Clairwood Park 17 Mar 2013, Sun

Pulse Wrote:

---

> How does 1 qualify for pick6 and not in the pa
> which farkin rule 10point blah blah blah is this?


It qualifies in the PA as well
Results 1,2,9,12/1,2,7,9/1,3,5/1,2,3,6,8/*/*/*
Nett Pool 987 265.21
Live Tickets 246 605.31
Prov Min 4.00

boycott racing if this stands!!

gregbucks Wrote:

---

> shrek Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Good to see the punters out the stipes offices.
> > Reminds me of scenes from I think Germiston
> from
> > years ago. DISGRACE.
>
>
> Yeah i remember that, racing was abandoned for the
> rest of the day...

Greg maybe if they can't run a R200k because of a moronic decision it will serve them right.

Pirhobeta Wrote:

---

> Pulse Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > How does 1 qualify for pick6 and not in the pa
> > which farkin rule 10point blah blah blah is
> this?
>
>
> as Shrek said....1st raced horse to finish....
>
> but i agree in the P6 and not the PA....something
> is wrong.....

shows how little I know the rules......apparently PA is in.....

Posted 2003-08-19 00:00:00
DECLARATION OF NON-RUNNNER

Declaration of Non-Runnner

The Jockey Club confirms that an amendment to Rule 61.5.10.2, which deals with the declaration of a horse as a non-runner in the event of a starting stall gate opening slowly and that horse losing a significant distance, was approved recently by the National Board.

At present if a horse is prejudiced at the start (loses a significant distance) as a result of a gate opening late or not opening the horse is declared a non-runner unless it wins the race. From a stakes viewpoint this has meant that the owner whose horse finishes in a position which pays stake money (generally second, third or fourth) loses the purse as the horse is declared a non-runner. This was felt to be inequitable.

From the punters` viewpoint, all bets struck on a single race bet-type (i.e. win, place, swinger, exacta, trifecta and quartet) are subject to a refund. However, on multi-race bets (Doubles, PA, Pick 6 and Jackpots) punters get either the tote favourite or the coupling, if there is one, whichever is the more favourable. This anomaly has cAUS

ed aggravation and unhappiness to many punters.

In order to obtain a different perspective on the issue it was necessary to approach it from another angle. A prerequisite for any race to take place is that all the runners must enter the starting stalls and be under starters orders. Once this has taken place the starter will let them go. If thereafter during the running of the race an incident which is of an accidental nature occurs, i.e. a jockey falls off, the horse breaks down, the saddle slips and the jockey can`t assist the horse fully or a horse is interfered with and loses ground, such horse is not declared a non-runner but rather the incident is regarded as "rub of the green" and the horse remains a runner. These sort of incidents are accepted as bad luck and part of racing.

Given that the starters test the gates before each race, any gate which opens slowly or fails to open does so due to mechanical problems and this is of an accidental nature. If one accepts this premise then why do we treat this situation differently to those set out in the paragraph above.

This approach overcomes the problem of the current inequitable position of the owner whose horse, despite the prejudice suffered, finishes in a position which pay stake money (generally second, third or fourth) only to lose the stakes as the horse is declared a non-runner.

It will also overcome the existing anomaly, from the punters perspective, where some bets are refunded whilst others are not. This often cAUSes aggravation and a sense of unfairness. It is almost always argued that the Stipes are inconsistent in their determination of what constitutes losing "a significant distance" as the racing public generally find it difficult to understand and accept that what is deemed significant in a race over 1 000 metres is not considered significant over 1 800 metres and even less so over 3 200 metres.

In deciding on this amendment which will be effective from 1 September 2003, the Board realised that it is impossible to achieve a situation with regard to such incidents which will satisfy everyone. It was however felt that in applying the "rub of the green" principle the Rule was fairer to owners and that it created greater certainty for the punters in that they know from the outset that there will be no declaration of "non-runner" in instances where a gate opens slowly or does not open.

JOCKEY CLUB PRESS RELEASE

Angry punters at Clairwood - who can blame them!!! This is beyond daylight robbery.

Even I agree. The rule is wrong. That is not the result that would have been posted if the race had been a fair race. Null and void is the only way to go. Some jockeys were looking around expecting it to be called a false start.

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> Even I agree. The rule is wrong. That is not the
> result that would have been posted if the race had
> been a fair race. Null and void is the only way to
> go. Some jockeys were looking around expecting it
> to be called a false start.


Craig exactly the way I saw the race. More than one runner was disadvantaged as several jocks didn't start riding expecting a false start to be called.

Sounds like all the punters were on the War Path.....

the official result is 8 3 1 5 ? craig says it ran 4th whats the story

They have just revised the rules.....but only an addition or a deletion here and there....complete imbeciles....today a perfect example of a ludicrous rule being allowed to remain.....the present board is clueless!

Wayne from Bishops Tatersalls has refunded all losing bets and paid out the winner in protest to what he believes is a gross injustice to punters..