NYRA At It Again... [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

The Hawk

01-27-2005, 08:06 PM

From the DRF...

The jockeys met for approximately 20 minutes after the first race and notified the stewards and racing secretary Mike Lakow - other members of the New York Racing Association's senior management were not on the grounds - they would ride the second race, but not the remainder of the card. The temperature at first post was 16 degrees with a wind chill factor of minus-4. The second race was run at 1:12 p.m., 14 minutes after initially scheduled.

While those who wagered on the daily double were protected, those who wagered on the pick three or pick four that started with the second race were left out in the cold. Even though it was understood no more races would be run after the second, wagers were taken on the pick three and pick four. Consolation payouts were made in both those wagers to those who had second-race longshot winner Delta Sea ($37.60) and any horse in the remaining legs of the pick three or pick four. The pick three returned $28, the pick four $27.40.[snip]

Obviously, cancelling was the right thing to do. In fact, they never should have even started running this card with those kind of wind chills. I know I'm not the most NYRA-friendly guy around but can ANYONE defend what they did here? Taking multi-race bets when they KNEW they had no intention of running after the 1st leg was in, just to rake the pool?

toetoe

01-27-2005, 08:39 PM

Hawk,
It never occurred to me, but I guess it did to them. They're only ugly, not stupid.

Tom

01-27-2005, 11:28 PM

I would say taking wagers on races that they knew were not going to run is a clear case of fraud and if that is the case,then criminal penalties are definatley in order for the boards of directors at the least. Not to mention whatever civil actions the shiesters can weasel out of them.
(Withthe potential problems NRA has on the horizon, I would not be betting too many long term bets, like the P4 anways! :D )

PaceAdvantage

01-27-2005, 11:44 PM

the little guy

01-28-2005, 01:20 AM

I don't know the specifics on this, but I have to say this is an odd one. The real problem I have is that the Pick-3 and Pick-4 are 25% takeout races ( as opposed to 14% for win ) so those that made those bets in the second were effectively making a win bet with a MUCH higher takeout. Since NYRA apparantly knew before the race it was the last one, it does seem questionable that they ran it. Now, I understand a lot of the money in these pools was probably already bet when the jocks gave word they wouldn't ride after the second, but all in all it does seem at least a little questionable.

I am guessing that, as usual, there is more to the story. Since unlike most people who can't wait to jump on NYRA, I can actually find out more specifics, I will wait to make a final judgement. The decision, however, does seem at least questionable, and I would wonder if there is a rule that if only one race of these multiple race bets is run if, in fact, the takeout isn't lower. If that rule isn't in place it certainly should be.

I do agree with PA that they should run as many races as possible, assuming it's safe, so running the race isn't outrageous. I just don't like what happened with these specific bets, and maybe that's because I usually play them, though not today.

01-28-2005, 01:41 AM

I'm a NYRA fan, like the racing, but if they truly took P3 and P4 bets knowing the races weren't going to be run, well, that just plain stinks!

the little guy

01-28-2005, 01:46 AM

It's kind of a catch-22. While it is seems the fairest thing to do is announce that the Pick-3 and Pick-4 have been cancelled, a lot of money has already been bet, and many people will not hear the announcement. So, those with the winner will be expecting a consolation and will be furious to hear the bet was simply cancelled. So, ultimately the fairest thing to do is probably pay people a consolation.

01-28-2005, 03:50 AM

Little Guy,

Why not close the pools once you KNOW there aren't going to be any races after the 2d? That way, those that already bet get paid, those that didn't bet yet can't. Any way you look at it, they screwed over the guys who bet after this decision was made. Did they make announcements letting people know there wouldn't be any more races but you could still bet the P3 or P4? Tough call without knowing all the facts, but it doesn't sound good.

BIG RED

01-28-2005, 07:05 AM

I was in the warroom talking to WINMANWIN when this was happening. I said they would probably run the 2nd race to cover the doubles players, then quit. I can't for the life of me see how they would except P-3 & P-4 wagering after they knew they were cancelling. Why didn't they just have everyone line up and take 20% out of their pockets before they left? I'm not a serial player, and I may sound harsh, but I don't see their reasonning.IMOO

( I would feel this way with any track )

The Hawk

01-28-2005, 10:18 AM

Are you guys kidding me?

Every track management in the UNITED STATES is going to run every race the JOCKEYS are willing to participate in.

You never know what the conditions are going to be like until you get out there. The jockeys run the show when the weather is bad (as it should be, since they and the horses are the ones putting their lives on the line), and this is how it happens YEAR in and YEAR out at EVERY winter track in the country (not to mention at SUMMER tracks when TORRENTIAL downpours screw with the racing surface)

Whenever racing is cancelled in the middle of the racecard, SOMEBODY's bets are going to be screwed.

If you're going to make a post every time NYRA cancels, make sure you give equal time to all other tracks whenever they cancel after they have run at least one race.

This is NOT about them cancelling. It's about taking bets on races they had no intention running, and taking their cut. Bit of a difference. Of course they should have cancelled. But they should have been honest about what they intended to do.

It's kind of a catch-22. While it is seems the fairest thing to do is announce that the Pick-3 and Pick-4 have been cancelled, a lot of money has already been bet, and many people will not hear the announcement. So, those with the winner will be expecting a consolation and will be furious to hear the bet was simply cancelled. So, ultimately the fairest thing to do is probably pay people a consolation.

You mean to say that they couldn't make multiple announcements and put up a full screen graphic that the 2nd would be the last race of the day, and Pick 3 and 4 races would be cancelled? I was at a simulcast facility and there was no sound but the full-screen graphic showing they cancelled was impossible to miss. They couldn't do the same with a notice that the 2nd race would be the last race? Or run one of those endless drags across the screen? There was a delay of nearly 30 minutes before the running of the 2nd race. There was ample time to inform people. They chose not to, and while it's outrageous I can't say I'm completely surprised, considering the organization.

SAL

01-28-2005, 10:54 AM

All I can say is that's a BS move by NYRA. Makes them look like greedy bastards, that's for sure.

the little guy

01-28-2005, 11:51 AM

The more I read around here the more I have to wonder about people's perspective. While what happened at NYRA yesterday MAY have been unfair, you guys are acting like some horrendous miscarriage of justice was done to the players that resulted in an ENORMOUS windfall to NYRA. Whoa....take a step back. How much money do you honestly believe was in those pools? Well, I'll tell you....$80,000 combined. Since, at most, at most 20% was bet at NYRA, they got $4000 in takeout instead of $2160, as most of the money was bet at simulcast outlets that pay pretty much the same fee regardless of the wager. You guys are acting like it was a criminal conspiracy and NYRA reaped a huge windfall of under $2000!

