Champagne Haze - Tantamount to Cheating!!

If you'd watched the interview upon his subsequent win, you would have hear the joc admit he went too early. 3-yr-old vs. older yes.

What happened to Legal Eagle at Turffontein ?

Bob Brogan wrote: What happened to Legal Eagle at Turffontein ?

Good question Bob

Bob Brogan wrote: What happened to Legal Eagle at Turffontein ?

What happened? He ran 2nd short head to a good horse that has feature race form

johnnycomelately wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote: What happened to Legal Eagle at Turffontein ?

Good question Bob

Been thinking that myself

savasp wrote: I think Julie know that they wear not having a go,but could not say that on TV,she tipped the winner I think,to me she us dishonest and should be suspended to teach her a lesson, as for me I'm the biggest C...t that took all me doubles with is with the winner of the 8th race that was 8/1, I'm still kicking my self why I needed to take a 3/10 in my bets. Julie should rather not have presented on that race, ban her I say.

lets just get our facts right ...I have listened to the preview and she did tip champagne to beat lunar approach as she thought even though he would need a run as did the stable his class would pull him through..presenters on course are there to be the eyes and ears for the punters off course and all they do is pass on the information and the punters must make up their mind what to do...

johnnycomelately wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote: What happened to Legal Eagle at Turffontein ?

Good question Bob

that horse ruined the biggest multi i ever played. should never have included at that price.

Courtesy of sporting post.

www.sportingpost.co.za/2016/01/national-...-hotline-talk-to-us/

Magnified illustration with the word Facts on white background.

The National Horseracing Authority of South Africa have made a renewed appeal to the public to report any alleged illegal activities, cheating or any other malpractice involving racing to themselves for investigation.

In a telephonic interview with the NHA’s Chief Investigating Officer, Riaan Van Rensburg, the Sporting Post was given the assurance that all reports with substance would be investigated.

“We cannot respond to unsubstantiated and broad general allegations made by anonymous posters via newspapers or websites, but will respond to those who email or contact us telephonically. We treat information and informants with discretion and sensitivity and are determined to root out any corrupt practices,” he said.

Van Rensburg said that wild stories of foul play and generalised character assasination of, for example jockeys and trainers as professional groups within the sport, merely served to damage the image of the game, to the detriment of all who were involved and who loved horseracing.

He may be contacted on telephone 011 683 9283 or e-mail

That's funny the Nhra wanted us to try and find a deleted thread they could use for an investigation , suppose it just suits when it suits them

If they serious they would start with inconsistent running by creating a definition of what constitutes "inconsistent" then use the ratings of handicappers to regulate.That picks up issues ,deliberate or otherwise!
Coordinate strange rating patterns with betting patterns and the picture starts to appear and you on the right track !
Public tip-offs should be in addition,not the basis,of regulation/policing!

TURFFONTEIN RACECOURSE, 2 JANUARY 2016

RACE 2,

CHAMPAGNE HAZE

Trainer G M Alexander was questioned regarding CHAMPAGNE HAZE’S disappointing performance. Trainer Alexander explained that; the instructions given to Jockey A Fortune was to not ride this horse aggressively in the early stages because of the hill at the Turffontein Racecourse, this horse carried a top weight in the field due to the penalty that was given by the Handicapper, and that CHAMPAGNE HAZE did not enjoy the fast going on the day. Each of these factors were contributory to this horse’s poor performance.
He further stated that upon return to stables, the Veterinary Surgeon examined CHAMPAGNE HAZE and found there to be nothing untoward. Mr Alexander’s explanation was noted.

I see the stipes snuck this little gem into yesterdays Vaal reports. I do not see them ask the question WHY WINNING TACTICS WERE CHANGED but rather NOTE the explanation. That is wrong in my opinion. I don't care what weight the horse carried - if you accepted to race the horse then you must race by the rules. I wonder If the HILL WAS THERE when the horse ran for 2.5 BAR? How could they accept this statement? I have no doubt that if the horse had raced handy it would have been closer(HISTORY PROVES JUST THAT) . So if you are handicapped to high just drop your front-runner out at turffs because of the HILL and the stipes will have to accept.

And NOWHERE IS THERE ANY MENTION OF “We go out trying to win with all of our runners. This run was clearly a prep for his classic plans. The fact that he didn’t run up to scratch because of a possible combination of fitness, track conditions or the way the race turned out, is highly regrettable,” he said in conclusion.

This report DID NOT APPEAR on the day of the Race so who knows when it was compiled!!!

Mr Hawaii what are you saying - you want to report the NHA to Mr van Rensburg?