In most jurisdictions, the rules state that if the horse refuses through his or her own actions, the horse is a starter. The only way the horse is a non-starter is if there was interference from the starting attendant, or if there was some sort of gate malfunction.
Because this was a steeplechase race, there was neither a starting gate nor a starting attendant, therefore, any problems a horse had at the start was the horse's own responsibility. The 5 (not the 9) had every opportunity to break cleanly, but didn't. As such, the horse should not be declared a non-starter. He created his own problem.
If you're going to stop betting Monmouth because of one errant horse in a steeplechase race, that would be a bit of an overreaction.
__________________
I'm on twitter: @theyreoff
|