RACING
  

Disapponting
I am wondering what spurred Charl Pretorius’ ferocious attack on Ash Maharaj from sahorseracing.com. in last week’s Sporting Post.
The way I read it this letter had some racial overtones, which is disappointing for a man of Pretorius’ standing. As a reader of some of the former publications he worked on, and if I can quote from the Halle Berry movie “”Monsters Ball’’ I am convinced that Pretorius will gladly bear an axe when it comes to “splitting some dark oak’’. Hence my surprise.
Whatever the case may be, I’d like to congratulate Ash Maharaj on a very good and informative site.
I do agree with Pretorius that some of your articles seem a bit one-sided, and I believe that you should always carry out a positive message about SA racing to the world, but the site is generally good.
Keep up the good work Ash, and don’t be deterred by personal attacks like this.
Glen Oberholzer, by email

Unscrutinized
If Mr De Kock’s version of events is to be believed (as published on his website and in the Sporting Post), then the blame for the fiasco lies squarely at the door of the stipes. It appears that they are the ones that refused to use common sense and rectify a simple oversight and thereby cost punters (including myself) their money and more sadly a world class trainer and equine ambassador of this country a knock on his reputation and integrity.
Some punters and irresponsible journalists with axes to grind failed to establish the facts before jumping to conclusions and posting accusations which hurt the industry. Shame on you! Lets Scrutinize the facts before we pack our bags and embark on fantasy flights to our Fools Paradises.
Jonathan Harris, by email


Time to Change The Tote Rules
On Friday 5th May, the 1st race of the PA at Fairview had 15 runners. Of the 15, 9 were 1st timers.
The result of the race was that the first 3 positions were occupied by runners who never raced before and over 400,000 PA tickets fell out the first leg. This is totally unaceptable and the TAB rules should be changed so that first timers are not included in the PA results.
Racing connections, who know about the fitness of their unraced horses, have a distinct advantage over the general public in cases like this, where there is no form available to study. In other industries in is a criminal offence to use this information as it is regarded as ‘insider trading’.
The TAB must change their rules like they have for the pick6 and Jackpot so that insiders are not rewarded for knowledge that is only known to them.
John Sweet, by email

Pick 6 & PA Rip-offs
This is a rip-off and daylight robbery that the same rule can't apply for both Pick 6 and PA. This is really ridiculous.
I feel this matter needs serious revision. Look at what happened at Scottsville last Wednesday (16 Aug).
Race 1 started the fiasco which ended in the PA paying over R20,000.
In the other exotic bets (Jackpot and Pick-Six) first timers are ignored, if they win, then the second horse also counts. If they come 1st and 2nd, then the 3rd horse qualifies as a winner etc. This is because they are trying to eliminate insider trading from those with unpublished information taking advantage of the public.
Why isn't the same for the PA. Last week in the 1st leg of this exotic, once again 3 first timers filled the first 3 places. So those with inside information got through the 1st leg.
The 2nd leg we saw a 1/4 favorite scratched at the start because Mr de Kock had made a mistake in his declaration that the horse had a tongue tie. Surely he knew this before the race. However, it was scratched and thousands of Rands of the public’s money went down the drain as the banker of the day did not run.
Out of the door for PA punters as the new favorite also didn't run a place. I wonder if Mr De Kock won the Pick Six and had a nice share in the PA where only 28 tickets survived the meeting.
I’m starting to wonder if playing UK racing isn’t perhaps better than SA’s racing, then one has the advantage of playing the PA and Pick 6 where you're subjected to daylight robbery.
I’ve also come to realize that whenever there'is more than one scratching in a card the favorite doesn’t win the race, never mind run a place, either it runs 4th, if not completely out of the money.
Lucky Mokwena, by email

