Punters being screwed

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.

Englander wrote: lol maybe so Mike. maybe so

well, the jock was struggling big time imo to straighten him up before that so I don't think it would have changed. All I am saying is the second horse unwittingly helps the winner by stopping the veer and that possibly costs him the race, it just doesn't "seem" right. Accepted that the much bigger issue is set rules and stipes consistency.

Bob Brogan wrote: hearing some bad news about hoponopo