instead of just giving up to get as close as possible, correct decision for me.
|
|
By:
Amatuer stoords making up their own interpretations
|
|
By:
"commentators ...incompetent"? - surely not ;)
|
|
By:
An enquiry was held to consider the placings in this race following interference on the run to the line when
the winner, JUST HUBERT (IRE), ridden by Tom Marquand, interfered with BUCKMAN TAVERN (FR), placed second, ridden by Nicola Currie. The Stewards considered that the interference had not improved JUST HUBERT (IRE)’s placing as although BUCKMAN TAVERN (FR) had received a significant bump the interference had happened close to the line and it was considered that the ground lost by the gelding was less than the half a length by which it was beaten. The interference was found to be accidental as JUST HUBERT (IRE) had ducked quickly left-handed before being corrected by Marquand. |
|
By:
@ProSniper
Doesn't work like that these days AIUI? Stewards' panel these days is one amateur and two stipendaries, and one of the stipes is the Chief Steward. Not much scope for amateurs making up the rules I'd have thought? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
jamesdean 25 Jul 19 15:36
No facetime today from sandown then greenie? yes but still rock hard. |
|
By:
shooldacoodadidnt - the key word is MIGHT. It definitely might have won.
|
|
By:
Thank you jamesdean, I did call it straight away as they crossed the line but like I said a bit earlier, only in the U.K. would that result have stood.
|
|
By:
did u lay the 1.4 slippy?
|
|
By:
bridgey, I was talking about the clowns on here
I find it staggering that anyone could be shocked by that decision. Unless you're of the opinion that "any" type of interference from the front runner close to the finish line should go punished, that was never a 75-25 call in favor of the runner-up. I suspect most who've watched racing for years would've said the 2nd wouldn't have passed. But it's not as simple as just piling on when you believe the odds make no sense. I've said many times I don't trust those rotten stewards, so it's not worth having any financial interest on their ultimate conclusion. |
|
By:
I backed it , money where mouth is, great bet at 3.3 in the stewards room , great result.
|
|
By:
Well done fireman.
|
|
By:
chers slippy , nice when it comes off.
|
|
By:
snipey..is 1.5 and 3 75/25 iyo?
|
|
By:
mid 60's. When eye 1st seen odds they were 700/30 and I thought they went lower? Maybe not. Either way, to not at the very least be "50-50" was ludicrous. If any hoss deserved the odds-on it was the winner.
|
|
By:
how much 1.5 or lower did u lay please..
|
|
By:
eye already explained y I don't get involved in those events, thanks.
|
|
By:
Shood thank you for reading the relevant rule. I was too lazy to do it!
|
|
By:
snipey yfdsc..im referring to slippyblue.
|
|
By:
In that case, I agree. Where's ya mouthy bets slippy???
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
What "mouthy" bets? I said the result would stand which it did, I was right.
|
|
By:
Can you point out exactly what "mouthy" bets I said I had?
|