non runner

lots of irrelevant bs in the "explanation" of why it was voided

Go away Dickster you fantasist bullshatter

Christmas day for favourite backers. Unbelievable stupidity from the Stewards.   

The horse lost because he couldn't handle the ground.

Did you want to be up front early, jockey? No guv, I was going to hold it up, so no bother 

The horse lost because he couldn't handle the ground.

that's the main reason
clearly start didn't help

I believe that fat moron did me up at Aintree when Pied Piper dead heated and both jockeys agreed made no difference.
South African cretin

You would be delighted if you backed the winner,wouldn't you

Did a horse not face the wrong way when the stall opened? It was deemed a runner.

Jun 6, 2026 -- 4:50PM, uptheirons wrote:

You would be delighted if you backed the winner,wouldn't you

what about if you laid below 9/4

gone off 4.79

The horse caused itself the problem.
Simple as that

Jun 6, 2026 -- 4:52PM, uptheirons wrote:

The horse caused itself the problem.Simple as that

100%

I was being ironic

ok alanis

O'Brien stated that its horse racing regarding the start

Just seen this. No financial interest myself.

Decision was an absolute steaming pile of shìt.

Non wiser if wasn’t camera in stalls
How many times that scenario was probably happened?

By even stating that the horse was favourite showed the bloated warthog doesn't even understand his own rules as it had F/A to do with the decision

Just when you think racing couldn't make itself even less appealing as a betting sport....it outdoes itself on the biggest race it has.

You can bet 1.001 if you back a horse that does similar you won't be seeing a penny back...

Exactly,Stu

are inrunning lays voided ?

There are a few times you can really start to believe this sport deserves to die off, this is one of them...

What would have happened if it had won ?

My account went negative even though I did not lay Ben. The highly intelligent jobsworth at Betfair thought it was the correct decision. So rescinded their inept decision.

I can only think that they're trying to put a positive spin on what has been an awful 'festival', and by a positive spin I mean they dont want to see a negative headline regarding the Derby favourite losing its chance at the start and think theyre somehowappeasing the betting public. Seeing people leave in their droves before the Derby said it all. Nonsense decision.

it would keep the race if won, or if placed

By cheating,MJK?

Did the stalls malfunction,no

Therefore. The horse needs a stall test,because it can’t stand in a stall,but it had an equal chance,till it couldn’t stand in a stall.

From whip rules,to running off a line,

They change the rules each year to suit each incident,

The bha have sussed,why should VAR get all the headlines,we need to beat that.

would not be a nr if placed

Of course,TTT

think they voided a 3rd place @ thirsk last year

Just a guess irons, they can make it up as they go along. Ive seen enough stewards enquiries last few seasons which resulted in headscratching decisions to not be surprised.

I hope the steward(s) get named and shamed fully and publicly over this one...

Yes I am pocket talking, had a nice lay on the favourite which was my main earnings for today. But if you can't play without danger of this, then why bother being a layer on here (or even a backer of another)?

The guy phoned in who pressured to have the rule after something happened and inconvenienced his horse - he said the rule was not meant for that - I think his was a late opening stall.

It is a dot on the cards that it is the bloated South African warthog that swayed the day,stu

yep irons.

But,he was not denied a chance,he simply caused its own problem

A change to the Rules of Racing will see BHA Stewards able to declare a non-runner in any race beginning from starting stalls if they believe that a horse has been denied a fair start.

Under the existing Rules, a horse can only be declared a non-runner if it has been prevented from starting due to a faulty action of the starting stalls or if it is riderless at the off.

But from 1 May 2024, the powers of the Stewards will be extended to include situations where a horse has been prevented from starting on equal terms and its chances in a race have been materially affected as a consequence.

The change – which aligns Britain with the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA) model rule and the approach applied by other major racing nations – follows engagement with and feedback from industry stakeholders, including participants and the betting industry, and approval by the BHA Board.

