San Rafaella

[mightymo]

I just did a quick calculation and I think her first win on May 11 is within 120 days

[eliteblood]

Who is the mare in foal to and where was she served ?

[mightymo]

according to HRNZ site, she was last served by mcArdle on 19 Jan 2012

[Triple V]

But to quote yourself Jamie....the rules is the rules is the rules, you'd remember that surely mate?

having said that, this may be one of those rules where administrators need to get their heads out of their collective arses ?? and I'm certain you remember that as well.

now that we've established that you Jamie are allowed to adopt any stance that suits you depending on who knows what ??? maybe we can have a guessing competition around what that criteria might be ....things that make you Hmmmmm.....

[VVV] Instead of using quotes out of context and immediately saluting any old flag that gets run up the flag pole, any chance that you could explain the rule for me Danno?
What is the physiological case for it?
Why does it exist?
What is the basis for its application in this and any other such instance?
Why is there a mandatory 120 days in place...when, for example, the average pregnancy is some 345 days give or take?
What advantage, if any, is the Trainer of a mare pregnant beyond 120 days expecting?
If there is no actual or peceived advantage to be had then why the rule?
Inquiring minds would sure like to know.

[Triple V]

according to HRNZ site, she was last served by mcArdle on 19 Jan 2012

[VVV] Geeze, poor bugger.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Interesting the way the rules in both codes are worded,

Harness

Pregnant Mares

103B. A mare or filly shall not race or perform track work after day 120 of its pregnancy.

Gallops

AR 64E. (1) No mare or filly shall race or take part in any official trial, jump-out or
trackwork after day 120 of its pregnancy.
(2) A trainer shall notify the Stewards in writing as soon as practicable –
(a) the pregnancy of any mare or filly in his charge; and
(b) the date of last service of such mare or filly

Interesting in that neither rule say the mare will not be eligible to race, which is the wording in many other rules.

[aussiebreno]

Interesting the way the rules in both codes are worded,

Harness

Pregnant Mares

103B. A mare or filly shall not race or perform track work after day 120 of its pregnancy.

Gallops

AR 64E. (1) No mare or filly shall race or take part in any official trial, jump-out or
trackwork after day 120 of its pregnancy.
(2) A trainer shall notify the Stewards in writing as soon as practicable –
(a) the pregnancy of any mare or filly in his charge; and
(b) the date of last service of such mare or filly

Interesting in that neither rule say the mare will not be eligible to race, which is the wording in many other rules.

Did I read something different to you?

[Danno]

[VVV] Instead of using quotes out of context and immediately saluting any old flag that gets run up the flag pole, any chance that you could explain the rule for me Danno?
What is the physiological case for it?
Why does it exist?
What is the basis for its application in this and any other such instance?
Why is there a mandatory 120 days in place...when, for example, the average pregnancy is some 345 days give or take?
What advantage, if any, is the Trainer of a mare pregnant beyond 120 days expecting?
If there is no actual or peceived advantage to be had then why the rule?
Inquiring minds would sure like to know.

I would have thought it would be obvious to all why the rule exists, why do we have whip rules Jamie?? The implementation of our whip rules were not driven by punters seeking fair racing, so what other external force may have been in play?

[Thevoiceofreason]

Brendon

The point I am making is this type of rule will normally say the horse is not eligible to compete, these rules do not use that terminology, I have to be honest I am not sure of the history of why these rules were introduced in the first place, if it is to protest the foal then there is no reason to disqualify the horse, if it is because it is deemed a pregnant mare gets an advantage then that may be a different story.

[dizzy]

Not sure I follow either Bill, Both seem pretty clear that a pregnant mare should not be at the races post 120 days conception, though the Tb's seem to give themselves a better chance of policing it. If it is to protect the foal then it failed in San Rafaella's foal case and surely some one (not necessarily the trainer) is at fault if the pregnancy was not the result of an unplanned/unknown mating? Many trainers will tell you that a mare often blossums after they conceive and they can improve their form as a result. Don't know if there is a cut of point physiologically to this effect and of course there is no restriction on racing a "blooming" mare to 120 days post conception.