Protecting the Public: Scofield, refuses at Belmont again.

[Stillriledup]

Ok, now Scofield refused in his previous start and he ran today and guess what he refused again.

Now, i'm no rocket scientist (although i occasionally play one right here at PA) but wouldnt it be a good idea to have had Scofield run for purse money only today? Belmont has no problem 'protecting the public' by offering no wagering on a horse who's running without a shoe, but what about this situation, isnt it somewhat similar?

[Augenj]

I'd rather see him have more gate training, over and over.

[Stillriledup]

I'd rather see him have more gate training, over and over.

He did have a gate work and i guess they thought they fixed the problem, i think that Scofield's problem isnt coming out of the gate, its actually running. he breaks fine, its just that he stops after he comes out.

Time to send him to Michael "The Genius" Dickinson. :D

[cj]

Horses like this used to get barred from racing.

[chadk66]

yep and I trained one such horse. :)

[Stillriledup]

Horses like this used to get barred from racing.

There was a crazy horse in So Cal that used to refuse, he did it a few times and then they gave him to Doug ONeill and Doug got him to break out of there, and he went wire to wire. I cant remember the name of the horse though.

[pondman]

Ok, now Scofield refused in his previous start and he ran today and guess what he refused again.

Now, i'm no rocket scientist (although i occasionally play one right here at PA) but wouldnt it be a good idea to have had Scofield run for purse money only today?

No. If you want to take him at 18-1 go for it. How about just ruling the horse off the track entirely? Make them take it to Finger Lakes.

[Stillriledup]

No. If you want to take him at 18-1 go for it. How about just ruling the horse off the track entirely? Make them take it to Finger Lakes.

Sure, you can rule him off, i wouldnt have a problem with that. If you refuse to run one time, you have to leave the major circuit until you can prove you want to run. There was well over a million dollars wagered on this race in all the pools combined and they just stuck this horse in the gate and he didnt run.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... they just stuck this horse in the gate and he didnt run.

With a running line comment that clearly indicated such last time and savvy guys such as yourself diligently studying replays to really hammer the point home - in my opinion - there really wasn't a lot of reason for anyone to need this horse unless you thought the price and back form justified feeling confident that he'd be perfect today after working off the list. I mean, if I read in the comment lines that a horse "bore out badly", I factor that into my opinion of the race and the horse just like I would one that dwelt, or refused, or in this case, propped after the break last time.

He did it once. He schooled. He did it again. He'll probably get a lot more attention before he makes it off the list or he'll get ruled off. That's pretty fair protection to me. It's not like I felt the need to be protected from this one any more than any other suspicious looking entrant in any given race. I don't see much problem here considering it appears that they tried to handle the problem the way it is usually handled. If this were the third, fourth, fifth time in a short period of time, then that's different. I suppose your "purse money only" theory is worth considering, but I don't think it's nutty to just expect in this scenario that bettors will factor the last race (and what I call a "caveat emptor comment") into their opinion just like any other mishap, be it bolting, falling, or whatever.

[Stillriledup]

With a running line comment that clearly indicated such last time and savvy guys such as yourself diligently studying replays to really hammer the point home - in my opinion - there really wasn't a lot of reason for anyone to need this horse unless you thought the price and back form justified feeling confident that he'd be perfect today after working off the list. I mean, if I read in the comment lines that a horse "bore out badly", I factor that into my opinion of the race and the horse just like I would one that dwelt, or refused, or in this case, propped after the break last time.

He did it once. He schooled. He did it again. He'll probably get a lot more attention before he makes it off the list or he'll get ruled off. That's pretty fair protection to me. It's not like I felt the need to be protected from this one any more than any other suspicious looking entrant in any given race. I don't see much problem here considering it appears that they tried to handle the problem the way it is usually handled. If this were the third, fourth, fifth time in a short period of time, then that's different. I suppose your "purse money only" theory is worth considering, but I don't think it's nutty to just expect in this scenario that bettors will factor the last race (and what I call a "caveat emptor comment") into their opinion just like any other mishap, be it bolting, falling, or whatever.

But you could say that about the lost shoe too. You could say the public knows, therefore the horse will run pari mutually. But, they scratched him and let him run for purse only, to 'protect' the public.

Arent these scenario's similar?

There was a situation today at Monmouth (or, maybe yesterday) where a heavy favorite POE got scratched and they let the other part of the entry run for purse only. Why? The public obviously knows that if they bet an entry and one of them scratches, they get stuck with the other one...its an inherent risk of betting an entry..., dont you think?

[johnhannibalsmith]

But you could say that about the lost shoe too. You could say the public knows, therefore the horse will run pari mutually. But, they scratched him and let him run for purse only, to 'protect' the public.

Arent these scenario's similar?

...

Where in the comment lines of the PPs could someone evaluating the race make an informed decision about a horse that was going to lose a shoe at post time?

Edited to just mention that the second part about the POE scenario has been beaten to death for eternity and I see the merits of both running for purse only or not. I think it's really an individual opinion thing without a clear resolution, but I tend to want to protect the bettors that may have bet early and have no way to change their wager due to a late change.

[Some_One]

Stop whining Stillriledup

[Stillriledup]

Where in the comment lines of the PPs could someone evaluating the race make an informed decision about a horse that was going to lose a shoe at post time?

There isnt. But once they announce it its similar to things like a late gelding announcement, a late lasix change, a late jock change, a late blinker switch, etc.

[johnhannibalsmith]

There isnt. But once they announce it its similar to things like a late gelding announcement, a late lasix change, a late jock change, a late blinker switch, etc.

If you don't think that the "shoegate" horse should have run for purse money only because of those thing that you mention, that's fine. That wasn't my point. I just don't see the comparison between making a horse a PMO runner because of something that is readily available knowledge days before the race, weeks before the race, and something that happens at the gate. I'm a little sleepy and maybe I'm missing the point, but if you are simply saying that a horse like Scofield should be a PMO runner, I've already conceded that it's worth considering, I just don't really think that in this case the public was misled or in need of protection per se.

[Stillriledup]

If you don't think that the "shoegate" horse should have run for purse money only because of those thing that you mention, that's fine. That wasn't my point. I just don't see the comparison between making a horse a PMO runner because of something that is readily available knowledge days before the race, weeks before the race, and something that happens at the gate. I'm a little sleepy and maybe I'm missing the point, but if you are simply saying that a horse like Scofield should be a PMO runner, I've already conceded that it's worth considering, I just don't really think that in this case the public was misled or in need of protection per se.

No, im not suggesting they were misled, im just saying that i think that you can make a reasonable case these are similar situations where the public needs 'protecting'. Personally, i'd just let em all run, i dont need protection, i'd love them to announce that a 3-5 shot lost a shoe and they're going to let him run with betting, thats a dream scenario.

[johnhannibalsmith]

No, im not suggesting they were misled, ...

Sorry, the title of the thread begins "Protecting the Public:" so I assumed that you felt as though - like the shoe scenario that you alternately suggest was handled well ((when you say it is like this scenario and speculate "wouldn't it have been a good idea...(for Scofield to become PMO)?)) and then shift to saying they shouldn't have done what they did - the public was somehow without some information or had somehow been potentially compromised in their wagers to require protection from... something.

[Phantombridgejumpe]

If part of an entry scratches with a few minutes to post something significant has changed and the player should get ample time to cancel or if not enough time is available the purse money only option.

I don't know the shoe case well enough to comment, but again that seems like a material change with minutes to post.

The horse that has troubles running didn't just crop up with 3 minutes to post, more a buyer beware sort of thing.

[iceknight]

Stop whining Stillriledup You don't know how to watch a good argument from box seats :lol: