Stewards Leopardstown..

1.01 droners, side on not always the best

Really interesting one because the 2nd was coming to win but strangely because the interference was such that it actually made the winning distance greater I think because the winning distance is so great they won't change it.

Shame Hayes didnt keep riding or get closer, but no-one could pass the winner given his weaving all over the place

prob get lucky but the 1.01 layers are sitting on a nice green while the backers are hiding in the bathroom

clearly an egregious foul...but nearly 3l unlikely turnaround imo

in america this winner taken down already

1.01        £12,175.98       
1.02        £2,105.21   

the winners obv went 6yds right and stopped the 2nd who was closing and about 3/4L down..but,imo the winner would have won if it kept straight as the pack wernt closing..its won 4L are the stewards gona disq it?  i cant see it but no bet.

Personally id give it to the runner up and winner has got to learn to ride straighter doc he's a menace

similar rico

He wasn't 3 lengths behind when he was hampered. Should be overturned imo.

Personally id give it to the runner up and winner has got to learn to ride straighter cos he's a menace

There's no way you can say the second was likely coming to win. Sure, the interference cost it all chance of winning, but the chance was not odds on.

This is the scenario William Haggas was talking about earlier, of course the winning distance will be large if the closer has been stopped in his tracks, the final distance should have no bearing on the stewards decision, it's the distance between at point of contact, i.e. a length.

I may be wrong but the winner obstructed the second twice ..iyt maybe a while - the stewards are just poiring another round of sherry

Yes, some people say that the argument should be that because the chance of the second winning was taken away due to interference, it should be reversed. But I don't feel like anyone independent can claim the second was coming to win.

If you remove the chance of winning or affect a runners position  you should be placed behind the sufferer because its impossible to be sure and the winner has placed the doubt in the stewards mind and should go, and would anywhere ekse

tough call to throw it

verdict?

looks like its still ongoing

Gagging 19 Oct 25 16:48 
I may be wrong but the winner obstructed the second twice ..

it did.

could ewe be certain 2nd would of won?  no chance

amended

Got to love the way the experts (like Ruby Walsh, and McNae) haven't got a clue about the rules or their interpretation. What chance have the rest of us got!

Lovely Jubbly

revised.

stay in the bathroom

surprising but it was an egregious foul

Sweetjesis

Got to love the way the experts (like Ruby Walsh, and McNae) haven't got a clue about the rules or their interpretation. What chance have the rest of us got!


It always comes down to judgement, which is why there is a market. Or in this case we are second guessing the judgement of others. They must have thought the second was coming to win. I'd say the Hayes theatrics played a part, personally I can't see how anyone can say that the second would have won otherwise.

Not according to Ruby Walsh. He clearly stated the way the rules are stated the result would stand.

bit of sympathy for Noel there after losing out at Galway

aint a man on planet earth can be sure 2nd wud hav won

winner wasnt stopping...i thort distance would save it.

Not according to Ruby Walsh. He clearly stated the way the rules are stated the result would stand.


So did Fran, but they are right.

Nobody can guarantee the stewards will apply the rules correctly. As I allude to, it boils down to whether they think the second was likely to win otherwise. Which nobody can prove either way, it's just judgement/opinion. For me they are wrong in this instance.

they must have given the jock a few days off, be interesting to read what they say

Fair enough  .... for once!

What the 2nd would have done should be irrelevant. The rules are wrong and should be re-written. If you foul someone you should be placed behind it, as everywhere else

haha Fran and Ruby changing their opinions now lol

Rules are rules but some flexibility should be given to the stewards or u might as well have a robot: I like to see the stewards using that rare thing  ...'common sense'!!

That's the point, Busyfool.

Most people would say in that example, the interference was extensive enough that they should be flipped for a fair outcome. But the rules don't have scope for that, currently they need to be confident that the winner improved its position. I feel that is near impossible.

So it comes down to the fair outcome vs the correct interpretation of the rules.

I'd say the outcome is fair/moral, but not a correct interpretation of the current rules.

would have been interesting if hmp horse wasnt 2nd.

Irish Stewards a law to themselves thought winner would have kept that.

Agreed,Matt22

They should not be a law unto themselves as they made the right decision. Others should follow

Standardisation should be an easy fix

I didn't even watch the race but some of the most outrageous Stewards decisions over the years have been in Ireland

no arguing winner badly hmp the 2nd..take 2nd out the race winner was staying on well,pack wernt closing...winner cud easily have picked up when straightened...impossible to know if 2nd would have won,therefore benefit of doubt should have been given to the winner.

imo

Just watched it.
Would have stood all day long here.
The Wild West over there

horse wins over 3L and stewards decides probably would have won.

What were the prices in the Stewards,Rico?

but the point is , is was a length when the contact was made, 3l at the finish is immaterial, imo,

it was around 4/6 to keep initially, then hardend up once Walsh, Berry, Mcnae all claimed it can't possibly be reversed the way the rules are written.

turns out that expert view/advice was codswallop.

if the pack closed on the winner i'd of agreed 2nd may have won...but they didnt and i think there was ev chance the winner would have kept on once straightened and held on..all supposition of course.

it's one of those, fptp probably wasn't stopping, I think the DQ is the way forward in these kind of instances, even though that's not the way the rules are written currently according to those paid to know (or not).

That is,until you back the FPTP,Swifty.
A very strange decision which only reminds me to try not to get involved over there

I stand by my 10pm post

The Raceday Stewards enquired into possible interference in the home straight involving Blake (GB), ridden by C.D. Hayes, placed second and Navy Waters, ridden by N.M. Crosse, placed first, where it appeared that interference may have occurred. Evidence was heard from the riders concerned. C.D. Hayes stated that he was carried wide early in the straight and at no stage did he get a fair run up the straight. He further added that as he got his mount going Navy Waters leaned in on top of him. He concluded by stating that he felt this interference had cost him the winning of the race. N.M. Crosse stated that his mount was hanging right and he did his best to keep him straight. He further added that Blake ran into the back of his hind quarters. Having viewed the recording of the race and considered the evidence, the Raceday Stewards were of the opinion that Navy Waters had caused interference to Blake and as a result of this interference had improved it’s finishing position

As a consequence, the Raceday Stewards amended the result to read as follows: Amended Result: First: Blake Second: Navy Waters Third: Teed Up Fourth: Speckled Meadow Fifth: Immutable Sixth: Bottler'secret Furthermore, the Raceday Stewards were of the opinion that N.M. Crosse was in breach of Rule 214 in that he had ridden carelessly, and having considered his clean record in this regard they suspended him for two racedays

So everything stated is correct. I don't feel anyone can reasonably categorically state that the winner improved their finishing position. So they haven't applied the rules correctly, and the decision would/should be reversed on appeal (assuming those determining the appeal applied the rules correctly!).

improved it’s finishing position


btw, what the f is that

I don't feel anyone can reasonably categorically state that the winner improved their finishing position.

well it did,went from 1L in front to 3L.

cider will be back shortly to say he was wrong

Did anybody back the second to get the race in the Stewards?

The finishing position is in terms of order, not distance. But Rico knows that, and is being unusually facetious :)