If only the NHRA was like the BHA

Spot on louisg,it's just getting info from MOST trainers that's the problem
Us punters are mostly difficult to please,so trainers feel that they're damned if they do,and damned if they don't,right?

Imo the one thing that should be absolutely mandatory in a country like SA,as a result of no public gallops,is the declaration of body weights.

louisg wrote: Overall there are horses - newcomers and those with exposed form, that only peak with racing. U can do what you like with them, they will not be at their best after a rest.
Injuries are part and parcel of racing. However some 90% of injuries occur on the Training tracks. Yes this estimate is a bit stacked, based upon the fact that horse's use the training tracks every day and not so, the race tracks. But the bottom line remains soundness and Trainers efforts to keep horses sound. If given the choice of a sound horse versus an 80% fit horse, which one will you choose ? Methinks the Owner will choose the unfit horse and the punter the unsound horse, based on this thread.
Maybe we are expecting too much from both sides of the story ? In Dubai and Hong Kong and the rest of the World, favourites come unstuck. It happens.

Harry's Son ran poorly in Dubai because he had a jarred joint and he won't go to Hong Kong. Instead he is headed for Spain. Harry's son ran poorly because of an injury.

For the sake of the horse it may be better to let him need the run a bit rather than sustain an injury in trying to avoid him needing the run. Especially when the programme offers few alternatives.

What we do need though, is better dissemination of info from Trainers to the public in these instances.

Louis,genuine question? is a horse not more likely to get injured ,when racing less fit?..............it certainly applies to humans!

If a horse is prepping or needs a run, it is therefore not intended to produce its best (and not even trying to)....................whichever way you look at it, that is contrary to the "being raced on merit" rule and running "not trying" is what racing has been accused of since forever,and clearly not unjustified!
What needs to happen is a consultation between trainers and regulators to satisfy both sides in a fair way ( ie. is fine tuning 1-2 lengths or 10-15 lengths ..........it needs perameters!)
Should regulators not be ensuring trainers have more use of galloping facilities ............should operators not hold "prepping" gallops/races where no betting is involved ...............there are solutions but there has to be an intent to find them without the punter always being the fuckee!
The bottom line is that there is a law that puts suited boardroom directors in jail for profiting from knowledge that is hidden from investors, so why should it be acceptable in the shady world of horseracing.

my years in racing have taught me that a horse will always come to the races fit but not always sharp or wound up ...heard it many times from jocks and trainers that a race is equal to around 6 gallops at home ..been told our training tracks in sa are not like those in Europe where you can get a horse much more race fit without doing injury to the horse and continuous wear and tear..i suppose the climate in south Africa has a lot to do with it as well

True pirates heard a few stories about trainers even chucking it in SA because the training tracks are no good..

In the UK most trainers use their own or share poly gallops

Pirates has it spot on. Wear and tear....

But as I wrote, the simplest solution lies in getting that info out to the Punters, exactly as said by johnnycomelately.

Ultimately, there is only ONE NATIONAL body in SA racing, which is NHA. THIS body should make 2 new appointments -
1) NATIONAL HORSE WELFARE OFFICER - see to all facets in that regard countrywide and have to power to suspend any person not taking care of horses properly etc. Immediate suspension until enquiry board takes over. Immediate press release, name and shame.
2) RACING LIAISON OFFICER - a person of vast racing experience who sees to the wellbeing of racing. Communication to punters, integrity of racing and participants. A person who gets around, hears what punters think, sees what Trainers and jockeys are doing and who pushes the Operators to up their game etc.

Interesting.................if wear and tear" is an accepted factor of racehorses in training,why is the MR system,which keeps horses in training so much longer, regarded by so many in the industry,to be good for the game...............I'm assuming an extended career is not kind to the horses "wear and tear"!

louisg wrote: Pirates has it spot on. Wear and tear....

But as I wrote, the simplest solution lies in getting that info out to the Punters, exactly as said by johnnycomelately.

Ultimately, there is only ONE NATIONAL body in SA racing, which is NHA.
.
RACING LIAISON OFFICER - a person of vast racing experience who sees to the wellbeing of racing. Communication to punters, integrity of racing and participants. A person who gets around, hears what punters think, sees what Trainers and jockeys are doing and who pushes the Operators to up their game etc.

......Yes a racing ombudsman but should be independent of the NHRA ...a watch dog of sorts...