I understand that what happened MAY have been unfair to bettors overall, but what this thread really shows is people's complete lack of perspective when it comes to NYRA. You guys are SO ready to condemn them for ANYTHING that happens that you are honestly making a mountain out of a mole hill.

01-28-2005, 12:38 PM

I don't think I've uttered one word in the past about NYRA, other than GOOD. Regardless of the amount, it was wrong. You are beginning to sound like a NYRA apologist rather than a horse player. Why do you say MAY have been unfair? It was unfair if they didn't close the P3 and P4 pools as soon as they knew they wouldn't run after the 2nd. Any clown could figure this out, but apparently, there weren't any clowns at Aquedcuct yesterday, because they couldn't. Doesn't matter if is was Churchill, Magna, NYRA, or whoever, they screwed this one up. Again, it was the horse player be damned, we'll do what we damn well please.

How many guys went 4 deep in the P3 or P4 in leg 1 and lost money? Do you think they would have bet 4 horses to win if they knew they were only betting on the 2d?

the little guy

01-28-2005, 12:41 PM

CJ, I am not specifically talking to you, and I also said it was unfair. I just think there is a complete lack of perspective from the posters here ragarding anything NYRA is involved in. If you really disagree with that then we will have to agree to disagree.

01-28-2005, 12:48 PM

I agree some seem to be on a NYRA witchhunt, no doubt. I think NYRA is pretty good, and definitely the best of the big boys around.

They missed on this one, but I don't think it was that big of a deal compared of some of the other crap going on around the country! (SoCal removing races from the turf in bright sunlight after P6 windows have closed with millions in the pools, for example)

Tee

01-28-2005, 01:18 PM

They missed on this one, but I don't think it was that big of a deal compared of some of the other crap going on around the country! (SoCal removing races from the turf in bright sunlight after P6 windows have closed with millions in the pools, for example)

Don't even get me started on that SoCal fiasco!!

InsideThePylons-MW

01-28-2005, 03:07 PM

Have no opinion on NYRA whatsoever being from west coast.

If you went to a Jets game and paid $200 for 2 tickets at the gate when the Jets knew they weren't going to play the game and when you went to get your refund they gave you $150 back, I think you should feel that you basically got a pistol stuck in your ribs and had $50 stolen from you.

Out and out theft.

OTM Al

01-28-2005, 03:55 PM

I think its bad IF they took the bets knowing the races weren't going, but calling it theft is a little silly. First off, who are "they"? Did the tellers taking the bets know early on. Doubt it. Unfortuanately there is always going to be a time delay involved when a decision is made for it to filter to the rest of the system. Not making excuses here, just the way it is. Also, had you gone 3 deep in each of the other 2 races, you got back better than $200 at the $2 bet level. And that''s given you didn't even have to be right about what may have happened later. Yeah, you could have made more buying just a win ticket on the first horse, but that's just the same old I should have....instead.. sort of arguement. On a nasty cold day in NY, one should take in the possiblity that part of the card may be cancelled. To me its part of the gamble involved. I got hit by it a couple saturdays ago. Disappointed, yes, think I got ripped off, not at all.

Suff

01-28-2005, 04:32 PM

I'd have to agree. And I concede Little Guys and PA's points. NYRA didn't stand to make any money that would make a considerable difference to that days Bottom Line.

But I think it goes to the point of "Institutional Arrogance" that is present in all of racing. And for that matter.. In most of corporate america.

It really boggles my mind how the orginization could be aware that they would be accepting wagers for a Paramutuel event that wasn't going to take place..... And it highlights the common mantra that Tracks don't consider the Bettor a Top Priority when making decisons.

I did'nt play it.. it doesn't affect me directly. But It does worry me that Hayward and Nader are or seem to be saying all the right things... But when something like this happens.. It makes me think.. "They just don't get it"..

The customer has been ignored and abused for so long that institutions simply do not have it in thier culture to consider whats best for the Bettor when they make decisons.

Everybody that Follows NYRA.. KNows the franchise is a Poltical Football right now. With that said.. It seems that if NYRA is criticed on this Board , certain people have this 'How dare you" attitude. I wish that would cease. It takes away from any valid points they attempt to make.

Its like.. My Circuit. RIGHT OR WRONG.

I'm not bashing NYRA. I love New York Racing. It has brought me many many great times. Some of the most enjoyable times of my life. But If I want to voice an opinion on it.. I will. And I hope people stop taking it like I'm insulting your Mother.

CryingForTheHorses

01-28-2005, 08:09 PM

In this day and age we have so many jockeys from warm countries, They hate cold weather, The game isnt like years ago when you see the guys wearing face masks for the frozen clumps of dirt that is going to hit them. This is a profession that they chose.I really wouldnt blame NYRA for taking money on them bets, Jockeys do rish their lives but they are also temperamental little fkers when it comes to having their say.Im not going against what they did but I do feel they made this choice before informing management.

The Hawk

01-28-2005, 08:17 PM

I just think there is a complete lack of perspective from the posters here ragarding anything NYRA is involved in.

I completely agree with this. The NYRA apologists have lost ALL perspective. It doesn't really matter how much money was involved. Is it worse if they made $50,000? $100,000? $250,000? The main point is that the horseplayers were an afterthought again, and that's putting it mildly.

And Suff is right. We've been getting screwed for so long we've come to accept it, not just at NYRA but everywhere we play horses. Some even seem to expect it. It so happens that this incident was at NYRA. I know you guys love NY racing but as a horseplayer, just a horseplayer, not a NYRA fan/horseplayer, this kind of practice is fine with you? Nobody's storming the gates or calling for a boycott, just presenting what happened. I don't want an investigation, I just wanted to bring it to people's attention. I don't know why bringing it up is "making a mountain out of a molehill." It's really incredible that posters are trying to rationalize this decision basically because it happened at NYRA.

And why is this ok....

Since NYRA apparantly knew before the race it was the last one, it does seem questionable that they ran it...

...but nobody else can criticize NYRA, or it's a witchhunt? The above quote is true. Does that mean that TLG is anti-NYRA? It's just one man's opinion, no more, no less, like everyone else here. I'm not anti-NYRA. I love what they're doing with the takeout. I like their simulcast presentation. At certain times of the year they offer excellent racing. I'd like to go back to playing races there. But I'm against any track that shows disrespect for horseplayers, and there seems to be a lot of that going on there of late. I promise, the next time a non-NYRA track takes bets on races that they have no intention of running I will post here.

PaceAdvantage

01-28-2005, 08:18 PM

Does anyone know the RULES of cancelling certain bets? Did anyone consult the NY RACING AND WAGERING BOARD, to see, in fact, if NYRA COULD cancel those Pick 3s and Pick 4s?

PaceAdvantage

01-28-2005, 08:22 PM

I completely agree with this. The NYRA apologists have lost ALL perspective.

