the stipe situation at flamingo

As per the stipes report on 23rd october the stipes on duty numbered 2 plus one trainee..IF there were grounds for any objection then 3 stipes would have been needed on the panel who decide but as per the head stipe this is no problem you can use any licensed official on course eg starter vet etc,,,so one stipe objects and one qualified stipes sits on the panel of 3 to decide the outcome WITH TWO OTHER LICENSED OFFICIALS WHO HAVE NEVER QUALIFIED TO DO THIS JOB OR IS IT THAT ANY ONE CAN DO THIS JOB?its a rule that stipes cannot bet so does this also apply to the other licensed officials on raceday just in case they need to vote on the outcome of an objection?the situation is third world from the nhra whose motto is to UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY BLAH BLAH BLAH..

Running this game like a Spaza Shop - Dont worry " The Bolt" of lightning will strike come Met Day and fix everything .

Like the appies, the junior stipes can’t go round the bends

Earlier this month I bought a new car. As part of the insurance requirements I had to have a tracking device fitted to the vehicle. For some or other reason this device was not functioning properly and after receiving many false signals - it kept telling the control room that the battery was disconnected when it was perfectly secure - it was decided that the unit would be replaced. I received a call from the company and an arrangement was made for the unit to be replaced at my abode. The installer duly arrived as arranged, and replaced the faulty unit. All good, and what the hell has this got to do with the story you are all probably thinking. Here's where it gets interesting. When the installer arrived he asked me not to come into the garage while he was busy removing and replacing the unit. This was to ensure that the location of the device was unknown to me. This forms part of the "integrity" of the system and is an insurance requirement. I had a cold drink with Ismael after he had completed his task and we got to chatting about his job. This guy and all his colleagues are subject to a mandatory polygraph three times a year. He was required to undergo a polygraph as part of the recruitment process. The reason for this is to ensure that installers are not working with the syndicates and revealing where trackers are installed. Questions specifically related to contact and working with anyone involved in car theft are asked and if a person fails a test he is immediately suspended on full pay and the case is thoroughly investigated. Makes perfect sense as this industry needs all the tools at its disposal to beat the odds, pretty similar to the racing industry once you come to think of it.

This got me thinking. Why are licenced participants in the racing industry not required to do something similar to "protect" the integrity of the sport. Think about it. Every trainer and jockey gets an annual polygraph that is mandatory before a licence is renewed. Simple questions are asked related to cheating and if this test is failed no licence is issued. There's no reason any honest individual would refuse one. I do however think that we would have fewer licences issued. Its not just jocks and trainers needing testing, all NHA officials should be tested as well.

because they will all fail.......

Reckless wrote: because they will all fail.......

Well I am sure that many would agree with that statement.

My solution would be to grant an amnesty on all actions prior to the implementation of the new rules.

A further advantage of the polygraph would be to assist the stipes. Let's use the Run Rhino Run fiasco as an example. Every jock in that race gets polygraphed and gets asked the following:

1. Did you ride your mount to its merits?
2. Are you aware of any reason why the winner was allowed to get so far ahead and win unchallenged?
3. Have you had, or are you aware of anyone, who has been approached to ride their mounts to enable RRR to win?

Im not a polygrapher but you get the idea.

Even yesterdays winner in race 8 Durbanville.......according to the Computaform....3 races and the comment is "Poor so far"....terrible draw....terrible 400m finishes but yet it sneaks the win......how the feck does it win???

We are all sinners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mac wrote: We are all sinners.


Sure. But why should we condone further sin? Let us help them repent brother! Hallelujah

Yes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reckless wrote: Even yesterdays winner in race 8 Durbanville.......according to the Computaform....3 races and the comment is "Poor so far"....terrible draw....terrible 400m finishes but yet it sneaks the win......how the feck does it win???

One would have to include the horse in an open race :-

Pedigree - Marchfield (CAN) - Quickwood by Fort Wood (USA) - Been racing over 1200 and 1400 now over 1800 much better suited . Mare out of Fortwood

1st run - Ran over 1200 m opened 12/10 so must have been showing something
2nd Run - Another sprint - This tells me that the stable might have thought it was a bit weak was drawn on the wrong side of the course and got beaten by a fairly good horse and needed experience .
Then they gave him a three month rest to strengthen up.
3rd Run - Backed from 20/1 to 14/1 against Love Supreme who I think we will see is a filly above average and very well bred. This was over 1400 m and probably needed the run as Cape horses unable to get a gallop . So this was her gallop.

The fact that G van Niekerk got off the Favorite MARCH AFFAIR after running 2nd on it last time , another positive.
Not saying one could make this a good thing but not such a big surprise if you had a look against the opposition.

My comment in my workings : CHINKAPIN bad draw as well but will like this distance , will improve

Reckless wrote: Even yesterdays winner in race 8 Durbanville.......according to the Computaform....3 races and the comment is "Poor so far"....terrible draw....terrible 400m finishes but yet it sneaks the win......how the feck does it win???

Chinkapin dam, Quickwood, has produced Grade 1 winner Nightingale and well performed Oriental Oak who both appreciate a trip.