A SOLUTION

APOLOGIES TO ALL WHO HAVE ALREADY READ THIS - I INITIALLY POSTED THIS UNDER THE "CLAIRWOOD 17th PRESS RELEASE"..
... where it is quickly getting buried under personal arguments. Because I believe this offers a genuine solution to the problem, I have taken the liberty to make it it's own topic, so that anyone with SOLUTIONS can add comment, so that hopefully something constructive benefitting all can be achieved.

" From what I've read on the forum, the motivation for introducing the rule, was to address the anomalous and unfair situation from an owner's perspective, of losing the stake money when the horse still managed to place, despite there being grounds to have declared the horse a non-runner. This is quite understandable.

Rules in society must however be balanced between various interests. The rule as it currently stands, offers maximum protection to the owner's prize money, but at the expense of the protection to the punter's betting stake, who despite the horse not having had a fair chance, must quietly lose his money without complaint. That the punter's betting stakes also contribute towards the funding of owner's prize money just adds insult to injury.

If you recognize that both interests require protection, why then create rules that serve only the one?

The (contentious) stakes for 2nd, 3rd and 4th which have given rise to this rule, could surely have been provided for in the form of some kind of insurance pool, so that in the event of the horse having placed but having to forfeit stake money as a result of it being declared a non-runner, payment could still be made to the owner out of this pool, so that they are not out of pocket. Both punters and owners would then enjoy full protection. Fairness.

I'm sure such an insurance scheme would be easily viable, because in the first place, these incidents do not occur that frequently in relation to the number of races that are run and secondly, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th purses that would have to be paid once in a while, would not bankrupt anyone. One is dealing with many givens - all that is required is a little actuarial exercise to crunch the numbers, and then with the use of a little imagination, the clever people who run the show could I'm sure come up with many ways to fund such a pool so that there is a negligible influence on anyone's pocket, and we can get on with racing."
Edit Reply Quote Report

Excellent Idea

We are considering what really happens, and what adjustments we should make after the race, when a horse is

a) disadvantaged (at some stage of a race) and if
b) it runs 2nd, 3rd or 4th

For a start, it's easily possible that the interests of the public and those of the owners may conflict. There is no reason why the interests of the owners regarding stakes, black type or whatever cant be addressed separately to the gambling public.

Normally these incidents get much wider coverage when it involves a heavily fancied rather than some 50/1 shot, but we probably should all agree that the priciple counts and not the odds.

If a horse is disadvantaged, real or perceived, at whose expense should it be credited? From the gambling public's point of view, 4th counts in quartets, and if a horse I needed for 4th in my quartet overcame adversity to run 4th, i would be aggrieved if it was disallowed, and if I needed the 3rd and it missed I would hope for a refund.

If a jockey perseveres with a horse, and that horse gives to run a place, I think it's criminal to disallow from the point of view of courage. We do not give the riders the discretion when to try and when to give up unless it's on humanitarian grounds, so that is sorted out, if you dont KNOW it's a false start, you MUST ride for your life.

All that is left is to declare a race an Non-race, and that is not a power to invoke just because an incident happens, any more than you would declare the comrades a non-race if someone tripped the favourite 1km from home.

My question is, what happens if MS goes on unbeaten from now on in, what if she could be the next BC - her record could be tarnished as unbeaten due to this..

If you recognize that both interests require protection, why then create rules that serve only the one?

(tu) Hopefully someone will read it....

Because the punter is sh!t, bottom of the foodchain...they don't care fark all...(td)

I think that as the rules stand at the moment that the anger should be aimed at one person and one person alone..the Starter..if he had a clue then there would have been no problem

Titch Wrote:

---

> I think that as the rules stand at the moment that
> the anger should be aimed at one person and one
> person alone..the Starter..if he had a clue then
> there would have been no problem


You are 100% correct he should be fired as far as i am concerned they are playing with peoples lives if he did his job correctly this would not have happened.

When a horse is found to be positive for doping after the all clear is sounded bets stand but purse money has to be redistributed and result changed for statistical reasons only.Why can we not have a rule when a horse is clearly impeded at the start and the starter fails to call a false start the reverse happens and the purse money is paid out according to positions past the post but the horse is declared a non runner for betting purposes.

big t Wrote:

---

> Why can we
> not have a rule when a horse is clearly impeded at
> the start and the starter fails to call a false
> start the reverse happens and the purse money is
> paid out according to positions past the post but
> the horse is declared a non runner for betting
> purposes.

What do you say to punters who played your clearly impeded horse, who runs a place, when their winning PA, Swinger, Exacta or Trifecta or Quartet or Place is no longer a winner?

While you are at it, what if it runs first instead of second or third? What would you say if it was the July?

For the purpose of tote payouts, regard the horse as both a runner and a non runner, e.g. result is 8.3.1.5.4, where 3 is the affected horse.
One “official” result is 8.3.1.5 and the other 8.1.5.4

You cant have your cake and eat it either live with the current law or always make it a non runner for betting purposes if it is impeded but you cant have a rule that is able to be interpreted after a result because this will always be open to abuse or interpretation that wont suit everyone.