That's BS. If anyone has lost perspective, it's people like you. I just posted a very realistic scenario. Perhaps the NYS Racing and Wagering Board rules governing the cancellation of certain bets prohibits NYRA from cancelling the bet in this situation. Did you ever think of that?

PaceAdvantage

01-28-2005, 08:25 PM

Its like.. My Circuit. RIGHT OR WRONG.

I'm not bashing NYRA. I love New York Racing. It has brought me many many great times. Some of the most enjoyable times of my life. But If I want to voice an opinion on it.. I will. And I hope people stop taking it like I'm insulting your Mother.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this was directed at people like me, so all I'm going to say is, I'll keep posting them as I see them....like it or not.

Jeff P

01-28-2005, 08:30 PM

As a bettor, I'm feeling a little slighted here.

I played this pick 3 through Pinnacle and lost the first leg. When I saw that AQU was paying a 4-ALL-ALL consolation, I thought that Pinnacle might refund the wager as posted on the Horse Rules page of their site.

For Pick 3's, and Pick 4's, if a horse is scratched in any leg, you will receive refunds on all combos with the scratched horse, no matter when the horse was scratched. You will not receive the track favorite or any consolation payouts, but instead a refund. This is an advantage for the player.

Maybe I'm reading something into the wording on their site that's not really there. The track ended up paying a consolation payoff. When the remainder of a card is cancelled, aren't all the runners in subsequent legs of a pick 3 technically scratched horses?

This little voice in the back of my head tells me that had I selected the 4 in the first leg of this pick 3 that Pinnacle then could have simply refunded my wager instead of paying the consolation payoff.

Anyone else who played this through Pinnacle share my opinion?

Did anybody who played this pick 3 or pick 4 through Pinnacle have the 4 in the first leg? And if you did, did they pay the consolation payout that the track did- or did they simply refund your bet?

WINMANWIN

01-28-2005, 08:55 PM

Obviously this has been going on for years, Question is, does it happen at the OTHER TRACKS ?? I would think they all RIP US OFF with similar incidents.
In the tracks eyes, we bet pick 3's or pick 4's, They wont extend themselves, and treat it any different, even if its the RIGHT thing to do. :mad:

PaceAdvantage

01-28-2005, 08:57 PM

It really boggles my mind how the orginization could be aware that they would be accepting wagers for a Paramutuel event that wasn't going to take place..... And it highlights the common mantra that Tracks don't consider the Bettor a Top Priority when making decisons.

I did'nt play it.. it doesn't affect me directly. But It does worry me that Hayward and Nader are or seem to be saying all the right things... But when something like this happens.. It makes me think.. "They just don't get it"..

The customer has been ignored and abused for so long that institutions simply do not have it in thier culture to consider whats best for the Bettor when they make decisons.

It boggles my mind when people post stuff like this without knowing the whole story. Don't get me wrong, *I* don't know the whole story either, which is why I asked the question about the rules that govern the cancelling of wagers as written by the NYSRWB.

The Hawk

01-28-2005, 09:06 PM

That may well be, PA. But the point here is the public was never made aware of the situation. If there is a law that prohibits them from cancelling a Pick 3 or Pick 4, even if it's due to weather, then the bettors should have been made aware of the fact. TELL US. Let us decide if we want to play a one-legged Pick 4. Even you have to admit that cancelling the remainder of the card and not telling anyone is at least a little underhanded, no?

By the way, this argument that people wouldn't hear an announcement is inane. Everyone got word that they cancelled, didn't they? Or were there people standing around for hours waiting for the post parade for the 3rd? A full screen graphic and repeated announcements were all that were needed. When half of an entry runs off before a race and is scratched it's drilled into your head that the other half is running for purse money only (a splendid NYRA rule, incidentally) through graphics and announcements.

I'm not insinuating anything, just asking. Didn't the people who were betting on the races have the right to know that the rest of the card was going to be cancelled? Or, as you suggest, that lawns mandated that the Pick 4 would have to be made into a Pick-One? Seriously, maybe I'm missing something. What possible motives did the track have in not divulging this?

toetoe

01-28-2005, 09:31 PM

Is it possible the jocks were not POSITIVE they wouldn't quit after two? If so, NYRA could be terrified of canceling the exotics, only to see card continue. Far-fetched? Yes. But, as dim a viewer as I am, I sense there's something that's not occurring to us. Could be P.A.'s state-law idea, could be ANYTHING! You guys know this game has more permutations than a chess game, or bridge, or you-name-it. That's why we love it. We'll find out one way or the other.

saratoga guy

01-28-2005, 09:56 PM

This one is a real head-scratcher. I can only guess that as Toe-toe suggests perhaps the jocks' decision to quit after two wasn't as set in stone as the day-after reports implied. If that's the case then keeping the "pick" bets open makes some sense.

Otherwise, to answer PA's question, it would seem that the rules provided by the NYSRWB would have required that the "picks" be refunded.

Rule 4011.24 pertaining to the "WIN-3" which is descirbed as being a wager involving picking the winner in 3 consecutive races -- and the bet might have another name, in other words, the Pick3

Section (f) of the rule reads: Race cancellations. (1) If any leg is cancelled or declared non-betting before the start of the first leg, the pool shall be refunded. (2) If either the second or third leg (or both) are cancelled or declared non-betting after the start of the first leg, payoffs will be determined on the basis of contested legs.

...Seems like the wagers should have been refunded if it was known before the running of the 2nd that that would be the last of the day,

PaceAdvantage

01-29-2005, 04:46 AM

Didn't the people who were betting on the races have the right to know that the rest of the card was going to be cancelled? Or, as you suggest, that lawns mandated that the Pick 4 would have to be made into a Pick-One? Seriously, maybe I'm missing something. What possible motives did the track have in not divulging this?

I think the lack of certainty to this obviously dynamic and ever-changing situation is summed by this quote:

The jockeys met for approximately 20 minutes after the first race and notified the stewards and racing secretary Mike Lakow - other members of the New York Racing Association's senior management were not on the grounds - they would ride the second race, but not the remainder of the card. The temperature at first post was 16 degrees with a wind chill factor of minus-4. The second race was run at 1:12 p.m., 14 minutes after initially scheduled.

The jockeys met for TWENTY MINUTES???!!! Why does it take this long to decide whether or not it's too cold outside? Obviously, there is a lot of debate going on here whether or not to ride. NYRA delayed the running of the 2nd race 14 minutes, apparently in the belief that there was enough turmoil among the jockeys that they might change their minds, or be convinced in some way to continue the card.

It's pretty apparent, at least to this tired old soul, that none of what was going on was etched in stone. There were no contracts written up, and if it took the jockeys 20 minutes to decide the first time around, then things were probably deemed fairly chaotic by management, and subject to change at a moments notice.

