- This topic has 33 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
The favourite won. Any winnings from laying her not ‘clawed back’ are fortuitous, withdraw them and thank your lucky stars.
BUY THE SUN
This has happened before. After the Yarmouth incident, horses had to be scanned on leaving the stables for the parade ring – but it still did not stop the Southwell mix up, nor the confusion with the O’Brien horses mentioned earlier.
It does not look good for racing but human errors will happen sometimes.
The mad part is Aurora Princess is only 80 rated and won that race very nicely given the in running trouble.
Doesn’t say a lot for the ones in behind, for all they were inexperienced.
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!Indeed. Rated 79, she would have had to concede 20 lb+ if running legally against 2yo’s maidens, not levels. Hardly an impressive ‘win’ at face value.
BUY THE SUN
Would a three year-old rated 79 be expected to perform exactly the same as a two year-old rated 79 carrying level weights? I thought they would be on the basis that I assumed a 3 year-old and a 6 year-old running in a handicap from the same official mark would be carrying the same weight. This seems illogical though! So how does it work – does the younger horse run off of 79 with a weight deduction?
I was basing my assumption of a 20lb+ concession of WFA in a maiden, from pattern races such as the Nunthorpe and L’Abbaye.
BUY THE SUN
Have edited my post now Tatling. Am sure I am overcomplicating something that is probably very simple!
I don’t think you are mate in fairness, and I don’t think there are any such races to refer to.
But as a principle for WFA in handicaps –
3yo ratings in all-age handicaps have the WFA factored AFTER the OR’s. Take a look at Wigmore Halls John Smiths Cup win as a 3yo for example. Hope this makes sense!
BUY THE SUN
She ran a three year old horse rated 80 in a 2yo maiden…… Not bad….
Doesn’t sound that different from the infamous Flockton Grey episode at Leicester in 1984. Presumably we can expect similar “warnings off” to follow.
Thanks Tatling, that makes complete sense
I see with the Wigmore Hall example how older horses with similar official ratings to him are carrying weights that are higher by the extent of the weight for age allowance.I didn’t realise how well backed the Harrington horse was.
Interesting to note that she was ‘Disqualified’, rather than classed as a NR. So almost all bookmakers paid out on ‘First past the Post’ principle.
How fortunate for backers who may have known in advance about this error…..
BUY THE SUN
Do most bookies pay first past the post nowadays? I’ve not placed a bet in a betting shop for about 10 years.
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysThey do Purwell. For example, Betfair Sportsbook paid out on the 3yo ‘winner’ of this 2yo maiden, wherehas backers of the horse of the Betfair Exchange did their money. I’d be feeling hard done to as an Exchange backer – the horse I had backed never got anywhere near the track, surely ‘non-runner’ rather than ‘dq / demoted’ would have been the correct result.
Odd and illogical stuff from the IHRB, and rife for abuse. Who’d have thunk it.
BUY THE SUN
Got away with a 2k fine. That’s nothing compared to the amount of money lost on her horse, imo.
I see with the Wigmore Hall example how older horses with similar official ratings to him are carrying weights that are higher by the extent of the weight for age allowance.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.