- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Does anyone know if Dig Deep returned lame in Catterick’s 3.35, or had been sufficiently struck into to justify Robert Winston’s blatant lack of effort (I say lack of effort, what I actually mean is that he pulled the horse back from a strong-travelling length behind the leader to perhaps half a dozen).
If the horse has returned somewhat the worse for wear then fair enough, but Winston avoided taking the gap on the fence when it appeared (travelling strongly), avoided taking the gap between horses when it appeared (travelling strongly), did not look down as if concerned for the horse’s welfare at any stage and then proceeded to pull the horse out of all contention.
Further information would be much appreciated.
The market had an uncanny knack of getting it right with this horse when with William Haggas and I don’t think much will change this year LGR.
I backed this horse today and assumed it did have a problem when it was eased and dropped out.
According to the RPs conveniently neat write up Dig Deep ‘lost his action’.
Given that my suspicion’s about the lack of an injury were confirmed, surely the ride has to be looked into? Robert Winston deliberately avoiding two gaps when travelling strongly and quite clearly pulled the horse out of the race (rather that him falling behind under strong driving, as would usually be the case for horses losing their action).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.