I'm sure NYRA wasn't 100% convinced that after the running of the 2nd race, things would not change once again. You can't blame them for wanting the show to go on, if at all possible. I think, given this chaotic and uncertain situation, where jockeys are meeting for 20 minutes to debate something that is obvious (the weather), that the PRUDENT thing would be to NOT jump the gun and cancel CERTAIN wagers.

What if some of the senior jockeys came back after the 2nd and said "You know what, it's not as bad as we thought out there.....on second thought, we think we'll ride another couple of races and see how it goes."

Now you see how the situation may not have been as cut and dried as it might appear at first glance. Don't let a healthy bias get in the way of appreciating all the angles for what they might have been.

01-29-2005, 05:11 AM

That's a real "Stretch Armstrong" type reach there PA.

First, you say we shouldn't jump to conclusions without knowing the whole situation. Then, a guy points out the rule and you don't respond, but instead make up some far-fetched hypothetical. If the jocks said they wouldn't ride after the 2nd race, its OK for management to screw the bettors hoping they will change their mind? Like I said, you'd be hard pressed to find an anti-NYRA post from me before this one, but wake up, they screwed this one up.

This was, as I said earlier, a case of we'll do what we damn well please and worry about how it affects the bettor later.

PaceAdvantage

01-29-2005, 05:48 AM

The point is, we don't know the story. Until someone reports the whole story, we're all just pissing into the wind.

And if you want a stict interpretation of the rule, then here is mine:

If the rule is exactly as Saratoga Guy posted (and I'd be surprised if it were....rules like this are usually quite long winded and full of clarifications....Saratoga Guy, is there a link to the official rules somewhere?), then NYRA, quite correctly, followed the letter of the law.

They cancelled racing AFTER the start of the first leg (and I assume by start, they mean the actual running of the race, and not the start of betting), so they correctly paid a consolation.

End of story, at least on our end. If anyone has any juicy inside info into what actually transpired, and the THINKING of NYRA management at the time, and their INTERPRETATION of events, as well as the exact words communicated by the jockeys, I'm all ears.

If only life were as cut and dried as some on this board try and make it appear in certain TRULY RARE situations.

01-29-2005, 08:18 AM

They cancelled racing AFTER the start of the first leg (and I assume by start, they mean the actual running of the race, and not the start of betting), so they correctly paid a consolation.

The P3 doesn't begin with the 1st race, it begins with the 2nd, same as the P4. So, they cancelled racing BEFORE the start of the first leg. I'm sure you know this. The question is, when did they tell the public they cancelled racing?

Kreed

01-29-2005, 09:26 AM

I agree with PA. It's logical --- but I do think that Jockeys are positioning
themselves with Power for other encounters .... wearing ads on their silks;
workmen's comp; and, the holy grail, sharing in simucast revenues because
"hey, amigo, that's MY picture you're broadcasting all over, and my talent
on display costs money." ---- I think this is the behind-the-scenes stuff.

John

01-29-2005, 10:05 AM

It happens everywhere Guys,

Two years ago I had a pick 3 with 5 horses going in the last race on the turf at Gulfstream.when they announced it was off the Turf better than half the horses scratched. I ended up with 5 tickets on one horse the favorite who was 15-1 on the program and ran up the track. Next day Andy Beyer wrote the track knew before the start of the pick 3 that the last race was coming off the turf. Andy Beyer was at Gulstream that day.

Tom

01-29-2005, 10:50 AM

I know all I need to know...NYRA took wagers on race they knew were not going to run. They showed absolutley no concern whatsoever for the bettors. Screw NYRA. I am offically back to beting Gulfstream and Aqi-stench is off my list. Who needs Black and white racing when they offer full color in Florida.

PaceAdvantage

01-29-2005, 10:55 AM

The P3 doesn't begin with the 1st race, it begins with the 2nd, same as the P4. So, they cancelled racing BEFORE the start of the first leg. I'm sure you know this. The question is, when did they tell the public they cancelled racing?

Nope, nope. I said under a strict interpretation of the rules, they cancelled after running the FIRST LEG. They did run the second race. They did not cancel the first leg.

As to when they cancelled racing, I believe the technical definition of when racing was cancelled was when the annoucement was made and wagering ceased to be collected.

All those who bet in advance on all the other pick 3 and pick 4s on the card got a full refund, as per the law.

All this conjecture as to when someone's brain decided to cancel racing, or THOUGHT they would have to cancel racing (but hadn't actually cancelled racing because a race was STILL TO BE RUN)...this is all pissing into the wind, as I said.

We can continue to build this mountain out of a molehill, but I'm running on only 5 hours of sleep, and I have to make my picks for the Ridersup contest, unless of course, NYRA has decided to cancel already, but they're going to run 7 races first.....or was it the other way around?

Sleep deprevation is indeed a nasty thing, as you can see! ;)

foregoforever

01-29-2005, 10:59 AM

The rules are at

http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/thbred/subchapterA_tb.html (section 4011.24)

Several points ...

I think NYRA is the best-run racing outfit around, but as a result I hold them to a higher standard in many things. When they screw something up, it gets my attention more so than with other tracks. It's not NYRA-bashing. It's because I care. ;)

The only reason the incident was unfair is because of the take-out differences between the Pick-3 and a win wager. Why does this difference exist? If a Pick-3 collapses to a Win bet because of two cancellations, why shouldn't the Win takeout be used? When cancellations cause one type of bet to morph into another for the entire pool, the takeout should be shifted to that of the latter bet.

And why are there different takeouts for different types of bets? I have never understood why horseplayers tolerate this. It has no basis in mathematics. The odds of hitting a double is the product of the odds of hitting the two individual races. The track doesn't incur higher costs in processing the bet. Can someone explain the rationale behind this?

And finally, is it the racing secretary's call on these sorts of situations? The article said that no other senior NYRA officials were at the track, which implies that if one had been there, it would have been their call. That seems odd. It should be one person's call, all the time. When this sort of last-minute situation comes up and a decision needs to be made quickly, it's not the time to call the roll to figure out who's wearing the most stripes.

01-29-2005, 11:42 AM

You are right about a mountain out of a mole hill, its not a huge issue.

It comes down to this, was the public made aware there would be no races after the 2nd, or were they kept in the dark and allowed to bet P3s and P4s even though the races were not going to be run.

Its not a big deal as I said earlier in the thread, but why defend an obvious screw the bettor situation. You are becoming to NYRA what McSchell is to Magna. If the title of the thread had been "Bettors Screwed Again" or "Magna at it Again" I doubt you'd be going to these lengths to "justify" the actions.

The Hawk

01-29-2005, 11:57 AM

The jockeys met for TWENTY MINUTES???!!! Why does it take this long to decide whether or not it's too cold outside? Obviously, there is a lot of debate going on here whether or not to ride. NYRA delayed the running of the 2nd race 14 minutes, apparently in the belief that there was enough turmoil among the jockeys that they might change their minds, or be convinced in some way to continue the card.

