November 6, 2011 at 10:18 #376370witParticipant
- Total Posts 2165
….but nothing about the starter being punished for starting a race with half the field off the track. What a surprise!
Which of us fines our butler for breaking a plate ?
They’re not tradesmen, dammit !November 6, 2011 at 10:38 #376372
For completeness in the above example should point out that the levy impact depends on the SP of the winner due to the maths inaccuracies of the current Rule 4 table which favours punters.
Had for example Quilinton won then amount paid to punters given 10p Rule 4 would have been reduced by (£1,490 x 66 x 10%) = £9,834 so levy loss would have been only (£11,111 – £9,834) = £1,277.
This of course shows how daft it is that the Rule 4 impact differs depending on which horse which the race. Deductions should be based on total returns including stake which would give £10,000 in both cases and levy loss of £1,111.
This is deemed unacceptable as would be more penal than current rules to punters which is just daft IMO. A modern table that moves with overrounds and includes stake with deductions is overdue though the favourite longshot bias disciples will probably argue otherwise.November 6, 2011 at 10:54 #376377davefrombansteadMember
- Total Posts 1
Thanks for views re Golan Way etc
Was Leighton Aspell injured, hence late j/change?
Was Golan Way found to be injured, or anything wrong apparantly with him?
I have more than a passing interest in all this- Golan was my omly ‘loser’ in the Tote Scoop 6- ie would have been only winning ticket (for £238,000 and shot at £700,000 bonus), if Golan won, or withdrawn/non runner (this would have put me on the winning favourite, the Milack)
If he bolts in next time, everyone welcome to my farewell party at Beachey Head!
Dave from BansteadNovember 6, 2011 at 11:02 #376381
Yes Leighton stood down after fall form Baile Anrai earlier in day.November 6, 2011 at 11:50 #376393MaoriVentureMember
- Total Posts 94
think people can accept falling at the first, getting brought down, slipping up on the turn, getting knocked over by a loose horse….. all part of the risks of NH racing.
Not being able to move a single yard past the STARTING line is well beyond the levels of acceptance though and should be deemed by the starter as a non-runner.
The first thought of backers of all other runners is that they have now got a much better bet than they had 50 yards earlier. And this in a 3m 1f chase? How can this be the case if you uphold the rules of "if you can’t win, you can’t lose"?
It was quite clear that this horse wasn’t going to start, and all pre-race backers had their head in their hands before the tapes went up.
No fairness in the current rules at all. Agree with the opening poster. Starter could easily determine a non-runner to the stewards and the crowd by the time the other runners had even reached the first.November 6, 2011 at 12:19 #376404yeatsParticipant
- Total Posts 3159
Starter could easily determine a non-runner to the stewards and the crowd by the time the other runners had even reached the first.
That often doesn’t happen with one withdrawn several minutes before the off, sometimes even the commentator is unaware whether one has been withdrawn until the race has actually started.
Compare that with Ireland, where they always announce late withdrawals immediately over the tannoy even if they have to interrupt Dessie.November 6, 2011 at 13:57 #376433
If it the starters fault fair enough then refunds are reasonable but if it is the horses fault then they are not.
Else can just back the likes of the old Vodkatini blind every time knowing you would get a refund if not start.November 6, 2011 at 14:53 #376442andrew_03Participant
- Total Posts 819
Based on the whip argument, i.e. ‘public perception’, what would happen if this happened to say an AP McCoy ridden Grand National favourite?
How many people would accept that its part of racing when their horse hadn’t raced?November 6, 2011 at 15:20 #376445
and how many who didn’t understand racing would think that the bookmakers had cheated them by not paying them what they expected on their winnings ?November 6, 2011 at 16:00 #376450andrew_03Participant
- Total Posts 819
If some of my friends and relatives, who I go to Wolverhampton with occasionally, are anything to go by, they wouldn’t have a clue what their winnings should be anyway, especially on a placed horse.
Don’t know if that says more about my friends and relatives or just the ‘non betting’ public in general.November 6, 2011 at 16:24 #376455
Certainly a fair point though computerised tickets have changed this a bit.November 6, 2011 at 17:10 #376461MaoriVentureMember
- Total Posts 94
Richard, Vodkatini is a great example of why I think should have a Rule 4 if it doesn’t run and be classed a non-runner.
The market with Vodkatini would be ostensibly created on the assumption that Vodkatini would race, though can accept that maybe a 5% risk (or increased SP) of not starting was factored into its price.
But if this horse is a 4/1 or 5/1 chance, 5% is neither here nor there….. Yet if it refuses to race, there is a disproportionate effect on the "new" market.
Those backing the remaining runners pre-race probably did not do so on the assumption that Vodkatini would not start and were effectively getting a good pice if he refused, they would have been mad to do so.
So they should not mind suffering a Rule 4 if the likes of Vodkatini is declared a non-runnerNovember 6, 2011 at 17:22 #376463
That is a fair point re the market Maori and if the effect of Vodkatini starting or not had an even effect on the rest of the field I would be more inclined to agree.
However the removal of a pace influence (in his case) would mean reduction in tempo penalising one group over another etc, poss uncontested lead now for another and so on hence a linear Rule 4 approach is still not correct.
To sum up here I have no major issue whether rule is introduced or not just fed up with it getting peddled as a major injustice when it is one set of punters subsidising another and adversely affects Levy as consequence.
If that in some way satisfies the outrage of your horse not starting then fine but racing has far bigger injustices than this one.
Hobby horse put back in stable. Cheers.November 6, 2011 at 20:29 #376493GingertipsterParticipant
- Total Posts 29590
and how many who didn’t understand racing would think that the bookmakers had cheated them by not paying them what they expected on their winnings ?
I was at the Hungerford Meeting, queing up to get my winnings. There’d been a late withdrawl as one didn’t go in the stalls. It’s a day with a pop group afterwards. Once a year racegoer in front of me was getting very irate, saying the betting slip was a "contract" and the bookie trying to "do (him) out of some of (his) money". When I stepped in and said a deduction was quite right, I was accused of being "in the pay of bookmakers", and the fact another horse didn’t race is "nothing to do with (his) bet".
Could race commentators warn racegoers Richard? As leaving it to racecourses doesn’t seem to work.Value Is EverythingNovember 6, 2011 at 23:32 #376532
There is meant to be a procedure for NH for us to be told during race if the horse has been deemed a non runner by the starter. Frankly this has the danger of being Chinese Whispers and as yet has not happened to me.
We are only told if it is a non runner to try and avoid the confusion of hearing message whether yes or no clearly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.