Race 3 Clairwood?

Below are excerpts of the rules regarding a horse being impeded at the start - these were amended in 2009. If a the horse in question runs in the first four it will remain a runner.

61.5.10 FAULTY STARTING STALLS OR INTERFERENCE BY A HANDLER
61.5.10.1 Should the starter consider that through any faulty action of the starting gates or
from any other cause, a fair start has not been effected, he may declare a "no
start". Should the starter not declare a "no start", the SB may, after a hearing,
declare any HORSE, which was impeded at the start by a front gate not opening,
a non-runner provided that a horse which is ultimately declared first, second, third
or fourth in a race by the judge shall not be declared a non-runner.
(Amended 29/05/2009)
61.5.10.2 In the event of the actions of a handler preventing a HORSE from starting in a
RACE and/or resulting in a HORSE being impeded and thereby losing a
significant distance when the stalls are opened, and no false start is declared,
such HORSE may be deemed by the SB not to have started and the SB may
declare it to have been withdrawn, provided that a horse which is ultimately
declared first, second, third or fourth in a race by the judge shall not be declared
a non-runner.
(Amended 29/05/2009)

With the above ruling in place, I am quite clearly wrong and my argument becomes groundless I was unaware of the amendments made (even tho it was 3 years ago) this however will shine some light on just why there was what I believed to be an inconsistency with the way the PE incident was handled compared with the Clairwood race...we live and learn, Thanks for clearing it up Nagboy (tu)

with all due respect to all.... i really got hurt hurt with the 60% deductions...i really thought i was done for the month punting;)....

.....Well done nagboy I actually thought that the rule had been amended a lot more recently.... It makes absolute sense.... and now that we all know will stop the what if an impeded horse gets a place speculation...

Muhtiman Wrote:

---

> .....Well done nagboy I actually thought that the
> rule had been amended a lot more recently.... It
> makes absolute sense.... and now that we all know
> will stop the what if an impeded horse gets a
> place speculation...


Yeah right..........you just forgot to mention it before....................lol

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Muhtiman Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > .....Well done nagboy I actually thought that
> the
> > rule had been amended a lot more recently....
> It
> > makes absolute sense.... and now that we all
> know
> > will stop the what if an impeded horse gets a
> > place speculation...
>
>
> Yeah right..........you just forgot to mention it
> before....................lol

What..... and have you jumping down my throat again.....my reputation as a romancer preceeds me....
oh no ....it's after the fact..... so it should then read.....my reputation as a romancer follows me....: