- This topic has 78 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
…the rule may be correct, it may be absolutely practical, but it gives a shocking impression.
Go down the route of "shocking impressions" and you end up with no betting at all. I imagine that most members of the public find it "shocking" that young people and newcomers are being actively encouraged to bet at all!
So… "shocking impression" to whom, precisely?
..those enjoying a rare trip to an upmarket summer flat meeting. Unlikely to be those who inhabit racing forums.
I tend to side with Joe or Janet Newcomer where betting is concerned, the kind of people likely to be unimpressed by, have zero interest in, or any knowledge of, betting percentages, overrounds, rule 4’s etc.
All they want is their money back for what must seem another horse racing racket, a rip off, along with so much else customer unfriendly about racing today.It’s no wonder they need Westlife to draw the crowds in.
If a Formula One car stalls on the grid should punters get their money back?
Declaring Sariska a NR would have upset those who backed Midday (win & each-way) as well as those who backed Snow Fairy and Eleanor Duse each-way, especially the latter.
The errors of referees and linesmen at the recent World Cup are hardly going to put people off betting on football so I don’t see how the antics of Sariska would put anyone off betting on horses.
For every disappointed Sariska backer there is a happy Midday backer so maybe those people will stay in the sport instead of the whinging Sariska backers
- Total Posts 17716
Isn’t a Formula One car a piece of metal that is tested solid for three days and if it stalls then surely its the drivers fault?
A horse is not robotic, it’s not metal and you can make as many comaprisons as you like but none will make sense because a horse is an animal and we’ll never really truely understand what they’re thinking and feeling.
Isn’t a linesman error a linesman error, not the players or fans fault so don’t see where you’re going with that, are you saying Spencer is to blame? ridiculous.
Piece of metal, man with a flag and a horse? hmm
Mr Wilson – are you telling me that Formula One cars don’t develop mechanical problems? Also, a linesman’s error is an error of a particpant in the sport, just as a horse refusing to race or a jockey misjudging a fence is an error by a particpant in horse racing.
Every sport has a human/animal element in it which is what makes sport, and betting on it, great.
The rule is fine and is easily understood. We should not be tampering with the rules just to try to encourage new people to stay in the sport because they got a fiver back on a sunny Saturday in York.
The newcomer to racing backing Sariska argument is a red herring put up by the real whingers over that and similar incidents.
Still waiting to hear why the start shouldn’t be considered part of the race.Just a pity the BHA couldn’t show a bit of leadership of the sport for once rather than the wishy washy statement produced by Paul Struthers.
I can understand that the start is part of the race and the views put up by the non refund posters are valid ones indeed. Ive been brought up in the gambling world with the adage "If you cant win then you cant lose" and if a horse/car/runner/anything doesnt participate in a race its sposed to then you cannot possibly win. Different if of course the Horse/Car/runner/anything starts then stops. The statements about knowing the horses mind are laughable in the extreme though.
david brady, eddie case, 100% correct. it aint newcomers that whinge,.they accept the rules,
its half dozen perpetual moaners egging on some gullible media representatives who think they are the voice of racing
I don’t think any newcomers to the sport would have expected their money back. They may have moaned but would just have put it down to bad luck.
On the other hand if they had backed Midday and had a Rule 4 deduction taken off their winnings then they would have probably felt ripped off.
Where do you draw the line? Gerard Butler’s filly Patchattack ran in the Beverly D Stakes in Chicago on Saturday. However she and Kieren Fallon were left more than 10 lengths when she didn’t initially come out of the gates. Kieren managed to get her going and had latched onto the end of the pack after 3 furlongs but obviously never had a chance to win. If Sariska had got going under similar circumstances what would people have said then?
I don’t think any newcomers to the sport would have expected their money back. They may have moaned but would just have put it down to bad luck.
On the other hand if they had backed Midday and had a Rule 4 deduction taken off their winnings then they would have probably felt ripped off.
Where do you draw the line? Gerard Butler’s filly Patchattack ran in the Beverly D Stakes in Chicago on Saturday. However she and Kieren Fallon were left more than 10 lengths when she didn’t initially come out of the gates. Kieren managed to get her going and had latched onto the end of the pack after 3 furlongs but obviously never had a chance to win. If Sariska had got going under similar circumstances what would people have said then?
Id have said the horse started!!
This Invite Friends thing is a pain in the ass!!
The general consensus here seems to be one of ”this is racing, tough, and if you don’t like it you can p*ss off”…
it’s unethical and joins the long list of other questionable elements to the sport which have a habit of making good people bad, and bad people worse.
..amendment long overdue.
The start from the stalls forms part of the race, whether we like it or not.
