Champagne Haze - Tantamount to Cheating!!

INTEGRITY is the key to the successful survival of SA horse racing.

Between the operators and the NHA,this is the fundamental pillar that needs to be adhered to at all times.

It makes no difference what the he said/she said details are,all that matters is how the punters perceive the sport to be run.

The fact that this one incident has led to multiple reads and comments is indicative of the fact that this matter is very close to punters hearts.

As Rob Faux has mentioned on multiple occasions in recent times,there have been far too many unfathomable results(especially in the plates races)recently,and if punters don't have bankers(ie:horses that they can rely on,especially when constructing exotics),then interest is this sport will wane dramatically.

LSU, unless there is adequate regulation to reduce ,to a minimum, the unknown factors you talk about, racing fully deserves the mistrust that exists in the mind of the public!

easy wrote: no i can't check interbet BUT there are 2 jockeys in sa at the moment that in every race they ride and their horses are shorter than 5/1 the volume on betfair for that event is significantly higher....

I know one and that's no surprise..Your correct with what you say about Betfair,it's even more obvious with the real short ones.
Your whole racing regulations need looking at.I was shocked to see current riding top jockeys having there own tipping lines.That can't be good for the game.

Isn't the most pivotal point in this saga,the sister of the trainer tips something else in a race where her brother trains the 1/3 favourite..
I don't care if the horse was 10/1 or 1/10,she knew it wasn't going to win.I have my doubts about there being stable money on,why would you punt it at 1/3?
Your stewards are spineless and need to take a long hard look at themselves.

flowering dave

sparkling win definitely stable money.....what parts of the stable one will never know and whether the money was to win or lose well I'm afraid that we will leave up to Craig Straight as an Arrow Euedey because NEVER ever have i heard of a stable laying their own horse...


the real question here is

WHO BACKED the winner....like it could not lose?

Was it stable money or another stable money......

Lunar Approach going 9/2 into 11/4 adds more coal to the fire.
As Champagne Haze was a non trier,Lunar Approach was a 1/3 chance.
Well done whoever got on at 9/2.

easy wrote: flowering dave

sparkling win definitely stable money.....what parts of the stable one will never know and whether the money was to win or lose well I'm afraid that we will leave up to Craig Straight as an Arrow Euedey because NEVER ever have i heard of a stable laying their own horse...


the real question here is

WHO BACKED the winner....like it could not lose?

Was it stable money or another stable money......

That is the question!!!! ironically the reason given locally for preventing exchanges is the integrity of racing, but it is the "unusual betting patterns " exposed by Betfair that have exposed the cases of skullduggery in UK racing...................can you imagine local traditional bookmakers exposing their own unusual betting patterns....lol :woohoo:

Betfair have always undertaken to provide records ,so the betting patterns in this race would have been open to scrutiny!

That is it boys, LUNAR APPROACH betting patterns are the ones that need scrutiny.

Old folk story :

many years ago in Bloemfontein there were 14 jock in the weighing room. 13 of them sat huddle round and whispered to each other. The 14th guy was left out. He asked what was going on and they said "none of your business"

so he thought bugger you lot, ill show you ill ruin the race by jumping out and making a ridiculous pace then what ever you planning will fail.

so they jumped out, he went 30 lengths clear and the rest of them sat in behind working out how much they had on him....

If there is an even money shot in a race and it CAN BE STOPPED and the next horse along looks like the ONLY danger well then you don't have to LAY your horse, you just lump on the other.....

Just looked at the runners in that race,here's one for the conspiracy theorists..
The 2nd,3rd and 4th in the betting were all trained by the same trainer,next two runners were 33/1 and 50/1
That was an ideal race for skullduggery,not saying it's a fact.The fancied runner of the 3 handed stable wins easy and the other two are beaten by the 33/1 shot.

davetheflower wrote: Just looked at the runners in that race,here's one for the conspiracy theorists..
The 2nd,3rd and 4th in the betting were all trained by the same trainer,next two runners were 33/1 and 50/1
That was an ideal race for skullduggery,not saying it's a fact.The fancied runner of the 3 handed stable wins easy and the other two are beaten by the 33/1 shot.

To put another "point to ponder" into the mix..................Tarry mentioned in the post race interview that he rated the 3rd horse ,Baylisiana,very highly !!!!!!!!if you used that horse as the line horse ,Champagne Haze ran to its rating on some previous form.............lol

Its very hard to make too emphatic a case on most MR handicap races!!!!!!!........which is why its not the result so much as the perceived lack of query that is at issue IMO!

The Tarry winner started at relatively fancied odds of 7/2 to beat Noah from Goa 3 runs back, so this horse was fancied to run a decent race against the De Kock champion back then. We all know what Noah from Goa went on to achieve down in Cape Town and also a huge fancy for the Queens Plate.

The Tarry winner seems to be better than initially thought!!

Just my two cents

Want to watch an interesting race, try race 2 on the 30th at greyville :huh: