Star of Paris - did the Stipes get it right?

I had some nice bets involving Star of Paris on Saturday, so will declare my interest upfront so as to negate the "from the pocket" angle. Am I alone in thinking that I was extremely lucky to hold on to my winning tickets following the objection? I must admit to having eyes for one horse only, and did not observe the interference in the race. Once the objection had sounded and the replays were shown on Tellytrack, I must admit to fearing the worst. Mentally I wrote off my bet, and was amazed when the objection was overruled. In my opinion SoP came across Moonsong Magic and caused significant interference. In my opinion, without this interference, MM would have won the contest should both horses have run unimpeded. I have no idea how the stipes saw this differently.

Now Don talks about migration of punters away from the sport. Imagine being a punter who had backed the second horse who I believe was the 2nd favourite in the race. Do you think these people would feel that they had lost fair and square? This is the problem with racing, there are too many subjective rules. If I were a MM backer I would definitely feel aggrieved

Will need to catch the replay

But the stipes usualy just make a ruling on set out rules

OTA

You summed this up nicely and hats off to you for remaining objective.

The subjectivity that Don suggests in his reference to migration is not restricted to racing however and could have a severe influence in any sports bet as well. How many times have we not debated the validity of a penalty given or not given in football and rugby or cricket decisions by a referee.

The reality is that subjectivity exists in the application of most rules and this becomes a huge problem in a gambling or wagering environment. It is often the root cause of match fixing as it is about interpretation and easily discarded after the event.

Gambling for fun as opposed to gambling for a living can help with a lot of the pain but we should not for a moment think that racing is unique in this regard.

SOP was definitely lucky and I knew straight away I was in trouble when I saw the horse cut infront of MM. Stipes were 100% wrong and I also had money on SOP. Guess you win some and you lose some with these calls but this can be seriously chalked up in the win column. All aboard MM next time though!

For every winning punter, there are multiple losing punters and one would therefore want objectivity and independence to be paramount in deciding objections...just that the objection rules require a subjective judgment as to whether the horse interfered with would have beaten the horse that interfered with it...

And when rulings are as inconsistent as they are, one begins to wonder whether the same set of rules are used by all stipes in every circumstance or are the rules adjusted slightly based on who the horse, trainer, jockey, owners, etc are...

I'm thinking the stipes took the view that the action took place at about the 350m mark so the second horse had time to recover - I'm not saying that I agree with the outcome but within the rules I think they made the correct call. I think the stipes take the view that "position is 9/10ths of the result" which means the horse in front is given the benefit of the doubt in a case like this. I don't support this but they can only work within the rules they have. These rules need adjustment so that the punter knows his fate in the most common instances.

Watched the race very closely with a top jockey Agreed that the 2nd horse was unlucky but we both were of the opinion that when the run was on the jockey of the 2nd was not aggressive enough as the gap was closing .It may well be that the 2nd could not accelerate
quickly enough but still we both felt the winner would not lose the race
Tough