Looks like the Best verdict might be quashed seeimngly the "independent lawyer on the panel" has acted for the BHA in the past over a long spell of years

THE British Horseracing Authority's case against trainer Jim Best took another twist late last night with the ruling body now admitting the recent verdict will have to be quashed.

Best was in April found guilty of ordering conditional jockey Paul John to stop two horses from running on their merits though it has since emerged the BHA used solicitor Matthew Lohn on the disciplinary panel.

It has been argued Lohn, who was also being paid to advise the BHA on other matters, provided a bias in favour of the ruling body, and the BHA now accept their appointment of Lohn questioned "perceptions of fairness".

'A legacy issue'

BHA spokesman Robin Mounsey said: "Having received further details concerning the appeal, and having taken advice, we have decided not to contest the appeal on the grounds of apparent bias.

"Perceptions of fairness in relation to the structure and composition of our disciplinary panels is a legacy issue and we have already agreed to tackle this in our integrity review and have already started to review the structure and composition of disciplinary panels, appeal boards and our licensing committee.

"Our view is that the most appropriate next step in this case is for there to be a rehearing before a new disciplinary panel."

Keen to restart case

Mounsey denied there was any substance to Best's other grounds of appeal with the ruling body set to contest those.

Despite the BHA's admission, the ruling body are keen to begin the process against Best once again in front of a new disciplinary panel though Best's lawyers will argue the case should be dropped with the prospect of a fair hearing remaining in doubt.

Possible consequences

The revised outcome may also have an effect on other past cases with Lohn also on the disciplinary panel against Irish trainer Paul Gilligan, who has similarly appealed his conviction.

It remains unknown when Lohn began to give advice to the BHA as well as work on disciplinary panels, and as a result, many other convictions may come into question in the coming weeks.

Looking like the BHA not so special after all


Rory Mac Neice labels BHA 'utter shambles'
BY JON LEES 7:16AM 15 MAY 2016
THE BHA was on Saturday night described as "an utter shambles" as it emerged that concerns about Matthew Lohn's suitability to chair BHA disciplinary hearings were first raised more than a year before the Jim Best inquiry.

Solicitor Rory Mac Neice said the BHA needed to explain who dismissed objections raised on behalf of the Professional Jockeys Association when it discovered the BHA had been a client of Lohn since at least 2014 - and why they were rejected.

He said the disarray the BHA case against Best was now in -with the BHA admitting on Friday night the trainer's guilty verdict for instructing conditional Paul John to stop two horses would have to be quashed over a perception of bias - was "completely self-inflicted".

Lohn's other paid work for the BHA became public knowledge when Best applied for a stay of his four-year suspension, but the PJA, it emerged yesterday, had raised its own objections in February 2015.

'A completely self-inflicted wound'

Mac Neice said: "When it came to my attention that the BHA was a client of Mr Lohn's firm, we raised through the PJA our concerns about that and our objections to Mr Lohn sitting on the disciplinary panel. Those objections were dismissed by the BHA.

"We understood that the make-up of the panel was being revisited as a consequence of the integrity review and as a consequence of a recommendation by the independent panel that oversaw that review, but then Mr Lohn was asked to chair Mr Best's hearing.

"It has turned out that the real concerns we had in relation to Mr Lohn are now recognised by the BHA.

"I think the BHA needs to explain who it was at the BHA who decided to dismiss those concerns in 2015 and why.

"This is a completely self-inflicted wound on itself. The BHA is an utter shambles."

'A real strand of arrogance'

Mac Neice, who represented John in the Best inquiry, continued: "I'm afraid to say there is a real strand of arrogance running through the BHA, where they will not listen to reasonable and sensible concerns raised by participants and this is an example.

"The individual at the BHA who decided they didn't need to listen to these concerns that were raised in 2015 now needs to identify him or herself and explain to the racing industry why they took that decision, bearing in mind the position the BHA has now taken, which is to recognise Matthew Lohn shouldn't have sat in. This is a very serious issue for the BHA."

Mac Neice added: "The BHA is going to have to explain at what point they became a client of Mr Lohn or his firm because every hearing Mr Lohn has dealt with since then is going to have to be scrutinised and every individual who has been dealt with is going to have be written to by the BHA. The BHA is going to have to provide an explanation."

In support of RFaux: Barrier trials for new horses and long layoff horses. And yes, what you refer to is the 'constitutes insider trading', to an extent. :blink: