- This topic has 78 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Where will it all end?
No:
"My horse lost. I want my money back!"
- Total Posts 17716
This is the problem with changing the rule – where do you draw the line?
Right across the front of the stalls, or up to the tape in NH races.
If you’re not in, you can’t win, and neither should you be able to lose.I was on Sariska and didn’t expect a refund, horse was at fault, nobody else. I was more disapointed that Profound Beauty wasn’t in the race.
I’d have been far more annoyed if I’d been on The Silver Crown at Roscommon the other night, starter let the field away when the jockey wasn’t even sat on the horse properly, he didn’t have his feet in the irons and the stall handler was still in the stall with the horse. Gary Carroll was blameless yet RP state…
"Upset in stalls, unseated rider when gates opened", that doesn’t tell a fraction of the story, watch the start for yourselves, 16th August 6:50 – Irish Stallion Farms European Breeders Fund Fillies Handicap it makes the start of the worst of Irish Bumpers look positively professional.It was significant that Matt Doyle of Skybet was absolutely adamant when interviewed this afternoon that the Rule was 100% transparent and right, and that (in general) punters should not be "bleating" (that was the word he used) when this kind of rare incident occurs.
A rule explicitly stating that if a horse enters the stalls and does not come out with the rest of the field then the punter will be refunded his or her stake is
equally
transparent, Pinza. And the day I’m lectured to about betting by a minor bookmaker’s paid PR representative will be a sad day indeed.
That surely ought to be the end of the matter. The vox pop "vote" on the RP website is about as illuminating as asking turkeys whether they would like to ban Christmas.
I’m not really bothered about gamblers, Pinza. They aren’t who I’m talking about here. We can look after ourselves and quite right too. Its about the next generation and we’re not very good at converting them, it seems, at least when it comes to betting. A change in the current anachronistic rule might help.
You can’t have a rule that states if a horse doesn’t come out of the stalls it will be a non-runner.
You will create all types of rule related issues. How long should a jockey try for to get a horse to leave the stalls? And many more issues will arise, I’m sure.
For example, I hate the inconsistent rules relating to Tennis retirements. The rules on Betfair are ridiculous, but they are able to choose their own rules so if you don’t like it, you don’t have to bet with them.
- Total Posts 17716
You can’t have a rule that states if a horse doesn’t come out of the stalls it will be a non-runner.
You will create all types of rule related issues. How long should a jockey try for to get a horse to leave the stalls? And many more issues will arise, I’m sure.
Seems to work just fine for the finishing line?
I think we’ve reached the point in the thread where we roll out
the question
The Question
that has never satisfactorily been answered.
Answer this question and you’ll realise what British Racing is all about.
Here it is:
Why, if Sariska was deemed a non-runner, would each-way punters have been subject to losing a place
AND
a rule 4 of 30p on their place bet? In what way has their chance of getting placed increased, when they now have to finish first two of seven rather than first three of eight? Bookies are already compensating for a horse that’s paying 65-70% of the place book by reaclaiming 100% of that place book. Why is a 30p Rule 4 taken on top?
Shouldn’t bookies that adopt this practice be forced to fly a PYRITE FLAG (maybe they could use the skull and crossbones, so we don’t get caught up in any Shergar Cup type confusion with those flying flags genuine gold coloured flags). Answers on a postcard to Nick Attenborough at Racing For Change.
If anyone wants an example of how punters don’t actually exist in The Rabble’s eyes, except when it comes to extorting pension pot money, they need look no further than Paul Struthers’ response:
"We’d consider reviewing [the rule]
only if
Racing For Change or The Horsemen’s Group approached us"
Here we have a rule that only concerns betting on the event. We’re not talking about whether the jockey could claim his riding fee or whether the horse would have to pass stalls test. We are talking only about the betting. The views of the bettors themselves, however, don’t count (unless you were an insider betting). Only those of the bookies and connections.