It's pretty apparent, at least to this tired old soul, that none of what was going on was etched in stone. There were no contracts written up, and if it took the jockeys 20 minutes to decide the first time around, then things were probably deemed fairly chaotic by management, and subject to change at a moments notice.

I'm sure NYRA wasn't 100% convinced that after the running of the 2nd race, things would not change once again. You can't blame them for wanting the show to go on, if at all possible. I think, given this chaotic and uncertain situation, where jockeys are meeting for 20 minutes to debate something that is obvious (the weather), that the PRUDENT thing would be to NOT jump the gun and cancel CERTAIN wagers.

What if some of the senior jockeys came back after the 2nd and said "You know what, it's not as bad as we thought out there.....on second thought, we think we'll ride another couple of races and see how it goes."

Now you see how the situation may not have been as cut and dried as it might appear at first glance. Don't let a healthy bias get in the way of appreciating all the angles for what they might have been.

Nice theory, but if you were at the track or a simulcast outlet (I was) you would know that the full-screen graphic saying the rest of the card was cancelled came up IMMEDIATELY after the 2nd, I belive even before they even showed a replay. There was no doubt that this was determined before the 2nd race was run. And you'd know this if you read the DRF article instead of being blinded by your NYRA loyalties. What part of this don't you get:

While those who wagered on the daily double were protected, those who wagered on the pick three or pick four that started with the second race were left out in the cold. Even though it was understood no more races would be run after the second, wagers were taken on the pick three and pick four.

You want to talk about hypothetical circumstances and not jumping to conclusions but here's something in black and white that you apparently can't accept. This undying allegiance to NYRA is a little bizarre, I have to say.

Tom

01-29-2005, 12:25 PM

So let me get this whole jockey thing straight-the track was safe enough to ride the second race but not the third. And this was determised before the second race. Hmmmmm. Safe enough now, but far too dangerous for any more. This decsion made befreo the second. Hmmmmm.
That is like when you take a drink of milk out the bottle and it is spoiled, you take that second sip just to be sure?

PaceAdvantage

01-29-2005, 01:26 PM

Nice theory, but if you were at the track or a simulcast outlet (I was) you would know that the full-screen graphic saying the rest of the card was cancelled came up IMMEDIATELY after the 2nd...

Not to be argumentative, but what the heck does that prove? In this day and age, you can get a graphic on a screen in less than 5 minutes....

PaceAdvantage

01-29-2005, 01:27 PM

You are becoming to NYRA what McSchell is to Magna.

I respectfully disagree.

PaceAdvantage

01-29-2005, 01:34 PM

And finally, is it the racing secretary's call on these sorts of situations? The article said that no other senior NYRA officials were at the track, which implies that if one had been there, it would have been their call.

I think in these cases, it's the jockey's call, which is why I maintain the situation may not have been as cut and dried as you think, ESPECIALLY since the jockeys went out and rode the 2nd race!

Why did they do that? Why not just cancel after the 1st? NYRA has certainly cancelled racing after one race in the past. This proves that the situation might have been more fluid than one might be led to believe. Maybe The Little Guy can fill in the blanks.

saratoga guy

01-29-2005, 02:06 PM

There was no doubt that this was determined before the 2nd race was run. And you'd know this if you read the DRF article instead of being blinded by your NYRA loyalties. What part of this don't you get:

While those who wagered on the daily double were protected, those who wagered on the pick three or pick four that started with the second race were left out in the cold. Even though it was understood no more races would be run after the second, wagers were taken on the pick three and pick four.

Actually there's still plenty of doubt -- even after reading that. The DRF writer gives a direct quote from a jockey on the matter but gives no quote from any NYRA offical. So if "it was understood", who was it understood by? And since it obviously was something of concern to this writer, why didn't he try to get an explanation from NYRA?

saratoga guy

01-29-2005, 02:07 PM

So let me get this whole jockey thing straight-the track was safe enough to ride the second race but not the third.

They didn't quit because the track was unsafe, they quit because if the temperature.

foregoforever

01-29-2005, 04:03 PM

Sorry, I was referring to the call of when to announce the cancellation and when to cut off betting on the pick 3. Someone has to be the chief operating officer, as far as the wagering is concerned, and would be the accountable party if things get screwed up, as they appear to have in this case.

Tom

01-29-2005, 04:13 PM

They didn't quit because the track was unsafe, they quit because if the temperature.

I know-the point is, it was warm enough for the second but too cold for the third?

CryingForTheHorses

01-29-2005, 04:23 PM

I respectfully disagree.

CJI do agree with you BUT I do agree with PA on this,When its cold like it has been, Jockeys fingers and toes freeze along with the rest of their body, Dont forget they are wearing a thin teeshirt under them silks, I dont know how any of you guys can think NYRA had ANYTHING to do with this!!!.Do they not refund your bet money if a race or card is cancelled? Seems to me lots of you guys cant bitch at your wives so you come here to vent about anything. Im with you PA on this. CJ yes PA always defends NYRA and has lots to say when NYRA is mentioned..Go PA GO
ps The way you promote NYRA Racing..Frank would love to have you on his team!

karlskorner

01-29-2005, 06:29 PM

If your "officialy" back to betting Gulfstream, I'll stop by the PR dept. tomorrow and get you a bumper sticker "GO FRANK GO"

Tom

01-29-2005, 07:30 PM

Thanks, Karl, but do they have any "Bite me Franky" stickers? I still think Franky is an A1 Jerk.
Like using a hooker - ok for a weekend, but you don't want to marry one. :D

Suff

01-29-2005, 10:18 PM

I have a sneaking suspicion that this was directed at people like me, so all I'm going to say is, I'll keep posting them as I see them....like it or not.

Of Course. Please do. But what I'm saying is.. Allow others to do so as well. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you and others. Lately I feel I have to measure my words if I post on NYRA. If someone determines NYRA is not acting in thier best interest and posts as such.. They better be ready to debate you on the subject. I know New York racing is and has been a big part of your life, and you have personal relationships with people involved with NYRA and New York Racing. However, I have yet to see you do anything but defend and minimize any news that comes out of there.

And thats all fine and good as well. I have no desire to alter your perspective on things. I do not wish to argue about it. Its simply conversation to me. The more I think about it.. for all the arguements and Disagreements I have had on the board, very few, if any, have been on Horse racing. When I take my eye off the ball and get involved in the nonsense that goes on in OFF TOPIC is when agruements begin.

Like I said before. Horse racing is my hobby. I enjoy it. Getting embroiled in name calling , personal debates and flames are not my thing. I can talk about Horse racing from Morning till night and not get heated. Unlike many people on your board who just can't seem to avoid arguements....and love giving "smart lessons" on how much they know and how uninformed everyone else is.

Do me a favor.. Did you read Richie Violettes interview in the NY BREDS magazine? Its in the February edition. If you haven't read it. Please do. I know you have some friends in the racing office. I'm sure the magazine is floating around there. Ask one of them to bring a copy home for you.
Read that Article. Please. Because there is a few things in there that I want to talk to you about. My copy is at my house and I'm not home tonight so I can't quote it verbatim.

He supports many of your points. He even uses some of your analogys. He refers to the Wieght/Scales controversy as "Using an Atom Bomb to Kill an Ant"

Speaking of the Weight issue.. This is what I heard. The Culprit was Jose Santos. He was Getting breaks at the scales. And it was an owner.. an owner of one of the horses Santos was riding. And this owner got very angry that he was not told that an overweight Jock was riding his stock, he has a friend on the NYRA board , and he took his anger straight to the board member... who was obligated to take action. Now how true that is, I can't say for sure... But my source is also an owner and a straight shooter so I'm tempted to say its very likely what happened. The same guy also told me that the FEDS have had a plant on the backside for 9 months and more scandals are coming. But back to the Violette article.

I accused NYRA of not policing the Backside a couple of weeks ago. But Violette says that since the settlement with Spitzer, the backside has been under siege. He says that NYRA has posted investigators IN TREES! and he wasn't exagerating. They are all over the barns and its an uncomfortable environment back there right now. As far as my opinion on that...I guess its unforunate that Trainers need to operate under that type of scrutiny, But if that is what it takes to offer a Clean product, Then thats the way its got to be.

The NY BRED magazine interviewer paints Violette as someone who is very involved with the Horsemens association and influencial in Albany via lobbyists they have retained to further thier interests. And Violette makes clear he supports Tim Smith and the Friends of New York Racing Group. He said he'd like to see New York racing be run similiar to the way Keeneland is operated. He makes a pretty good case that NYRA can't compete in its currnent Not-For-Profit structure.

For one.. there is no way NYRA can pay a Franchise Fee that Gov Pataki proposed because NYRA cannot accumulate cash reserves. And this prevents them from expanding, or buying OTB , Or from operating outside a Legislative environment. The other major racing entities can move on a dime to take advanatge of expansion opportunities or adjust thier product to be more attractive. But NYRA is required to get legislative apporoval for the smallest of things. In the new world of On-Line Gambling, The Poker Craze, and Slots at many tracks, there is no way that NYRA can compete successfuly when they must operate in a Political climate.

I think You and I will agree that the Structure of NYRA needs to change. They can't operate as a quasi Public/Private orginization. So who or what exactly are you defending when you defend NYRA? Are you saying that you think they should remain a Non-Profit, overseen by the State Legislators? Or are you defending the People? Who? Bill Nader? The Mutuel Mangers? The Group sales people? I think NYRA as wee know it needs to be fundementally changed. And unfortunately that probably spells major personel changes. Because whoever makes the intial investment will want thier own people running the place.

Violette makes comments about the VLT's and Capital improvements he wants made as well. Some of the things he talks about startled me. I'd like to run them by you. But this post is long enough, and you'd be handcuffed without first reading the article. But see what you can do about getting a hold of it.

PaceAdvantage

01-29-2005, 10:58 PM

Allow others to do so as well. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you and others. Lately I feel I have to measure my words if I post on NYRA. If someone determines NYRA is not acting in thier best interest and posts as such.. They better be ready to debate you on the subject.

How do I not allow others to post opposing views? I would say opposing views are in the majority! If I disagree with someone's view, why should I have to measure my words? It's a debate. If you have the facts on your side, you can't lose a debate. I like a good debate.....therefore....

If the structure of NYRA is to be changed, then so be it. It can be changed, and still have the same people running the show. I see no benefit to handing it over to any of the major players out there, Magna, Churchill, or whomever.

Give these core people who have been putting on the BEST racing in America on a yearly basis a chance to compete with a NEWLY structured NYRA (if this is indeed necessary, which I am not convinced that it is....but I'm open on that issue). Let's see how they perform on a level playing field, with the benfit of the VLT money.

Suff, I was first and foremost a racing fan. I grew up handicapping NYRA. I went to the NYRA tracks every single day for almost a year and a half after I left college. Before I knew a soul at NYRA, I was in love with NYRA itself, their racing plants, and their product.

I don't need to know anyone working at NYRA to defend the place. I would be defending NYRA simply because they deserve to be defended, and because I love to play Devil's advocate.

And isn't it lovely that Mr. Pataki is proposing a $250M franchise fee up front? Gee, I wonder why he is doing this?

It's all a joke and a sham. But really, what it is, is a shame. This is the biggest railroad job I've ever seen in progress, and NOBODY really wants to talk about the dark underbelly of what is going on out there.

All they want to talk about is a cancelled race card or two, a couple of bad tellers, and Jose Santos getting a break in the weights.....

HELLO???!!! Is there anybody out there?

PS. I'll try and get my hands on that article Suff...thanks for the heads up.

Suff

01-29-2005, 11:19 PM

How do I not allow others to post opposing views? I would say opposing views are in the majority! If I disagree with someone's view, why should I have to measure my words? It's a debate. If you have the facts on your side, you can't lose a debate. I like a good debate.....therefore....

PS. I'll try and get my hands on that article Suff...thanks for the heads up.

Its not anything major. But an Example would be when I felt they should have run a couple of weeks ago when the weather wasn't that bad. IMHO..

And your response to my comment was "Your RIGHT.. Just turn the whole thing over to MAGNA.. GO FRANK GO!

Caught me off gaurd.. because I wasn't making a case for turning the place over to Stronach. I was only pontificating on why I felt they should have run. And you made me feel like anything I say about NYRA means I want Stronach to take over.

GeTydOn

01-29-2005, 11:20 PM

Time for a group hug?
:rolleyes:

PaceAdvantage

01-29-2005, 11:24 PM

Its not anything major. But an Example would be when I felt they should have run a couple of weeks ago when the weather wasn't that bad. IMHO..

And your response to my comment was "Your RIGHT.. Just turn the whole thing over to MAGNA.. GO FRANK GO!

My frustrations were probably boiling over at that point, and I probably figured it would be safer to take it out on someone I knew in "real life" LOL

What's that they always say? "You always hurt the ones you love"

;)

Suff

01-29-2005, 11:33 PM

My frustrations were probably boiling over at that point, and I probably figured it would be safer to take it out on someone I knew in "real life" LOL

What's that they always say? "You always hurt the ones you love"

;)

I was , and have been feeling a Little down about Racing the Last couple of months or so. Not to sound to whacky... But it started when Galloping Grocer Lost the Remsen. I really liked that NY BRED Colt and Had high expectations for him. And Honestly... I think Rockport Harbor Toyed with him. Then with the recent news out NYRA it added to that down feeling. I was playing with the idea of taking a 2 month break from the races.. But when I sit down at your board it rejuvanates me.. I think.. "I can't take a break. I love this shit!!". And I do. I look forward everyday to coming out here and reading and talking horses with you and the other friends I've made out here.

