bonza 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2011 I saw a horse going to start but needed a plate replaced. The horse wouldn't stand still and was allowed to race with one plate missing. I think she finished last. I think the horse should have been a late scratching. What do others think? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosie one 177 Report post Posted May 22, 2011 I saw a horse going to start but needed a plate replaced. The horse wouldn't stand still and was allowed to race with one plate missing. I think she finished last. I think the horse should have been a late scratching. What do others think? There no way it should have started, not safe to gallop a horse with a shoe missing. Simple as that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate 0 Report post Posted May 23, 2011 We had a horse many years back now that wouldn't go into the stalls for his maiden trial - threw a shoe on the way to the start so shoe got removed at the start - raced in the catchweight and won well out of his grade with only three shoes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chameleon 3 Report post Posted May 23, 2011 Clearly in an ideal world all horses would start and finish their races with four plates intact but often a horses throws a plate on the journey and to my knowledge no one has suggested that they should be deemed late scratchings. Some horses win or still run well with missing plates (occasionally more than one plate too), while others don't. How can we be sure that the missing plate(s) significantly hinders any horse's performance sufficiently to late scratch it? If we agree to late scratch a horse at the barrier because it only has three plates does it necessarily follow that we should do the same if it happens during the race? Food for thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph 5 Report post Posted May 23, 2011 replated. its not fair on the punter nor the horse to race without all plates, especially when the tracks are hard. The majority of TBs would be somewhat footsore on a bare foot, It seems a very odd thing to me that they allow horses to run on 3 shoes as most wouldnot be able to run to the best of their ability and because its such a last minute thing as a punter, you must feel very shortchanged to hear your horse is running on 3 shoes and there is nothing you can do about it to change your ticket. As a trainer I would rather my horse didnt run either to save on long lasting effects to the foot. To lose a plate during running is just bad luck and often an excuse for the horse to not run up to par, why it is ok to run a horse intentionally is just beyond me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis 0 Report post Posted May 23, 2011 So what should happen is that punter's should be informed that the horse is racing with a plate missing, understanding that this usually happens shortly before the race is due to start. However under the current NZTAB rules anyone who had already bet on the horse would not be able to cancel there bet, which is totally unfair, but something which the NZTAB refuses to budge on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog 0 Report post Posted May 23, 2011 A horse would not pass a plating inspection with 3 shoes, so how can be passed fit to run at the barriers? Seems a glaring contradiction. IMO should be scratched. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