Once again, the bettors themselves are treated like something unpleasant The Pauls have trod in.
A truly shocking statement, what do these two groups know about betting?
The Horseman’s Group were responsible a few years ago for suggesting reserves on the day for a number of races at Royal Ascot based on the the races not being affected by ante-post betting, therefore races such as The Hunt Cup weren’t included, the BHA duly carried this idea through, neither knew or bothered to find out ante-post betting is irrelevant to reserves on the day before carrying out their failed experiment.- Total Posts 17716
The horse has never shown anything like that before for it to be a doubt!!
Sariska might not have but her sister Gull Wing sure did. Family traits are a big part of horse racing. Gull Wing was never seen again after refusing to race and we may well have seen the end of Sariska too.
I think Max has drawn a line in the quicksand and will argue his point even as the last grains cover the top of his head.
There will never be a justification for refunding backers of a horse that refuses to race. Wanting a refund so adamantly simply cries of a desire for everything in life to be perfect. Horses are beasts of nature and we all know life on this planet will never be perfect. Those who want a refund are in pursuit of the futile IMO. Get over the event and move on. If a novice to the sport doesn’t accept the facts of nature then they probably have no place on a racecouse anyway.
I backed Sariska so felt gutted. I also backed John Oxx’s filly half an hour later so felt pretty annoyed.
I certainly think over the jumps if your horse refuses to race when the tapes go up, and it is clear the animal took no part then there should be a withdrawal.
With stalls entry some people argue that if a horse plants itself (as with Sariska) or rears and loses 20 lengths (as with the Oxx filly) then there is no differnce and nobody is asking for refunds on the Oxx horse.
I think this is churlish. To me if a horse plants itself and has shown no obvious signs of having a tendency to do so before then surely in the interest of fairness ther WD sign should come up and a R4 applied. Do the backers of Midday think that she has proven anything? Obviously not, as without Sariska Midday’s chance was clearly improved considerably.
I know Big Mac may go over the top but he has a point – it is about racing, and if your horse does not race then you are not given a fair chance in terms of betting. Putting it another way, would you prefer if they moved the goalposts further back and said anyhorse that makes an attempt to enter the stalls comes under starters orders? Obviously that is an absurd thought but is it that far removed from the current rule which does leave a bitter taste.
Talking of bitter tastes I understands rumours are abounding that Sariska had recently become very difficuly to handle at home and was refusing to go about her normal routine without considerable persuasion. If this is true we have a far more serious issue as the filly took a bit of a walk in the market before the off which seemed quite inexplicable given her proven superiority over main rival Midday. Why did connections not advise the public about this before the race so at least punters could make up their own mind.
As an earlier poster said a lot of punters on track may be once a year or at least very infrequent punters – to learn that connections knew the filly was playing up at home and that this info remained a secret at a time when her price drifted could easily put newbies off the game before they have hardly started.
I do think this is another example of a proper issue which the RFC people migh want to consider rather than whether moving the Champion Stakes to a slot which ensures it is in direct competition with races like the Arc, L’Opera, Dollar and Rond-Point is wise or not.
The horse has never shown anything like that before for it to be a doubt!!
Sariska might not have but her sister Gull Wing sure did. Family traits are a big part of horse racing. Gull Wing was never seen again after refusing to race and we may well have seen the end of Sariska too.
I don’t think punters should have got a refund but I don’t think there is much mileage in your theory. Is this something you knew about when Sariska first stepped on a racecourse – if not why not because you seem to be making an assumption that it is something every punter should have known about – or are we talking about a little after timimg. For this to be of significance you would need to produce some statistical information regarding dams who produce more than one offspring who refuse to race. Incidently, Gull Wing was by In The Wings and Sariska by Pivotal.
You cannot evaluate whats going on between a horses ears……Impossible.
If you’re a professional punter, it is your business to factor this in.
Why, for example, has Goldikova been allowed to start at such lenient odds in many of her races this year? Her mental attitude is something the odds take into account. Spanish Moon has been another obvious case in point.