Suff

01-30-2005, 12:00 AM

PS. I'll try and get my hands on that article Suff...thanks for the heads up.

I would reccommend it to anyone interested in NY racing to try and get a peek at the interview. Also.. The rest of the Magazine is really good this month as well. Alot of great information on NY sires and the New York Breeding program in General.

I was hoping by talking about the article that someone like FIGMAN would find it on the net somewhere so we can all read it. I Looked all around and couldn't find it. But Figman always seems to sniff out the Good links about NY racing. That TinyURL thing he uses.

I would like to discuss the article with a few guys out here. Its not very long.. But it is very revealing.

toetoe

01-30-2005, 12:08 AM

Suff,
You're reading too much into the Remsen loss. I just want GG to get out and race 3 times before May 7. Between GG and NNY New York has a fighting chance in Ky.

01-30-2005, 08:44 AM

Well, unless Steven Crist is mistaken or lying to make up a story, looks like NYRA did in fact blow this one.

What wasn't fair was for NYRA to continue accepting multirace wagers starting with the second race, already knowing something that the public didn't - that these bets would be paid off on the basis of one result and two or three "alls."

To be fair:

Hard up as the New York Racing Association may be for funds these days, this seemed more like a case of confusion than a diabolical plot to fleece the customers.

Tom

01-30-2005, 10:33 AM

Just what we need - confurse people handling millions of dollars of ther people's money. Confusion at this level is totally unacceptable. I would classify it as "minor league."

saratoga guy

01-30-2005, 11:18 AM

However, what we have is actually Crist assuming there was confusion. Like my comment about the original article in DRF -- if these guys felt this was important enough to comment on, why didn't they try to get an official comment from NYRA as to why it happened?!?

PaceAdvantage

01-30-2005, 12:02 PM

The only confusion I can see is why the jockeys took 20 minutes to decide it's too cold to race. If I were management, I would see this as total indecision on the part of the jockeys, leaving open the possibility that AFTER THEY RIDE the 2nd race (why are they even riding the 2nd race, the temperature DID NOT get any warmer), there MIGHT be a chance of CONTINUING the card.

NYRA would have been foolish to cancel any wagering at that point. I'm sorry some people didn't get optimum results from their multi-wager bets in this case, but given all the circumstances, I don't think there is a truly RIGHT answer here.

01-30-2005, 12:30 PM

The only confusion I can see is why the jockeys took 20 minutes to decide it's too cold to race. If I were management, I would see this as total indecision on the part of the jockeys, leaving open the possibility that AFTER THEY RIDE the 2nd race (why are they even riding the 2nd race, the temperature DID NOT get any warmer), there MIGHT be a chance of CONTINUING the card.

I repeat, since you can say the same thing over again, that this is a HUGE stretch. From all reports, its quite clear they WERE NOT riding after the 2nd. Whether it took the jocks two minutes or 20 to decide, the decision was made. Why didn't NYRA tell the public until after the 2nd? I have a pretty good guess. They figure if they announce it right away, a bunch of people head for the exits and don't bet the 2nd in ANY pool.

Thanks for your take though McSchell! :D

GeTydOn

01-30-2005, 02:04 PM

"a bunch of people head for the exits and don't bet the 2nd in ANY pool."

But doesn't NYRA takes wagers on other tracks that people stick around for?

Figman

01-30-2005, 02:16 PM

No, many people now go to a brand new facility, The Race Palace operated by Nassau OTB and about 15-18 miles from The Big A.

GeTydOn

01-30-2005, 02:19 PM

So they would have left Big A for this Palace?

Figman

01-30-2005, 02:47 PM

Much warmer and more comfortable and only a few minutes away!
http://tinyurl.com/5lo2h

John

01-30-2005, 10:07 PM

FIGMAN

PA said, why did the Jockeys wait twenty minutes to cancel.

Now,Correct me if I am wrong please. As I understand it each jockey room has one jockey that is a speaker.It probably took 2 minutes for all the Jocks
to agree to cancel.The Jockey speaker calls the Steward's.the Steward's call management.Sometime management or Steward Will request to go to Jockey's room to talk this out or have the Jockey speaker go to their office.All this takes time.Hence the 2nd race went off at 1:12 about 15 minutes later than it normal does. 1st race with off at 12:33.It seems to me it was the management that decided to hold off the announcement to tell the public of the cancellation until after the race was run. IMO

PaceAdvantage

01-31-2005, 12:43 AM

I repeat, since you can say the same thing over again, that this is a HUGE stretch. From all reports, its quite clear they WERE NOT riding after the 2nd. Whether it took the jocks two minutes or 20 to decide, the decision was made. Why didn't NYRA tell the public until after the 2nd? I have a pretty good guess. They figure if they announce it right away, a bunch of people head for the exits and don't bet the 2nd in ANY pool.

Thanks for your take though McSchell! :D

Whatever you say CJ. Let me ask you, what is your all-knowing take as to why things went down the way they did? Was it just plain old greed, is that what you're saying?

Is NYRA out to screw the customer at every turn? Is that their new policy? Screw them to the wall at every turn?

I seem to remember a very accomodating NYRA when you and Suff and the crew were roaming around Saratoga, climbing on the starting gate and whatnot. If you don't believe me, I have the pictures to prove it!! :p

I'm still waiting for an official (or as close to official as I can get) comment from someone in NYRA management. Maybe The Little Guy has talked to Bill Nader, and he can give us an update on what went down.

Until then I'm open to any and all possibilities. That's just my style....

And if you compare me to McSchell one more freakin time.....

At least my defense of NYRA is grounded in some sort of reality.....

01-31-2005, 02:49 AM

...Whatever you say CJ. Let me ask you, what is your all-knowing take as to why things went down the way they did? Was it just plain old greed, is that what you're saying?

...I seem to remember a very accomodating NYRA when you and Suff and the crew were roaming around Saratoga, climbing on the starting gate and whatnot. If you don't believe me, I have the pictures to prove it!! :p

...I'm still waiting for an official (or as close to official as I can get) comment from someone in NYRA management. Maybe The Little Guy has talked to Bill Nader, and he can give us an update on what went down.

I don't think it was greed, I think they just forgot about the bettor, which isn't a very good thing to do, but is normal at all tracks, not just NYRA.