Punter’s Interests?
A look at Scottsville Race1 result on Wednesday 16 Aug shows the reason why most PA tickets fell away in the 1st leg of the exotic when 1st timers filled the 1st 3 places. How are the majority of punters expected to select horses that have no exposed form whatsoever? Obviously those “in the know” such as owners, trainers, jocks, etc will be priviledged in this aspect! If any or all of these priviledged individuals played the PA - and I am sure they did otherwise their ability to spot an opportunity to cash in on big dividends must be questionable - then this must surely amount to insider trading?
Isn't high time that the rule pertaining to 1st timers in the Jackpot and Pick6 be extended to the PA to give the majority of punters a better chance of winning and continuing to support horse racing? It disgusts and infuriates me as an ordinary small punter to know that the authorities in this industry continue to stack the odds (pardon the pun) against the majority of us!
Nad Naidoo, by email

Unfair Authorities
It's a shame that the racing authorities proclaim that the PA is an exotic bet, only to turn around and not apply the same rules as in the Jackpot and Pick6. I am referring to last Wednesday’s PA result at Scottsville. First timers are running all of us out of the pool, leaving the “inside information fatcats” with only 28 tickets going through.Surely the time has come to force these authorities to apply the same rules to all the exotic bets. We live in a democratic country where majority rules, so how about launching a link on your website where the racing public can vote on this matter, and let our voices be heard?
Joe Martin, by email

Racing Does Not Favour Punters Interests
I've been following the horse racing game for some time now and to me, the manner in which the rules apply, is not in the favour of the punter.
My first issue is raised from Sundays Scottsville meeting.
A short priced favorite in the last race was carded to be ridden by Anton Marcus. After a few races, it was mentioned that Anton Marcus had been stood down for the day because he had the flu. My question is: How can a jockey even consider riding when he has any symptoms of an illness?
Many punters had bankered this horse in their Pick6 because of its price. When the jockey change was announced this horse drifted in the betting. With all due respect, the replacement jockey was not even of the same calibre as jockey Marcus.
Why could Gold Circle not refund the punters their money?
A similar situation occured last Wednesday at the Scottville meeting. The short price favourite in the 2nd race was scratched minutes before the off. Again, a majority of punter who had bankered the horse, lost their money because the so called “tote favourite”, who was not of the same calibre as the original favourite, did not arrive.
Why could Gold Circle not refund the punters their money?
Also, why is the unraced horse rule only applicable to the Pick6 & Jackpot races. Why not the PA? The punter has no idea of the horses potential before the race and should therefore be given the benefit, whether its a Pick6, Jackpot or PA.
The reasons are quite simple. Gold Circle seems to be only interested in their bottom line profit and has no interest in the punters need. Every bet wagered on the tote generates a profit, and refunded bets won't. Hence the rules are in place to maximise profits.
JS Naicker, by email

Scrutinize
I'd like to take this opportunity in asking the Sporting Post to look into the incident that took place in the 2nd race on 16 Aug at Scottsville regarding the scratching of Scrutinize. I have sent an email to Mike De Kock to express my dissatisfaction with what transpired with his horse and the Racing stewards.
I have attached Mike’s response from his website and find that there are major contradictions between his statement and Harold Taylor’s statement (chief stipendary). In essence, the biggest losers were the betting public. I lost my Pick6 as a result of this. I would like to know who is going to reimburse those punters who lost their money as a result of this sad incident.
Please assist the betting public by vigorously following up on this matter.
Duncan King, by email

