where do the nhra draw the line ???

on tuesday the 18th of january sting operation trained by charles laird runs in the swallow stakes at turfontein...this horse recieved a 3 month suspension for bleeding and it expires a day later on the 19th of january but according to sahorseracing.co.za rob de kok lifted the suspension..the question i ask is where do you draw the line a day 3 days 1 week 10 days or should the suspension not be lifted?the nhra in my opinion should not be lifting the suspension as it is setting a very dangerous precedent

Who owns Sting Operation?

Leave the owner alone><

YIP this game never changes its who you know ...fcuking disgrace from nhra and the connections of 2nd horse should take it further

Well done BarryB)-

well plenty views and zero posts but this is typical of this site and its attitude towards the running of the industry as a whole ...turn a blind eye and all will be beter..

I would like to comment; but I don't like to comment without knowing all the facts - what reason did the NHA give for lifting the suspension?

on the sahorseracing.co.za site it said that permission was granted by de kock to uplift the suspension ..

Whatever the reasons, a precedent has now been set and I imagine that it will be rather difficult to refuse the lifting of suspensions of horses owned by Tom, Dick or Harry now.

Rules are Rules and there should be no exception............. But what a horse guys...... To come back and win in that fashion... This Team Valor have some good sorts in their fold.


Cheers
Anthony G

It seems a bit fishy, but if it is the first step towards the NHA relaxing its archaic and too inflexible rules concerning the suspension of bleeders then well and good. Chances are it was more of a one-off, but I suspect that few few people within the industry actually agree with the NHA's policy of suspending horses for three months, six months, and for life with each successive bleed. A small bleed from one nostril is treated much the same as a torrent of blood coming out of both nostrils which splashes other jockeys in the race.

Maybe this incident could be used as a wake-up call to completely rethink our stance on the subject of bleeders. I'm not holding my breath, but you can always hope,

Seems to me a re-think is needed on quite a few of these out-of-date and out-of touch rules (e,g. the rule that seemingly prohibits the use of 'walkers'); perhaps then they can try to effectively police them; rob faux has been advocating this for a long time and maybe 2011 will be the year that something is done (we live in hope).

Regarding the matter at hand, I would think the connections of other runners (at least 2nd thru 6th) in the race need to query the lifting of the suspension; the horse in question (who seemingly should not have been allowed to run) won the race, depriving 2nd thru 5th of earning a larger stake and 6th of earning a stake?