There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I hope that’s a NR for the starters sake and anyone who’s backed Doctor Blue
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 65
|
By:
Not sure how they can spin that as a nr?
|
|
By:
As per the "new" rules still don't think it was a non runner:
horses who whip round at the start, refuse, or whose behaviour is detrimental to breaking on terms would not be classified as a non-runner |
|
By:
It'll be an absolute disgrace if that horse is declared a runner.
Racing needs to take a long hard look at itself Duping punters out of their money isnt a good look for an industry already deep in the mire |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Didn’t have a bet in the race but that would be a NR in any other jurisdiction but ours, had no intention of starting and would’ve been 10 lengths behind the field if it had
|
|
By:
To me it's a runner if the rules are applied correctly. Yes its hard on those that backed it but it came under orders, was facing the right way (albeit slightly adrift), and the jockey attempted to go forward. Planted itself, that's life and they're animals after all.
|
|
By:
slightly adrift he's 10l behind
|
|
By:
the horse hasn't planted itself after the tape is released
|
|
By:
laid it for £55 as it was rearing, fingers crossed.
|
|
By:
Did me a favour as I had backed Lisbane Park and layed it off after 100 yards. Managed to get beat a short head!
|
|
By:
I did the winner so nothing to gripe about here, but when you see how bizarrely pedantic the starter is on many occasions to have let that race start in those circumstances was a huge surprise to me.
|
|
By:
Correct, it's was just behind.
|
|
By:
Granted, not the starters finest hour. Did back the winner as it goes. Just interested in the rule 4. Surely they aren't going to call it a NR once they've weighed in. I'm saying it's behaviour was "detrimental to breaking on terms" so it's a runner. Planted itself, whose faults that?
|
|
By:
Starter and his 'assistant' were pretty pathetic there too - considering how much they usually f'nny around pretending to make starts 'perfect' at other times.
|
|
By:
Cross posting, as said above.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
There's a stewards enquiry. Be a while now that's for sure.
|
|
By:
called a NR...??!
|
|
By:
its a NR
 |
|
By:
and they've weighed in weighed in
|
|
By:
looks like they gave it as a non runner
|
|
By:
Bugg3r, they've just whacked a 35p R4 on my winner
|
|
By:
35p nr
|
|
By:
They're saying it was withdrawn not under orders?
|
|
By:
I benefited slightly from that being a NR, but must admit I'm surprised.
|
|
By:
Opens door to lot of question marks in starts, for sure...
|
|
By:
Stewards have bottled it. Know its harsh but the wording of the rules applied correctly means it's a runner in my mind despite the unfairness many may feel. Interesting to read the stewards report.
|
|
By:
"They're saying it was withdrawn not under orders?"
Well that's clearly an untrue explanation of what happened. |
|
By:
Absolutely ridiculous decision by the Stewards, they must have been on the bottle early!
|
|
By:
It's ridiculous. Just created another very grey area that wasn't there before. No difference between that one and others this season that have been deemed runners. If the jockey is on board it should be a runner for the sake of clarity.
|
|
By:
I'd agree it should have been a runner given what it was doing/jockey was doing at the time of the off.
|
|
By:
Someone should've told the jockey and the woman waving the horse to move then that it had been withdrawn. Stewards made the rules up
|
|
By:
Starter a complete moron though (for a change...)
 |
|
By:
If he had started even if 20lengths behind and then won. Is he still NR ?
Stewards made a pigs ear of that decision. |
|
By:
robbed of a 30,s winner if you backed the 3rd ew or even place only on the tote
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
its not 30/1 a place e/w because win stake is a loss
|
|
By:
Stewards likely swayed by it being one of the fancied horses. Ask yourself if it would have been if it was 100/1? The enquiry was quick so looks like a bottle job.
|