Cape Racing

Why are the trainers not publicly saying they are boycotting?

Bob Brogan wrote: Why are the trainers not publicly saying they are boycotting?

very good question -

Cape racing has been in decline for years. Finding the reasons for the decline is irrelevant. With the fall of Steinhoff it is literally a matter of time before Cape racing hits free fall without the help of a parachute for landing.
Have you forgotten who was the biggest supporter of The Racing Trust and Phumelela taking over the racing in tbe Western Cape. It was Markus Jooste and his usual side kick Chris Van Niekerk. The whole deal was engineered by Jooste who was the puppet master of the Racing Trust trustees and the Phumelela Board of directors. There is no doubt that Cape racing is Phumelelas biggest expense and loss. It interests me how this is not shown in full detail in its annual financials. Who knows, the hand of Markus Maradona Jooste may have indelibly touched Phumelela and now its just a wuestion ehen the red card will be shown.

Jurgs

with all due respect please remove the name of the greatest footballer of all time from this post. To mention Diego and the other guy in the same sentence is an insult to some of us.


Thanks

The R1000 carrot to the Cape trainers is in transgression of the rules.
NHA Rule 11.2.7 states, that a trainer shall not accept payment of any charges, whether in whole or in part, in respect of any horse in his care other than from the owner in whose name the horse is registered and/or the spouse of such person or the agent.

The rule clearly refers to charges. It is there to prevent under the lap racing. The R1000 from Phumelela is not a charge but an incentive or an allowance, such as allowances for night racing or Sunday racing or percentage of stakes.

Hi All,

There is absolutely no boycott in the Western Cape and Snaith Racing would never support such practice either.

We notified Clyde Basel's team that racing at Durbanville three days prior to the only double header meeting in South Africa is a horrid idea. We simply do not have the numbers in Cape Town.

Over and above this we urged them to move the meeting to Kenilworth due the conditions at Durbanville - it is a new track that has not been watered sufficiently due to the drought and it is, in our opinion, a far higher risk to injury.

We fully support Western Cape Racing and are running 22 horses this Friday (21.56% of the card) and 30 this Saturday (25.8% of the card)

The race meeting on the 1st at Durbanville is just another classic example of Western Province racing being thrown under the bus.

We feel the L'Ormarins Queen's Plate cards put together look very exciting and we hope you all support these two solid meetings.

Hi Johno thanks for the message

Yes you never nominated and had your own stable in mind( good on you)

But other stables did indeed boycott!

louisg wrote: The rule clearly refers to charges. It is there to prevent under the lap racing. The R1000 from Phumelela is not a charge but an incentive or an allowance, such as allowances for night racing or Sunday racing or percentage of stakes.

Just an idea - why not take part of the stakes per race equal to 5k or so and pay 1k stakes to horses from place 5 to 10 - Bigger fields more turnover should mean more stakes to distribute - I don't enjoy small fields mainly because there is often a false pace

Mr H

Goto sahorseracing. Click on programme. Goto Miscellaneous, open local conditions. I think it is 4.3 or 4.4 - stakes reduced in small fields. Example- if 4 runners only first and second paid. If three runners, only winner is paid etc.

So the R1000 going to the Trainer makes no sense to me....should RA not have stepped in or just SAID SOMETHING, on behalf of Owners who are footing the bill, paying for the runners, including the nom fees ?

louisg wrote: Mr H

Goto sahorseracing. Click on programme. Goto Miscellaneous, open local conditions. I think it is 4.3 or 4.4 - stakes reduced in small fields. Example- if 4 runners only first and second paid. If three runners, only winner is paid etc.

So the R1000 going to the Trainer makes no sense to me....should RA not have stepped in or just SAID SOMETHING, on behalf of Owners who are footing the bill, paying for the runners, including the nom fees ?

LG that for me is a problem - Paying less stakes out does not help building fields - rather pay 1k to position 10 and get horses running - f for example the field starts out 8 runners and 4 scratch for some reason why should the other horses be penalised? Now say you have a horse way out in the weights and he runs 3rd close up in a 4 horse field and he is adjusted by the handicapper he is penalised without earning any stakes for that free run - If the operator is getting some sort of turnover from a race then pay stakes - Don't hurt owners

I agree fully Mr H. But sadly....you and me are not running racing....
I was just pointing out the condition so that u can see where the R1000
might be coming from... its then not so "generous" as one trainer called it ,is it ?

However, the rule/ condition (3.3) simply allows the Operator that option or discretion. It is not automatically in place. I wonder if any of the Trainers with runners on the day have queried their intention yet ?