- This topic has 84 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
What’s he riding with, 2 broken wrists?
A shocking show of horsemanship nearly injurying 2 horses, the bloke is an absolute liablity and should get a 40 day ban for that.
- Total Posts 17716
I was more concerned that he wasn’t riding for his main retainer – considering how the race was set up for him, I may now know the answer.
- Total Posts 17716
duplicated
I don’t know if any action has been taken, but if he’s not thrown out then something is seriously wrong with this game. A similar thing happened at Brighton over 2 months ago that was even worse and no action was taken. Ridiculous.
‘Stewards Inquiry – Result Stands’
What’s the point of it all? I really feel like giving all this rubbish up and just betting on French stuff. Non-corrupt, fair racing.
Incredible performance.Took everything out of the race from his outside position including the fav.who he bumped into the rail in the final drive.Unbelievable.Stewards were perfectly happy to let him keep the race.What does Spencer have to do to lose a race?
I think the result being allowed to stand somehow manages to overshadow Jamies psychotic performance in the saddle.
After Ascot I thought the stewarding in this country was at an all-time low (De Sousa vs Queally) – I’m now sure it doesn’t exist.
On what grounds should the winner be disqualified?
I’ve only seen the head on once (so reserve the right to change my mind) but seemed to me the winner on merit, and won with quite a bit in hand.
You could see the horse was unbalanced. From what I saw: Spencer did not ride in to the others, the horse took him there against his wishes. OK once alongside the runner up should have changed the whip hand. But again, the horse did not wander when immediately hit with the whip, seemed only to go accross afterwards. So could be argued the whip had nothing to do with it either.
Value Is EverythingSince according to one reader the horse,not Jamie was responsible for what happened then just go ahead and adjust the placing leaving the horse behind those he interferedn with. No problem.I don’t care who is to blame just do the right thing.
Couldnt believe that a) he was allowed to keep it and b) the stewards made up their minds so quickly. He completely took out the 2nd and 3rd.
Stewards are terribly inconsistent in this country – I keep thinking of poor old Noel Martin losing the 1,000 Guineas when JQ caused SO much less interference.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Agree Jonibake re 1’000 Guineas.
Look at that race today then that Guineas. Then tell me which caused worse interference.
No wonder Elsworth didn’t want his jockey talking to the media.
Well done Derek T for standing up to bullying tactics. #goneupinmyestimation
I think the result being allowed to stand somehow manages to overshadow Jamies psychotic performance in the saddle.
After Ascot I thought the stewarding in this country was at an all-time low (De Sousa vs Queally) – I’m now sure it doesn’t exist.
https://theracingforum.co.uk/horse-r … 86710.html
Watch the replay of that race. It’s utterly pathetic that that hasn’t been thrown out either. Our game is so bent it’s untrue.
I went on Betfair to lay off but the price never went beyond 1.05! Everyone knew the stewards would bottle it.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Come on guys, you know how the stewarding works in this country, the horse was never going to be thrown out, purely and simply because the margin of victory was too great (not saying I agree before you all shoot me down).
Did interference take place? Yes. Did the interference affect the result. No.
Unfortunately, that’s all the stewards look at when deciding whether to throw a horse out, and you have to say, they got it right.
The winner was well on top at the line, in fact, the further they went, the further Spencer’s mount was going to win by. The jockey on the second horse had to stop riding for a split second at most and would never have won if no interference had taken place.
The most interference was caused between the winner and the third, but Spencer’s mount was well on top and beat the third placed horse too comprehensively for the stewards to say that the interference affected the result. And plus, am I right in saying that the stewards only reverse placings between the first and second these days? They no longer throw horses out and place them last do they (apologies if I’m wrong)?
So all in all, yes interference took place, it looked bad, but the winner was easily the best horse on the day and would have won regardless of any interference. Result stands and the correct call.
- Total Posts 17716
Watch the replay of that race. It’s utterly pathetic that that hasn’t been thrown out either. Our game is so bent it’s untrue.
What do you mean by "bent" in the context of a piece of poor jockeyship? In what way does this indicate corruption within the sport?
Hi 1i Why have the race at all? Let the stewards just decide which is the better,or best horse and award him he race? All races should be decided in the stewards room.Forget jockeys using whips or bumping other horses, causing interference,or going off a straight line.Races will be more fun to watch!Let the stewards decide the winner and that settles it.
Hi 1i Why have the race at all? Let the stewards just decide which is the better,or best horse and award him he race? All races should be decided in the stewards room.Forget jockeys using whips or bumping other horses, causing interference,or going off a straight line.Races will be more fun to watch!Let the stewards decide the winner and that settles it.
Don’t lose your rag with me mate
I didn’t say the horse shouldn’t have been thrown out, I didn’t say Spencer didn’t deserve a ban, I merely pointed out that, by today’s rules, the stewards made the correct call.
The two main questions the stewards ask are, 1) was there any interference, and 2) did the interference affect the result?
Only if both answers are yes will they amend a result. Yesterday they will have deemed yes to be the answer to the first question and no to the second. By that I mean yes there was interference but no the interference didn’t affect the result. And in my opinion, that was the correct call.
The best horse won on the day, the further it went the further it was going clear. The horse won DESPITE the interference caused to other horses, no BECAUSE OF the interference caused.
I’m not for one minute saying I agree with the rules, I’m simply saying that the Haydock stewards interpreted the rules correctly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.