Result in UK and Aus would have been same (unless voided)

My Sanctuary would not have been able to have been declared a non-runner under the current rules in both the UK and Aus, although it appears that the race could have been declared void, and the UK, ironically, have only recently made a change to their rules to cover such a circumstance and it comes into effect on March 31.

Here's the article in today's papers.

David Thiselton
It is interesting to note that in the UK only through a new rule that will be introduced on March 30 will provision be made for such a circumstance that led to the crowd trouble at Clairwood on Sunday, while in Australia a very similar condition in the rule governing impeded starts exists to the one in South Africa.
However, it would appear that the stewards in both countries have greater discretionary power to declare a race void than South Africa’s have.
In Sunday’s race at Clairwood the odds-on favourite My Sanctuary’s stall opened palpably slowly, causing her to crash through it.
However, despite losing many lengths, she was declared a runner after finishing third due to a provision added to National Horseracing Authority (NHA) rule 61.5.10.1 in 2009.
This rule deals with “no starts” through faulty starting stalls or other causes, and the 2009 provision states that a horse can only be declared a non-runner if it did not finish in the first four.
In Australia, rule AR.134A, which governs such unfair start, ends with the provision:
“Provided that a horse which is ultimately declared first, second or third placing in a race shall not be declared a non-starter.”

However, if they feel it is justified, it appears the Australian stewards could fall back on Rule AR.139:
“The Stewards appointed under AR.8 may declare any race void and, if they consider it
expedient, order such race to be run again on the same day.”

In the UK, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) recently made the following announcement:
“Also coming into effect on 30 March is a new Rule of Racing that gives power to the Raceday Stewards to declare a horse a non-runner after the race has been run. This provision will only apply to Flat races and only in certain circumstances. Examples are when starting stalls do not open but false start isn’t called, or if a jockey is not on the horse when the stalls are released.

Consequently, bets on such horse(s) which have palpably lost all chance at the start will be fully refunded to punters and, where applicable, Rule 4 deductions would apply to all other bets.

As the Rules of Racing currently stand, all horses in the stalls are deemed runners as soon as the Starter starts a race, unless a) a false start is called or b) there is then a void race for whatever reason.

This new provision will not apply in cases where:
a) The gates open properly but the horse chooses to plant at the start, be fractious or refuse to race; or
b) The gates open a split second after the rest of the field – an existing protocol exists for such circumstances.

Currently, the stewards in the UK would not have been allowed to declare a horse in My Sanctuary’s circumstances a non-runner, but it appears that they could have fallen back on BHA rules 10.4.1 or 10.4.2 if necessary.

10.4 The Stewards may declare a race void in any case when
10.4.1 the start has been affected due to a faulty action of the starting stalls
10.4.2 the Starter has failed to declare a false start under Rule 38; and
10.4.3 the Stewards consider that the faulty action of the starting stalls has materially prejudiced the chances of a sufficient number of the horses running in the race to justify declaring the race void.


However, it would appear that after March 30, the stewards in the UK will be given discretionary powers to declare a horse that has gone through My Sanctuary’s circumstances a non-runner.
With such discretionary powers and, with both the UK’s and Australia’st discretionary powers to declare a race void, Sunday’s fiasco might have been avoided.
Perhaps South Africa’s NHA could also look into giving the stipendiary stewards a loophole that would allow racing as a whole to extract itself from the type of debacle that occurred.

My Sanctuary would have been withdrawn before the start in the UK

hibernia Wrote:

---

> My Sanctuary would have been withdrawn before the
> start in the UK

Hibernia, I think most in SA expected her to be withdrawn.

trainers breeders horses jockeys from sa world class but administrators ie gold circle phumelela ra etc 3rd world

pirates Wrote:

---

> trainers breeders horses jockeys from sa world
> class but administrators ie gold circle phumelela
> ra etc 3rd world

The BHA can't be that great if they have only made a provision for such a circumstance in the year 2013 - only about 263 years after the Jockey Club was formed! Before that if the starter messed up it was just tough. I also sent them a request about their ruling on gates that open a split second late, as I couldn't find it, and the response I received was, "Thank you for your email to the British Horseracing Authority. It is our aim to respond to all enquiries within seven days but please do bear with us during busy periods. We look forward to responding to your query shortly."

forgot to add daily paper journos 3rd world in sa as well><

The stable companion finishing in front of MS says a lot for me.

Two changes are very necessary IMO:
A )the decision "fit to run" should be judged on "fit to run with reasonable expectation of running to ability"
and
B ) starts should be able to be called "no start" ON REVIEW and then "no race "immediately becomes an option.......why should the incompetence of a starter be allowed to stop a race meeting.....Stupid!!!
There is no reason why the ruling relating to stakes and bets shouldn't be different.....(if bets are paid and a horse is later DQ'd for prohibited substance the places and stakes distribution change but payouts remain as at "all clear")............. so it already occurs!

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Two changes are very necessary IMO:
> A )the decision "fit to run" should be judged on
> "fit to run with reasonable expectation of running
> to ability"
> and
> B ) starts should be able to be called "no start"
> ON REVIEW and then "no race "immediately becomes
> an option.......why should the incompetence of a
> starter be allowed to stop a race
> meeting.....Stupid!!!
> There is no reason why the ruling relating to
> stakes and bets shouldn't be different.....(if
> bets are paid and a horse is later DQ'd for
> prohibited substance the places and stakes
> distribution change but payouts remain as at "all
> clear")............. so it already occurs!

In Australia it would have been declared a non runner, and then the betting deductions scale would kick in, to determine the bookies payouts.
The rule was changed in Australia about 20 years ago to protect the punter.

kosbar Wrote:

---

> In Australia it would have been declared a non
> runner, and then the betting deductions scale
> would kick in, to determine the bookies payouts.
> The rule was changed in Australia about 20 years
> ago to protect the punter.

Under the Australian Racing Board rules as of 1st March 2013:

Rule AR.134A. If in the opinion of the Stewards any horse was riderless at the time a start was effected, or
was encumbered by equipment applied with the permission of or at the direction of the starter, or if a
horse was denied a fair start and such occurrence materially prejudiced the chances of that horse
finishing in first, second or third placing, the Stewards may declare such a horse to be a non-starter and
may make such order regarding betting as provided for separately in the Rules of Betting. Provided
that a horse which is ultimately declared first, second or third placing in a race shall not be declared a
non-starter.

They couldn't have declared it a non-runner but presumably could have voided the whole race through Rule AR.139:
“The Stewards appointed under AR.8 may declare any race void and, if they consider it
expedient, order such race to be run again on the same day.”