Sheer Courage Disqualified

So it must of been the phantom who backed it Titch....: ... Come On the stable must of been on...:S

The stable could have backed it but I cant say for sure as I really have no idea but if they did back it carrying 55 why not declare it as a 1 time winner and carry 56 or 56,5 ?? is all the trouble worth a 1.5kg advantage?? this IMO is a clear cut case of passing the buck... either way what I can say with certainty is that Colin Bird would not have backed it and probably never even knew it was running as he is based in the UK/Dubai and spends very little time in SA

Racingpost had it a rating of over 100 after its runaway maiden win. Sorry - maybe that wasnt the official rating. Even at an 88, it would have been joint best weighted.
The point is Matchett spoke to Dave Mollet just before the race. Even then it was concealed.

Personaly i think a move from 14/1 to 8/1 does not take much money and there was no real gamble on the horse .In fact the horse only shortened after Molly said he fancied it . . If there was a real coup on , it would have started at 2or 3/1 .

The horse carried the correct weight being a one time winner .Whoever allocated the weight to the horse knew he was a 1 time winner .

He was rated 100 maybe because he contested the 3yo classic races in dubai.

This is getting ridiculous. As far as I can recall, the horse was correctly weighted for a one time winning male. Somebody had to have known that the horse was a winner somewhere on earth, and that fact should have been reflected in the racecard etc. How, in this electronic age of instant information, can it be the trainer or owner's responsibility to disclose a horse's past form? I'm not saying that the trainer should have kept quiet, but it should never have been his responsibility in the first place.

Disqualifying the horse makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. In my humble opinion, there should be an investigation into how the fcuk the first timer rule in the Pick 6 was invoked, and how the official programme failed to reflect that the horse had raced and won before, when it was patently obvious from the mass allocated that he must have done.

My point exactly Magic,and if the disqualification,regardless of emotions,is for the wrong reason,it should be reversed on appeal.
You cannot just invoke the nearest most convenient rule,regardless of its relevance!

magiclips Wrote:

---

> This is getting ridiculous. As far as I can
> recall, the horse was correctly weighted for a one
> time winning male. Somebody had to have known
> that the horse was a winner somewhere on earth,
> and that fact should have been reflected in the
> racecard etc. How, in this electronic age of
> instant information, can it be the trainer or
> owner's responsibility to disclose a horse's past
> form? I'm not saying that the trainer should have
> kept quiet, but it should never have been his
> responsibility in the first place.
>
> Disqualifying the horse makes absolutely no sense
> to me whatsoever. In my humble opinion, there
> should be an investigation into how the fcuk the
> first timer rule in the Pick 6 was invoked, and
> how the official programme failed to reflect that
> the horse had raced and won before, when it was
> patently obvious from the mass allocated that he
> must have done.


(tu)

rob faux Wrote:

---

> My point exactly Magic,and if the
> disqualification,regardless of emotions,is for the
> wrong reason,it should be reversed on appeal.
> You cannot just invoke the nearest most convenient
> rule,regardless of its relevance!


1 million % correct

Trainer Matchett would have known that the horse had won,I believe the boys cleaned up big time,and the wrong action has been taken.A tough stance and stiff penalty should be taken against all concerned,this is why our game has the reputation of being croocked,with bullshit like this,what a disgrace,the punters get stuffed and the trainer cleans up,disgracefull.

NHA Rules in regard to Registration of Imported Horses

36.1 No Person shall import any horse into Southern Africa, for racing or breeding
purposes, in contravention of the rules or any law and without subsequently
applying to the Chief Executive for the registration of such Horse. The
person responsible for the importation of a horse into Southern Africa shall
notify the Chief Executive within 1 Month after such horse's arrival in
Southern Africa.

36.2 An application for the Registration of an Imported Horse shall be made to
the Chief Executive, and shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee and
following documents:

36.2.1 the Stud Book certificate or other appropriate certificate issued by the Stud Book
authority of the country of foaling;

36.2.2 the certificate of age and identity signed by the veterinary surgeon who examined
the horse after its arrival in Southern Africa;

36.2.3 the customs documents;

36.2.4 the racing record of the horse (if it has raced);

36.2.5 any other documents required by the Chief Executive; and
,
36.2.6 the vaccination certificate or vaccination record of the horse.

36.3 A named horse imported into Southern Africa shall have the suffix of its country
of foaling added to its name.

36.4 An unnamed horse imported into Southern Africa shall be named after
Registration and the suffix of its country of foaling shall be included in its name.

AND NOW???

Titc.......and now what mate?You make it sound like incompetence and failure to perform from that quarter is unusual.......what do you think I have been bitching about for years.....they are a joke!

This is unacceptable Rob and needs to be addressed....