There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
17 Jan 26
13:52
Joined:
Date Joined:
11 Jan 11
.. Destroyed my p/p. 
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 32
|
By:
Non-runners: Nurse Susan (unsuitable ground)
Something odd here, waiting untill the third race with a horse that has won on both good and soft going. ?? |
|
By:
America calling
|
|
By:
Harry Skelton rode Down To Business (finished 4th) over the hurdles course in the first race, the 12:25.
Nurse Susan was declared a non-runner at 12:46. 2+2=4? |
|
By:
Ditto glasgow but made it a mental 1900 quid. Woulda been nice.
|
|
By:
The trip would have been short enough even if it was a bog which it clearly wasn't
|
|
By:
... I usually put in all 4 in 4 runner races, thats what pished me off. The ground conditions were not changeable. why wait untill that late ?? Stewards should have took action unless it was an injury to the horse.
just making a mockery of the public imo. |
|
By:
Yes, would have done exactly the same here. Couldn't believe it when saw the time he pulled it out when looked last night.
|
|
By:
Do you really think that Skelton would have pulled it out if He thought it could win?
|
|
By:
You are totally missing what I and Glasgow are saying. I didn't put her in the ppot so couldn't care less about what its chance was. Taking it out totally messed up the ppot as you had to win (4) rather than come 2nd (5). And as we have both said we would have covered all 4. Personally I had the 2nd but of course it didn't count and obvs that race becoming 4 and being won by the outsider made it the 1900 quid it was. Even so, would have been fairly decent. There will have been other people who will have done ew multiples(2) that this will have messed them up as well. He should have been heavily fined for taking it out after racing had started. Totally not right.
|
|
By:
I totally disagree.
The Trainer's first duty is to his horse and Owner not to punters and he did what he thought was right for the horse,correctly imo. |
|
By:
doorman - Under what rule would you have connections "heavily fined"? I think top2rated's sums are about right.
|
|
By:
Yet no one else did the same. Only other nr was vet cert.
|
|
By:
Because nothing had changed and he ran all his others.
|
|
By:
The heavy rain did not come which this horse needed,it's as simple as that
|
|
By:
Doorman - Because nothing had changed and he ran all his others.
Under which rule? |
|
By:
Possibly the not widely known rule that it annoyed doorman,blackbarn
|
|
By:
That horse has won on good, good to soft twice and soft twice and the going was given as soft so as Glasgow says originally how can ground be their excuse, rediculous. Also it is the lateness of the withdrawal that is so wrong. Blackbarn, I thought there was a rule that trainers couldn't withdraw due to ground unless there was a change of going.
|
|
By:
Are you related to Cider,doorman?
|
|
By:
Are you related to the Skeltons?
|
|
By:
No but I know them.
The horse has had problems and took all day to get past over 20F last time. Clearly you think you know better than the Skeltons. You do not. |
|
By:
That's as maybe but here is the rule.
Under the current regulations, a horse cannot be withdrawn solely due to ground conditions without a significant change in the going description. The going description is a critical factor in determining the suitability of a horse for a race, and any changes in ground conditions must be substantial enough to warrant a withdrawal. If the going description changes, the horse can be withdrawn for that new going description. However, if there has been no going change, the horse cannot be withdrawn due to ground conditions alone. |
|
By:
Which obviously begs the question, how were they allowed to withdraw it under that rule.
|
|
By:
There are ways around most rules.
They could have reported the horse had coughed if they wished. You seem to be a tad obsessed,doorman |
|
By:
They didn't though, they said ground and I would just like to know how they got away with that. I'm not obsessed, it just annoys me when small trainers get fined for tiny things that affect no outsiders yet this will have messed up a lot of punters on a popular sat afn. I shall send a letter to the BHA asking exactly that , if they reply I will let you know.
|
|
By:
A very good idea,doorman.
Perhaps an email would be quicker? |
|
By:
Thanks Doorman. I may be wrong and will admit to such without hesitation. Are these your words or that of the BHA. If the latter, can you post the source and rule page/number. Many thanks BB
|
|
By:
Google it bb, that is what comes up. It is a quote from them but I am not pedantic enough to search for the page number and rulebook. Its not as if it's an obscure rule, it is one of their more sensible ones actually.
|
|
By:
Think they can withdraw as they declared on G/Sft which changed to Sft.
|
|
By:
They can and did
|
|
By:
Ground-Related Withdrawals: If a horse is withdrawn due to "unsuitable ground" after declarations, stewards may review if the trainer should have known the conditions, particularly if the horse has previously run on identical going.
Pretty compelling imo. |
|
By:
What do you hope to achieve here?
|
|
By:
Very good of the Skeltons to confirm GD will run an hour before the race.
|