- This topic has 52 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Appears the judges have used the wrong winning line photo in the 1.50pm and no one knows who has won.
Result corrected after the judges used the first winning post instead of the actually winning post which was the 2nd post.
Oh dear oh dear calling the winner before they are sure they got it right.
Absolute horror story, and everybody could see what had happened bar those calling
the shots. Racing could do without yet another balls upWhy have 2 winning posts anyway. If theyre worried about distance of races have the start of the race further back or further forward.
Two posts so that each is on a straight line from respective lasts. Can’t see it would make much difference to have one halfway between current pair.
Total disgrace for many reasons. In last few seasons stewards are meant to check result called by judge as a failsafe. Judge and stewards involved should be barred from officiating for life (whether they are upper class twits or not). On course bookies losing out should sue BHA.
GN is right. They should be barred for life. How can you forget that the winning post you used 30 minutes ago is the correct one for the 2nd race as well?
I also wonder why you use two winning posts so close to each other. Have them at least 100 yards apart.
In this day and age just re-measure all the starts back from one winning post – it seems this is a process that needs doing for a lot of courses anyway based on the fact that a lot of the 2m races are now being listed as 1m 7.5F and then you also have changes to course distances when they make rail movements to enable the use of fresh ground, so I don’t really see way the argument for having two posts holds any water.
Yeah I have never understood the need for sandown to have two winning posts. Totally unnecessary and must be confusing for jockeys and spectators and obviously confusing for judges too.
The need for straight line from the last on each course is a nonsense too. There are many courses where the finish line and the last fence are not parallel. Look at fontwell, cartmel, Killarney, ballinrobe are just a few I can think of quickly.
Didn’t Longchamp use to have two winning posts.?
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Looks it was an human error by Racetech according to The Racing Post:
What a farce, how does British racing keep shooting itself in the foot like this? I can’t believe that no one noticed this error immediately, particularly the so-called experts on ITV or Racing TV.
Leicester has separate winning posts for their hurdle and jump races but these are only a few yards apart and doesn’t cause any problems, so why can’t Sandown do the same thing by remeasuring the course and getting rid of the 1 mile 7.5 furlong nonsense.
The BHA is pushing the blame onto Racetech, a private company. Even if it is not the BHA who employ Racetech it is a BHA employed Judge and Stewards who have ultimate responsibility to announce the correct result. Many photo finishes take longer to adjudicate than the one at Sandown so it’s not a question of the Judge being rushed. He and the Stewards, independent of each other, should have spotted they were sent the wrong image immediately – it’s common sense, they were watching the race (presumably!). I was scratching my head at the distance between the two horses when the image was put up on TV before the drama unfolded.
Instead they both have failed to do so until too late in their verification processes. That’s where the real error lies (not in the processes themselves). And for the BHA to go on to say the initially announced result was provisional (and before weighed in) is disingenuous because everyone trusts the result first called as being accurate. Why, for once, can the BHA not just accept it and its officials have blundered and discipline them accordingly in same way it is so eager to do when a trainer or jockey makes a far more minor transgression?
Sandown has two winning posts supposedly because the angles of courses are different. But I agree with others, having one winning post with the angle midway between the two is surely the way forward.
I hear the reason it did not happen in the first race is that race didn’t need a photo.
Stupid mistake and those involved in producing and giving the wrong photo to the judge are primarily responsible.
However, I do rememember a time when bookmakers (even on-course bookies) did not pay out until the weighed-in… And however unfortunate it may be – punters are told to keep hold of their tickets until the weighed-in signal. This mistake was reportedly found out and put right before the weighed-in.
Value Is EverythingTo be fair the ITV coverage had the camera on the right winning post (they had their digital checkered line right across the course too) and then the commentator (Mark Johnson) made mention of the second post being the correct one and that a mistake had been made.
Yes it was a honest mistake but it makes you wonder where the failsafe/back up is to double check what you are about to report on especially when the outcome involves a lot of money being won or lost.
At the end of the day there simply needs to be one winning line, which would easily eliminate a mistake like this from ever happening again – if you have to re-position the winning post to accomodate distances then so be it, we afterall do live in a technological age where something like this can’t be too hard to sort out.
I don’t really think it hurts the majority of bookmakers as they pay out on first past the post even if a result is changed so if the winning horse had been disqualified they wouldn’t be moaning about paying out on two horses.
The oncourse ones have tighter margins so it not fair on those I suppose.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.