Shoes (Rabattache)

Yesterday RABATTACHE held up the start to have a shoe refitted.

He immediately pulled a shoe of again and then they proceeded to remove both front shoes.

By now bookmakers were laying this horse as much as they could, and if you were on Rabattache you KNEW (as we do sometimes) you were going to be done in (in cold blood).

They called for the trainer presumably to see if he wanted to scratch or run(?). I guess the moron wanted to run despite the MASSIVE disadvantage it now gave the punters.

BTW I am not talking from my pocket this time as happily for me, I had backed Bush Pirate (for millionth time), and I now wanted Rabattache to run, and therefor have no deduction to repay punters who backed him.

Changing legs at the end of the race (you could see on TV and we wait the stipes report), the poor horse destroyed his supporters in the P6, the PA and practically everywhere except the quartet, BUT it was not the horse's fault.

If a horse is carded with specific equipment, should that horse not be scratched if it cannot comply?

Yes,it should be scratched.

I am sure it has happened at some time so I can't make the statement that a horse that has it's shoes at the start never wins,but in all my time in racing I cannot recall such an instance.

In this case I am talking from my pocket.The horse was trading in the 9-2 region on IB when it reached the start.The last traded price was 7-1 on IB when the race went off.Bookmakers as well as punters know that these horses simply don't win.I had a stake of R6000 on the horse(I'd like to have 0 on when the shoes got removed),and the difference in pa's between it placing and not placing was monumental to me.

The odds are already so heavily stacked against the punter in this game,and yet we continue to get shafted even more in such cases.A simple case of the NHRA doing a study to determine the statistics of how horses perform in such instances are guarenteed to show that the punter is unduly prejudiced.

I understand that the stable's point of view is that the horse is already at the course so we might as well just run it anyway,but the only way to maintain the customers confidence in the sport is to ensure that they believe they do not get shafted by the sport at every turn.The stable is quite happy to just let the horse take it chances,but these horses never run to their true ability anyway.

Unfortunately the punter comes very last in the pecking order.

A tricky balance, sometimes, between what's best for punters, owners, and horses. My first winner raced with one bare foot when a shoe could not be replaced. I think that calling the trainer a moron is a tad over the top. Taking Lion In Winter as a line horse Rabattache may have run close to form, especially as the "moron's" stable is a bit quiet at present. It is a thorny debate, though.

We have it hard enough as punters,and i can`t see the benefit to the owner and horse to let the animal run?

Seen a horse the other day(uk) break loose at the start run half a lap ,jump and crash through 2 sets of rails,then placed in the stalls and allowed to run..

When last I was overseas there was a hot fav that did a full lap of San Siro racecourse riderless. At the trainer's request he ran in the race anyway, and won. Punters are racing's life blood but there are other interests at play as well. As I said, the balancing act can be a little more complicated than we sometimes think.

Racing stables clearly believe that shoes have an influence on how a horse performs or else nobody would ever have heard of alumites.Surely that is proof enough that running unshod must hinder a horses perfomance.

Is a compromise such as the horse being scratched for betting purposes but it is allowed to run for stakes impossible?

Evidence, maybe. Proof? Not even close. In the legal sense, anyway. However, tighter rules by the NHA would take most of the discretion and therefore inconsistency out of the equation.

Racing for stakes only opens up a much bigger can of worms. It complicates things no end and wait for the fallout when one wins.

Ok,evidence it is then.Like you say,mechanisms need to be put into place to reduce the discretionary influence that such stables have in such instances.

You would know better than me Matthew,but once a horse is carded to run in a certain set of equipment(ie:blinkers),the stable is obliged to run it in that equipment after a certain cut off time.Why is discretion suddenly allowed at race time now just because an uncontrollable variable has come into play.Imo such horses should be scratched for betting purposes but be allowed to run for stakes,a solution that gives all parties a fairer scenario than what we currently have.

There can be no fallout if there are rules in place which dictate what happens in each scenario.We have rules for the tote,clearly available for all to see on tabgold.co.za. Each scenario is spelled out and the result thereof has a clearly defined rule.Why is this not possible in instances such as what happened yesterday?

To ask the connections is to put their interests in front of EVERYONE else.

If Pocket Power ripped a shoe off 5 minutes before the Met, and then again...should the public forced to keep their bets?

Pocket power scratched from the Drill Hall at the start (all credit to Bass) while I still think Rabattache's connections thought to take their chances, and our with them although those chances had changed dramatically!

Look, we can make it simple:

IF you bet a horse who has always run shod (fronts at least), would you KEEP OR CANCEL your bet if they:

a) reshod the horse
b) run barefoot?

I may keep (a), but on (b) I would cancel every time.