Refunds at Saratoga in the 8th on a "non starter"

[Stillriledup]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i've seen at tracks around the country that if a horse causes his or her own problem, even if the asst starter holds her back, they don't refund the money. I've seen several situations where the starter was holding a rank horse when the gates opened and the money didnt get refunded. Rules in NY different than around the country?

[Show Me the Wire]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i've seen at tracks around the country that if a horse causes his or her own problem, even if the asst starter holds her back, they don't refund the money. I've seen several situations where the starter was holding a rank horse when the gates opened and the money didnt get refunded. Rules in NY different than around the country?

The gate opened early, the asst. starter held her so not to outbreak the field.

[Tom]

Another side note in this race, the #4, In Her Day flipped in the paddock but still ran.

[Stillriledup]

The gate opened early, the asst. starter held her so not to outbreak the field.

But if the gate opened early, and the horse caused her own problem, it should be a DQ, not a refund.

Also remember, the money isnt' getting refunded by the track, the winning bettors are footing the bill.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102705&highlight=refunds

[Show Me the Wire]

But if the gate opened early, and the horse caused her own problem, it should be a DQ, not a refund.

Also remember, the money isnt' getting refunded by the track, the winning bettors are footing the bill.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102705&highlight=refunds

The starter held her. He should have let her go if she beat the gate. The starter held her way too long and compounded the problem.

[Stillriledup]

The starter held her. He should have let her go if she beat the gate. The starter held her way too long and compounded the problem.

But if she beat the gate first, even with the starter still holding on, why not just DQ her, its not like the starter made her beat the gate, she caused her own problem. If the starter lets her go, she's DQd anyway, its not like him holding on prevented her from winning as she was destined to be DQd anyway for breaking thru early.

[Show Me the Wire]

But if she beat the gate first, even with the starter still holding on, why not just DQ her, its not like the starter made her beat the gate, she caused her own problem. If the starter lets her go, she's DQd anyway, its not like him holding on prevented her from winning as she was destined to be DQd anyway for breaking thru early.

It is not clear she actually beat the gate and will never know, because the starter held her way too long. If he would have released her when the rest of the field left, there would not have been any action taken, as the animal caused her own problems. The field was well on the way before the starter released her. Maybe his hand got caught and could not release her in a timely manner. Released in a timely manner is the issue and it was the correct ruling.

[Stillriledup]

It is not clear she actually beat the gate and will never know, because the starter held her way too long. If he would have released her when the rest of the field left, there would not have been any action taken, as the animal caused her own problems. The field was well on the way before the starter released her. Maybe his hand got caught and could not release her in a timely manner. Released in a timely manner is the issue and it was the correct ruling.

My bone of contention is that i've seen situations where horses were not released by the starter in a timely manner yet they weren't refunds on the grounds that the horse caused her own problem. I guess the argument was that the starter is just holding on for his own safety and maybe the safety of the horse, i believe i started a thread about this when it happened at Mountaineer one time, the horse reared up, the started held the horse but they didnt refund on the grounds that the horse caused the problem.

I just don't see that this rule is consistent from track to track.

[dilanesp]

There isn't an exact science on this. It's like when does a big spill cause a "no contest" and when does it not? I remember in 1986 there was a spill in a race at Santa Anita that took out 5 of the 7 runners, and they called it an official race and paid off to the backers of the 2 finishers. But more recently they have declared similar situations to be no contests.

Every time something like this happens, the stewards have to make a judgment call, and I think that's unavoidable.

[Stillriledup]

There isn't an exact science on this. It's like when does a big spill cause a "no contest" and when does it not? I remember in 1986 there was a spill in a race at Santa Anita that took out 5 of the 7 runners, and they called it an official race and paid off to the backers of the 2 finishers. But more recently they have declared similar situations to be no contests.

Every time something like this happens, the stewards have to make a judgment call, and I think that's unavoidable.

Its possible that they weren't 100% sure that this was all the fault of the horse, so they probably err'd on the side of refunding the bettors.

