April 15, 2007 at 14:19 #1397
Bit of a gamble on this mare who I’ve followed. Didn’t even see her in the picture going out on the track, though, no mention on SIS??? Can nyone enlighten me?April 15, 2007 at 15:12 #52118davidbradyMember
- Total Posts 3901
Down as Refused to Race on Sporting Life. Don’t know if she was under orders though.April 15, 2007 at 15:28 #52120roryParticipant
- Total Posts 2685
Wouldn’t be down as Refused if not under orders.April 15, 2007 at 16:03 #52121
Looked like she never went out onto the track to me- didn’t see the mare anywhere. Very odd.April 15, 2007 at 19:38 #52123WallaceParticipant
- Total Posts 862
Do we still have an offical "under starters orders". I though this was was binned a few years ago?April 15, 2007 at 19:47 #52125heffoMember
- Total Posts 319
racecourse commentators were obliged to start their commentary with " their under starters orders" but succesfully lobbied( if thats the right expression) to have it dropped a couple of years ago. would this be what your thinking of wallace? horses do still have to come under orders from the starter to be declared a runner.April 15, 2007 at 20:59 #52126DroneParticipant
- Total Posts 5141
RR – Refused to Race. Under starter’s orders, stake lost
WD – Withdrawn. Not under starter’s orders, stake returnedApril 16, 2007 at 09:33 #52127graysonscolumnParticipant
- Total Posts 6939
Definitely down as "refused to race, took no part" in the RP’s database entry for her.
Were it possible for Timeform to accord horses a treble squiggle, she’d be a candidate on her antics of at least the last year. Poisonous creature.
The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.April 16, 2007 at 12:30 #52129
Still can’t find one person who saw the horse come under orders haha!
A poisonous but talented creature, graysonscolumn. Pity they haven’t managed to harnass the ability thus far.April 16, 2007 at 12:44 #52130robnorthParticipant
- Total Posts 4828
I’ve seen more than one instance this year where the field is held for a horse has shown absolutely no inclination to take part in the race, and yet it’s included as a runner having ‘taken no part’ or ‘refused to race’.
In a National Hunt race if a horse doesn’t move then it shouldn’t be classed as a runner. Rule 4 should be applied in the same way as if the horse was withdrawn.
In flat races there’s a more clear definition, in that if a horse enters the stalls it’s a runner. Not much consolation if your horse then doesn’t move when the stalls open, but at least there’s a clear dividing line.
RobApril 16, 2007 at 13:05 #52132graysonscolumnParticipant
- Total Posts 6939
Quote: from dandan on 1:30 pm on April 16, 2007[br]Still can’t find one person who saw the horse come under orders haha!
A poisonous but talented creature, graysonscolumn. Pity they haven’t managed to harnass the ability thus far.<br>
<br>Indeed so, Dandan, hence the perserverence I guess. Her winning bumper form for Simon Earle was nothing exceptional, but there’s certainly some raw material to work with. One day. Somehow.
The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.