ARB Signals No Nonsense Approach To Rule Breaches

Of course I know that rule Rob, that is exactly what I am trying to say here. Some people have mistakenly assumed they are one and the same.

One is when a horse suddenly runs above/ below par, unexpectedly, and for no obvious reason. The trainer would get a reminder/ and or warning about the rule. I have been associated with only 2 horses in my racing career that have been suspended permanently for this. Generally we have to show that a problem has been addressed before we can race them again, and provide a veterinary certificate.

The other (as per the ARB rules) is when one or more parties collude to manipulate a result by stopping a horse on purpose.

There is a huge difference. The later has intent. The former could have no obvious reason at all. Hardly require the same penalty.

As I said ,I agree with the differentiation .HOWEVER the mistrust in our racing is caused by the lack of application,by the regulators,of their own rules.
The inconsistent rule has never been officially enforced since the formation of the NHA,by their own admission.............the nearest thing is the odd quiet unofficial word in the ear of the connections.

It is a simple issue ...............rules should de removed or enforced.............anything else smells!

Our rule relating to "racing on merit " would include anything deliberately preventing a horse from running to its rating...................why does running a horse "badly in need of a run" not qualify?..................no different to pulling it up in effect!

Some horses can't brought to full racing fitness on the training tracks alone. The great Syd Laird once said something along the lines of: one race equals four grass gallops. That in itself tells you that training alone is not enough to get a horse racing fit. Even jockeys will tell you that they can ride 10 horses every morning in training, yet they will not be fit enough to ride in one race after a long break.

Every athlete needs "game time" to get fitness back.

Maybe you're right, but the punter didn't make the rule.............if it is unreasonable,amend the rule ............have barrier trials for rested horses............the point of regulation is fairness............to what extent should punters have to guess how fit a horse is..........more needs to be done if they want more punters and therefore more stakes...........................surely that should be obvious.
(The even greater trainers in the UK race horses straight into group1's with no prep runs..............are they just more professional?)