Clairwood Park 17 Mar 2013, Sun

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> Leon I agree it is the rule that is wrongly worded
> and/or needs a lot more thought put into it.
> Starter should have called a false start. From
> then on the stipes had their hands tied by the
> rule and they have the final say on race day, not
> the operator. Cannot work out why some think it is
> GC's fault or even worse Anton's!:S


Graig
They did have another option as pointed out by a fellow poster !

Rob foux wrote

Why no mention of rule 61.5.13.1 which allows the starter to declare a "No Race" and abandon it.
This rule is surely to cater for,and correct the failure to call a "no start"
This would seem to be the most suitable ,fair and sensible action to have been applied.

I have stated before that I don't believe they know their own rules and my guess is they stopped at 61.5.10,without being aware that 61.5.13 existed!!!!!!!!

Could someone post the Rule governing false starts ? A poster stated that a false start can only be declared should a runner/runners be given an unfair advantage by the start .... I would like to get some clarity on the 'false start' rulings.

Do you remember that race a couple of years ago at the Vaal when the horses were loaded into the incorrect stalls and then the starter ran the race? Well, not only was that race declared null and void by the stipes but there was no "unfair" advantage held by one or some in that race.

Would be nice to hear what the starter has to say
Did he miss the gate opening slow
Does he still think every horse in the race had a fair chance?
Or is he a scapegoat?

Solotrama Wrote:

---

> Craig Eudey Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Leon I agree it is the rule that is wrongly
> worded
> > and/or needs a lot more thought put into it.
> > Starter should have called a false start. From
> > then on the stipes had their hands tied by the
> > rule and they have the final say on race day,
> not
> > the operator. Cannot work out why some think it
> is
> > GC's fault or even worse Anton's!:S
>
>
> Graig
> They did have another option as pointed out by a
> fellow poster !
>
> Rob foux wrote
>
> Why no mention of rule 61.5.13.1 which allows the
> starter to declare a "No Race" and abandon it.
> This rule is surely to cater for,and correct the
> failure to call a "no start"
> This would seem to be the most suitable ,fair and
> sensible action to have been applied.
>
> I have stated before that I don't believe they
> know their own rules and my guess is they stopped
> at 61.5.10,without being aware that 61.5.13
> existed!!!!!!!!


Interesting:S
So if this rule overrules all other rules,the stipes should have informed the starter of what transpired,race abandoned.End of story.

Imo it is gold circles fault because they refuse to admit their starters are useless pricks as echoed many times by mike de kock

Vee Moodley on winning ways spot on..at the end of the day why didnt the starter call the false start..end of story..not stipes,no jockeys to blame..no owners either!!! error from the starter and thats where the heads should roll

This reminds me of the Midday Concert winning a feature for Len Salzman and the race being null and void after that. Mr Salzman was the Jooste of the 90's

Soodum, once again GC being blamed wrongly. Starters employed by NHRA and not GC! Solotrama. I will check on that rule and come back to you.

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> Soodum, once again GC being blamed wrongly.
> Starters employed by NHRA and not GC! Solotrama.
> I will check on that rule and come back to you.

Apologies,then the nhra are to blame for kzn starter cock ups

@soodum:

Apologies,then the nhra are to blame for kzn starter cock ups'

The rules must be amended to incorporate the interests of punters and other owners before the NHRA is referred to / invetsigated by te NPA (it's criminal / fraudulent to rob punters of their money in such cold blood by claiming that 'rules are rules'!) . Right now, they are in conflict with the Constitutional rights.

Maybe, a test case referral to the Constitutional / Equality Court, Consumer Council....?

Wouter Wrote:

---

> OTT Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Simply put, we have a culture of hiding behind
> > ignorance in this country. When the shit hits
> the
> > fan, it's eish, I didn't know! The fact that
> Anton
> > Marcus looked around as well (whilst in the
> lead)
> > indicates he knew something was wrong. I do
> accept
> > that in rugby and soccer they play to the
> whistle.
> > How do we know that Forbes did not know exactly
> > what the rules were but decided to carry on as
> he
> > believed he could win.
> >
> > An all-round Fcuk up
>
> ---
>
> Bwahahaha if you are referring to me as the
> ignorant one...
>
> if Forbes didnt ride out his mount in the end, his
> mount would of been scratched, then the R12000-00
> stake money he obtained (for finishing 3rd with
> being faulted) would be R0-00 and the owner would
> take the R12000-00 over the R0-00 in the end...
> (though I'm sure he would ultimately want a re-run
> on March 24th with races 7-9) Forbes also realised
> that the starter was not going to call the race a
> false start that is why he rode his horse out in
> the end... so do you pull up your horse and give
> it no chance or push it and give it some sort of
> chance?
>
> Dude, maybe they didn't even realise that the
> gates did not open, and they were all looking
> around to see who is placed where etc, to gauge
> their runs going into the final 400m... To even
> think Marcus is to be blamed is funny, I can
> recall it went the other way the once where it was
> a false start and he rode his horse out, they had
> to scratch his mount as he was spent up... why not
> blame the second place jock too, for not allowing
> MS to win due to what transpired...
>
> It is definitely not an all round Fcuk up as you
> say, but the Fcuk up of the starter, who needs to
> be held accountable...
> The only person to be blamed in this instance is
> the starter, for not calling it a false start... I
> had no money down so I'm not talking from the
> pocket...
>
> BOTTOM LINE - STARTER = FAULT

No siren means RACE ON!
Had Alec stopped riding then he would be punished for not giving his horse every chance, a lose/lose situation on his part through no fault of his own.

Personally the 1st infringement should over rule the ones that followed, much like in Rugby, but the end result is what the NHRA has looked at, as per the Rules.