Belmont Race 6

[garyscpa]

Wondering why the 1 horse was not declared a non-starter. The jockey fell backward out of the gate and the horse looked to be trapped.

[infrontby1]

I assume you mean the odds on favorite in the 8th; if so, it looked to be more serious than it appeared to be. Otherwise, I'm sure the starting crew would've walked the horse around a lap or two and attempted to re-enter her in the starting gate.

[garyscpa]

I assume you mean the odds on favorite in the 8th; if so, it looked to be more serious than it appeared to be. Otherwise, I'm sure the starting crew would've walked the horse around a lap or two and attempted to re-enter her in the starting gate.

No, I meant race 6.

[raybo]

Yeah, in race 8, they loaded the gate, and when I looked back up, the gate opened then "Scr" appeared on my ADW's tote. Don't know what the problem was but I imagine there are some really mad folks who had that horse in their "Picks". Repeat of Saturday at Belmont? Guess I ought to do some checking and find out what happened to that horse. I had singled the 5 anyway, and it won at the wire, so I'm happy. :jump:

[Not4Love]

What exactly happened at Belmont race 8? I saw race 6 and was so disgusted by the stewards call I turned it off.

[infrontby1]

Gotcha,

This was the footnote from the chart:

LADY C NOTE fractious tossing her head as the field was sent on their way, leapt at the start flipping in the gate at the break

So apparently, all the mishaps occurred after the break.

[infrontby1]

More disgusting mishaphs involving an odds on choice. You were better left off shutting off rest of the card

[maclr11]

Lighthouse bay in the 8th flipped in the starting gate and was scratched by the track bet
Before you curse everyone involved know the facts

The horse in the 6th reared and the rider came off, something that happens all over the world

[JustRalph]

DRF Grening tweeted:

Bettors get shafted again as stewards do not declare Lady C Note a non-starter after rearing and unseating rider in the gate.

[the little guy]

DRF Grening tweeted:

Bettors get shafted again as stewards do not declare Lady C Note a non-starter after rearing and unseating rider in the gate.

Ralph, I have watched it many times, and I simply do not believe she should have been a refund. Bad luck? Absolutely, but that does not necessitate a refund. Unless it is abundantly clear that a horse did not get a fair start, there should not be a refund. It is not fair to the other bettors.

If they refund a horse unfairly, anyone that cashes on the race unfairly wins less than they should have. To me, this is a frequently ignored consequence.

[Stillriledup]

I had this C note horse on many of my tickets, but i hate refunds on stuff like this because a refund essentially takes money out of the pockets of the winners to give to the pockets of the people who bet on a horse who acted up in the gate. And, in situations where the betting favorite wins, the people who bet on this scratched horse actually can WIN their bets if their pick 4 or pick 6 gets put onto the favorite who wins.

[JustRalph]

Ralph, I have watched it many times, and I simply do not believe she should have been a refund. Bad luck? Absolutely, but that does not necessitate a refund. Unless it is abundantly clear that a horse did not get a fair start, there should not be a refund. It is not fair to the other bettors.

If they refund a horse unfairly, anyone that cashes on the race unfairly wins less than they should have. To me, this is a frequently ignored consequence.

I just watched it several times. I'm with you. She flips right with the bell. Maybe tosses her head a half second before the gates open. Appears to be all her own doing. I guess Grening see's it differently...... in quoting his tweet I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with him. I just saw it in my timeline and thought it might add to the discussion here. :ThmbUp:

[BlazingBy]

For what its worth, I have had mixed results w these rulings, once there was
a horse that somehow was still being held as the gates opened, and I got a
refund on that runner; it was part of an entry as well, and didnt even know it was refunded until looking at a chart the next day! also lucked into a return of part of my tri box when that Dooley horse the other day got declared 'purse money only'. I feel the pain of those playing the 'pick' bets though...you win some, you lose some...

On a side note, and I dont want to hijack this discussion, regarding NYRA
policy/decisions, can anyone say why a handful of superfectas were cancelled on the JC card Saturday, as well as one Sunday? I cant find the answer to this one anywhere, it wasnt because of a short field(the usual reason)...

[johnhannibalsmith]

Ralph, I have watched it many times, and I simply do not believe she should have been a refund. Bad luck? Absolutely, but that does not necessitate a refund. Unless it is abundantly clear that a horse did not get a fair start, there should not be a refund. It is not fair to the other bettors.

If they refund a horse unfairly, anyone that cashes on the race unfairly wins less than they should have. To me, this is a frequently ignored consequence.

Indeed.

[Little Watermelon]

For what its worth, I have had mixed results w these rulings, once there was
a horse that somehow was still being held as the gates opened, and I got a
refund on that runner; it was part of an entry as well, and didnt even know it was refunded until looking at a chart the next day! also lucked into a return of part of my tri box when that Dooley horse the other day got declared 'purse money only'. I feel the pain of those playing the 'pick' bets though...you win some, you lose some...

On a side note, and I dont want to hijack this discussion, regarding NYRA
policy/decisions, can anyone say why a handful of superfectas were cancelled on the JC card Saturday, as well as one Sunday? I cant find the answer to this one anywhere, it wasnt because of a short field(the usual reason)...

Entries, if there is a 1 and 1a, etc., there is no super.