Mike de Kock's response on www.mikedekockracing.com
The Scratching of Scrutinize
The scratching of Scrutinize on Wednesday has evoked comment from various quarters and has seen the publication of articles on sites such as sahorseracing.com, without reference to the facts surrounding the scratching.
In brief, here are the facts, as per Mike de Kock:
Only 28 punters shared in the bumper R20.517 PA at Scottsville on Wednesday, 16 Aug, but there must be at least 28.000 disgruntled betters who missed the PA by 1 leg after I had no choice other than to scratch our ready-made banker, Scrutinize, from Race 2.
I'm upset about the circumstances which led to my scratching of Scrutinize and will explain what happened:
Scrutinize is a horse that keeps getting his tongue over the bit. On his debut I tied his tongue down and he finished a creditable 3rd, beaten less than a length. To the best of my knowledge I declared Scrutinize to have his tongue tied down again for his 2nd run, due for Wednesday.
The official racecard, however, didn't reflect this declaration of equipment. In effect, that'd mean that the officials at Racing Services were not notified of the tongue tie and that the race programme was therefore printed without this declaration.
I admit to not having checked the race card before the race, but in the case of Scrutinize this was such an obvious declaration that I didn’t deem it necessary anyway. As noted, I do recall declaring the tongue tie at final acceptance stage.
The stipendiary stewards of KZN, whilst admitting a day before the race that “it was strange to see Scrutinize declared without a tongue tie’’, failed to point this out to me before 8:30 on Wednesday, when final racecard changes have to be noted and declared for public knowledge.
Come race time, the stipes refused permission for my assistant to tie Scrutinize’s tongue down. Knowing that the horse had a realistic chance of choking up and running poorly, I felt that it was in the best interest of the public and indeed Scrutinize’s owner to scratch the horse. This would also give the betting public a chance to change their remaining exotic bets.
I asked the stipes to make a public announcement on my behalf, explaining my belief that Scrutinize would not deliver his best without a tongue-tie. This request was refused.
The crux of the matter is this: I declared a tongue-tie at final acceptances. The tongue-tie didn't reflect in the racecard. Should the stipes not have given me, and by implication the punters, the benefit of the doubt, thereby allowing the horse to run with a tongue-tie? If I was proven wrong, a fine could have been imposed, but Chief Stipe Harold Taylor took a small-minded decision in not allowing the horse to run with a tongue-tie, thereby denying the majority a winning chance.
As punters may or may not know, conversations between trainers and officials at Racing Services are recorded in order to resolve issues like these that may arise from time-to-time. In other words, whatever I or my assistants telephonically declare to the officials at Racing Services can be scrutinized afterwards. Pardon the pun.
The end result: I asked the stipes to investigate the matter, to play back the recordings and to confirm that my declaration was done. Amazingly, I was told today that due to a fault in their system that recording couldn't be traced!
It is the ignorant actions of the KZN stipendiary board, and not mine, that cost punters their money on Wednesday. This is the ilk of decision made by the stipes in the Garden Province.

Ill-researched
I was quite amused at what sahorseracing.com had to say about Mike de Kock’s scratching of the odds-on favourite Scrutinize from Race 2 at Scottsville last week, when compared with De Kock’s explanation of events on his own website.
I no longer speak on De Kock’s behalf and in fact have no imminent desire to jump to his defence, but sahorseracing.com’s ill-researched drivel brought to my mind several incidents that occurred while I was editor of mikedekockracing.com.
Sahorseracing.com editor Ash Maharaj – a man with no known journalistic credentials - believes he's the paintbrush on the canvas of SA racing. He presents his site as the mouthpiece of the industry when it's worth no more than a wet wipe in a strip club cubicle.
This unscrupulous, would-be critic, during a visit to Dubai in '05, barged his way into a conversation between De Kock and an international journalist and was reprimanded.
Some time later, writing from Hong Kong, and as a result of his being brushed off due to his bad manners, Maharaj cunningly suggested that De Kock had dubious skills in his dealings with the press.
In November last year Maharaj lifted an exclusive feature article straight from mikedekockracing.com’s home page and lied outright when he claimed that I had mailed it to him.
In my view, sahorseracing.com is the pig’s breakfast of racing websites. Its rancid pong wafts around the world with the nostril-penetrating power of a mutton vindaloo gone bad.
I prefer to side with the facts about last week’s incident as presented by De Kock and wonder in amazement how any advertisers can support the circus that is sahorseracing.com.
Charl Pretorius, by email