kimberly false start and clairwood false start...please explain the difference?

acouple of weeks ago the starter declared a false start but only 2 jockeys heard it and pulled up their mounts...end result the race was declared null and void...today at clairwood the starter dec;lares a false start to race 9 as the pens of caseyswar did not open and one jockey hears it and pulls up his mount...result 2 horses declared as scratchings and the result ALLOWED TO STAND...please explain the difference with these two incidents

the difference is that there is NO difference. Only marked change is the fact that 1 is Phumelela, the other Gold Circle. Perhaps there is a different work ethic stuck in there somewhere?

Or.....and now I'm playing conspiracy theorist here, it is because the well backed favourite won today. What won the Kimberley race?

Pirates i have to agree with you but like in previous posts with Rob Faux and 2 cents i say again their is no consistency in what the authorities do even if it is Gold Circle or P. When are they going to wake up and understand that they are showing very little respect for the punter. I await 2 cents opinion on this one im sure he will sugest we knock on the NHA door for an explanation. What would be nice is the NHA giving an explanation without anyone asking . Wishfull thinking for the clowns that treat the punters with contempt.

The stipes at Clairwood decided that they could use rule 61.5.11 which states:

61.5.11 The decision of the starter concerning the start of a race and whether a "no start "shall be declared ,shall be reported to the S.B who shall, in its sole discretion, confirm or overrule such decision. The S.B's decision shall be final.

They decided that even though the starter had pressed the recall button because one stall did not open and only one other jockey supposedly heard the siren only that horse was affected so they had the right to allow the race result to stand and declare those two horses none runners as they were the only horses prejudiced I rushed down to see them before the all clear was given to tell them they had erred in their reading of the rule. They called the all clear then allowed me into the board room so they could explain their decision.The more I was trying to explain they had used the wrong rule as 61.5.11 is when the starter hasnt pressed the recall button but is not sure whether it should be a false start or not .However once the starter has pressed the recall button (false start ) only rule 61.5.13 can be used.

61.5.13 states Should the starter declare a "no start " and the RACE cannot be restarted forthwith, the CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE RACING OPERATOR or,failing him, his nominee shall after consultation with the S.B either

61.5.13.1 declare the race a "no race" and abandon it or

61.5.13.2 order the race to be re-run at such time during the same RACE MEETING as it may appoint

The stipes were adamant that they were right and that if I am not happy I must phone Mr de kock tomorrow,but when I arrived back at my office I pulled out the stipes report for 4 October 2010 in race 7 in kimberly and they used the correct rule and the correct decision was made.The problem with racing is the stipes are either incompetent or else do not know their rules or believe they can make whatever decisions they like and the punters must just live with it.Will report back as I plan to take it further.We cannot accept such inconsistencies within a space of 16 days.

The stinking, rotting pile that is SA racing just continues to grow larger and larger and larger and larger.......Good luck to us all!

good on you on trying to get the stewards to see the error Big T. (tu)

and now up to casey in 2nd is declared a non runner because the bit came through her mouth...what fucking next for fucks sake

I agree. They are changing the rules as they see fit? Unless the handler was to blame for the bit going through the mouth? That could be the only reason.
When Nico commented just before 4th race he clearly stated that "through no fault of the handler"........so why then? Maybe the stipes should inform the presenter why they scratched the horse?

3rd world racing country

Who owns the horse: ....

And Nico just accepts this at face value as if this happens everyday - next time when a horses' saddle slip is it also going to be declared a non-runner (or when the jock loses his whip)?