September 6, 2007 at 17:17 #5018
Well I have just returned home from a somewhat surreal trip to Warwick.
For those who do not know racing was abandoned due to waterlogging on the turn into the home straight – it appears someone forgot to turn off the watering system.
Now I have no issue with the decision to abandon racing on safety grounds, safety is paramount – what is inexcusable is how the whole issue was handled.
The obvious question is how the hell this situation arose in the first place?
Why was the decision to abandon taken so late?
Why were the two sprint races still allowed to take place? The ‘official line’ it was on less affected ground, however speaking to connections of horses engaged in the first I was told emphatically that the jockeys did not want to run the sprint races either. Also the first race was a 2 y-o sprint and the runners were walking round the pre-parade ring for at least an hour before running, not ideal for any horse, very poor for a 2 y-o. It is amazing there were only two late withdrawals from the race.
There was a generally feeling around the course, both amongst racegoers and professionals,that the two sprint races were only run so the course could avoid having to make full refunds to racegoers. Cynical – I’m not sure!!!September 6, 2007 at 17:40 #113797TheCheeksterMember
- Total Posts 329
Im sure what you are saying is right. We will be pressing for a refund of expenses from the track – although can’t moan too much as we won the 2nd/last!
I don’t understand why the error wasn’t noted, or reported, this morning.September 6, 2007 at 17:47 #113800roryParticipant
- Total Posts 2685
I’d like to think that management at the track will get the tin tack for this ~ if my understanding is correct, punters got no refund as two races were run, and the decision to run those two races was surely made just to avoid having to give those who attended this farce the chance to reclaim some of their wasted money. Had I been there, I may have helped organise a lynch mob.September 6, 2007 at 18:05 #113803
There is a 50% refund available but it has to be claimed by post.
50% discount for a total 2 min 18.02 seconds of Class 4/5 racing still isn’t the bargain of the century though – not to mention travelling costs and time which cannot be reclaimed.September 6, 2007 at 18:18 #113804CavParticipant
- Total Posts 4811
you warwick racegoers today should have gone to the racecourse bar ordered 7 drinks and payed for 2, enough saidSeptember 6, 2007 at 18:22 #113805steveh31Participant
- Total Posts 1922
Why water in the first place horses should run on the ground as it is if its too hard the horses dont runSeptember 6, 2007 at 19:01 #113812yeatsParticipant
- Total Posts 2927
According to BBC ceefax, one of the main culprits Fiona Needham is quoted as saying, "Only if we run 3 races do people not receive a refund" So everyone should have received a refund and quite right too. Lets hope there’s some disciplinary action to follow this fiasco. I’m sick to death of overwatering, Chester did it last Saturday.September 6, 2007 at 20:23 #113820dave jayMember
- Total Posts 3386
They water courses at the bookies behest to make results more unpredictable, all a part of the con, imo.September 9, 2007 at 21:37 #114214
After my complaining about the situation, some credit where credit is due.
It appears that as well as the 50% refund Warwick are also providing a free admission voucher to be used at a remaining meeting this year.
(Source Warwick web site)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.