Use of the updated Rule will be at the discretion of the BHA Stewards and may include instances where a stalls malfunction causes some stalls to open more slowly than others, as was the case in the 2023 Epsom Dash.

It could also cover scenarios where there is a problem with equipment fitted at the start, or a stalls handler is still attempting to assist a horse and jockey when the starting mechanism is triggered.

The updated Rule can also be applied in circumstances where a horse has obtained an unfair advantage at the start, for example if a runner forces the gates open prematurely before the Starter has triggered the starting mechanism. However, a horse will not be declared a non-runner if it merely accelerates the gates once the Starter has operated the starting mechanism.

Any consideration by the Stewards will always precede the ‘weighed in’ signal, with participants, racegoers and the betting public alerted that an incident at the start of the race is being reviewed.

Jun 6, 2026 -- 5:09PM, stu wrote:

I hope the steward(s) get named and shamed fully and publicly over this one...

its fat south african parker

Two tier (seems to be the phrase of the moment) then? Outcome hinges on whether or not the race is or is not part of "World Pool". Ludicrous.

would imagine some vested interest in the world pool needed this voiding
why backstop rule was brought in imo
nothing to do with equity & fair starts

Life was so much simpler when we argued about 8 or 10 strikes of the whip.

Supposing the horses foot was high,but not quite on the metal one the stalls,does this mean it’s a non runners.

How high should its leg be.

Horse misbehaviour

Where a horse’s own behaviour alone, after the starting mechanism has been operated, results in the horse being unable to start on equal terms, the horse shall not be declared a non-runner. However, if a horse, for example, kicks out and gets caught in the starting gates before the starting mechanism has been operated, and the starter is unaware leading to the horse being unable to start on equal terms as a result, the Stewards can consider declaring a non-runner.

Jun 6, 2026 -- 5:15PM, uptheirons wrote:

But,he was not denied a chance,he simply caused its own problem

similar to horses stumbling or rearing up as stalls open
its just bad luck
nobody's fault
you've done your money SHOULD HAVE

the general you

Where a horse’s own behaviour alone, after the starting mechanism has been operated, results in the horse being unable to start on equal terms, the horse shall not be declared a non-runner.

Clearly, that is applicable here. And they have got it wrong (that is lifted from the BHA site)

Cider • June 6, 2026 5:20 PM BST
Where a horse’s own behaviour alone, after the starting mechanism has been operated, results in the horse being unable to start on equal terms, the horse shall not be declared a non-runner.

yep clear in their own rules cider

Someone needs to tell the horses - the footrail is for the jockey, occasionally the stalls handler - defo not them - didnt they get the email?!

You cannot have such a subjective rule administered by the hooray henry, chinless, guffawing, old etonians ! What if the jockeys leg is caught - you can go on forever with scenarios.

Getting your leg over has never been this complicated!

I suppose it could be argued the incident started before the starting mechanism had been operated. Still the horse's behaviour alone, and out of vision of the starter.

the stalls open less than 1s after moore looks around

the horse hasn't been hooked on the gate for 5-10s & then he's let them go with the horse being left at the start or losing lengths

yes. literally by the letter of the rules though. I suppose it's analogous with a horse rearing and then the starter lets them go. Would the starter let them go if he knew it had it's leg on the side, no. I think it's the wrong outcome but a strict interpretation of the rule might allow it, daft as it seems.

if it rears & has its leg on the side 1s before the stalls open
its a runner

if you watch the horse today actually gets an ok start
breaks midfield or slightly worse of midfield that's all

held up @ chester
with pacemakers here I'd say moore was satisfied with early position for all a cleaner start would have been preferable

the starter wouldn't/shouldn't let them go, if a horse is actively rearing. like if it had been on its hind legs for 3 seconds, and then he pressed the button with it still up, it could be a noner.

I will put up a world pool thread.

Jun 6, 2026 -- 5:38PM, Cider wrote:

the starter wouldn't/shouldn't let them go, if a horse is actively rearing. like if it had been on its hind legs for 3 seconds, and then he pressed the button with it still up, it could be a noner.

its less than 1s before the stalls open impossible to react within this timeframe

The race is over the horse cant start on three legs init

Bending the knee to the World Pool is becoming a strong favourite.
Utterly appalling

Just accept that you were blessed,you clueless moron,abba

You are raving sad man

"Soon after the horses had left the starting gates we were notified that the favourite had his left hind leg on the running board just before the start was affected,

yes quite possible that it was a third party that did the notifying, as obviously favourites are critical to pool betting.

The handler was there right behind

Please let abba have a BF A/C

The feds have turned in Epsom up now.

Anything that could go wrong

Ive seen loads of horses have slower starts than that and they were NOT deemed to be NRs....quote from tv this morning - "the worst result for bookmakers today would be a win for Christmas Day" Wonder if this is a coincidence ? Or was someone involved called murrell ?

they just need a last minute bomb threat evacuation

I dont need bf account as you cant do 62/1 double

You cannot have an A/C because you are a degenerate loser,abba whos deposits far exceed your withdrawals.
Simple as that

Im afraid you are the loser everyone can see it but there always time to change

I thought the whole idea of bookies was to take ya money

Your problem is you are tryin to make an existence from it and look what it is doing to you following people around here like crazy man

There might be a circus in town you might get a job

FOYDC

Dont come on my thread simple mr simple

GFY,moron

Jun 6, 2026 -- 5:43PM, uptheirons wrote:

Bending the knee to the World Pool is becoming a strong favourite.Utterly appalling

yep spot on

Jun 6, 2026 -- 5:52PM, Cider wrote:

"Soon after the horses had left the starting gates we were notified that the favourite had his left hind leg on the running board just before the start was affected,yes quite possible that it was a third party that did the notifying, as obviously favourites are critical to pool betting.

agree cider...should be the horse's name or number

"the favourite" is a wholly inappropriate way to refer to a horse & its a dead giveaway imo

Still,as long as the DG,abbadabba do is happy

It's time for a few resignations/ dismissals. Stewards and any others involved. (The decision cost me £3 so that's not relevant to my comments.) Was there any malfunction in the starting stalls? No. Result stands. What gives the numpties in the stewards room the right to make a subjective decision (their own view and nothing to do with the rules of racing) that the result should be altered. That's what they have done: reduced the field by one. New result. I can assure anyone more intelligent than today's stewards that in the near future a trainer or owner will have grand on and the animal loses only to claim that its legs were misplaced as the gates opened and that there is now a precedent for the horse being declared a non-runner. Or there are 8 runners and the 50/1 rag is deemed a non-runner because it has remembered it doesn't like the horse in the next stall and it's now only 2 places.  I can't remember a more asinine decision since ... actually there has never been a worse.

other than enquiries for interference, this is by far the worst stewarding decision of all time jtw

.
https://www.racingtv.com/watch/on-demand/interviews/1361225

you've got fat parker here concluding before he's even started that the horse was denied a fair start when it is clearly in the BHA rule that if its the horse's own fault its hard cheddar

Where a horse’s own behaviour alone, after the starting mechanism has been operated, results in the horse being unable to start on equal terms, the horse shall not be declared a non-runner.

Where a horse’s own behaviour alone, after the starting mechanism has been operated, results in the horse being unable to start on equal terms, the horse shall not be declared a non-runner.

Unless,the fat South African warthog decides otherwise

Betfred have removed the R4 on the winner, God bless them

And unless ITV had put a camera above the stall, nobody would have been any the wiser.

For the £10 punters they allow to bet with them

fair play to them because nobody is entitled to a R4 being waived, for all there shouldn't have been a R4

That might indicate how many punters backed the winner,wonders

What are the AP rules? It was declared to run, but then derclared NR on day of rave? , apologies if this has already been asked and answered.

winner was 14 into 7 uti maybe fred ducked it I'm not sure

A/P backers a loser

TY wonder, not sure why tho

A/P all in run or not

TY wonder

Because A/P bets are all in ,run or not