where do the nhra draw the line ???

Depends on whether there is any provision in the rules for a suspension to be lifted prematurely. There may well be an "out" of this type, I don't have a rule book with me, and if so then there is no chance anything can come of it.

Anyway, she's obviously a nice filly - well done to Barry and partners. You could have another big 'un on your hands,(tu)

Wouldn`t usually get 3 x 31 day months ? :)o

Would it not be an idea to have an independent body (ondersterpoort maybe) "stress test"(or similar) the horse after a bleed to ascertain if the animal is indeed a "bleeder" - or should an owner wish to race the horse earlier than the three months could he not pay a prescribed fee to sucha body to have the horse tested? Crude comparison but similar to a car passing its RWC after it was taken of the road by traffic officials?

I think that any viable alternative to the current draconian system would be worth investigating. To the best of my knowledge, SA is the only country which does it this way.

pirates Wrote:

---

> 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

Its who you know and who you are period .

Well I had a horse that bled only once..Resolutiva.. and the Herman Brown stable would and could not nominate her for a race prior to the full 3 months was up even though she was well ready before that..a professional stable that adheres to the rules laid out.

Fortunately or unfortunately (which ever way i see things now) i dont own a horse or have any shares in a horse but this game is a passion for me.. my point is that if I were an owner i certainly would want my trainer to adhere to said rules (although draconian as magic points out).. rules are rules no exceptions. I would be highly pissed off if a suspension on a particular horse was lifted without serving out the full suspension & that particular horse came out & won at the expense of my horse... no matter who owns the horse or for that matter who the horse is or who the trainer is rules are rules... its seems certain individuals may get preferential treatment (just like our present government looking after their comrades).. kuk comparison but couldnt think of anything else!!!

Excellent point Wonbyamile

oscar Wrote:

---

> Excellent point Wonbyamile


Thanks Oscar... we all know the famous COSATU saying.."an injury to one is an injury to all"... you can use the same context of that saying and apply it to this case..(td)

I'd also be pissed off if I finished second in such circumstances. I'd be even more pissed off if a horse of mine was suspended for a nosebleed that wasn't even a nosebleed in the first plaxce but our darling operators are either too broke or too dumb to provide the equipment which can tell the difference between an epistaxis and a nostril injury. It has happened, although not to me, I hate to say.(td)

Howzit Magic..said a prayer Xmas day for our sadly departed mate Davy G..miss the guy man..by the way "what operators mate?"

magiclips Wrote:

---

> I'd also be pissed off if I finished second in
> such circumstances. I'd be even more pissed off
> if a horse of mine was suspended for a nosebleed
> that wasn't even a nosebleed in the first plaxce
> but our darling operators are either too broke or
> too dumb to provide the equipment which can tell
> the difference between an epistaxis and a nostril
> injury. It has happened, although not to me, I
> hate to say.(td)

A horse in the Cape rings a bell...: ...