A line has to be drawn somewhere as to when a horse is considered to have raced. At the moment, that line is the back of the stalls. If we were to move the line to the front of the stalls then you get situations where a horse misses the break and ends up 20 yards behind the rest of the field and only 6-7f to make up that 20 yards.
I appreciate that it is akin to saying "tough this is racing" but every sport has its injustices and still manages to keep its followers
I wouldn’t consider it unethical though
UM,
You seem to be confusing racing and gambling. Yes, the current rule on what’s a runner and what’s not is administered by racing officials, but it only exists to keep the betting interests happy. From the point of view of the race, it’s all irrelevant, whether a horse starts or doesn’t.
So the rough deal that this mythical hypersensitive newcomer is getting is better described as ‘that’s gambling, tough’.
And whatever way you look at it, gambling is a rough business, regardless of the sport or activity involved. Winners can only win what others lose, no handouts, no charity, no benefit payments, no refunds. Get used to it!
AP
Interesting thread. I still think in Sarisk’as case it is right to consider a rule change. Perhaps though it is of equal merit to consider a rule whereby if having done this once the connections run her again then you "takes yer chance" – and presumably the price reflects the increased risk of the horse not starting.
I still cannot but this comparison with a horse not taking a single stride with one who "falls out of the stalls".
If in the 100m Olympic Final Usain Bolt had a sudden loss of hearing and did not hear the starters pistol and froz whilst the others ran off, nobody would really argue (would they) that he was "off" and so the race record should show Bolt has having run in that final (even though he did not).
As Ugly Mare says we all recognise the rule is there but what is wrong with changing a rule if it appears to be at fault.
When a horse actually starts a race but so slowly as to apparently lose a winning chance, then they still compete, and in the case of a jumps race for instance, all the horses may fall in front of him and he ends up winning. Even in a flat race say all the other riders take the wrong course and the slow starter sees this and takes the correct one albeit 30 lenghts adrift, he wins if he completes.
However where a horse fails to take a single competetive forward step in a race surely it is not that difficult to change the rules to say that one is a non-runner?
I again stress I am open to accusations of pocket talk here, but I did admit that I backed the Oxx filly after Sariska and would expect no compensation for that.
Its a debate that has raged in racing for years, like the whip and various other emotive issues so I dont imagine it will be solved in the near future!
UM,
…
And whatever way you look at it, gambling is a rough business, regardless of the sport or activity involved. Winners can only win what others lose, no handouts, no charity, no benefit payments, no refunds. Get used to it!AP
..no, that’s not something I would ever want to get used to and so far I’ve managed to hold out pretty well I think, having had no more than 50 bets since 1961.
Dorothy Pagett can rest in peace….I have to acknowledge and respect those who bet most heavily for their contributions in keeping the sport going so us parasites can enjoy it more at our leisure, but I’m quite proud of the fact that I seem to be one of the few who can stick with the racing element only and need no further enhancements to enjoy my day.
Also, the hypersensitive newcomer isn’t entirely mythical here as one of my neighbours returned home from his first visit to York that day. He’s a Yorkshireman too and a Freemason, which means different things to different people but he’s a great charity giver and believes in fairness and saw this as inherently unfair and I got quite an earful.
I doubt racing will miss his further association but I hope that in the not too distant future, some change might be made here although I accept it wouldn’t be top of anyone’s agenda.
Thank you for replying to me directly and for pointing out my shortcomings.
- Total Posts 17716
There is absolutely no justification for changing a totally fair and logical rule.
In whose eyes???
Is it ‘fair and logical’ when the same rule is applied to a hurdler than never gets within 30 yards of the start, or a chaser whips round as the tape goes up, and neither ever crosses the starting line? Wouldn’t it be far more ‘fair and logical’ to say that any horse not crossing the start line never started – the exact same ‘fairness and logic’ that is already applied to the winning line?
Let’s not forget that the above ‘rule’ was applied much more sensibly and equivicollay before R4 deductions had a direct effect on racing’s income (probably a sizeable one in Sariska’s case)Einstein wrote
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods
- Total Posts 17716
There is absolutely no justification for changing a totally fair and logical rule.
In whose eyes???
Is it ‘fair and logical’ when the same rule is applied to a hurdler than never gets within 30 yards of the start, or a chaser whips round as the tape goes up, and neither ever crosses the starting line? Wouldn’t it be far more ‘fair and logical’ to say that any horse not crossing the start line never started – the exact same ‘fairness and logic’ that is already applied to the winning line?
Let’s not forget that the above ‘rule’ was applied much more sensibly and equivocally before R4 deductions had a direct effect on racing’s income (probably a sizeable one in Sariska’s case)Einstein wrote
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.