Clairwood Park 17 Mar 2013, Sun

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> P they are bound by the rules in front of them. If
> they had made her a non runner the owner could
> have contested it and said that the rule states
> that she is a runner and where is my momey!
> Starters at fault but we will see what happens
> friday as there are some mitigating circumstances
> apparently.

Thanks Craig....got a bit carried away.......I think a proper investigation will show that it is not only one persons fault....An accumulation of faults that leads to a failure....

have just read advocate brett maselles view on the issue and he clearly states that rule 61.6.11 gives the stipes board permission to declare any horse a non starter...

I wonder what Mr van Schalkwyk thinks? Would he rather have had her declared a non runner or put his share of the stake in his pocket? Interesting to know.

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> I wonder what Mr van Schalkwyk thinks? Would he
> rather have had her declared a non runner or put
> his share of the stake in his pocket? Interesting
> to know.


if his betting activities exceeded the 12k minus deductions then im sure he would have wanted her withdrawn at the start or declared a non runner.reading the press reports the new stalls ordered are not for clairwood but for the new track at greyville and if i was the owner of the filly i would consider taking legal action against gold circle for the old faulty equipment

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> I wonder what Mr van Schalkwyk thinks? Would he
> rather have had her declared a non runner or put
> his share of the stake in his pocket? Interesting
> to know.


i think mr van schalkwyk who i presume is owner would rather have the chance to run on even ground against his competition no? he enter the horse race but end up entering a circus act and what he would rather have is no his choice is it?. the clowns steel the show not the horse <

Is the NHRA also responsible for the Dog running or can GC take the blame for that?

I used to work at the stalls many years ago not in KZn but in Joburg and I worked there for a long long time +-15 years.I watched the replay of this race on you tube and from what I could see this horse went bonkers when first loaded and in doing so she must have given the front gates a good bashing.Jockey ended up out the back of the stalls and they then got her out and trotted up for the vet and then reloaded and the rest is history.The starters should have checked her front gate to make sure it was'nt damaged by her when she went bonkers the first time and if they did that then we would not have this subject.But I agree with most posters that he should have called a false start when she had to force her way through the gates,so in fact he made two fark up's in one race.

trunkey monkey Wrote:

---

> I used to work at the stalls many years ago not in
> KZn but in Joburg and I worked there for a long
> long time +-15 years.I watched the replay of this
> race on you tube and from what I could see this
> horse went bonkers when first loaded and in doing
> so she must have given the front gates a good
> bashing.Jockey ended up out the back of the stalls
> and they then got her out and trotted up for the
> vet and then reloaded and the rest is history.The
> starters should have checked her front gate to
> make sure it was'nt damaged by her when she went
> bonkers the first time and if they did that then
> we would not have this subject.But I agree with
> most posters that he should have called a false
> start when she had to force her way through the
> gates,so in fact he made two fark up's in one
> race.

You should go back and sort out the problems....:D

Things we took for granted aren't happening anymore.....