- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
- Posts
I am referring to the 3.50 race at Worcester where mile house was in the centre of the course and aficionado was coming up on the inside rail, when mile house started drifting to the left towards the rail and taking aficionado’s ground where aficiando had to pull up slightlyand move to the outside and came to within I/2 length of mile house (who was fading) running on strongly. There was a stewards inquiry but the result stayed the same, I think aficionado should have been given the race. I have no financial bone to pick I had a small amount in a multiple bet going onto aficionado but this could have happened where more was at stake. Did anyone else see this and what do you think.
I did back Aficinado. My first impression was that his jockey might have had the horse better placed in the final stages of the race. Difficult decision for the stewards.
The jockey on aficionado did nothing wrong it was the other jockey at fault in my opinion.
Difficult decision for the stewards.
It was 1/20 to keep it in the stewards enquiry. Under our rules there should be no difficult decisions as the benefit of doubt should always go to the first past the post in any “close calls”.
The only problems occur with stewards not following the rules which happens occasionally throughout the year due to different stewards officiating at different tracks. That should be more or less eliminated with centralised stewarding.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.