Gold circle press release 17th March 2013

going forward will the same punters try and stop the next natal meeting?

pirates i remember years ago at germiston i think 1998/99 willie uys win the race on a favorite and is disqualify for weigh in lightly i cant remember name i am sure the forum will remind me. the punters go mad and go onto the track in protest so the meeting has to be abandon. after wards the nha identify the "troublemakers" and warn them they will be warn off if it happen again. i am sure some thing similar will happen again

Wasn't it a Brett Warren trained horse?

At the end of the day, the punter is the loser AGAIN?
I say lets not allow racing in KZN,until this is corrected.
Then GC will start to listen.

shikar3 Wrote:

---

> At the end of the day, the punter is the loser
> AGAIN?
> I say lets not allow racing in KZN,until this is
> corrected.
> Then GC will start to listen.
The winner paid R2.60 a win so i think not all punters were the losers:S

From what I've read on the forum, the motivation for introducing the rule, was to address the anomalous and unfair situation from an owner's perspective, of losing the stake money when the horse still managed to place, despite there being grounds to have declared the horse a non-runner. This is quite understandable.

Rules in society must however be balanced between various interests. The rule as it currently stands, offers maximum protection to the owner's prize money, but at the expense of the protection to the punter's betting stake, who despite the horse not having had a fair chance, must quietly lose his money without complaint. That the punter's betting stakes also contribute towards the funding of owner's prize money just adds insult to injury.

If you recognize that both interests require protection, why then create rules that serve only the one?

The (contentious) stakes for 2nd, 3rd and 4th which have given rise to this rule, could surely have been provided for in the form of some kind of insurance pool, so that in the event of the horse having placed but having to forfeit stake money as a result of it being declared a non-runner, payment could still be made to the owner out of this pool, so that they are not out of pocket. Both punters and owners would then enjoy full protection. Fairness.

I'm sure such an insurance scheme would be easily viable, because in the first place, these incidents do not occur that frequently in relation to the number of races that are run and secondly, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th purses that would have to be paid once in a while, would not bankrupt anyone. One is dealing with many givens - all that is required is a little actuarial exercise to crunch the numbers, and then with the use of a little imagination, the clever people who run the show could I'm sure come up with many ways to fund such a pool so that there is a negligible influence on anyone's pocket, and we can get on with racing.

Message from GC, Not sure ' WHO THE PUNTERS ARE' that were invited to this meeting to be represented

[b]Good Day

A meeting is being held for Punters with the National Horseracing Authority at the Short Head at Greyville Racecourse at 12:00 today. Regards
Raf Sheik[/b]

Len Sham Wrote:

---

> shikar3 Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > At the end of the day, the punter is the loser
> > AGAIN?
> > I say lets not allow racing in KZN,until this
> is
> > corrected.
> > Then GC will start to listen.
> The winner paid R2.60 a win so i think not all
> punters were the losers:S


EXACTLY, BUT 'WHO IN THE KNOW'ONLY

It just again goes to prove to me that not everyone reads post properly.

Perhaps I should rephrase for all the sensitive types on this site.

In my opinion........the reason for them NOT DECLARING THE RACE NULL AND VOID, COULD have been because of the who the owner of the horse was.

We all know that the stipes HAD the authority to be able to call the race null and void but they decided in their infinite wisdom to not do it........

Can all of you brain trust boys tell me that, without a shadow of reasonable doubt that the stipes did not perhaps consider, amongst their other communicable possibilities who the owner of the winner was?

Not at any point did I say, Mr. Jooste was at fault for the false start or for the fact that the race was not called null and void......

Pirates, pal you know we don't see eye to eye and I really don't care as you mean quite little in my life but please, please post something constructive in the future instead of only jumping on people when you either disagree with them or if you want to pick on them.

FH, we are all a little idiotic sometimes. The only problem is this time I don't believe I was. i was simply giving another hypothesis as to what could have happened IN THE STIPES ROOM, not Marcus' personal boardroom or living room or private jet or wherever he found himself.

Read the posts boys and think for yourselves. I know it is easier to condemn and call things bullshit rather than to actually debate constructively but if you choose the former over the latter, don't direct it at me........

I'm done with this subject and with a few of you.

tommy that pollution is getting to your remaining brain cells just accept your posting was crap and move on...i dont know who you are and really dont give a fcuk anyway

I'll be in Durban in December. I'll come and introduce myself and we can chat.

I don't think my posting was that ridiculous and I have no pollution where I am. Just fresh mountain air.

All the best boet!

Shikar3, please explain why it is GC's fault. They have nothing to do with NHRA matters except paying towards them.:S