There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
No sense in even trying to justify that decision by the stewards , simply beyond belief, it's only on the death of a jockey will these people be called to task for their stupidity.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 131
|
By:
stewards are still the same old bunch of upper class amateurs! This race was shown around the whole racing world today.
|
|
By:
we've had 3/4l margins turned around for minor interference
now we have major interference & result stands beggars belief tbh |
|
By:
Can't you just imaging the punters in H.K. and America in total shock at the decision, I believe it shows British Stewardship at its most appalling .
|
|
By:
That really is to much,what a fakin disgrace.
|
|
By:
Acey, they're the laughing stock after that incredible decision , Freddie is in total shock and you can see why after his fall and again the stewards failing in their primary purpose...
|
|
By:
It's not the Stewards, it's the stupid rule that requires the winner to be dq'd only if it can be
shown that the interference didn't 'improve it's placing'. Ridiculous rule but the Stewards have to go by the rules. It's yet another reason why, after 50 years of playing this game, I am on the verge of dropping British racing altogether. |
|
By:
Roggrain , surely common sense makes it easy for them , they as you point out have had nearly 50 years to correct this rule.The more I see it the more amazed I am that he got away with that ride..
|
|
By:
Silly thread. Was never gonna lose the race imo.
|
|
By:
Freddy Tylicki having to talk about that knowing what happened to him, nobody has learnt anything
|
|
By:
roggrain 16 Jun 22 15:03
It's not the Stewards, it's the stupid rule that requires the winner to be dq'd only if it can be shown that the interference didn't 'improve it's placing'. Ridiculous rule but the Stewards have to go by the rules. But the stewards do not go by the rules highlighted by the fact that they refuse to use the dangerous riding rule. |
|
By:
Nothing to with why racing is dying, that's all the bnt races that are doing that....
As for this one - yes, silly it doesn't get DQ, but changing rules needed of course. |
|
By:
PART 4 - THE RACE - (B)45 to (B)59
53. Dangerous riding 53.1 A Rider is guilty of dangerous riding if he causes serious interference by 53.1.1 purposely interfering with another horse or Rider, or 53.1.2 riding in a way that is far below that of a competent and careful Rider and where it would be obvious to such a competent and careful Rider that riding in that way was likely to endanger the safety of a horse or Rider. 53.2 A Rider whom the Stewards or the Authority consider has been guilty of dangerous riding at any time whilst on the racecourse, and whether before or after any race 53.2.1 shall be taken to have contravened a requirement imposed on him by this Rule, and 53.2.2 is liable to Disciplinary Action. 53.3 When a horse or its Rider has caused interference by dangerous riding in any part of a race the horse shall, on an objection to the Stewards under Part 7, be disqualified. |
|
By:
That was a 100% stone cold dangerous riding offence. Stewards just don't apply that decision. Gutless
|
|
By:
There's no perfect solution.
When the transgressions are as egregious as that, the penalty needs to be more severe. Most of them would give up a RA winner for a week off. Maybe not a month. |
|
By:
It's already in the rules Stu, but stewards are petrified to announce dangerous riding for some reason
|
|
By:
Lol, I just watched it.
Winner's whip in his right hand as the horse hung left across its rivals. (Dangerous riding) The second was using his whip in his left hand, did the second move right? The third was taken out good and proper, being the meat in the sandwich. Interference doesn't get much worse. Yet no action from the stewards? Typical modern Britain; rewarding bad behaviour. |
|
By:
Give up a week off for a RA winner.
|
|
By:
Cider 16 Jun 22 15:26
There's no perfect solution. When the transgressions are as egregious as that, the penalty needs to be more severe. Most of them would give up a RA winner for a week off. Maybe not a month. Rule 53 is the solution. |
|
By:
The third was taken out good and proper, being the meat in the sandwich.
The fourth not third. |
|
By:
If they spent as much time getting these rules right as they did organising street parties celebrating someone's seventy years on the dole racing would be in a much healthier state.
|
|
By:
Jumping-cuckoo-monk16 Jun 22 15:26Joined: 25 Feb 19 | Topic/replies: 5,087 | Blogger: Jumping-cuckoo-monk's blog It's already in the rules Stu, but stewards are petrified to announce dangerous riding for some reason Think that's because they use the rules in order of rank - the 'altering of likely positions' rule is used primary, the dangerous one is a secondary rule, or that's how it's used practically speaking. Course, it's arbitrary why that should be so - but that is how they are applied, and it's nothing new either. I think the rationale is that punters hate to see one thrown out that should have won in any case. |
|
By:
The rule is quite clear on dangerous riding and there is no excuse required for the stewards to ignore it.
|
|
By:
10 days ban so thats it now.
|
|
By:
There'll never be widespread agreement on every incident. Ergo, no perfect solution.
|
|
By:
Yes, but they won't change how they use this set of rules, unless the above rationale is changed.
|
|
By:
That was reply to sparrow.
|
|
By:
If you are saying that this case does not meet the criteria set out in Rule 53 then that is just plain wrong cider.
|
|
By:
stu, you are making excuses for the stewards not applying this rule.
|
|
By:
I'm not. If that is DQ'd for dangerous riding then there's a whole bunch of people who would dispute that too.
You need the punishment to be enough of a deterrent. In a £3K race when the application of money doesn't apply, 10 days would ordinarily be enough. When it's a RA winner on the line, it isn't. |
|
By:
It is an excuse yes - but only because the way the current rules are set up.
The prevalence of the 'likely placings' rule overrides the other rules, but non of this is new either is it...? |
|
By:
I dont believe that is why Racing is dying though,it just needs to be brought up to date.
|
|
By:
if you think that was dangerous riding you need a new hobby.
|
|
By:
I recall a Shane Foley one in Ireland last year, it was even worse. Kept the race.
|
|
By:
So is dangerous riding only applied if the horse or jockey is either killed or maimed , anyone who has ever sat on a horse and sees one come over the way that did knows what sheer terror is like..I firmly believe the TWO reasons it was not d'q, one bookies paying out double result, two the word DANGEROUS is a no no word that scares the daylights out of the BHA . We cant have THAT word been branded about re racing, whatever will people think!
|
|
By:
DANGEROUS is a no no word that scares the daylights out of the BHA . We cant have THAT word been branded about re racing, whatever will people think!
Probably right there. |
|
By:
Rico-Dangleflaps Joined: 07 Sep 18
Replies: 1266216 Jun 22 15:53 if you think that was dangerous riding you need a new hobby. Then you haven't read the rule correctly. |
|
By:
dangerous is a deliberate manoeuvre..you think he deliberately steered it across the track?
|
|
By:
Second rate riding by a second rate Jockey.
|