- This topic has 14 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
I went in to the bookies today to have a read of the RP and see if there were any decent Sunday bets. Put a double together to pass the time and it included a race at Clairwood where the favourite was left in the stalls when the gate opened after the other horses were galloping off.
Incredibly, the stewards did not void the race and let the result stand. I was amazed and discussing it with the lads behind the counter they told me to keep the slip as it would most likely by amended. Time passes and the start of the next race is delayed.
Then we are told that jockeys are unable to leave the weighing room because an angry mob has formed and are protesting at the result of the previous race. Minutes later the meeting is abandonedHow can you not void a race when the starting stalls have malfunctioned and trapped a horse, resulting in an unfair start ?
You bet at Clairwood??? are you that desperate?
It was a small stakes double whilst i read the paper.
But well done for commenting on the larger issues.
How can you not void a race when the starting stalls have malfunctioned and trapped a horse, resulting in an unfair start ?
I suppose it depends on what the local rules say.
If the local rules say in those circumstances the race is not voided then that’s it, a risk of betting on overseas racing.
Different authorities have different rules, I recall being at a meeting at Woodbine where the winner jinked coming out of the stalls causing minor interference, yet was disqualified despite it having no impact on the outcome of the race.
Should the starter not declare a "no-start" (false start), the Stipendiary Board may, after a hearing, declare any horse which was impeded at the start by a front gate not opening a non-runner, provided that a horse which is ultimately declared first, second, third or fourth in a race by the judge, shall not be declared a non-runner."The odds-on favourite, My Sanctuary, was impeded at the start by her gate opening slowly but nontheless finished in third place and in terms of the rules of the National Horseracing Authority, the result stood.
I think, Mark, the lesson to be learned is caveat emptor.
Should the starter not declare a "no-start" (false start), the Stipendiary Board may, after a hearing, declare any horse which was impeded at the start by a front gate not opening a non-runner, provided that a horse which is ultimately declared first, second, third or fourth in a race by the judge, shall not be declared a non-runner."The odds-on favourite, My Sanctuary, was impeded at the start by her gate opening slowly but nontheless finished in third place and in terms of the rules of the National Horseracing Authority, the result stood.
I think, Mark, the lesson to be learned is caveat emptor.
That makes even less sense. " Look, the gate didn’t open but you still managed to place, so you could have won if given a fair start. So we’re not doing a thing about it "
Declare it a non-runner or void the race
You bet at Clairwood??? are you that desperate?
Bit of a silly comment really. Why is anybody desperate for betting on a race from Clairwoood ? No difference between betting on the 11.30 at Clairwood, 2.30 at Wolverhampton or the 3.20 at Cheltenham.
They’re all horse races. Some people bet just for fun so good luck to them. Others bet to make money and they might be able to profit from specialising in SA racing, just as others specialise in All weather or jumps etc.
Should the starter not declare a "no-start" (false start), the Stipendiary Board may, after a hearing, declare any horse which was impeded at the start by a front gate not opening a non-runner, provided that a horse which is ultimately declared first, second, third or fourth in a race by the judge, shall not be declared a non-runner."The odds-on favourite, My Sanctuary, was impeded at the start by her gate opening slowly but nontheless finished in third place and in terms of the rules of the National Horseracing Authority, the result stood.
I think, Mark, the lesson to be learned is caveat emptor.
That makes even less sense. " Look, the gate didn’t open but you still managed to place, so you could have won if given a fair start. So we’re not doing a thing about it "
Declare it a non-runner or void the race
Whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant – thems the rules they race to and if the race was run according to their rules I cannot see any grounds for complaint, no matter how unfair it may be perceived to be.
The answer, I would suggest, is avoid South African racing.
I think, Mark, the lesson to be learned is caveat emptor.
That makes even less sense. " Look, the gate didn’t open but you still managed to place, so you could have won if given a fair start. So we’re not doing a thing about it "
Declare it a non-runner or void the race
Whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant – thems the rules they race to and if the race was run according to their rules I cannot see any grounds for complaint, no matter how unfair it may be perceived to be.
Well thankfully most people don’t share the same opinion and rules do change for the better.
Ruling seems a bit barmy to me, while the African authorities may take the stance not to void the race there would be nothing stopping the bookies over here voiding the race. I imagine they however unsurprisingly didn’t?
How much ground did the horse lose? Did well to finish 3rd didn’t it?
Definitley one to watch next time out
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.