Hmm Betfair......???Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold Parker
Printable View
Hmm Betfair......???Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold Parker
Robert I just had a look at the Goulburn race that you referred to and it was a competely different state of affairs. UK Connection sat outside the leader, was driven to the lead on the bend and was driven out as you would hope a $1.20 fav should have been. They ran a new track record with a MR 0f 1.55.2 He was knocked off by a horse that sat cold and outsprinted Rues horse which had done all the work. What you may not be aware of is the horse that set the hot pace in that race and subsequently finished ten lengths behind the 2nd last horse, Skippers Canyon, is the subject of an ongoing inquiry and has been stood down under rule 183. Rue in this case did everything he possibly could and was the victim of circumstances out of his control. Stonie, however with his posting of "Betfair???" would be licking his lips as the stewards go over the betting trends. Thats just to set the record straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold Parker
Please find the following stewards report - not a peep said to driver M.Rue who is on a $1.40 pop, who I counted had nine (9) sustained looks around from the top of the lane, at no time appearing to be over anxious in his approach home and get's beat a head and not at least a question raised!
This absolutely baffles me because if he was a jockey, Murrihy and his men would have marched him in for at the very least a please explain.
As it stands, the blind mice have fined him for slow opening quarter, yet being an odds on shot, I would have thought the question was entitled to be asked for perception of punter protection.
I don't know, maybe I'm seeing something just not there, but truely, that astounds me!
RACE 4 – SEW EURODRIVE PACE – 2300 METRES
The winner of the event AVONNOVA was subject to a post race urine sample.
Horses UK CONNECTION NZ and JACCKA TWAIN NZ were both subject to pre race blood testing.
The driver of UK CONNECTION NZ (M Rue) was fined the sum of $100 under Rule 162(1)(y) for failing to adhere to the sectional times in that he ran the first quarter of the last mile in 33.2.
[QUOTE=Old Frank;16411]
I would have thought the question was entitled to be asked for perception of punter protection.
I don't know, maybe I'm seeing something just not there, but truely, that astounds me!
[QUOTE]
I'm with you on this one. I would prefer the stewards ask the question in this situation. Or at least note that something was observed in their report.
Cheers Norman.
I mean in the context of the situation, it's a more than fair question.
In the context of this one, yes they should have asked the question i agree. On the whole if you thinks it looks bad, i think it looks bad, the bloke next to me says the same thing. Then something in the race looks bad even though it might not be. The stewards should ask the question or something be noted in their report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormanS
Well said, 100% with you.