Quote Originally Posted by alphastud View Post
Wayne, we're required to send vet certs into authorities if we scratch a horse (without a vet cert) if we're scratching it due to illness. It appears then to be inconsistent if the same level of evidence isn't required for a post race performance review. (if this is the case? - I wasn't sure if it's standard procedure)

If we carried your logic forward then the authorities should be happy for us to scratch a horse provided that we can substantiate that it is sick if a vet were to assess it. Some participants would be ok with this as, after all, the trainer has noticed that the horse isn't healthy in the first instance. Most times, the vet is just validating the fact for the benefit of authorities and participants.


G'day Richard, My original supposition would you risk submitting something that couldn't be substantiated? Submit meaning convey, communicate, which might be a phone conversation with the stewards, in this case, the morning/days after the race.
You could have pathology results sent to you and your vet and as timing would have it, the stewards speak to you before your vet has confirmed the results...the vet may be attending an emergency. Or the stewards require the results to be looked over and confirmed by the authority's vet.

Does there appear to be an inconsistency from what has transpired?

As for my "logic", re pre race scratching’s, you've taken quite a liberty there. I'm imagining you're thinking the cost of a vet validating might be unnecessary at times? No doubt about it but not everyone's on the up and up unfortunately.

And I think validation is required for the punters more so than authorities and participants.