Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday

  • wonbyamile
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 4865
  • Thanks: 121

Re: Re: Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday

14 years 4 months ago
#119964
wasnt gatecrasher demoted after winning the july.. race was given to priciple boy???

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • pirates
  • New Member
  • New Member
  • Thanks: 0

Re: Re: Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday

14 years 4 months ago
#119971
yes gatecrasher took distinctly out the race and principal boy got the race ....which jockey was involved in the gatecrasher objection as well as the surfing home objection?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • wonbyamile
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 4865
  • Thanks: 121

Re: Re: Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday

14 years 4 months ago
#119973
pirates Wrote:
> yes gatecrasher took distinctly out the race and
> principal boy got the race ....which jockey was
> involved in the gatecrasher objection as well as
> the surfing home objection?


Jeff Llyod??

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • magiclips
  • New Member
  • New Member
  • Thanks: 0

Re: Re: Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday

14 years 4 months ago
#119979
Principal Boy was before Lloyd's time. The answer is Garth Puller (rode Gatecrasher and Pas De Quoi).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • wonbyamile
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 4865
  • Thanks: 121

Re: Re: Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday

14 years 4 months ago
#120001
thnx magic... those days i was a youngester..only remembered horses names not jocks...(tu)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Chris van Buuren
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 9804
  • Thanks: 202

Re: Re: Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday

14 years 4 months ago
#120049
2cents Wrote:
> Tommy_Hotspur Wrote:
>
>
> > I think the stipes are not only blind but
> > completely incompetent in my view. Luckily I
> can
> > no speak from a place where money doesn't
> matter,
> > but the 2nd placed horse CLEARLY cost Mystery
> Dame
> > 3rd as she was severely snatched up 50 meters
> from
> > the line. The eventual winner shifted in
> slightly
> > but that was before the main interference was
> > caused.
> >
> > If anyone could clarify the official rule for
> an
> > objection being upheld? That, imo, is the only
> > reason why the objection should not have been
> > upheld? (me not understanding the rules
> properly?)
>
> The stipes had to decide whether MD would've
> finished ahead of Lassiter but for the
> interference, not whether the interference cost MD
> 3rd position.


Thats what I thought. Thanks 2 Cents.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.100 seconds