stewards goodwood

Oisin woulda won it in Stewards imv..

Catches up over 1 length will be enough to convince to reverse. Lovely price

Going with that interview Crowley will get it in my opinion

Could go either way. 1.5 is too short.

Im going in again FULL BANK

surely its not up the 2nd to stop  riding to prevent a possible accident because of a riding offence by the winner

Market adjusting late, i think it could be revised now

bet crowley  has complained more   about a warm beer, pathetic

stewards lumping on now

Ive seen thid before on the stewards, the longer it takes nearly goes 50/50!

revised

late suspend

Revised

Reversed

winner gone

2nd revisal in 4 days with no interference

that,ll make doyler pipe down a little

head steward didn't sound like he believed doyle.


^^^^ best you lot will ever read on 'ere

Had to be revised after listening to the interviews in the stewards

Correct IMO

Wise heads prevail...

Stewards got Crowley out of jail there.

over a length clear rolls to the rail, 2nd has to switch
winner pulling up
and revised

what a farce

think there's real needle there between murta and shark

It was Jim's point that he paused and caught up 1.5 lenghts and lost by a head that swung it.

Rico-Dangleflaps 31 Jul 24 14:37 
stewards will say doyle allowed his mount to drift 4 yds right without putting his whip down and correcting..crowley momentarily had to ease..beat diminishing 2"..a tricky one.


wondersobright 31 Jul 24 14:44 
2nd revisal in 4 days with no interference

Bullsh*T !!
Winner was clear, 2nd was sleeping.

someone new the result lol 2nd fav went to 1.2 from 2.2 after they knew the result

hulk2331 Jul 24 14:34Joined: 04 May 12 | Topic/replies: 32,122 | Blogger: hulk23's blog


wasn't seconds ground, was his ground to take as he was well ahead

Sorry everyone, got that wrong.

It was a late suspend, last prices matched 1.23 and 4.

Come racing... no one has a clue what rules are now lol....joke industry .. reset it and take the Aussie template for proper racing imv ..

It Woz Difficult 1 that, Different Day, Judge......Stands

Thought he'd keep that.

Im going in again FULL BANK

That was a bit rash whatever happened in this sort of rubbish from the stewards!

Stewards probably threw Doyle out for going in ill dressed!

head steward didn't sound like he believed doyle.

far too good for you tigger, you're not even close pal

Chucked out winner laid at 4 during the announcement

So, according to the Stewards, you can't cross in front of another runner even though you are

clear. On that basis at least half the runners in every race should be DQ'D.

Different day different stewards different result it’s never clear cut

Steward asked Jim again how much ground he thought he had caught up, seemed pretty much the deciding factor as no point asking that again if you aren't convinced of interference, and if you are then a diminishing nose and being caught 1.5 lengths since interference is pretty clinical info.

unitedbiscuits • July 31, 2024 2:47 PM BST
Sorry everyone, got that wrong

your analysis was correct ub...if sunday never happened fptp is 1.2x to keep it

they've obviously been given new guidance that a horse taking another's racing line when clear is now a foul
ridiculous but that's british racing

think the point is your only clear because other jockeys are taking a pull to avoid a possible pile up,which makes you clear,everytime you watch it the gradual coming across becomes a final dive to the rail

wd rico..best ever.

roggrain • July 31, 2024 2:49 PM BST
So, according to the Stewards, you can't cross in front of another runner even though you are clear.

a farce

Betfair market move right at the end when the result was known stinks like a smelly fanny. I'm amazed that was changed when there was no interference that I could see. Goodwood stewards crystal ball in full flow as to what might have happened vs opposed to what  actually happened.

Don’t think there’s much doubt Crowley would and should’ve won outright so right decision in principle. I just don’t know if he did enough to deserve it , even in the race or after . Stewards have bailed Jim out there

I recommend Specsavers to most of you

once they decided there was interference, the switch was inevitable because the second was heading into the lead at the line. they don't like it when the jockey doesn't make an effort to keep them straight, and he admitted it wasn't a deliberate manoeuvre.

"betting shud be closer imo."   WD Rico.

Correct result imo.
I dont knw why so many are slating Jim ?  He played a blinder in the stewards, at the end of the enquiry he said his piece in a very matter of fact manner and out played Doyler who was then left floundering trying to find a closing statement which was a load of hot wind..

