NHA rules

I am pleased to see that the rules of racing are getting a mention on the site and that the NHA show an interest in the comments,and this leads me to a question that has bugged me for some time.
Does rule 62.3 still form part of the NHA rules......the rule reads:

62.3.1 The TRAINER of a HORSE shall ensure that such HORSE does not run in an inconsistent manner(also referred to as "reversal of form"or "in and out running").Where inconsistent running or a reversal of form has or may have occurred,an investigation into such matter may be held in terms of the RULES.
62.3.2 When after an investigation in terms of RULE 62.3.1,a HORSE is found to be an incosistent runner,it may be suspended in terms of rule 93.

My question: how many horses(if any) have been investigated in the last 5 years(or ever) in terms of this rule?
I can find no record of such,and just the last easter week-end's racing and todays meeting at Kimberley is enough to show that horses qualify every week!
I would guess that the problem is that the rule is subjective and is therefore difficult to enforce.

What is needed is an agreement with interested parties as to what constitutes "inconsistent ' and should be measured by the rating a horse runs to.
Handicappers measure every run of every horse anyway and could provide proof of the "in and out running" and then use a "yellow card /red card system.

This would assist handicappers,as consistent running is needed for correct merit ratings and would help prevent horses been entered "needing the run badly" and a greater effort to only run horses when sound.
I would be interested to hear the official NHA stance on this rule.

Rob - if you study the computaform, every now and then after a horse makes a surprise showing - either vastly improved or visa versa, the stipes report will clearly read "trainer questioned". My understanding of this is what you refer to as an investigation.

Not trying to be funny but is NHA and NHRA the same thing?
Where can I find up to date stipes reports?

www.horseracingauthority.co.za/

Hukky they may question the odd trainer but have you ever seen anything done about it?

Thanks Nagboy - I was on the right track. Stipes reports not up to date - no report for 10/04 Greyville

Out of office this week,expect response by Friday 24.04.2009.

Cheers,

Vee Moodley
Racing Control Manager

Well done Dave..Vee is a good man..must say I did complain about this a couple of months ago ie the time it takes to get those reports posted as well as the accuracy of some reports.

It seems sometimes that one can get a better overview on what happened during the race from online publications.

Also Dave it might be a good idea to post an Amercan and UK Stipes report (anyone will do) just to compare the amount of info they give vs what we get here in SA?

The procedure with regard to "form reversals" is as follows:-
1.The trainer is questioned and an explanation sought.
2.This explanation and questioning appears in the Stipes report.
3. The video of the previous run/s are reviewed to verify the explaination given by the trainer.
4. The follow-up of this investigation appears in the Stipes report.



Some stats from KZN from April regarding (form reversal investigations)
April 4 - Race 2 - ROOFING
April 4 - In the front of the stipes reports are 2 follow-up reports from previous form reversal investigations
BEL EMPRESS and PIMENTO
April 10 - Race 7 - EDWIN STREETER
April12th - Race 5 - CRAGGANMORE
April 19th - Race 9 - TRIPLE GEM




There are a number of results that follow from a form reversal investigation depending on the circumstances.

In most cases there is a resonable and exceptable explanation for a poor run.
Examples :-
Wide draw - raced wide thru-out and unable to obtain cover so over-raced and compounded in the latter stages.
Distance too far- A trainer tries a horse over further and the horse simply does not stay ( in this case the board may order the trainer to this horse over specific distances ONLY)
Equipment changes etc - Once again the board may order a trainer to race a horse equiped in a certain manner)

If however a resonable explanation is not evident , on the first form reversal the trainer attention will be drawn to Rule 62.3.1.
In terms of rule 62.3.2 a suspension would be placed on a horse if a) a horse appears to inconsistent for a 2nd time without reasonable cause b) if they is a clear case of manipulation of any sort or c) if the trainer has failed to comply with an order from a previous investigation.


Notes:
Form reversal investigations happen frequently.
There has been no suspensions with regard to this in recent history.
We hardly ever have to question the same horse twice. On those few occasions when we do there has been resonable and very different resons for the poor runs.
The suspension would normally be from racing for a period of 6 weeks.

Hope this helps
Regards


Vee Moodley
Racing Control Manager

Thank you Vee, your feedback is appreciated.

Dave

The feedback from Vee is very much appreciated.

Tell me something.
How is a person suppose to explain a horse being beaten by another horse even if it's beaten that same horse before...... On the given day, I believe, if a horse feels like running or not it wont. It has a mind just like any other animal and the extremeties of that mind is not known by you or I. So how can one explain it on the day or expect a trainer to give a good explanation everytime. this sport is so unpredictable at times and every one knows at the end of the day it comes down to wether or not a horse is/isn't in the mood. Isn't it?