G'day Punter!

Sign In Register

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 34 Non Members

Good Times Ahead Why A Late Scratching Albany Race 5

Harness & Greyhounds
MarkovinaMarkovina    2,900 posts
Harness & Greyhounds
Put my bets on the 2 WA trots meeting last night - recorded the races as out last night - and are watching them this morning

Race 5 at Albany i had 3 bets $10 ew Just Living Dream ( won) and Highview Jackie ( unplaced ) and i got the trifecta for a $1 dividend

When the interim dividends went up on the screen - the trifecta paid $222 and the winner $12.20

However no 1 Goods Times Ahead ($1.50 pop)  and no2 Celestial Ruler ( about 20-1) both ran in the race but the Tab have got them both as late scratchings - i watched the race - there was a false start - no 1 galloped - in the 2nd attempt both both 1 and 2 began ok - the 2 was behind the leader !! - the no 1 came of the pegs and sat in the breeze - but wilted and ran well back

Anyhow the trifecta because of the bewildering late scratchings went from $222 to $38 and a paltry $27 on the NSW tote - and the winner paid $5.30 not $12.20 but amazingly $15 fixed

I went to the Australian Harness Racing to look up the Albany results - but amazingly havent got them ( they allways have them )

I think there has been yet another major problem between Country WA trots and the TAB re paying the correct dividends - added to the 7 wrong times in the last 12 months re paying out on 3rd and 4th

Anyhow can some one tell why numbers 1 and 2 were late scratchings at Albany race 5 - considering they both completed the race
+1 -1

Comments

  • Ridersonthestorm33Ridersonthestorm33    10,809 posts
    edited February 2016
    @Markovina as far as the $15 fixed odds is concerned that is $15 before massive deductions with the late scratchings. The $15 for anyone lucky to be on , would after all clear ,come into less than half that.
    +1 -1
  • MarkovinaMarkovina    2,900 posts
    Ridersonthestorm33 said:

    @Markovina as far as the $15 fixed odds is concerned that is $15 before massive deductions with the late scratchings. The $15 for anyone lucky to be on , would after all clear ,come into less than half that.

    But why are they late scratchings ? they both ran - they were right up on the gate in the 2nd retake - they both began well - they both had  clear unimpeded runs - but after the race has been run - they are both showing on the TAB lists as late scratchings - thus there are massive deductions for all dividends

    My guess at this stage( ive got no idea)  - is somehow someone  at the track have informed the TAB incorrectly that they are late scratchings - and the TAB yet again have paid out on incorrect information
    +1 -1
  • Mick511Mick511    64 posts
    The starter let them all go 28m to early
    +1 -1
  • Mick511Mick511    64 posts
    They were the only 2 that complained that they had an unfair start
    +1 -1
  • MarkovinaMarkovina    2,900 posts
    Mick511 said:

    They were the only 2 that complained that they had an unfair start

    Thanks for that info - answers my question

    The 2 was right on the gate and the 1 was back about a half metre - and considering it galloped the 1st time around - i thought he was being cautious - they were both beaten on their merits - and beaten a long way - very fortunate to be late scratchings - both obviously backed by their connections - otherwise why would they  bother complaining
    +1 -1
  • Ridersonthestorm33Ridersonthestorm33    10,809 posts
    Just out of curiousity what would have happened if every unplaced horse in the race complained that they were impeded by the starter letting them go too early. All late scratchings ? ... A no race ? Technically every driver ( bar the winner of course ) could have complained they were at a disadvantage. If 2 horses were declared non runners the rest you would think could make a case too.
    +1 -1
  • NatsNats    64 posts
    5 runners including the first 3 past the post were from the same stable. They weren't going to complain - risking a no race
    +1 -1
  • loose_gooseloose_goose    2,069 posts
    edited February 2016
    Mick511 said:

    They were the only 2 that complained that they had an unfair start                                                       Now come on Mick tell the full story Burch stable had 5 runners in the race and filled the pacings, so no reason for them to complain. Starter erred so those runners had a way out, my takes is GTA was no where near  ready for an early start, but in the case of CR did it not vie for lead, thought it was not iconvencied anywhere near GTA. Connections had every right to complain if starter let them go to early


    loose_goose likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • Mick511Mick511    64 posts
    The full story? He asked a question I answered it absolutely as simple as that...

    Markovina likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • loose_gooseloose_goose    2,069 posts
    Mick511 said:

    The full story? He asked a question I answered it absolutely as simple as that...

    Yes you did, but the "bleedin obvious" and I am 100% with them, why would the Burch stable have any reason to speak up, they have Prizemoney to collect. maybe even punting money, it was nothing to do with them or any runner in the race , it was Starters error, so why risk losing all that. 
    +1 -1
  • Mick511Mick511    64 posts
    He asked why were they were late scratchings and generally had no idea so I answered it, of course our stable didn't complain

    loose_goose likes this post.

    +1 -1
Sign In or Register to comment.