Stewards Lingfield

1.01            £37,381.53       
1.02            £14,788.59       
1.03            £22,637.71   

winner looked like was gona sweep by...they were level 10yds out wen winner has bumped 2nd and the bump has allowed winner to go a hd in front..would the 2nd have deffo won without the bump?  impossible to say yes.
tricky one.

the head-on live drone on it's hols ?

didn't someone on here say they could see what's happening with normal live tv pics ?

It`s the lack of consistency that frustrates punters now. A guessing game.

i never bothered to even look if there was a specials mkt, once they closed the race mkt i gave up. anyone know how they bet if there was?

nm just seen there's some comment on the other thread

once it settled 1.5-1.6 to get race

ty

impossible to tell on drone and even on atr it looks like this side drifted towards winner.

I know the wording of the rule is poor but when a horse drifts that far off a straight line and almost knocks the other rider off how can it be allowed to keep the race? For once Matt Chapman was right in saying it was a certain date as soon as he saw the head on. For Seb to say it was marginal speaks volumes for the jockey mentality. Luke should have been placed last and 28 days for dangerous riding.

how much ground did winner cost itself veering 6-7yds? if kept straight would it have won anyway?

Surely that is not the point. Watched in real time, the second was coming past until it suddenly dropped back a neck. Only the head on told me why. The drift was not caused by the second but by Luke Morris so it is irrelevant whether it would have won kept straight. The only worse thing it could have done was put the second on the floor and it very nearly did. DANGEROUS riding every time.

dangerous riding? how long ewe been watching racing..the horse veered,wasnt 'steered'.

The interference was found to be accidental as MANTON ROAD hung right-handed, despite Morris’s best efforts to correct the gelding.

I agree, from the side on it looked the the 2nd  ptp was the one who had moved across, all very deceiving. On the head on evidence the result should've been switched but it shows that lack of faith in the UK stewards, their knowledge of the rules, consistency etc that the eventual winner was as big as 1.6 to get it.

it's not dangerous riding, people use that out of context and it has zero bearing on the rule definition

i don't think he even got a day, it was deemed accidental under the riding rules but even if he's called at fault it is nowhere close to being called as a dangerous action

I'd be fairly certain these jockeys would keep their mounts straighter if they were riding along a cliff edge.

i really not sure that the horse welfare brigade are going to pull for that

although following a horse off a cliff might have a new meaning

done plenty of that.

Seb Sanders was a very good jockey. On ATR he said that what Morris did was dangerous and that he could have kept the horse straight. Stewards are far too lenient. The horses collided and the rider of the second very nearly got knocked off and could have been badly hurt.

dangerous riding? how long ewe been watching racing..the horse veered,wasnt 'steered'.

Sanders was talking about cases where the jock has done it on purpose to keep the race in cases where the margin was big enough.  He picked the wrong example here.

Been watching for 60 years plus and I think that dangerous riding is encouraged by the rules now more than it ever has been. If a horse is bumped in the last 100 yards and beaten it should automatically get the race. Huge psychological disadvantage as well as a physical one to be knocked off stride. Lester Piggott would pull some strokes but he often got banned for it. Luke Morris can do it again today with the nod of approval of the stewards.

" If a horse is bumped in the last 100 yards and beaten it should automatically get the race"     Phil Bull fought for decades to get that nonsense stopped.   I admit there is something in what you are saying but going to what you want will make it a nightmare for punters.

So the punter interest trumps safety? That is exactly my concern. No steward can predict what would happen without interference so you have 2 choices. A free for all or a fixed rule. We have neither. I have been in racing for most of my life and was also a veteran international 1500 metre athlete and trust me, a slight nudge near the finish can cost you at least 5 yards in a track race. Your brain freezes. Athletes do it all the time and are rarely punished so you have to be alert to it but horses are not expecting a crash when they are racing flat out.

I agree that any contact should be treated more harshly than it is. But conversely I don't agree with intimidation without contact being a reason to DQ, because you can't prove the other horse wouldn't have gone in a certain direction of its own accord (e.g. when they run off at Windsor)

They could have the correct result ( as Lingfield )  and ban the jockey. That would stop plenty of danger.  But did Morris get a ban ?

yeah u would be back to the 70's/80's the way sageform wants it. Just a brush and by far the best horse gets thrown out.  I'm with Bull.

howard, i'm not going to say 'Have you ever ridden a horse?' but i will say 'Are you a veteran international 1500 metre athlete?' !

Just kidding sageform, I think you make a valid point.

Looks like my representing Darlington in Jeux Sans Frontieres counts for very little.

depends whether stewart hall played his joker

The decision in this race was never really in doubt because until the point of impact, the runner up was level or marginally ahead of the "winner" and gaining. If you watch the replay again you will see that the second past the post stopped gaining suddenly at the point of impact. Side on I thought it must have stumbled but head on was obvious.