Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday
- wonbyamile
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 4865
- Thanks: 121
Re: Re: Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday
14 years 4 months ago
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
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday
14 years 4 months ago
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
-
- Posts: 4865
- Thanks: 121
Re: Re: Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday
14 years 4 months ago
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??
> 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
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday
14 years 4 months ago
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
-
- Posts: 4865
- Thanks: 121
Re: Re: Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday
14 years 4 months ago
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
-
- Posts: 9804
- Thanks: 202
Re: Re: Kenilworth and Turffontein Wednesday
14 years 4 months ago
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.
> 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