NHA rules-part 1

Lets start off with 3 rules which we can discuss that have been relevant to recent threads.

Rule 72.1.14: No person or individual shall use or be party to the use of any electric,electronic,mechanical or galvanic apparatus or equipment,directly or indirectly,on or in relation to any HORSE.

Now,the purpose of this rule was to prevent the use of cattle prods &/or electric whips ,in training.However ,Laff was strictly in breach of this rule whilst they were testing methods using GPS,heart monitors and timing devices.Did no member of the NHA realise that the rule needs amendment.
How about the adding of the words"other than for measuring purposes" to the rule. (brilliant hey?....OK- -OK relatively speaking.)

Rule 72.1.29: No person or individual shall place a bet on a HORSE with the intention of altering the totaliser pool so as to create a favourite ,which in the absence of such bet or bets,would not be a favourite.
Rule 72.1.30:no person or individual shall contravene,in the province concerned,any of the provisions of the provincial legislation relating to horse racing and betting.

(Surely not !!!! so if you place a R100 on a horse and that final bet changes it to TF,you are in breach...or.....If you put R50000 on the horse,how do they prove state of mind ie.intent?? What a joke!)

Now,my main question........is our ghost punter that is causing 5/1 shots to be tote fav. in breach ? and much more importantly are the co-mingling agreements,signed by Saftote,in breach and contradiction of NHA rules as they extend betting,to the detriment of local punters,to persons over which the NHA have no jurisdiction ?

What do you think?

So would Jockey Helmut cams or HorseTreadmills etc be treated as electronic aids?

Good post Rob and I guess the best people to reply would be the NHRA

They say fact can be stranger than fiction

Dave,lets discuss a few more of these anomolies,hopefully get some forum participation over a couple of weeks,and then if nobody in authority has responded we ask for comment from the NHA &/or the gambling board.

I think people will be surprised how many rules are being ignored!

No problem we will do

Aah yes, the magic numbers 72.1.14, those which canned my plans to pursue a career in training racehorses with GPSHR tech. Stipes confirmed the rule via email, and that it applies to training and racing.

Is that so Lsetaro? I was not aware that they had actually interperated the rule to include measuring equipment.Perhaps they will charge all stables that make use of a stopwatch?

I see that a recent case of betting claims that were made on a horse that was known to be eventually a non-runner has caused "Cuckoo" to communicate with the NHA who have responded by E-mail stating that they control horseracing,but not the betting thereon.........have they lost the page with their own rule 72.1.29 which is to regulate betting manipulation.Surely as new examples of manipulation occur it is/was not the intention that they should turn a blind eye(have they got any other kind?)

If what they say is true, they must scrap the rule and punters should sign a petition,in respect of manipulated tote dividends or any other irregularities, and submit it to the Gambling board!

Hi rob,what's the rules in terms if a jock standing down for a meeting,can the jock ride the next day after less than 24hours? From what I've heard when a jock stands down he can only ride 48hours after the time he was stood down.
Last week tues delpech stood down after the 5th race at the vaal after being beaten on hevily backed horse for de kok but rode the next day at clairwood in less than 24hours. Is it fair that punters srtucture bets according to the jockey booking and get a raw deal when the jock doesn't ride and replacements ride poor races,

BC I am not sure as the exceptions seem to apply as often as the rules.ie. these type of rules seem to be discretionary so it's hard to keep up.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Rule 72.1.29: No person or individual shall place
> a bet on a HORSE with the intention of altering
> the totaliser pool so as to create a favourite
> ,which in the absence of such bet or bets,would
> not be a favourite.
>
> (Surely not !!!! so if you place a R100 on a
> horse and that final bet changes it to TF,you are
> in breach...or.....If you put R50000 on the
> horse,how do they prove state of mind ie.intent??
> What a joke!)
>
Rob

You obviously haven't heard the notorious story of a well known punter (who I'm sure had a above average knowledge of the rules) who walked out to look at the infield tote board, and announced aloud in a boastful voice that he hadn't put enough on the 2nd fav to make it fav (and thereby carry scratchings out of the P6 and Jackpot).

He went in again, and then came out and was satisfied that he had created a new favourite.

I think the operative word is "intention" and it works in conjunction with the purpose to manipulate the tote to defraud other people and thereby enrich themselves. I'm sure that this happens all the time.

Jack,not only that .....I personally know people who have,in the past, created Tote favourites to support their exotics.The fact that it happens,and will continue to happen does not preclude the NHA from doing everything possible to enforce their own rules,and if many are so badly worded as to be useless,then they must rectify.
The situation of who is responsible would of course be avoided,if the NHA reported to the gambling board,as it should do IMO ,rather than regulate in a manner suitable to the operators,as appears to be the case,now.
The present situation surely reflects a conflict of interest.

In this case(which the NHA responded too,denying any jurisdiction) the alleged "intention" was to shorten a future scratching to increase the reduction factor of other bets,at that time!