G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 2 Non Members

Ginger Mack ridiculously called a non runner.

West Australian Racing
RodentRodent    5,922 posts
edited February 12 West Australian Racing
This has got me quite annoyed.
From the stewards report: it was established that the front gates of GINGER MACK’s barrier one
had opened prematurely, affording GINGER MACK a considerable advantage over the balance of the
field at the start. Acting under the provisions of AR204(2), Stewards declared GINGER MACK a nonrunner and amended placings accordingly.

 Stewards were within their rights to scratch Ginger Mack according to the rules but in doing so showed a complete lack of understanding of punting. 
 Imagine a 2 horse race where you have loaded up on horse A. Horse B gets an unfair advantage at the start but despite this, your horse A smashes it anyway. Stewards then call horse B a non runner because it got an advantage at the start. Ridiculous.
 If Ginger Mack finished in the top 4, it would have impacted betting but seeing that it didn't, all stewards have done is taken money from people whose horses beat Ginger Mack even after it got an advantage and given that money to the undeserving backers of GM who wasn't good enough despite getting a leg up.
 If a horse is denied a fair start it gets declared a non runner unless it finishes top 4. That is another disgrace. Imagine loading up for the place and you are nosed out of 3rd after missing the kick 6 lengths through no fault of the horse/rider. You finish 4th and get declared a runner!
 Such a horse should be a non runner in all instances unless it wins. Just like Ginger Mack should have been a runner unless it finished top 4.
p.s I know there is the $500 prizemoney issue to be considered but that can be settled independent of betting as they do when horses are disqualified after correct weight.

Comments

  • TiversTivers    7,617 posts
    You can’t make rules up on the fly based on where the horse eventually runs.
    If a gate opening unevenly deems it a non runner, it’s a non runner.

    In saying that - imagine the drama had it won......

    thefalcon likes this post.

  • H-BOMBERH-BOMBER    8,722 posts
    Agree. Fair or unfair, the scratching should happen regardless.
  • RodentRodent    5,922 posts
    Tivers said:

    You can’t make rules up on the fly based on where the horse eventually runs.
    If a gate opening unevenly deems it a non runner, it’s a non runner.

    In saying that - imagine the drama had it won......

    Ahhh but the rules are already based on where a horse finishes!
     AR 204 Riderless and disadvantaged horses at the start of a race
    (1) If, in the opinion of the Stewards, any horse was:
    (a) riderless at the time a start was effected; or
    (b) encumbered by equipment applied with the permission, or at the direction, of the
    Starter; or
    (c) denied a fair start; or
    (d) encumbered by any other outside influence after gaining a fair start,
    and that materially prejudiced the chances of that horse finishing 1st
    , 2nd, 3rd or 4th in a
    race, the Stewards may declare that horse to be a non-starter and may make an order in
    relation to betting on the race as provided for separately in the Rules of Betting (except
    that a horse which is ultimately declared as coming 1st
    , 2nd, 3rd or 4th in a race must not
    be declared a non-starter).
  • RodentRodent    5,922 posts
    I don't understand why they don't put the same caveat on horses who gain an unfair advantage at the start. They should be declared a non runner unless they finish 5th or worse.

    Currently the rule is:

    (2) If, in the opinion of the Stewards, a horse obtains an unfair advantage at the start of a
    race, they may declare the horse to be a non-starter and may make an order in relation
    to betting on the race as provided for separately in the Rules of Betting.

    So a smart steward would say that the horse got an advantage but it made no material difference to betting so there is no need to scratch it.
  • ArapahoArapaho    21 posts
    This issue can be resolved with one word Disqualified
    Any horse gaining a unfair advantage, whether through jumping earlier,not carrying the correct weight or having illegal products in its system etc is or should be Disqualified,
     so nothing changes except it is deemed not to have beaten a runner home. 

    On the other hand if its disadvantaged for any reason ,obviously it would become a scratching.
    The unfortunate thing would be the connections, would not get any unplaced subsidies.

    Think their right in declaring the horse a runner, if running in the first 4, as all sorts of
    issues would come about, mainly through betting Win, Place, Quinella, Trifecta and First Fours etc.

    savethegame likes this post.

  • thefalconthefalcon    17,634 posts
    ^ said with the wisdom of Sitting Bull..... =D>

    Arapaho likes this post.

  • detonatordetonator    2,728 posts
    Playing devils advocate and throwing up another scenario.
    What if the horse was a back marker, it jumped ahead of the field and was left in front by default.
    Would the owners be within their rights to say that it was a disadvantage to their horse that it was forced to race outside of its normal pattern because of the gate opening early?
  • ArapahoArapaho    21 posts
    said with the wisdom of Bull Shitting.....

    Thunderstruck, JimmyPop likes this post.

  • FlandersFlanders    820 posts
    Rodent said:

    This has got me quite annoyed.

    From the stewards report: it was established that the front gates of GINGER MACK’s barrier one
    had opened prematurely, affording GINGER MACK a considerable advantage over the balance of the
    field at the start. Acting under the provisions of AR204(2), Stewards declared GINGER MACK a nonrunner and amended placings accordingly.