In the case of Sariska, it wouldn’t have taken much research to read about the way she cow kicked her trainer a couple of months ago (not something a happy horse is going to do); and if you had listened carefully to what Michael Bell said before the race, he indicated that mentally as well as physically she wasn’t quite at her peak – he even expressed the feeling that today was very likely to be Midday’s strike against her, and in the light of this and other statements he made ("she’d prefer it softer") I for one was surprised Sariska was favoured against her rival in the betting. This was plainly her "prep" day.
Or do you feel that those punters who put the research in should not "get an edge"?
Absolutely a possible prep day of that there isnt a doubt because of a longish layoff prior to the race (well the longest of the ones that run anyway). Sure punters who put the research in deserve an edge thats what the game is about but id defy anyone who could tell me they knew what was going on between a horses ears. That is simply laughable unless of course the horse was Mister Ed and you could have a discussion with it!!!
- Total Posts 17716
The attitude’s also in her breeding. Do you remember what happened to her Group-class half sister Gull Wing in what proved to be her last race, in the Park Hill at Doncaster? Wouldn’t leave the stalls.
Lots of data out there, if only people had added two and two together. Of course there were plenty of plus points about her too. But altogether, it would not be a surprise if we don’t see Sariska again, which would be a great shame – but completely understandable.
So: temperament is
certainly
often factored in to the odds, and I’d say it was so on this occasion too: the cow kick was certainly in the public arena, as was Bell’s doubt about her mental readiness for the race.
No refund deserved here, at all. And no shred of justification for "looking at" a clear rule which works well. The BHA have no intention of changing it. Quite right too. End of story.
So: temperament is certainly often factored in to the odds, and I’d say it was so on this occasion too: the cow kick was certainly in the public arena, as was Bell’s doubt about her mental readiness for the race.
So what price would Sariska have been otherwise? Evens, 1-10, 6-4, 7/4 or 3.1 on Betfair instead of around 3.3?
If anyone knows anyone who layed Sariska because she might refuse to race: please tell them they were lucky. Lucky Sariska did it 5 starts too soon judged on Gull Wing’s effort.
The rule is definitely correct, though.
…the rule may be correct, it may be absolutely practical, but it gives a shocking impression.
- Total Posts 17716
So: temperament is certainly often factored in to the odds, and I’d say it was so on this occasion too: the cow kick was certainly in the public arena, as was Bell’s doubt about her mental readiness for the race.
So what price would Sariska have been otherwise? Evens, 1-10, 6-4, 7/4 or 3.1 on Betfair instead of around 3.3?
If anyone knows anyone who layed Sariska because she might refuse to race: please tell them they were lucky. Lucky Sariska did it 5 starts too soon judged on Gull Wing’s effort.
The rule is definitely correct, though.
Jose,
I was about to quote the exact same paragraph from Pinza with the exact same reply but thought better of it.
Skybet go 5-4 both Midday and Sariska for Prix de L Opera I think! Lydia Hislop interviewd Matt Doyle and rightly questioned whether the "temprement issue" was factored in.
I dont believe anyone in the world would have said Sariska was going to RR, it’s an absolute joke to even consider that thought.
I’ll have no hesitation in backing Sariska next time out, she shouldn’t be retired its a ludacris thought.
Punters should get there money back if bookmakers want to keep/steal competitors customers, it was such a high profile horse that it would be wrong not to give a refund due to the obscene odds of her doing such a thing.
It is in the very nature of the sport that sometimes your bets will run appallingly and give you litte, if any, entertainment for your money. Your horse might get pulled up, fall at the first fence, miss the break by a furlong or yes – plant themselves in the stalls….
If any potential new fan to the sport can’t deal with this sort of disappointment, they are never going to follow the sport anyway so I think Joe Newcomer is getting far too much airtime in this debate.
There is absolutely no justification for changing a totally fair and logical rule.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.