Punters being screwed

THE VETERINARY SURGEON REPORTED :
HO’OPONOPONO : Lame left fore.


I want my money back

screwed

Bob Brogan wrote: THE VETERINARY SURGEON REPORTED :
HO’OPONOPONO : Lame left fore.


I want my money back

screwed

Agreed, was clear for all to see going to the start except for the Vet at the start.

Bob Brogan wrote: THE STIPENDIARY STEWARDS REPORTED (SA) :
DANCINGWITHJACKSON (*N Patel), the winner, was selected for the taking of specimens for analysis. Trainer K Naidoo advised. (TN)
DANCINGWITHJACKSON (*N Patel) hanging in, shifted in, in the latter stages, despite Apprentice N Patel attempts to keep this gelding on a straight course.
LUCKY BREAK (K de Melo) shifted independently from DANCINGWITHJACKSON (*N Patel). Thereafter DANCINGWITHJACKSON (*N Patel) shifted in which resulted in the crop of Jockey K de Melo the rider of LUCKY BREAK being accidentally struck from his hand and LUCKY BREAK (K de Melo) being brushed and carried inwards shortly before the finish.
A race review was called by a Stipendiary Steward which was followed by an objection was lodged by Jockey K de Melo, the rider of LUCKY BREAK, placed second against the winner, DANCINGWITHJACKSON (*N Patel) on the grounds of interference in the latter stages. After viewing the patrol videos from the various angles and considering the evidence, the Board was of the opinion that but for the interference LUCKY BREAK (K de Melo) would not have beaten DANCINGWITHJACKSON (*N Patel) and therefore overruled the objection. The Judge’s result was allowed and the deposit refunded.

My main issue with the overrule here is that I do not think DancingwithJacson would have won if Lucky Break had not been there to stop DWJ veering further. I appreciate that opens up a whole can of worms but where contact is made etc and the finish so close, I think the stipes should be basing their "judgement" on what would have happened if the two horses had continued on their same paths, imo the veer would have cost DWJ the race and Lucky Break should not be penalised for unwittingly assisting DWJ. Anyway, as I said before, I was that sure they wouldn't overrule that I left before hearing the outcome.

Englander wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote: THE STIPENDIARY STEWARDS REPORTED (SA) :
DANCINGWITHJACKSON (*N Patel), the winner, was selected for the taking of specimens for analysis. Trainer K Naidoo advised. (TN)
DANCINGWITHJACKSON (*N Patel) hanging in, shifted in, in the latter stages, despite Apprentice N Patel attempts to keep this gelding on a straight course.
LUCKY BREAK (K de Melo) shifted independently from DANCINGWITHJACKSON (*N Patel). Thereafter DANCINGWITHJACKSON (*N Patel) shifted in which resulted in the crop of Jockey K de Melo the rider of LUCKY BREAK being accidentally struck from his hand and LUCKY BREAK (K de Melo) being brushed and carried inwards shortly before the finish.
A race review was called by a Stipendiary Steward which was followed by an objection was lodged by Jockey K de Melo, the rider of LUCKY BREAK, placed second against the winner, DANCINGWITHJACKSON (*N Patel) on the grounds of interference in the latter stages. After viewing the patrol videos from the various angles and considering the evidence, the Board was of the opinion that but for the interference LUCKY BREAK (K de Melo) would not have beaten DANCINGWITHJACKSON (*N Patel) and therefore overruled the objection. The Judge’s result was allowed and the deposit refunded.

My main issue with the overrule here is that I do not think DancingwithJacson would have won if Lucky Break had not been there to stop DWJ veering further. I appreciate that opens up a whole can of worms but where contact is made etc and the finish so close, I think the stipes should be basing their "judgement" on what would have happened if the two horses had continued on their same paths, imo the veer would have cost DWJ the race and Lucky Break should not be penalised for unwittingly assisting DWJ. Anyway, as I said before, I was that sure they wouldn't overrule that I left before hearing the outcome.

see this is the whole problem with the system engels

i disagree with you..

IMO if DWJ had just run straight it wins a Length +

Just like i feel Wylie hall in the July was never getting past by legislate

Bob, you don't disagree with me lol, not yet anyway

That is not what I am (trying to? lol) saying.

I am saying DWJ was veering and without LB there to stop that veer it would have continued doing so... and say cost DWJ another 0.5l. With the winning distance only 0.05l I think it would be fair to say that, if for example LB had been on DWJ's other side, LB would likely have won because the continuing veer would have cost DWJ that extra 0.5l or whatever. LB had straightened up by then. Make sense??? Just say yes, I'm struggling to make myself clear here me thinks! lol

I have previously said on this thread that DWJ seemed to me to be going the better, though it was very close and I have seen horses seemingly beaten fight back and win when it seemed highly unlikely... and it was only 0.05l at the line remember so DWJ couldn't, in reality, have been going that much better, maybe it just appeared that way.

If you don't get my meaning, fair enough, I'm not going to try and explain further lol

The problem is with the current system we can debate who is wrong. In this race I agree should DWJ have run straight he wins, no argument there. The problem is he did not run straight he caused interference albeit to a horse who "appeared" beaten. Now whether he was in fact beaten or not we do not know as many of us have backed horses who run 2nd never ever getting their heads in front after looking for the world like they will win easily.

Now in this instance the stipes say the runner up moves independantly of DWJ. I disagree. Is it not natural for a horse to adjust when another begins bearing down on it? Take two athletes in a race and one moves across his lane and starts barging the other, the natural reaction is to shoulder or put ones arms out inso fending away the transgressing athlete. Can it be any different when a horse sees another barreling down on it?

Bob Brogan wrote: THE VETERINARY SURGEON REPORTED :
HO’OPONOPONO : Lame left fore.


I want my money back

screwed

me too.

you blokes say that you noticed that the horse was not right going down. So why did you not cancel your bets?

CnC I had a few bets going into this horse, but was absolutely shocked when I saw him going down. Cripple ! I cant believe a trainer or jock worth their salt could have let this horse race. F.......g disgrace !

This is not a laughing matter Chicken, the horse was most folks banker on the evening in a region that is punting mad

big big money involved

Legislate running unplaced was unfortunate but the Greyville race could and should have been avoided

Bob Brogan wrote: This is not a laughing matter Chicken, the horse was most folks banker on the evening in a region that is punting mad

big big money involved

Legislate running unplaced was unfortunate but the Greyville race could and should have been avoided

its a joke and if you cant take a wind up then you should stop doing it yourself. Obviously its not nice when people lose money and I feel for them but as you keep on saying, its racing, and what I keep on saying, its only money, and nobody died.

PS if it makes you feel better I will remove the you tube reference.

@cnc...if you had multiples or exotics, you cannot cancel the bet...left to the whim of the vet to scratch otherwise a runner even though not able to run properly...