What Some Have Advocated With Stewards Rulings, With a Twist

Yesterday in the Dubai Gold Cup, we saw the winner appear to cause interference, but the owner of the affected horse, withdrew his claim.

 "Prior to correct weight, Jockey S De Sousa (CAVALRYMAN (GB)) 2nd placegetter, lodged an objection against the winner CERTERACH (IRE), alleging interference from passing the 200 metres. During the objection hearing trainer Mr S bin Suroor (CAVALRYMAN (GB)) requested to withdraw the objection."

 and

"Jockey J Spencer (CERTERACH (IRE)) pleaded guilty to a charge of careless riding under the provisions of ERA 69(i), the particulars of the charge being that passing the 200 metres he allowed his mount CERTERACH (IRE) to shift in when not clear, causing CAVALRYMAN (GB) to restrain. Jockey J Spencer had his license to ride in races suspended for 2 race-meetings (provisional dates being the 7th April 2014 and 8th April 2014."

Lucky this wasn't in a "pari-mutuel" jurisdiction. In that case, bettors (justifiably) would feel cheated. 

There is a school of thought with regard to leaving a result as is, and working out the details later for horse owners and participants through placings and suspensions. A lot are fine with that; it will speed up the betting game, there will be no ten minute inquiries, etc. In this case we saw a result stay as is, but perhaps only because an owner withdrew a claim.

No one said policy was easy.