Steward asked Jim again how much ground he thought he had caught up, seemed pretty much the deciding factor as no point asking that again if you aren't convinced of interference, and if you are then a diminishing nose and being caught 1.5 lengths since interference is pretty clinical info.

was clearly getting chucked after that.  much ground would you say you made up, length and a half sir, hmmmm and you were beaten a nose.  steward told doyle mr crowley stopped riding, doyle - i don't think he did sir.  yeah, but i just told you i think he did james.

How close was Murtagh to calling it as it was , a s1ite ride

But there was no interference. The disqualified horse was clear when he switched. Crowley anticipated and started switching to the outside, he didn't have to check just pull out. Where do the rules tell the stewards they should guess what might have happened when no rule was infringed?

The rules over the last few years have become a complete farce and have moved in the opposite direction to where they should have. The winning distance should be irrelevant. No horse should ever be disqualified for very minor interference as it is all part of the game.

They should be disqualified for causing serious interference no matter the winning distance. All this trying to quantify how much distance was lost and did it alter the result is a load of old bollocks.

So you've got to leave the space clear now in case the other horse has enough to be able to race through it, Crowley was sat there thinking,

"I've got this, I'll wait for another 50 yards or so before I ask my filly to go and win the race" while he was procrastinating, Doyle got the jump on him.

Stewards got Crowley out of jail.

3.55 Jabaara crossing the line told you everything.

Storm Alert • July 31, 2024 2:59 PM BST
But there was no interference. The disqualified horse was clear when he switched

100% correct but its pointless debating with clowns SA

rolling across to the rail when clear & causing a horse behind to switch isn't a foul, even in america it would stay on the board

Coming across a horse is the same as interference. You do know they don’t need to collide

SA the question is why Doyle allowed the horse to cut across to the rail when he wasn't sufficiently clear. Of course some people will argue that he was, but Crowley did have to briefly ease up so it suggests not. In any case the stewards don't like it when they don't try to keep the horse straight, so that tips the balance when it's a close call.

Hushwing. • July 31, 2024 3:03 PM BST
Coming across a horse is the same as interference

unitedbiscuits • July 31, 2024 2:47 PM BST
Sorry everyone, got that wrong

your analysis was correct ub...if sunday never happened fptp is 1.2x to keep it

they've obviously been given new guidance that a horse taking another's racing line when clear is now a foul
ridiculous but that's british racing



Good point wonders suspect the new guidance has something to do with the Tote World Pool betting and appeasing the far east punter to keep them playing the pools.

In the Hong Kong etc that would have been taken down no questions asked.

Just a thought

Storm Alert • July 31, 2024 2:59 PM BST
But there was no interference. The disqualified horse was clear when he switched

whilst drifing 4yds to its right into the path of another horse.

Exactly Rico , has to be pocket talking , everyone here surely knows you can’t just drift in front of another horse like that these days

this is exactly why he should be kicked out ,make jocks thinking they make no attempts to stop it chance they,ll get chucked, as in a few seasons back when they were actually letting them drift evenif they could have stopped it,  to hinder the 2nd knowing they wouldn't get chucked,as in doyler gobsmacked there he,s lost it,didn't even think there was a problem when interviewed on track even though he new he,d drifted across half the field not knowing how any of them were going/had left

not worth talking about it lads its done an dusted ......move on thers a group 1 coming up

and this fckn nonsense of jockeys speaking in an inquiry..cant the stewards see what happened without jockeys blurting woffle.

stewards will say doyle allowed his mount to drift 4 yds right without putting his whip down and correcting

straight after the race doyle didnt seem to realise he had drifted at all

Watched it several more times and still shocking it was reversed. Second was not picking up and winner was more than a length up when drifting. Very bad call..
Winner clearly drifted and idled, with the WHOLE FIELD getting close near the line (Not just the second)
If it was anyone else but big Jim giving it large in the Stewards then it would have stood.

And the one at Sandown tonight where the winner nearly puts the second through the rail when it was coming through to win and they left the result alone...why because it won a neck which cancels out any interference.

EL11 31 Jul 24 22:14 
Watched it several more times and still shocking it was reversed. Second was not picking up

ewe watch the correct race?

and i conquere..tonite at sandown the 2nd was challenging and winner 'nearly' put it through the rail..was way worse than goodwood.

