There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
It takes a seperate inquiry to see that Saldier jumping into the second horse cost it the race.This was pretty obvious in the first place and the stewards at the time have been asked about their judgement at the time,that does not help the punters who backed Vina Ardanza to win the race.Whether the interference was accidental or intentional Saldier should have been disqualified.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 8
|
By:
Local stewards in awe of connections of Saldier post Geraghty/JP at Limerick episode? I think it's disgusting despite blatant interference; the punters on the eventual winner had lost out again.
|
|
By:
But it was so obvious at the time and they took ages to announce a Stewards Enquiry.Perhaps there were other reasons we do not know about and they wanted the result to stand.
|
|
By:
Looked an obvious disq on the day.
Interference is interference accidental or otherwise. |
|
By:
exchanges have a record of all bets.
just re-settle them. |
|
By:
tbf, would be an enormous undertaking after all this time
c'est la vie would be my take for punters on the new winner |
|
By:
This is undoubtedly bad publicity for Irish Racing.
|
|
By:
@hulk23
"exchanges have a record of all bets. just re-settle them." Why? Literally the first horseracing-specific rule in BF's R&Rs is: "All individual race markets will be determined according to the official result at the time of the 'weigh-in' announcement (or equivalent). Subsequent disqualifications, appeals or amendments to the result will be disregarded." If you want markets resettled for subsequent changes, how far back do you go? We have had horses DQ'd months after their wins for doping failures. |
|
By:
Not in a million years did I see this being reversed!!!
Live and learn. |