everything that's wrong with the sports encapsulated in 5 mins,biggest story to happen to pun ters in 2 yrs and the 3 of them having a bedwetting session on how it effects them their jobs not a single mention of punters
everything that's wrong with the sports encapsulated in 5 mins,biggest story to happen to pun ters in 2 yrs and the 3 of them having a bedwetting session on how it effects them their jobs not a single mention of punters
if its to mentally challenging to count to 6 and then 10 and impossible to stop anywhere between 6 and 10 ,go do something FOOKING else,6 of top 10 jocks no bans,2 in a 250,000 group one and a kid landing a top handicap for a wizard layim ng one out who,s currently warned of for cheating, JOIN THE FOOKING DOTS
if its to mentally challenging to count to 6 and then 10 and impossible to stop anywhere between 6 and 10 ,go do something FOOKING else,6 of top 10 jocks no bans,2 in a 250,000 group one and a kid landing a top handicap for a wizard layim ng one out
Agreed. All those connected with Manxman deservedly benefited from its promotion to winner of the race. All except those who backed it to win !!! Utter nonsensical situation.
Agreed. All those connected with Manxman deservedly benefited from its promotion to winner of the race. All except those who backed it to win !!!Utter nonsensical situation.
Of course it could be done in the UK but nothing would change in terms of paying out punters, as stated previously, disqualifying one on the day which may then be re-instated following the whip review committee still leaves one group of punters disgruntled. The only possible solution would be for the bookies to withhold payment until the whip review was completed and pay out on the result they arrive at and that is never going to happen.
Little different to expecting the same from drug disqualifications, just not going to happen and whatever method was used the result for one set of punters would be the same.
Of course it could be done in the UK but nothing would change in terms of paying out punters, as stated previously, disqualifying one on the day which may then be re-instated following the whip review committee still leaves one group of punters disgr
why would ONE be reinstated we just advertise/employ stewards who can count to 10,and tell morons like Kevin Blake,Tony Martin,ITV who have spent a week searching for loopholes etc to get out of the FOOKING game
why would ONE be reinstated we just advertise/employ stewards who can count to 10,and tell morons like Kevin Blake,Tony Martin,ITV who have spent a week searching for loopholes etc to get out of the FOOKING game
Stewards on the day already announce enquiry immediately post race and object to the winner regarding rule infringement ( ie crossing, bumping ) exp if winning margin is minimal.
Absolutely no reason why same can't be applied to a jockey using 10 strikes with the whip. The world and his wife could see this on the first repplay of the finish from the 2f pole. Race should should have been awarded to Manxman, before weighed in announcement.
Stewards on the day already announce enquiry immediately post race and object to the winner regarding rule infringement ( ie crossing, bumping ) exp if winning margin is minimal.Absolutely no reason why same can't be applied to a jockey using 10 str
Most bookenow pay out on 1st past the post and amended result, this decision is made immediately after the race following a stewards enquiry/ objection. Same should be applied to whip ruling
Eddie Batt. Not a case of whinging !!More a case of consistency.Most bookenow pay out on 1st past the post and amended result, this decision is made immediately after the race following a stewards enquiry/ objection.Same should be applied to whip rul
The rules are clear. Use 10 strikes of the whip = disqualification.
It's the decision that such an infringement can only be convinced by a separate committee - days after the race.
That's the ludicrous issue at stake here !
The rules are clear. Use 10 strikes of the whip = disqualification.It's the decision that such an infringement can only be convinced by a separate committee - days after the race.That's the ludicrous issue at stake here !
Btw almost guaranteed that had they finished with the result the other way around there would have been less howling as the Irish horse was a relative outsider and btw I backed the 2nd ew and no complaints about either ride from apprentices even if not agreeing with the whip rules in the first place.
Btw almost guaranteed that had they finished with the result the other way around there would have been less howling as the Irish horse was a relative outsider and btw I backed the 2nd ew and no complaints about either ride from apprentices even if n
Just proves you are moaning because you don't know the rules Facts, had the review committee found that even one of the perceived strikes did not make contact of was used for safety reasons the disqualification question goes away!!! hth
Just proves you are moaning because you don't know the rules Facts, had the review committee found that even one of the perceived strikes did not make contact of was used for safety reasons the disqualification question goes away!!! hth
Now you bring up a hypothetical position ?! Fact - 10 strikes - proved. Disqualified.I
This decision scenario could have occurred immediately post race by the Stewards.
CagliariGNow you bring up a hypothetical position ?!Fact - 10 strikes - proved. Disqualified.IThis decision scenario could have occurred immediately post race by the Stewards.