stewards Leopardstown

Has to go for that interference shirley.

Think the FPTP will be thrown out

1.5 En Costa Rico seems generous.

3.85 to keep looks good value IMO.

could you say the 2nd would definetely have won?  no you cudnt..has it cost it the race? cant say for sure..i think winner would have won but its mullered 2 others.

May 17, 2024 -- 6:40PM, jamee1 wrote:

3.85 to keep looks good value IMO.

Agreed, coin flip IMO.

Kennedy had whip in wrong hand, nearly resulted in 3rd horse coming down, in Ireland would think they'd throw it out.

if the 2nd had not closed id be with keeps, but im thinking the 2nd has done enough late to show the interference stopped it

Only thing for sure is a ban for Mr Kennedy !

that's a done deal

that was quite quick

??

revised result

chucked

winner placed 6th..

winner relegated to 6th

May 17, 2024 -- 6:54PM, Rico-Dangleflaps wrote:

winner placed 6th..

How does that work? Does that mean it was deemed dangerous riding?

theyve prob stuck it behind the one that got trashed on the rail

stuck it behind the one that got trashed on the rail

Is that the rule? I can't remember that being enforced before? So if that had won 10 lengths they'd have still placed it 6th? I find that impossible to believe.

I agree with the decision to award the 2nd the race, but FPTP needs to finish 2nd or last. Otherwise, they're making the rules up and it ain't U.S. Rules

they done it here couple yr ago then binned the idea.

May 17, 2024 -- 6:57PM, Big Cat wrote:

I agree with the decision to award the 2nd the race, but FPTP needs to finish 2nd or last. Otherwise, they're making the rules up and it ain't U.S. Rules

Agreed. That's US rules talking. Do they make it up as they go along?

May 17, 2024 -- 6:57PM, Big Cat wrote:

I agree with the decision to award the 2nd the race, but FPTP needs to finish 2nd or last. Otherwise, they're making the rules up and it ain't U.S. Rules

Agreed, that's US rules, not Irish (fully admit I do not have a forensic knowledge of the Irish rules of racing).

Otherwise, the Stewards have decided the 6th horse would've beaten the winner on the balance of probability. Dangerous riding would mean DQ last

Will be interesting to see the stewards report for this.

its cost the 6th a closer plaice sew they have plaiced winner behind it.

May 17, 2024 -- 6:59PM, Big Cat wrote:

Otherwise, the Stewards have decided the 6th horse would've beaten the winner on the balance of probability. Dangerous riding would mean DQ last

Well that's clearly not the case, winner had gone past Enthralling, so pure speculation to suggest Entralling would have beaten it (it wouldn't).

it's improper riding for me, not careless and can't have been deemed dangerous, so as above need to see what they write up

4th and 5th past the post horses were both well behind the interference and completely unaffected.

214. (i) When interference has been caused:
(a) By dangerous riding in any part of a race the horse shall, on
an objection under Rule 262 (iv) which under Rule 264
includes a Stewards Enquiry, be disqualified.
(b) By careless or improper riding or by accident in any part of
a race the horse shall, on an objection under Rule 262 (iv)
which under Rule 264 includes a Stewards Enquiry, be
placed behind the horse or horses with which it has
interfered if the Stewards are satisfied that the interference
improved its placing in relation to the horse or horses with
which it interfered. If they are not so satisfied they shall
overrule the objection and/or order that the placings shall
remain unaltered.
With regard to (b) above, when deciding whether they are so
satisfied the Stewards shall make no allowance for any ground
which the incident may have cost the horse causing the
interference

if the Stewards are satisfied that the interference
improved its placing in relation to the horse or horses with
which it interfered.

So they've made the rules up IMHO

Even the commentator said that he couldn't remember a demotion being applied in that manner before.

124D Irish Stallion Farms EBF (Fillies) H'cap
The Raceday Stewards enquired into possible interference in the closing stages of this race involving Encosta, ridden by C.T. Keane, placed second, Enthralling, ridden by G.M. Ryan, placed sixth, and Mo Ghille Mar, ridden by K.G. Kennedy, placed first, where it appeared that interference may have occurred. Evidence was heard from the riders concerned. C. T. Keane stated that he received bad interference and felt he was on the best horse. G. M. Ryan stated that he received bad interference from his right causing him to clip a heel and he felt he was lucky to stay up. K. G. Kennedy stated that his mount drifted left but he felt he had done all he could to prevent interference. Having viewed the recording of the race and considered the evidence, the Raceday Stewards were of the opinion that Mo Ghille Mar had caused interference to Encosta and Enthralling and as a result of this interference had improved its finishing position and they therefore demoted Mo Ghille Mar from first place and placed it behind Enthralling. As a consequence, the Raceday Stewards amended the result to read as follows:

Amended Result:
First: Encosta
Second: Cleopatra's Needle
Third: You Owe Me Money
Fourth: Queenie St Clair
Fifth: Enthralling
Sixth: Mo Ghille Mar

Furthermore, the Raceday Stewards were of the opinion that K. G. Kennedy was in breach of Rule 214, in that he had ridden carelessly, and having considered his record in this regard (second offence) they suspended K. G. Kennedy for seven racedays. K. G. Kennedy was accompanied at this enquiry by Mrs. John Harrington. Mr. Declan McCormack, Trainee Raceday Steward, attended this enquiry in an observatory capacity.

So, the stewards interpretation seems to be that as the FPTP improved their position as a result of the interference, then they are entitled to drop him down behind any horse that suffered as a result.

Given the wording of rule (214.b) above, it seems this was an error?

ive no problem with what they done..as long as its consistent.