stipes report Lizzy Grey

I am enjoying following this discussion. Blueyonder001 for his tenacity and Craig and Chippy for their patience in explaining.
I have three opinions regarding this.
1. Stipes cannot spend thousands in forensics and hundreds of man-hours deconstructing the race. The reports would come out weeks later, and the cost would be exhorbitant.
2. Basically what the report states...It was not due to equipment failure, but human error.
By the same token, I understand the human error to be just that and not deliberate or intentional (otherwise they would have taken further action).
Whilst I sympathise with those who have lost money, I also sympathise with the persons whom have experienced the accidents. Not every judgement may appeal to our viewpoints, but these are the conditions under which the races are conducted.
3. I am sure the Stipes are doing the best of their ability considering the restrictions, and probably only for their love of the sport too.

One last thing. I think it is in bad taste to lambaste any persons, jockeys/trainers/owners (in fact anyone by name) if you are not prepared to provide your name, address and contact number to the site administrators so that they can pass this on to persons that may take offence about what is written about them on this forum.

Pirhobeta, thank you, well put. (tu)

Pirhobeta,I am concerned that many see it that way:

1)Its OK that we don't have the time or money to regulate properly.( regulation(and stakes) are under funded by who? )
2)human error requires no action...........does that mean the fines and suspensions by the NHA, for the last 12 months,are all in respect of deliberate acts?..........if so,some transgressions deserved to be warnings off!
3)I am sure the NHA are doing their best..........but compared to what?......... and is that good enough?
All we ask for is the NHA to enforce it's own rules in a consistent and sensible way................which appears to be big ask!

I think that besides how the stipes worded their report the crux of the matter is did Kevin do this deliberately?If anyone believes he would put his life in danger so Mike could win a maiden juvenile race is just ludicrous.It was a human error and not a diliberate one at that.

Pirhobeta - would it not be fair then that if no failure in equipment is proved by the stipes then it should have been declared a non runner just to ensure no possible malpractice for the public? Rob would love your opinion on this ? surely this would ensure no possible benefit to a possible dishonest jockey

blueyonder i think you must look at the betting ticket you take with the bookies or the tote. it no say any where there is garantee. this game is no for people who can not accept "shit happen" with the horse. people they always need some thing to blame when the money is gone. most of the time it is the jockey fault or the trainer fault. some times it is true, the jockey fuck up the ride or the trainer run the horse when it is not ready. at the end of the day we take the bet, no one is force us to do this. the way this is carry on, you must be no sleeping at night? maybe this is not the gambling sport for you, maybe the casino where there is no "interference" or "human problems" is the better place. i no have a go at you, i under stand you loose the money, as the punter i loose many more than i win. the difference i think is i accept and it look like you can not.

Flas there is a difference between fair risk and unfair play you must not forget this. You are missing the point. What im saying is hypothetically if a jock is on a odds on chance and he is dishonest and says equipment malfunctioned and there is no proof what protection do the public have because he could have a free bet - lets say a jock got 100000 for going missing and then put this on for eg de kocks horse - would this not amount to a free bet? so what im saying is to protect the public against possible dishonesty if malfunction isnt proved why not declare it a scratching which would mean no one could benefit from irregular betting patterns which Racing Guru and others have indicated they have proof of. Just fyi how could a stable be so confident to back a horse unraced to win hundreds of thousands we are not talking peanuts when Lizzy won by 7 last time - with the betting patterns it does beg a few questions. Also the stipes report says the jock was forced to take his foot out of the irons? if the pin came out as Craig explained why have to take your foot out? wouldnt your foot fall down the side of the horse with gravity automatically? maybe Chippy and Craig could in their wisdom answer this for us? So why do the stipes not put something in place for us to be confident that integrity is protected thats all im saying for future ? would this not protect the public?

blueyonder001 Wrote:

---

> Flas there is a difference between fair risk and
> unfair play you must not forget this. You are
> missing the point. What im saying is
> hypothetically if a jock is on a odds on chance
> and he is dishonest and says equipment
> malfunctioned and there is no proof what
> protection do the public have because he could
> have a free bet - lets say a jock got 100000 for
> going missing and then put this on for eg de kocks
> horse - would this not amount to a free bet? so
> what im saying is to protect the public against
> possible dishonesty if malfunction isnt proved why
> not declare it a scratching which would mean no
> one could benefit from irregular betting patterns
> which Racing Guru and others have indicated they
> have proof of. Just fyi how could a stable be so
> confident to back a horse unraced to win hundreds
> of thousands we are not talking peanuts when Lizzy
> won by 7 last time - with the betting patterns it
> does beg a few questions. Also the stipes report
> says the jock was forced to take his foot out of
> the irons? if the pin came out as Craig explained
> why have to take your foot out? wouldnt your foot
> fall down the side of the horse with gravity
> automatically? maybe Chippy and Craig could in
> their wisdom answer this for us? So why do the
> stipes not put something in place for us to be
> confident that integrity is protected thats all im
> saying for future ? would this not protect the
> public?


blue...personally..i think emotif would have beaten LG EVEN ON MERIT....i dont say i have proof of irregular betting....i have seen tickets and knew about how good this horse is ....but not for 1 minute am i suggesting because of the bets taken...they needed help from any other jockey or horse...that to me is a joke...we took our chances on pure ability and we took a chance that this pure ability would be good enough to win...not put money on this horse because anything untoward was planned in the race

I know you are not saying this - my point is what protection do the public have of possible dishonesty? shouldnt it be declared a non - runner if malfunction not proved - this is my point

if all you shrewdies in the know graft merchants knew how good emotif was why was she 16 to 1 to win her maiden at clairwood last week when they abandoned the meeting?why wasnt she claimed off the board in the antepost market?

hilt if the meeting had gone ahead she would have stated a LOT shorter than that...as MDK confirmed after the race she was Dubai bound win loose or draw...she IS that good

i know but why no antepost activity on her the day before....