- This topic has 53 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Here’s the report of the stewards enquiry into what happened with Spectait.
On a report from the Starter that SPECTAIT, trained Jonjo O’Neill, was unruly in the stalls and was withdrawn, the trainer’s attention was drawn to the restriction incurred under Paragraph 8 of the Starting Instructions and informed the trainer that SPECTAIT could not run until the day after it had passed a stalls test.
Now unless the meaning of the words have changed, I always thought that if a horse ‘was withdrawn’ by the starter, then it’s a non runner for betting purposes.
Not that the starters report in this case bears much relation to what most of us saw on TV, as the horse looked perfectly calm to me and by the time it reared up, it was too late for the starter to do anything.
But it’s an oddity and why would the starter make such a report?
How bizarre, I’m becoming increasingly worried about the noises coming from the BHA lately, this following on from the ludicrous 16 strike rule. Is it possible it’s been worded like that to qualify the horse for a stalls test? If so there could be a case to object by connections.
In contrast Don’t Panic doesn’t require a stalls test
On a report from the Starter that SPECTAIT, trained Jonjo O’Neill, was unruly in the stalls and was withdrawn, the trainer’s attention was drawn to the restriction incurred under Paragraph 8 of the Starting Instructions and informed the trainer that SPECTAIT could not run until the day after it had passed a stalls test.
AP
Since the horse clearly wasn’t ‘withdrawn’ I wonder if the BHA use a standard data entry template for these reports, and someone just picked the wrong wording for this incident?
Rob
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.