- This topic has 78 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
For every newcomer to racing/betting who is incensed by not getting a fair crack of the whip when his horse is left in the stalls, there are going to be many more who can’t understand why a deduction is being taken from their winnings when said horse refuses to race.
With the greatest respect to your friend UM, (and as you say the concept means different things to different people) there are many of us who will find a crumb of humour in the notion of a freemason being up in arms because the average bloke isn’t getting a fair deal.
recent experience of newcomer at windsor.
do I get my money back on favourite that was w/d not under orders?
yes sir heres your £10 refunded.
my other ticket is £10 on winner @ 5/1
yes sir that comes to £45 with 30p rule4
what rule4 my ticket says return £60. you ******* load of ******* crooks, its a disgrace.
- Total Posts 17716
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).
ROFL. For the sake of betting he was not denied a fair start in the above hypothetical and would have been a runner. No questions about it. Was Sariska denied a fair start? Absolutely not. Did she refuse the opportunity given? Yes. I’m sure even a Freemason could work that out.
What a lot of opinionated cant from the posters wishing to preserve the status quo!
1) It would be just as simple, transparent and fair to change the rule to say that if a horse doesn’t leave the stalls, then bets will be refunded.
In my opinion, everyone wins
something
in that circumstance. R4 is a deduction, NOT a total loss. Sariska backers lost the LOT. Midday backers would have lost a LITTLE.
2) For those of you throwing the insult "whinger" around like confetti after a wedding, remember what Gramsci said. "The easiest way to silence opposition is to use humiliation, but there is always one for whom humiliation is ineffective and therefore change will come."
3) The other thing you’re doing is Persistent Repetition. You repeat this little mantra – "Newcomers weren’t all that bothered by losing their stake" – often enough, then people start to believe you.
Well, put it this way. If I’d lost my tenner on Sariska on my first visit to a racecourse I’d have been fingerpointing like a madman at the Men in Trilbies who make the rules.
Anyway, there isn’t any evidence (either way, actually), to say this is the case because racing scarcely samples the opinions of its customers.
Buy a computer on the high street, a mobile phone package, a rack of ribs from Morrisons, a vacuum cleaner, or a tee shirt from racing’s latest prestige sponsors Matalan, and you’ll be stalked by pretty girls with clipboards containing Customer Service Evaluation Forms
Racing? I’ve never been approached. Have you?
Us lot will be arguing for a month and we’re just throwing empty opinions at each other because, really, we don’t know for sure what impact Sariska’s moodiness had on horse racing.
Here’s the smoke and mirrors of the majority in action right before our very eyes, look.
Mrs Mare writes a perfectly reasonable and articulate post challenging the status quo, and two of the forum’s most feared members are belittling everything she says by focusing on one weaker aspect of her post. Tut, tut.
In my last post, I certainly didn’t set out with the intention of ‘highlighting shortcomings’ or ‘belittling’ anyone.
But since it seems that was the effect, I apologise to those I have offended.
I’ll withdraw from this topic and make no further comment.
AP
1) It would be just as simple, transparent and fair to change the rule to say that if a horse doesn’t leave the stalls, then bets will be refunded.
In my opinion, everyone wins something in that circumstance. R4 is a deduction, NOT a total loss. Sariska backers lost the LOT. Midday backers would have lost a LITTLE.
So in a 1m 4f race, Sariska leaves the stalls with 1 furlong to go in the race. What happens? Unlikely, but possible.
1) It would be just as simple, transparent and fair to change the rule to say that if a horse doesn’t leave the stalls, then bets will be refunded.
In my opinion, everyone wins something in that circumstance. R4 is a deduction, NOT a total loss. Sariska backers lost the LOT. Midday backers would have lost a LITTLE.
So in a 1m 4f race, Sariska leaves the stalls with 1 furlong to go in the race. What happens? Unlikely, but possible.
It comes out the front of the stalls its a runner
AP,
…thank you, although there’s no need on my account, I wasn’t offended and I’m sorry if I gave you that impression at all, Alan, so don’t go away for that reason.thanks Max for coming to my defence here…, notwithstanding your own interpretation on this, which far exceeds any effort of mine of course
…
With the greatest respect to your friend UM, (and as you say the concept means different things to different people) there are many of us who will find a crumb of humour in the notion of a freemason being up in arms because the average bloke isn’t getting a fair deal.
..a couple of years ago I would have too Rory, however,
telling me he was a Freemason was rather like meeting a handsome man only to be told he was born a woman….he washes his sheets once every 3 months, has a beer gut and shops in Asda…
he does appear at least as working class as anyone on here, I would suggestWhat a lot of opinionated cant from the posters wishing to preserve the status quo!
1) It would be just as simple, transparent and fair to change the rule to say that if a horse doesn’t leave the stalls, then bets will be refunded.
In my opinion, everyone wins
something
in that circumstance. R4 is a deduction, NOT a total loss. Sariska backers lost the LOT. Midday backers would have lost a LITTLE.
How much do those who backed Eleanora Duse each-way get back if Sariska is ruled a NR?
- Total Posts 17716
It would be just as simple, transparent and fair to change the rule to say that if a horse doesn’t leave the stalls, then bets will be refunded.
Ahh now you want to discuss what is "fair". On that note try the simple question again. Was Sariska denied a
fair
start? Is it
fair
that others should pay for her shortcomings?
In my opinion, everyone wins something in that circumstance. R4 is a deduction, NOT a total loss. Sariska backers lost the LOT. Midday backers would have lost a LITTLE.
Let’s face it this is gambling not a socialist exercise in sharing the pain. In your scenario Sariska punters would not suffer at all. They would have a full refund. You seem to want those that backed horses that didn’t refuse their
fair
opportunity to leave the starting stalls to suffer most. How is that
fair
?
Now how is the above a lot of opinionated cant?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.