1st Race At Newm Of Friday

sunybay

sunybay

At the Start
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
4,184
Location
Madrid
Simply amazed the placing has been revised.
Dreadful decision, the winner won on merit and if being owned by a bigger owner would not have been disqualified.
 
It was a very short head and the horse was at least lent on...........and Seb kept the whip in the wrong hand.

Is PM Racing a bigger owner than Joseph Joyce?? shrug::

Have the stewards had a bet on Jamie for the Championship?.............might be a more pertinent question. :ph34r:
 
Dante, your talking out your arse

I'm sure Seb will appeal against that result and get it re-instated.

I backed Black Rain so I'm quite happy by the result being changed. But it shouldn't have been.
 
agree slightly Colin but the 4th horse actually interfered with Ryan's not Jamie's and at least Jamie had his stick in the correct hand and never picked his stick up, just hands and heels trying to steer it.
 
Originally posted by uncle goober@Nov 2 2007, 02:23 PM
Were you on the back seat of a bus when you typed that chris ?
Click to expand...
Was actually typing and talking on the phone whilst trying to place a bet online all at the same time, and thats what i write like without a spell checker. :)
 
Originally posted by chrisbeekracing@Nov 2 2007, 03:04 PM
Dante, your talking out your arse

I'm sure Seb will appeal against that result and get it re-instated.

I backed Black Rain so I'm quite happy by the result being changed. But it shouldn't have been.
Click to expand...
He was lucky he got away with accidental rather than careless but chris as you are so confident, are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is and lay me evens the result isn't changed? I thought not :laughing:
 
Always happy to take a bet but don't know if they have appealed yet, if they appeal i will happily lay u evens about Seb not getting the win back, Ive seen much worse not changed. It was reminiscent of the Bath incident for Buick which in the end got re-reversed. I swear sometimes you just watch things through Spencer goggles.
 
Evens all in is a very good price for you if you think it is a 5's on chance, why would they not appeal if it is as clear cut as you say?
 
Originally posted by Dante@Nov 2 2007, 03:00 PM
Evens all in is a very good price for you if you think it is a 5's on chance, why would they not appeal if it is as clear cut as you say?
Click to expand...
Certain owners and trainers may not appeal, thats racing.

Ive seen many results changed and connections appeal for no reason and vice versa.

If he appeals the result would get changed.

Seb made no manouver, Spencer never had to stop riding and the the horse never lost any ground.

Quite why it was changed baffled me. I always think if you watch a race side on and cant see why there is a stewards it shouldn't change. I don't think anyone watching the race live saw any reason for a Stewards.
 
Seb needing every winner for the championship would be a good enough reason I would have thought, Makin said he would appeal straight after the race but whether he see's sense and revises that is anyones guess.
 
Can i ask you an honest question to which i would expect an honest answer?

If the jockeys were on the other horses and Seb got the race for such minute interference would you be spitting your dummy out saying they should have never changed the result?
 
I know the reason why the result was amended. If you ask me nicely, I'll tell you*.



(* one or two members will already know what I'm talking about)
 
Well go on then, I'll ask nicely!

Pretty please, Rory, could you kindly tell us why the placings were reversed?


Chris to Dante: << I swear sometimes you just watch things through Spencer goggles. >>

Oh, ROFL - you are a wag :clap:
 
Stewards are given guidelines about dealing with possible disqualifications due to interference; these guidelines have recently changed (possibly due to nearly all stewards being clueless, chinless numpties) and now give examples of scenarios where a winner should possibly be disqualified. This includes an example of a horse being beaten by a short head requiring relatively little interference to have cost it the race. The idea, no doubt, was to stimulate thought on the part of stewards but the upshot has been that in virtually every scenario where a degree of interference has taken place and the verdict is a short head, the winner has been summarily thrown out. This is true even when the winner has arguably been the sufferer and yet if the same horse has murdered the runner up but won by a neck the result has invariably stood. I opined about this to some punting friends many months ago and I've been able to correctly predict the result of the vast majority of enquiries.
 
Ah, yes - did that info not originate from my mate who was reminiscing about the dam of our horse last week?!
 
Spencer's horse was coming back at the other one and lost out on the nod. Since he couldn't use his whip it was the right decision IMO although, as always, it just contributes to the inconsistency of the p1ss artists.
 
Just seen the replay and it was absolutely the right decision IMO. Spencer was beaten a short head despite being impeded. If they didn't throw out the first home here they might as well make all racing FPP.
 
Back
Top