The interference was worse but it wasn't going to be in front just after the line.

In Goodwood we don't have to guess, without the interference the second would have won. Sandown not so. Whilst we could fairly say it hindered its chance of winning, we can't be sure it would have won. That's why jockeys on hampered horses need to get as close to the fptp by the line, even if they think it's a lost cause (if they want to be awarded the race)

only the fact that  EL11 thought JIM give it large in the inquiry is  worse than EL11,s  take on the actual race

the head steward had already made his mind up before those 2 walked in the room.  agreed with everything crowley said and basically made doyle out to be a plonker.  doyle was still trying to plead his case at the end and the boy was like give it a rest ffs james.

cider my view is interference was worse and without it Vecu would have won.

it was worse but Vecu wasn't so obviously closing at the line. If it had in a similar way to Goodwood, it would have flipped.

So if a horse demolishes the rail because of  interference ( admit didn't do that here ) and then isn't closing but beaten a neck result stands ?

In this case the 2nd was closing until he got barged.

It's the overriding factor in the rules. Would the horse have won without the interference. I'm arguing that Goodwood was clear cut, yes. Not so clear cut at Sandown. The debate at Goodwood was more about whether there was interference at all.

if you bring someone to a standstill they're unlikely to be either closing at the line or get the distance down to a nose.  which seems to be the holy grail.  doesn't mean you've not cost them the race.

correct hulk. It happened so close to the line the 2nd had no time to pick up again.

Cost them the chance of winning, which is different. The stewards have to be satisfied that the probability is the sufferer would have won without the interference. That is much harder to demonstrate in Sandown, even though the interference was more significant.

People can argue the balance is to much in favour of fptp, and if you cost a horse's chance of winning you get thrown out. But that could easily lead to another horse getting the race, and not the sufferer.

In Goodwood we don't have to guess, without the interference the second would have won. Sandown not so. Exactly I thought the same.

He was finishing so well before the bump my view is without it he would have won. Just my opinion. Stewards disagreed.

He was finishing so well before the bump my view is without it he would have won. Just my opinion. Stewards disagreed.

I think you could argue that, but it's more of a coin flip. Pretty much nobody argues that the Goodwood second wouldn't have won if he had not got stopped on the rail and forced to switch.

Sandown is more about opinion/judgement/interpretation of a close call, and it could have gone either way. So then they tend to leave the result.

Goodwood 2nd past post was well odds against in enquiry betting. You must have cleaned up !

I did back it to be turned over. Also laid fptp at Sandown at 1.07 before the head on was broadcast on rtv.

then greened up ?

Pretty much nobody argues that the Goodwood second wouldn't have won if he had not got stopped on the rail and forced to switch.

johnny murtagh standing there all afternoon saying the best horse won the race

Sandown was greening up, I saw the interference ir and the market was left open after the race but before the stewards was called.

The winner at Goodwood didn't take his ground, he didn't even need to snatch him up or break stride, he just angled him out,it's the same as saying that no horse can cross in front of another just in case that horse wants to use that space himself, Crowley was sleeping it's as simple as that, he thought he had forever and a day and could wait before he asked for effort.

The Sandown second couldn't get any closer "because" the interference was so bad, it's back to front thinking to say that a horse having suffered significant interference should then have to get within a nose for the stewards to reverse the decision, it's akin top saying that you can only get the race if the interference is only slight so you can then get back to within a nose

The rules are too heavily weighted toward this getting within a nose rule, it's very similar to why refs won't give pens to players being wrestled to the ground in the penalty area, they are afraid that there would be pens left right and centre and in racing they are afraid they'd be chucking horses out left right and centre.

It's a shame, because we got to a place where the rules were liberalised, especially in relation to our French neighbours and friends across the pond (who both subsequently followed suit) - and the best horse won, pretty much most of the time.

Then a few years ago, in the wake of some life changing incidents, the rules became more draconian again.

Today, both jockeys made extremely coherent arguments, but the reality is that this result should never have been changed. The demoted winner took the racing line that the 2nd would have taken, had it been quick enough. There was minimal interference and certainly not enough to be sure that the second would have won. 10 years ago there wouldn't even have been a stewards.