- This topic has 33 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Is there any reason to believe this hasn’t happened in the past? It could have happened a number of times the checks are so poor. For instance if a horse who is a fav is actually a horse with considerably less chance and finishes a well beaten 5th who would necessarily be any the wiser apart from them in the know? The scenarios are endless and the unscrupulous will find the weakness or loophole in any system.
Horses appear to be checked once entering the stables but then that appears to be it unless the horse wins or seriously underperforms. Pathetic again from the BHA, makes you wonder what Jamie Stier has been paid for these last few years.
McBride should be warned off for a few months to focus his mind but probably wont be. It is also a disgrace that Yarmouth took over 2 and a half hours to make an announcement to racegoers and only then after criticism on ATR.
could’ve changed things if the “winner” front run or got in the way of anything, or made another jockey change tactics… I can’t see anything like that in this particular race though.
Nevertheless, this particular race had an experienced three year old who still edged right rather than a debutant who may have ran greener or wouldn’t have gotten involved in the race whatsoever. It’s not unreasonable to imagine that this variable had at least some impact on the race. Particularly as the first four home were separated by a length. On balance, it may not have made any discernible difference but it’s impossible to say so for certain and in this respect, the absolute integrity of the race result has been contaminated.
It isn’t an ideal situation as you say but the fairest compromise would have been to treat the also rans as void which a couple of bookies have done.
What the bookmakers are doing. https://www.racingpost.com/news/yarmouth-fiasco/what-action-the-bookies-are-taking/294574?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Thursday%20News&utm_content=Yarmouth%20bookmaker%20reaction
In fairness the bookmakers deserve some credit here. This is not their fault and this will be costing them money.
I believe the trainer should get a hefty fine and a suspension.
If I may be cynical, I’d say that the bookies love events like this from a marketing perspective. It promotes them as having laudable integrity, gives them free advertising space and all for a fraction of their marketing budgets which at a guess, runs up to the best part of €100m per year. What’s more, it affords the opportunity to stick the boot in – “once again the bookmakers have been left to pick up the tab for racing’s cock-up.” – without even a hint of irony or shame.
A very dangerous buckpass by the BHA imo. “The responsibility lies with the trainer to present and run the correct horse in the race.” Which means, in effect, “if someone saddles a ringer and pulls off a massive coup it’s nothing to do with us.”
No, it doesn’t, Joe.
In that case, tell me this, had it happened in a big race with a strong enough market and had been a deliberate ringer fraud, and the BHA had made exactly the same post-race statement, do you think it would have been perfectly acceptable for them to make it?
Would you saddle the wrong horse?
I got 79%, it gets easier as you eliminate pics. At least I got Golden Miller right!
Would you saddle the wrong horse?
I got 79%, it gets easier as you eliminate pics. At least I got Golden Miller right!
Got 100% first time round but was almost thrown off by “what would be a spoiler”…
Did anybody manage to figure out the remaining horse?
The wrong horse wins every day and the right horse wins on another day. Surely you know this.
It isn’t an ideal situation as you say but the fairest compromise would have been to treat the also rans as void which a couple of bookies have done.
Treating the race as void means those on the second do not get paid out either and the race suggests the true winner was the second horse. So it wouldn’t be a straightforward decision anyway. But I agree, if there wasn’t much of a delay between the race result and finding out then a void race would’ve been “fairest”.
Value Is EverythingA very dangerous buckpass by the BHA imo. “The responsibility lies with the trainer to present and run the correct horse in the race.” Which means, in effect, “if someone saddles a ringer and pulls off a massive coup it’s nothing to do with us.”
No, it doesn’t, Joe.
In that case, tell me this, had it happened in a big race with a strong enough market and had been a deliberate ringer fraud, and the BHA had made exactly the same post-race statement, do you think it would have been perfectly acceptable for them to make it?
Yes, it is the responsibility of the trainer, but as I said… BHA should look in to if they can do something to make sure it doesn’t happen again. I think you’re concentrating too much on one sentence, Joe.
Value Is EverythingWould you saddle the wrong horse?
I got 79%, it gets easier as you eliminate pics. At least I got Golden Miller right!
Got 100% first time round but was almost thrown off by “what would be a spoiler”…
Did anybody manage to figure out the remaining horse?
Triptych Wrote
It could only be Arkle
96% scored, I did get the ‘spoiler’ but kicking myself for not getting Aldaniti – good fun.
Jac
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...Charlie McBride fined only £1500 by the BHA, at least Charlie will be able to pay off some of his fine with his winnings from backing the wrong horse
Absolutely pathetic from Rust & Co
Lets hope other countries don’t follow such a bad example when dealing with any similar incident, I’m sure they wont.
Clearly the trainer knew what he was doing. Also has no respect for the rules boasting about how he’s going to be using his gambling winning to pay off the fine.
Ban him, and hit him with a much heftier fine. Racing needs to clean up it’s act, all you get the impression from this is that the game is run by a lot of keystone kops.
Btw on that picture quiz, I was clicking on the right horse for Best mate but said that it was wrong? weird
Also does anyone know what the horse that was meant to run in this race actually looks like? Given it had never run before we only have the trainers word for it that they look similar.
Charlie McBride fined only £1500 by the BHA, at least Charlie will be able to pay off some of his fine with his winnings from backing the wrong horse
Absolutely pathetic from Rust & Co
Lets hope other countries don’t follow such a bad example when dealing with any similar incident, I’m sure they wont.
Agree it was too lenient but why is it ‘Absolutely pathetic from Rust & Co’?
Why bother spending months stopping horses from winning before unleashing them at 50/1 when you can just send out a ringer instead and get a slap on the wrist?
I assume that horses must be chipped. Is it too much to ask that said chip is scanned down at the start to stop this farcical situation happening again?
Agree it was too lenient but why is it ‘Absolutely pathetic from Rust & Co’?
Who was responsible for the lenient sentence Ken?
In fact the lenient sentence was well signposted in advance by Rust in a couple of interviews prior to the hearing, don’t know why they bothered with a panel.
Rust stated it was a “genuine” mistake and there were no “suspicious” betting patterns. Rust even said, wrongly as it happens, no punter lost out because they all got paid double result.
Well that’s alright then, forget about all the punters at the track (come racing), on the Tote or on the exchanges who lost out considerably.
One of the horses has distinct white markings on her forehead and a hind leg yet McBride complained he was still a grand out of pocket after using his winnings from his bet. The guy should have been warned off for 2 or 3 months in an effort to help focus his mind.
What penalty would he have received in other countries?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.