Have the BHA now set a precedent ? - Spec Bid = NON-Runner

Nice Rule 4 though - the extra bookmaker profit is 'good for racing'...

It is a precedent, never been done before as I far as I can remember. Came under orders, then authorised as a non runner. Strange decision.

They will be summoned to BHA HQ and flogged to within an inch of their lives over that decision - the BHA's bookie masters will NOT be happy!

Despite all the 'wrongs' of what happened the horse has to be a runner imo.  They have now created a non-runner 'grey area' concerning horses that come under starters orders but don't race...

When are they deemed 'under orders'. Does anyone know

any replay of incident?

Once a horse is in the stalls surely he has to be under orders.

I remember the rules changing a few seasons ago to allow for this, I think there was one other that was declared a NR under similar circumstances that first season.

of course

Horses can enter the stalls and be withdrawn not under starters orders.  Starters orders is when the starter raises his flag is it not?

Horses don't come under orders any more, the key thing here is was the weighed in signal given prior to declaring the non runner. The race was down as weighed in on RP & SL before the announcement.

i backed fav and its terrible decision.

keefter's point rings a bell

It's undoubtedly a ridiculous decision. As was said earlier it's another grey area now and bound to be inconsistencies.

They also set a precedent when they allowed a result at Worcester to stand a few years ago when the winner had weighed in light.

I understood the rule to be that the jockey had to be completely off the horse when the gates opened.

So the rule was written to ensure horses were extremely rarely called a NR, as 999 times out of 1000 the jockey will be maintaining some sort of contact with the horse as the stalls open.

The stewards' decision is perfectly correct.  Tattersalls, who are the arbiters of the rules of racing, state that if a punter cannot win, he cannot lose.  When the stalls opened, Spencer was not on the horse (he was still standing on the superstructure), therefore the punter could not win.  It is perfectly rational and straight forward.  There are no 'grey areas'.  If you disagree, read the rules.

never bend - you need to swat up on the rules of Stewards Enquiries and the 'weighed-in' signal imo...

gets on ruk to moan about £600 ffs.....get back to work

when did they call the enquiry, after the weighed in was announced?

never  bend is correct

stfu broadsword, the guy on RUK was right!

Yes. The on-course bookies never pay double-result either. I never bet with them.

Rule 57, stewards make it up as they go along....

Facts
25 Jul 15 16:24

never  bend is correct

If that is right then every punter who has bet 1000 on an impossible outcome on here should be able to demand a refund...

The result or non runners cannot be altered after the weigh in , end off

Spencer should have been on the horse.What was he doing

He had the same chance to come out as all the other ruynners. Blame Spencer

runners

Letting the stall handler try and get Spec Bids head off the side of the stall

So no he didn't have the same chance to come out with the others. That's why it's been deemed a non runner !

Was a runner when the 'weighed in' was given.

Fast picture thieves not happy because they laid a horse that could,nt win,have you not heard of the "cant lose cant win" rule that the BHA sould be implementing.

About time they started deeming more horses non-runners imo.

I remember backing a horse big time with Fallon up - I think it was at Newbury - when the starter let them go while Fallon was still sitting on the frame of the stalls.