Kimberley race 9 - What a disgrace

Boyz, what's done is done. Let's move on.............i don't care who's right or wrong or whatever............as long as it's now raised and perhaps someone will do something about it.

The necessary documents where handed to the stipes and they treat the scenario with the contempt it deserves and yes Harris you are a liar or misinformed and a lapdog. Any further queries can be directed to Mr Dave Durant.

well done sean miller now we all now harris is the liar. by the way harris could you please tell where you have the job?

Irrespective of what people claim has happened here,an inquiry should be held by the NHRA in this instance.Clearly it is an unusual scenario that has occurred.

If someone has purposefully claimed a horse(especially if it is the same person 4 times),and that person does have connections with a stable and knows that the horse is going to be scratched,that person has brought the game into disrepute and should be treated accordingly.

The mere fact that this post has been read over 2000 times means that is of major importance.As Hibs has posted previously,this site has a large international audience,and as such the accusations levelled here reflect on the integrity of the South African product internationally.

I'm quite disappointed with the response from Sean, as someone in the know your 'don't care' response does very little to clear the situation. waiting for a hopefully better response from the NHRA, I doubt this story will end here.

Who needs soapies when you have the ABC forum...

I don't really understand the role of the NHRA.Surely these are the instances where they should be acting.

Are they going to wait until another jockey hides his weights in a tunnel,or jumps off a horse,or for the starter to put all the horses in the wrong starting stalls before they make themselves useful.

There are claims and counter claims,but in my experience there is usually fire where there is smoke.Surely a formal investigation is needed.

Well MrDuP's interview says it all.He believes that the bookmakers should ALSO contribute to the expenses of the NHA.
Imagine that......the regulatory body of racing as the servants of the operators and the bookmakers.................... the very areas they should be regulating
Interesting that Miller states that" the documents were handed to the stipes and they treat the scenario with the contempt it deserves"...................so the outcome has been decided before the enquiry???........sounds about right to me!

Justanoth.... - What formal investigation ? Where's the formal complaint ? And will the REAL PLAINANT ever emerge... ?

Justanotherpunter Wrote:

---

> Irrespective of what people claim has happened
> here,an inquiry should be held by the NHRA in this
> instance.Clearly it is an unusual scenario that
> has occurred.
>
> If someone has purposefully claimed a
> horse(especially if it is the same person 4
> times),and that person does have connections with
> a stable and knows that the horse is going to be
> scratched,that person has brought the game into
> disrepute and should be treated accordingly.
>
> The mere fact that this post has been read over
> 2000 times means that is of major importance.As
> Hibs has posted previously,this site has a large
> international audience,and as such the accusations
> levelled here reflect on the integrity of the
> South African product internationally.


JAP 2 scenarios ...If the person that claimed the horse was in fact connected to the stable and knows that the horse was going to be scratched how is it he was unaware that they were both going to be scratched, what we are expected to believe is that he was aware that Jolly Along was to be scratched direct from the trainer but for some reason not the stable mate??

Or lets just suppose that someone NOT connected to the stable gets the half truth and finds out that Jolly Along is to be scratched and has LAID Maak n Plan but is unaware that he too is to be scratched and decides to minimize his loss by claiming same horse 4 times to increase the deduction from 20% to 40% and then to deflect the blame comes on line and starts a thread like this and then lets also suppose that the said person has an axe to grind with person B so throws his name in for good measure...you decide which 1 of the 2 is more likely??
Of course the 2nd option would be a lot easier to believe if Harris was in fact a bookmaker....I wonder if Harris could clarify what line of business he is in......but as I see he ignored Flash Harry's request regarding the same querie I doubt he will so I wont be holding my breath...

computer hanging

The fact that this much speculation can continue on a forum doesn't say much about the faith that forumites have in our regulatory body!