Disclosure bias prior to comment.....had the 6 for a tidy sum.
I thought the idea was to identify and reverse outcomes that were influenced by a foul. Did not the 8 make contact with the 6, albeit not the hardest contact, causing the 6 to lose ground as a challenge to the lead was occurring. The 6 loses some fraction of a length as a consequence of the contact and is coming again at the wire to lose by a nose which implies the ground lost cost the horse the placing.
I think sometimes we see horses collide that are obvious fouls but the placing is upheld because the offender was going to win regardless of the foul and that is seen as inconsistent because an obvious foul goes unpunished but the idea is to figure out whether the foul cost the horse a placing. I agree it's a very tough call to decide how much a foul cost a horse but this one had to cost at least a head making the take down reasonable.
If I am interpreting the spirit of the rules wrongly please explain....
|