Gold circle press release 17th March 2013

Gold Circle regrets the abandonment of today's race meeting at Clairwood following the running of Race 6, the Kings Pact Stakes for two year old fillies.
 
The odds-on favourite, My Sanctuary, was impeded at the start by her gate opening slowly but nontheless finished in third place and in terms of the rules of the National Horseracing Authority, the result stood.
 
The relevant rule (61.5.10.1) reads as follows:- "Should the starter consider that through any faulty action of the starting gates or from any other cause, a fair start has not been effected, the starter may declare a "no-start" (false start). Should the starter not declare a "no-start" (false start), the Stipendiary Board may, after a hearing, declare any horse which was impeded at the start by a front gate not opening a non-runner, provided that a horse which is ultimately declared first, second, third or fourth in a race by the judge, shall not be declared a non-runner.
 
Gold Circle races under the rules and regulations of the NHA and is bound by the rule. Unfortunately, members of the public at Clairwood staged a protest and, despite the presence of members of the South African Police Services, neither the NHA nor Gold Circle could guarantee the safety of the riders and horses scheduled to participate in races 7, 8 and 9 and, as a consequence, it was decided to abandon these races.
 
It is intended that both The Kings Cup (Grade 3) and Pinnacle 1200m (Races 7 & 8 respectively) be postponed to Clairwood on Sunday, 24 March.

AS MENTIONED BELOW THEY KNOW NOT THEIR OWN RULES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


rob faux [ PM ]
Re: What do you suggest the stipes do know.
March 17, 2013 07:43PM Registered: 6 years ago
Posts: 4,275
hibernia Wrote:

---

> Gold Circle regrets the abandonment of today's
> race meeting at Clairwood following the running of
> Race 6, the Kings Pact Stakes for two year old
> fillies.
>
>
>
> The odds-on favourite, My Sanctuary, was impeded
> at the start by her gate opening slowly but
> nontheless finished in third place and in terms of
> the rules of the National Horseracing Authority,
> the result stood.
>
>
>
> The relevant rule (61.5.10.1) reads as follows:-
> "Should the starter consider that through any
> faulty action of the starting gates or from any
> other cause, a fair start has not been effected,
> the starter may declare a "no-start" (false
> start). Should the starter not declare a
> "no-start" (false start), the Stipendiary Board
> may, after a hearing, declare any horse which was
> impeded at the start by a front gate not opening a
> non-runner, provided that a horse which is
> ultimately declared first, second, third or fourth
> in a race by the judge, shall not be declared a
> non-runner.
>
>
>
> Gold Circle races under the rules and regulations
> of the NHA and is bound by the rule.
> Unfortunately, members of the public at Clairwood
> staged a protest and, despite the presence of
> members of the South African Police Services,
> neither the NHA nor Gold Circle could guarantee
> the safety of the riders and horses scheduled to
> participate in races 7, 8 and 9 and, as a
> consequence, it was decided to abandon these
> races.
>
>
>
> It is intended that both The Kings Cup (Grade 3)
> and Pinnacle 1200m (Races 7 & 8 respectively) be
> postponed to Clairwood on Sunday, 24 March.
>
>
>
> ENDS


Why no mention of rule 61.5.13.1 which allows the starter to declare a "No Race" and abandon it.
This rule is surely to cater for,and correct the failure to call a "no start"
This would seem to be the most suitable ,fair and sensible action to have been applied.

I have stated before that I don't believe they know their own rules and my guess is they stopped at 61.5.10,without being aware that 61.5.13 existed!!!!!!!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2013 08:04PM by rob faux.

Perhaps voiding the race in which a prominent owner won would in fact anger said prominent owner or his emissary very badly and the repercussions would have been far worse than a group of angry punters trying to storm the castle......

I'm not saying that's what happened but it could be a reason?

Tommy_Hotspur Wrote:

---

> Perhaps voiding the race in which a prominent
> owner won would in fact anger said prominent owner
> or his emissary very badly and the repercussions
> would have been far worse than a group of angry
> punters trying to storm the castle......
>
> I'm not saying that's what happened but it could
> be a reason?


I respect you as a racing person who only has the best interests of racing , but that comment is not fair:S

Tommy_Hotspur Wrote:

---

> Perhaps voiding the race in which a prominent
> owner won would in fact anger said prominent owner
> or his emissary very badly and the repercussions
> would have been far worse than a group of angry
> punters trying to storm the castle......
>
> I'm not saying that's what happened but it could
> be a reason?


absolute bullshit comment

Tommy_Hotspur Wrote:

---

> Perhaps voiding the race in which a prominent
> owner won would in fact anger said prominent owner
> or his emissary very badly and the repercussions
> would have been far worse than a group of angry
> punters trying to storm the castle......
>
> I'm not saying that's what happened but it could
> be a reason?

I'm sorry Tommy, piss poor blaming the owners of the runners. Even though like you, i do not have a shred of evidence whatsoever, I would say no one involved in the board rooms would have considered for one instance the ownership. In fact, it's just insulting, you would never say it to his face.

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

> Tommy_Hotspur Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Perhaps voiding the race in which a prominent
> > owner won would in fact anger said prominent
> owner
> > or his emissary very badly and the
> repercussions
> > would have been far worse than a group of angry
> > punters trying to storm the castle......
> >
> > I'm not saying that's what happened but it
> could
> > be a reason?
>
> I'm sorry Tommy, piss poor blaming the owners of
> the runners. Even though like you, i do not have
> a shred of evidence whatsoever, I would say no one
> involved in the board rooms would have considered
> for one instance the ownership. In fact, it's
> just insulting, you would never say it to his
> face.

---

He said it could be a reason, did not say it was the reason, but like he said, should the result have gone another way, what would the stipes have called, perhaps they should run this race again... give all horses a fair start? like races 7-9 to be run on the 24th, they should add this to the list... If Tommy had said it is the reason then I would also rant off on him, but he didn't and is covering another angle... which he is entitled too
Somewhere, someone along the line needs to be held accountable for this, whether it is the starter for not calling a false start or the stipes for not calling the other ruling as Solotrama made mention of (would be nice to read the full ruling on this before jumping on the band wagon)... (P.S. I did not play the race, so not talking from my pocket)
In the end I dont see this as being very professional
personally I am only going to start playing sports bets - and stay away from anything that is GC or the big P

please boys let us not be stupid. of course the owner had nothing to do with decision. stupidity does not have to have the reason does it? the bottom line is the gate never open at all, the poor horse barge through the stalls and force it open. how the starter dont see this is criminal.

tommy you have the go at me for what i say, now is my chance. for you to even think the race is affected by markus jooste is the act of a ediot

Surely the starter on duty has to take full responsibility for not doing his job properly. Will there be an enquiry followed by a disciplinary hearing?...or will it just go away?

oscar Wrote:

---

> Surely the starter on duty has to take full
> responsibility for not doing his job properly.
> Will there be an enquiry followed by a
> disciplinary hearing?...or will it just go away?


100% oscar. i think this get sweep under the rug, again.

what happen to starter in joburg when he load horse wrong? what happen to stipes in kimberley when they blind with the interference? the jockey club is the old boy club they take care of bussness behind the closed doors

oscar Wrote:

---

> Surely the starter on duty has to take full
> responsibility for not doing his job properly.
> Will there be an enquiry followed by a
> disciplinary hearing?...or will it just go away?


(tu) Starter whether it be 1 ,2 or 3 of them.....

flash h 100%..the buck stops with the starter here