[thespaah]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i've seen at tracks around the country that if a horse causes his or her own problem, even if the asst starter holds her back, they don't refund the money. I've seen several situations where the starter was holding a rank horse when the gates opened and the money didn't get refunded. Rules in NY different than around the country?
Says in the chart " non starter"..
That's a refund on all wagers involving that horse.
http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/SAR080814USA8.pdf

[thespaah]

Here's the head on replay..Clearly an action on the part of the assistant starter combined with the horse acting up prior to the start.
IMO, NYRA made the right call.
I'd be pretty pissed if I had to eat $$ on tix on that one.

[thespaah]

But if the gate opened early, and the horse caused her own problem, it should be a DQ, not a refund.

Also remember, the money isnt' getting refunded by the track, the winning bettors are footing the bill.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102705&highlight=refunds
So what's the problem here? Are you upset because you think that money should not have been removed from the pool?

[thespaah]

IMO this is NYRA management erring on the side of caution.
This is a customer service issue.
And at this juncture anything racetrack management can reasonably do to ensure good customer service, they should.
IMO, this was a good decision.

[thespaah]

The starter held her. He should have let her go if she beat the gate. The starter held her way too long and compounded the problem.
Looked to me as though the horse became fractious just prior to the start. A good assistant starter is going to attempt to control the horse.
it was the 'perfect storm'....Starter sees the horses in order, and just a moment before hitting the button, a horse acts up in the gate.....It happens. It's rare, but it happens. So the track management gave a break to the people that had that horse on their tickets.
So what?

[Stillriledup]

So what's the problem here? Are you upset because you think that money should not have been removed from the pool?

Just having a problem with the inconsistency. I don't mind them refunding the horse, but i've seen where this scenario doesn't get refunded. They say the horse caused the problem and even though the starter is still holding on, they blame the horse and don't refund the money. I would just like to see consistent rulings and not guesswork.

[098poi]

SRU I found your photo on the web.

[thespaah]

Just having a problem with the inconsistency. I don't mind them refunding the horse, but i've seen where this scenario doesn't get refunded. They say the horse caused the problem and even though the starter is still holding on, they blame the horse and don't refund the money. I would just like to see consistent rulings and not guesswork.
If you have an example then please present it.
Mind you, this is not an exact science.
I could go on and on explaining that statement. To make it simple.....Shit happens and someone has to make the call.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's do a "Gillette you make the call".
What is SRU Down's ruling?

[thespaah]

SRU I found your photo on the web.
:lol:
CLASSIC!!!!!

[Show Me the Wire]

Looked to me as though the horse became fractious just prior to the start. A good assistant starter is going to attempt to control the horse.
it was the 'perfect storm'....Starter sees the horses in order, and just a moment before hitting the button, a horse acts up in the gate.....It happens. It's rare, but it happens. So the track management gave a break to the people that had that horse on their tickets.
So what?

So what? It was the correct call, which I tried to explain to sru. Yes, she was fractious and the gate opened early, really not clear if she caused the gate to open early or it just, malfunctioned. The asst. starter tried to control her, nothing wrong with that. But he held her too long to just blame the horse for its trouble, which is what sru wanted done.

[Stillriledup]

If you have an example then please present it.
Mind you, this is not an exact science.
I could go on and on explaining that statement. To make it simple.....Shit happens and someone has to make the call.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's do a "Gillette you make the call".
What is SRU Down's ruling?

Whatever SRU would have done, they would have always done, we wouldn't pick and choose which horses to refund and which ones to not refund.

As far as my example goes, there was a race at Mountaineer, i'm thinking it might have been last year, but its possible it was early last year or late the previous year. The starter held onto the horse as it was rearing up, there was no refund because they said the horse caused its own trouble. I think there was a discussion about this here at PA, but i can't find the thread or remember the horse.

[camourous]

there was a race a little while back in New York the Sheepshead Bay may 26th 2012 at Belmont., where the #1 Mystical Star reared up and broke the gate open early and ended up breaking 10 lengths behind the field,he managed to somehow finish 3rd, the stewards did not scratch the horse, but dq'd the horse to last because he caused his own problem by rearing up before the start.

I feel in both cases the horses should of been scratched.

I think SRU posted about this race before