You could easily say Nass that when stewards take the race away from you with a wrong decision because one jockey was more articulate and forceful than the other and they didn't apply the rules correctly, or consistently, "it shows everything that is wrong with racing". Thank goodness there is an appeal system for when they get it wrong. This isn't the only sport where decisions go to appeal. Where would we be without an appeal system? It would open up the possibility of corrupt/incompetent decision making with no recourse for the victim.
Same as overuse of whip in big races. Might as well, horse won't lose the r But they didn't get it wrong, the interference to get out of the hole won the filly the race and therefor it was a correct stewards.
OK Nass. That's your opinion, and you aren't alone. But there are even more (allegedly) who believe it was the wrong decision. If nothing else, surely that in itself is a pretty strong indication that to determine "there was no doubt that any interference cost BB the race" was incorrect. There is a theory (apparently) that the race BB lost at York (unfairly according to some) may have affected the original decision. Not saying I agree with that as clearly it shouldn't have.
Well it did cost him the race, because the filly wouldn't have got out. All I'm saying is that it isn't clear that the stewards were wrong and it's all down to lawyers rather than horsemanship and it's wrong. People seem to forget that it's not just about the horse but also the jockey too and for me Atzenis riding and the interference cost BB the race.
Guys- I'm in a bit of a unique situation. I had a rather chunky bet on Simple Verse via the Ladbrokes Exchange (Betdaq). I am now in the ridiculous position of having a horse first past the post and successfully re installed the winner upon appeal and not a bleeding penny for it. What the hell am I meant to do in situations like these?
It was an abysmal Classic, I'm amazed people care that much tbh FWIW I think the filly was the best horse in it but I think the riding tactics were disgraceful. Its like a football team dominating a match but only winning by an offside goal, whilst coming close to injuring someone badly. An inelegant example but you get the drift. The result was always going one way, as the Qatari outfit werenât going to lose were they!!!
21 Sep 15 18:46 "St Johnstone 9/2 - Massive Price On large and be very surprised if they get beat, should win." September 22, 2015 6:38 PM "St Johnstone 2-0 30/1 St Johnstone 3-1 50/1" September 22, 2015 7:14 PM "on the break, huns expecting a win, all on rangers to attack, craig gordon stopped st johnstone sneaking a draw at parkhead although they ddint deserve it against the huns they are no 9/2 shots in a million year wake up call for the huns tonight" der kaiser doesnt aftertime, just ask the lads on chatbox last night
The lads were represented by a QC too Nass called John Kelsey - Fry. They both had similar representatives arguing their sides for the hearing so it was an even fight.
The chap on the ATR desk was saying exactly the same happened to him. He also said he would be "all over the 7/4 against the appeal succeeding". The chap he was talking to agreed. They both thought justice had been done (as did 70% of the tweets). Interesting.
