- This topic has 14 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello,
Surely BINANTI, "did enough" to be placed Second and race awarded to FAJR ???
The head on showed the intensity Binanti leaned on a big horse like Fajr, for both to swerve right across the track…:o
That was , in my humble opinion, a clear cut reversal of placings. One horse definitely prevented another horse bettering it’s position.
OK not given, but no doubt some where around the country, Stewards will reverse and disqualify for actions far less obvious than todays.
Stewards should not be afraid to administer the rules. But it was Royal Ascot..
Oh! Apparently, Pride of Nation was given a dreadful ride in the same race according to some people mailing ATR :) <br>
regards,
doyley
I know I had a tenner e/w on Fajr and I agree, purely from a racing point of view, that perhaps he should have got it. At Kempton on a Tuesday night thats a reversal.
At Towcester it would have been reversed. Everything gets reversed at Towcester and it is probably the only track in the UK where I would apportion no blame to horse or jockey for final furlong interferance. Go figure?
I was on FAJR at 40`s and 33`s to decent money (Place to similiar stakes) and i must admit to Buying stake back at1,16 BINANTI in the stewards (Keeping the race) because i couldn`t see it being turned,imo Egan came to soon and FAJR ,he actually got past him at one stage and was reheaded by the time BINANTI started his antics, has the rules stand i was surprised it took 15 minutes to deliver the verdict!!
(Edited by Tony25 at 8:34 am on June 23, 2007)
Thought it looked clear cut the result should stand, to reverse would have involved far too much speculative guessing. I want to bet on the fastest horse not someones opinion what might have won. Thought Egan was weak in the finish.
Defeats you have to take on the chin and move on.
But surely the point to take out of this is that Ms Kellaway told us already that Fajr was a certainty to be placed based on the superior work done with Vortex who placed the other day.<br>
Doyley
I think the Fathom Five decision had much to do with deliberate interference by his jockey.
Rob
Hello Rob,
I agree but surely interference by a horse should also be considered.<br>OK, Robinson did interfere with the other partnership, but as someone stated on this thread, you want to see the best horse win…<br>One cannot have it both ways!!:)
regards,
doyley
Quote: from doyley on 6:06 pm on June 23, 2007[br] you want to see the best horse win…<br>One cannot have it both ways!!:)
I’d like to see the best horse win, but my fair means.
In the case of Fathom Five, the horse was possibly the best horse but his rider interfered with the rider of the second to prevent him riding a full finish. as the rules stand the stewards had no option but to disqualify Fathom Five.
I can’t comment as fully as I’d like to on the Binanti race as I didn’t see the head on shots. However in that instance it seems there was no suggestion of deliberate interference.
Rob
I was at Newmarket and let me say straight away I didn’t bet on that race. But it is staggering that neither RUK, nor the RP in their analysis made any mention of the stewards’ findings. Admittedly these were announced about 15 minutes after the last race, by which time no doubt racing’s fourth estate were busy trying to recoup their losses of the day on the exchanges or enjoying someone’s free hospitality.
But the synopsis of what the stewards said was that Robinson had deliberately used his whip to hit both Havlin and Sohraab, This could be seen clearly on the replay and Robinson was banned for five days. After they crossed the line Havlin struck both Fathom Five and Robinson with his whip, for which offence he was banned for seven days.
The clown who was doing the Ruk summaries said that Robinson had prevented Havlin from using his whip, but that was not what lead to the stewards’ decision, it was Robinson hitting horse and jock.
No doubt the racing media are under strict instructions from the off course bookmakers not to frighten the punters, but both RUK and RP reporting was , to say the least, utterly inaccurate.
richard
Hello richard,
From your post, you have actually backed up my point regarding BINANTI/FAJR, what has happened is more or less the same ofence.<br>But it matters to who it is to or who it affects,
You will not remember Gay’s father, but what happened yesterday was a disgrace.
But today, all is the same, " do the small trainer"
Please, please someone give me a top trainers’* horse hat has EVER been
(a) Involved a Stewards Enquiry<br>(b) LOST in that Stewards Enquiry<br>(c) Or clog up Racing Forums’ why that great horse lost
OK I am being cynical, but the fact is the more money in the game the more influence
*Big Trainers: You Know ’em
(Edited by doyley at 12:39 am on June 24, 2007)
regards,
doyley
No Suprise it wasnt reversed, It seems at the big meetings you need to shoot the jockey to get a reversal. As at last years meeting Court Masterpiece was badly hampered by Ad Valorem but they kept the result. Another good example is the Cheltenham festival in which jamie Spencer in no doubt cost Rhinestone Cowboy the race and on the betting of the stewards they had rhinestone fav to be awarded the race.
The only time i seen a result amended at a big meeting was Coolnagorna in the RSA hurdle in which he finshed 2nd but was placed last.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.