     Stewards were within their rights to scratch Ginger Mack according to the rules but in doing so showed a complete lack of understanding of punting. 
     Imagine a 2 horse race where you have loaded up on horse A. Horse B gets an unfair advantage at the start but despite this, your horse A smashes it anyway. Stewards then call horse B a non runner because it got an advantage at the start. Ridiculous.
     If Ginger Mack finished in the top 4, it would have impacted betting but seeing that it didn't, all stewards have done is taken money from people whose horses beat Ginger Mack even after it got an advantage and given that money to the undeserving backers of GM who wasn't good enough despite getting a leg up.
     If a horse is denied a fair start it gets declared a non runner unless it finishes top 4. That is another disgrace. Imagine loading up for the place and you are nosed out of 3rd after missing the kick 6 lengths through no fault of the horse/rider. You finish 4th and get declared a runner!
     Such a horse should be a non runner in all instances unless it wins. Just like Ginger Mack should have been a runner unless it finished top 4.
    p.s I know there is the $500 prizemoney issue to be considered but that can be settled independent of betting as they do when horses are disqualified after correct weight.

    @Rodent, genuine question: how did this affect your bet?
  • RodentRodent    5,922 posts
    edited February 13
    No effect at all but if this stupidity continues, it'll cost me at some point. @Arapaho, DQ is not the answer. If the gate opens prematurely, it's not the fault of punters so why should they do their $$?
     Only a minor tweak needed, just like the existing rule for horses denied a fair start must be a runner if in 1st 4. Advantaged horse should be a definite runner if finishes outside the first 4. Simples.
  • ArapahoArapaho    21 posts
    Not that simple Rodent,

    A lot of scenarios here ,if the trainer or jockey forgets a towel regarding weight its not the fault of the punter either, but they still do their money 
    And why should a horse that hasn't run jn the first 4 be placed ahead of other runners if it has got a Unfair advantage, remembering Form going forward, would be false, if allowed to hold its spot and that stake money is now  paid back to 10th in most cases.
     
    No deductions if a horse is Disqualified,different from being scratched.

    Wasn't that your original beef regarding this matter in your first post on this issue
    Disqualified  may seem  harsh if no fault of horse or connections but would solve most issues regarding this matter
    Plus not running in the first 4 and being  disqualified, same result for punters ,Tickets Confetti
  • RodentRodent    5,922 posts
    Arapaho said:

    Not that simple Rodent,


    A lot of scenarios here ,if the trainer or jockey forgets a towel regarding weight its not the fault of the punter either, but they still do their money 
    And why should a horse that hasn't run jn the first 4 be placed ahead of other runners if it has got a Unfair advantage, remembering Form going forward, would be false, if allowed to hold its spot and that stake money is now  paid back to 10th in most cases.
     
    No deductions if a horse is Disqualified,different from being scratched.

    Wasn't that your original beef regarding this matter in your first post on this issue
    Disqualified  may seem  harsh if no fault of horse or connections but would solve most issues regarding this matter
    Plus not running in the first 4 and being  disqualified, same result for punters ,Tickets Confetti
    Weigh in light must be DQ as if a plunge came unstuck it would be too easy to weigh in light to get money back.
    If horse with unfair advantage places worse than 4th stewards could adjust prizemoney without scratching horse.
     Same result for punters who backed offending horse but very different result for everyone else.
     Imagine a 10-1 on odds on favourite you think can't win. You back a 20-1 pop. Favourite gets an unfair fly start but still isn't good enough and finishes 5th. Your 20-1 pop wins. You then get told there is a massive deduction as the fave is a non runner. All the fools who backed the fave get their money back and that money comes out of your pocket!
  • ArapahoArapaho    21 posts
    As I said You Disqualify The 10s on chance ALL BETS STAND no deductions 
    Also You cant place the offending horse(the 10s on chance) in 5th. as it  got a unfair fly start against the horses it beat home too .
    It must be relegated behind the last horse to finish..
    The only way to do this without Scratching is to Disqualify(or for the want of a better word Relegate) the horse.
    That way, all the horses that started fairly, are placed in their correct finishing positions and the 10s on chance,will now have a D or (if you like) R against its form at its next start in the form guides Simple.


  • RodentRodent    5,922 posts
    Arapaho said:

    As I said You Disqualify The 10s on chance ALL BETS STAND no deductions 

    Also You cant place the offending horse(the 10s on chance) in 5th. as it  got a unfair fly start against the horses it beat home too .
    It must be relegated behind the last horse to finish..
    The only way to do this without Scratching is to Disqualify(or for the want of a better word Relegate) the horse.
    That way, all the horses that started fairly, are placed in their correct finishing positions and the 10s on chance,will now have a D or (if you like) R against its form at its next start in the form guides Simple.


    Thanks for putting forward your point of view. I don't want to bet under your rules though. I think they are grossly unfair.
     Given you have put thought into your response I'm happy to leave it there. Hopefully we can agree to disagree.
  • ArapahoArapaho    21 posts
    Aw ghee,  Rodent, no need to thank me, mate, didn't put much thought  into it at all, was just using common sense.
    Anyhow, you seem like a nice fella and the kind words are appreciated
    Cheerio.
Sign In or Register to comment.