D
Deleted User X18H
Guest
66/1 shot first past the post slight interference with Favorite.
Favorite given race in Steward's room. Francome seething.
Favorite given race in Steward's room. Francome seething.
Dreadful decision by Newmarket stewards to reverse 1000 Guineas placings..
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
clippedgull
Hotdogs, extra onions
Favourite 
Was a poor decision I have to agree.
Was a poor decision I have to agree.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
It was the correct decision if you read the rules, Francome is a no nothing worzel
The Lemming Stomper
Under the flag
We give back all winning stakes if race won by 50/1 or greater...good decision 
clippedgull
Hotdogs, extra onions
If the favourite had beaten the 66/1 shot under the same circumstances I wonder if the result would have been reversed! Somehow I think not!
Harsh but the right decision
SW17
New member
Bookies will be heart-broken 
D
Deleted User X18H
Guest
- Thread starter
- #10
We give back all winning stakes if race won by 50/1 or greater...good decision
I don't get that you'd have to pay out thousands on the Fav winning. Surely that is why the concession is their in the first place.
it was indeed a dreadful decision. in france they throw ours out for little we should have done the same. i feel this was a decision to please the french, if it had been in the handicap a race later they would never have reversed it, typical england hold our hands up we are guilty, we should take a leaf out of their book, if you dont like it dont come over, we see it every day over here only ten times worse and they are never reversed, do you think the french stewards would have done the same, no chance.
Don Quixote
Well-known member
- Nov 4, 2008
- 8,363
Who you calling a guinea?!
jezzer
Active member
correct decision, had to go, heartbreaking for anyone who backed it and cecil and the owner but morally the right decision, pushed the horse alot wider than the losing distance for sure.
Mackenzie
Old Brightonian
Did some bookies pay out for first past the post?
The Lemming Stomper
Under the flag
You couldn't give away the fav in my shop..Whereas giving everyone their money back would have a million times worse...simples
btw it was a shocking decision...the jolly 2.92 on the machine to get the race in the stewards room
Mtoto
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2003
- 1,866
The rule in question is this one:
54.5 Where
54.5.1 a horse or its Rider has caused interference by careless or improper riding, and
54.5.2 the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse in relation to the horse or horses with which it interfered,
the horse shall, on an objection to the Stewards under Part 7, be placed behind the horse or horses with which it has interfered.
54.6 For the purposes of Paragraph 54.5.2
54.6.1 the reference to the placing of any horse interfered with is to the placing decided by the Judge, and
54.6.2 if the Stewards are not satisfied the interference did improve the placing of the horse, they must overrule the objection and order that the placings remain unaltered.
54.7 In deciding whether the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse, the Stewards shall make no allowance for any ground which the incident may have cost the horse causing the interference.
I think the last paragraph is really the key one here, as the loss of momentum that Jacqueline Quest also suffered as they drifted across the course is not taken into account. Queally also had his stick in the "wrong" hand, which confirmed it as careless riding rather than accidental inteference.
On that basis, with only a nose in it, I'd say it was a reasonable decision, for all that it was a complete sickener for the owner, trainer and everyone who likes a feel-good story.
54.5 Where
54.5.1 a horse or its Rider has caused interference by careless or improper riding, and
54.5.2 the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse in relation to the horse or horses with which it interfered,
the horse shall, on an objection to the Stewards under Part 7, be placed behind the horse or horses with which it has interfered.
54.6 For the purposes of Paragraph 54.5.2
54.6.1 the reference to the placing of any horse interfered with is to the placing decided by the Judge, and
54.6.2 if the Stewards are not satisfied the interference did improve the placing of the horse, they must overrule the objection and order that the placings remain unaltered.
54.7 In deciding whether the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse, the Stewards shall make no allowance for any ground which the incident may have cost the horse causing the interference.
I think the last paragraph is really the key one here, as the loss of momentum that Jacqueline Quest also suffered as they drifted across the course is not taken into account. Queally also had his stick in the "wrong" hand, which confirmed it as careless riding rather than accidental inteference.
On that basis, with only a nose in it, I'd say it was a reasonable decision, for all that it was a complete sickener for the owner, trainer and everyone who likes a feel-good story.