SA race #1 DQ...

[declansharbor]

The stews watched the stretch drive head-on (both front & rear) in slow motion like I did and they determined the horse drifted out a path or so. Had Mr Winx been the only horse near the 6 in the stretch, it's a non call obviously. The 2 was being overtaken and the lane closed ever so slightly. Personally, I didn't feel as if the 2 horse was cost a placing by the misfortune, as he was slowly losing ground while heading into the stretch anyhow once the "real running" commenced.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by declansharbor

The stews watched the stretch drive head-on (both front & rear) in slow motion like I did and they determined the horse drifted out a path or so. Had Mr Winx been the only horse near the 6 in the stretch, it's a non call obviously. The 2 was being overtaken and the lane closed ever so slightly. Personally, I didn't feel as if the 2 horse was cost a placing by the misfortune, as he was slowly losing ground while heading into the stretch anyhow once the "real running" commenced.

The stewards were not claiming that the horse who got fouled would have had a chance of beating the first two finishers. They were claiming that the incident might have cost him 3rd place. If he would have held on for 3rd, there would have been no disqualification. But he ended up running 4th and he got beat for 3rd by half a head. The incident may have cost him 3rd. That is why there was a disqualification. But I still think they disqualified the wrong horse. I think Mr. Hinx came in quite a bit more than the winner came out.

What is interesting is that when you watch the head-on from the rear view, it looks like the incident is totally Mr. Hinx's fault. But when you watch it from the frontal head-on view, I can see what the stewards were thinking. From the frontal head-on view, it looks like the winner had more culpability for the incident than either the pan shot or the rear head-on view showed.