Stillriledup
07-10-2014, 07:07 PM
So, the longest shot in the race clips heels with the "winner" and falls. I don't know if the winner would have come down for this incident or not, but the 2-5 shot won by a large margin and was going to win by a large margin even before the outrider signaled to the other two runners left to 'stop riding". The jock on the winner seemed to not see the outrider and was asking his charge for max effort down to the wire to win by a distance.
Now, the race was a no contest, but in the Pick 4, they paid off to "all" in leg 1 and let the bet stand, this wasn't a refund.
So, i guess my question is this. Is this fair to pay off the same to the horse who won and the horse who lost the rider?
I feel that you either have to refund the entire bet, its not fair to the bettors who singled the 2-5 shot who was never in doubt at any point and make them share their money with the jock who fell off a horse after the start.
I'd vote to refund the money and not pay it off to "all".
Now, the race was a no contest, but in the Pick 4, they paid off to "all" in leg 1 and let the bet stand, this wasn't a refund.
So, i guess my question is this. Is this fair to pay off the same to the horse who won and the horse who lost the rider?
I feel that you either have to refund the entire bet, its not fair to the bettors who singled the 2-5 shot who was never in doubt at any point and make them share their money with the jock who fell off a horse after the start.
I'd vote to refund the money and not pay it off to "all".