Yes, I was in the starting gate, and they demoted the guy that let us out there. Rumor has it that might have something to do with it! ;)

What is taking so long? Surely NYRA officials have seen the articles, why no explanation or defense so far? The longer they wait, the less likely the answer will be a truthful one.

andicap

01-31-2005, 11:31 AM

I think Steve Crist was trying to walk a fine line here and I think the DRF would have been better off with full disclosure.

He knew NYRA had screwed up since the track had already been told by the jockeys that the 2nd race would be the last one, but he's a good friend and former colleague of Charlie Heyward, the new NYRA chief. Heyward was an investor and officer of the Daily Racing Form before heading over to NYRA.

So do you think Crist can be completely objective about NYRA with his buddy at the top.
But the journalist in him doesn't want to be seen as a total dupe so he tempered his criticism by saying NYRA was confused and not greedy.

So I guess it's better to be an idiot rather than avaricious.

saratoga guy

01-31-2005, 12:06 PM

What is taking so long? Surely NYRA officials have seen the articles, why no explanation or defense so far? The longer they wait, the less likely the answer will be a truthful one.

"Defense"? The first DRF article was in their "In Brief" section -- where the articles are short blurbs. And the subject of the article was that the races were canceled -- the topic of this thread was just mentioned within that blurb. The Crist article seemed mostly unconcerned that it happened and was focused more on the takeout when a "pick" bet is whittled down.

The only place this topic has resonated is in this forum. So I don't think the NYRA PR mchine is revved up with a press release to provide an explanation or "defense". The explanation was going to be found in the original article -- that was the guy who found it interesting enough to comment on, and the guy who we can assume has easy access to the players. For whatever reason he chose not to seek out the answer to his concern.

So do you think Crist can be completely objective about NYRA with his buddy at the top. But the journalist in him doesn't want to be seen as a total dupe so he tempered his criticism by saying NYRA was confused and not greedy.

The topic has taken on more importance in this thread than it deserves.

If it wasn't totally clear with the jockeys that the second race would be their last then NYRA had no choice but to keep the wagering open.

If it was clear that the second race would be the last then it seems from NYSRWB rules that the "pick" bets should have been refunded. If so, the procedure to follow in the event this reoccurs should be spelled out for all involved so as to avoid the "confusion" in the future.

If in either event Crist's concern about takeout should be addressed -- but that is something that is really out of NYRA's hands.

In any case, it's a topic worthy of fan comment -- but not outrage or thoughts of a cover-up.

01-31-2005, 12:17 PM

saratoga guy

01-31-2005, 01:10 PM

So, because bettors have no real forum to criticize track management when they take the short of it, as they did here clearly, NYRA or any other track management team doesn't have to defend, or at least explain, its actions? That's nice. Its only on Page so and so, so lets just ignore it hope it goes away?

A) It's not "clear" that bettors took the "short of it". Again, if the jocks were not absolute in their decision to quit after two then NYRA was correct to keep wagering open.

B) As I tried to explain -- the two articles don't ask "why". I don't think it's fair to assume that any business has the duty to address questions that aren't even asked. The only real brouhaha that I know of that this topic has raised is here, in this forum. Therefore, I don't think we can assume that NYRA officials are aware that anyone thinks the question of "why" needs to be answered. However, if it bothers you enough as a fan, I think you have every right to make a phone call or write a letter and expect an answer.

01-31-2005, 01:46 PM

Obviously, the jocks were absolute in their decision, otherwise the "Racing Cancelled" sign would not have come up on the monitors so quickly after the running of the 2nd race.

Tom

01-31-2005, 10:06 PM

So the bottom line here seems to be that thare are not ANY racing writers that are objective or worth thier salt covering NYRA? Not ONE reporters has talked to a jockey, or and official to get a real story? Sad. To bad Beyer is not covering the beat.
It is almost a week now and still no word from NYRA?
Bettor beware.

GeTydOn

02-01-2005, 12:11 AM

Much warmer and more comfortable and only a few minutes away!
http://tinyurl.com/5lo2h

If it's only a few minutes away, why wouldn't people just go straight there to begin with. Just don't get that people would pick up and move after the live action is cancelled if simulcast action continues.

Suff

02-02-2005, 02:47 PM

Whatever you say CJ. Let me ask you, what is your all-
And if you compare me to McSchell one more freakin time.....

.....

Your McSchell! PLus you lost the World Series!! :D :cool: Remeber ? 4 straight? Wasn't thet great?

Hey .. did you find that article/interview of Richie Violette yet?

Cuz, me, you and CJ will have a Throw down when we disect that piece!

Suff...

PaceAdvantage

02-03-2005, 10:02 AM

It's a damn good thing I'm in a good mood this morning! :p

WINMANWIN

02-03-2005, 01:40 PM

[QUOTE=Suff]Your McSchell! PLus you lost the World Series!! :D :cool: Remeber ? 4 straight? Wasn't thet great?

Yes, but his YANKEE Team is STACKED AND LOADED to WIN it all this year. His main competition will be the MUT'S..... :D

BillW

02-03-2005, 01:56 PM

The Hawk

02-09-2005, 07:05 PM

With all the love flowing freely on the board recently I hesitated to bring this up again when I read it on the Bloodhorse site...but I just couldn't resist after re-reading some of the posts on this thread.

From the Bloodhorse:

[snip]
On Jan. 27--a bitterly cold day in New York--jockeys huddled up after the first race at Aqueduct and decided to complete the daily double by riding the second race and then call it a day. The fate of the pick three and pick four wagers that began with the second race wasn't taken into consideration. Many winning tickets were cashed for a loss.[snip]

GeTydOn

02-09-2005, 08:02 PM

Why not post the whole link Hawk?

NYRA cancellation plan:

http://racing.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=26619

PaceAdvantage

02-09-2005, 11:12 PM

Thanks for the link GeTydOn. It's good to see NYRA management actively addressing the concerns of the betting public....

The Hawk

02-10-2005, 08:48 PM

Yeah, that's what I got out of this story too, that NYRA is really in the fan's corner. Top-notch organization.

Why are they addressing any concerns? What concerns? They did nothing wrong. You told me so, and convinced me. They didn't intentionally screw the public, remember? They didn't know they were taking bets on races they had no intention of running, right? It was the jockeys' fault, wasn't it?

NYRA is innocent! No, no, wait, now they're guilty, but boy, are they sports or what? They're going to look into how they can avoid screwing the public again...even though they didn't this time. It was the jockeys' fault. The weather. Anybody or anything but NYRA.

What about this is vague? What about this needs interpretation?

jockeys huddled up after the first race at Aqueduct and decided to complete the daily double by riding the second race and then call it a day. The fate of the pick three and pick four wagers that began with the second race wasn't taken into consideration

I mean, it's no big deal anyway, because it wasn't a big pool. They only made a few thousand dollars on it, we were told. Oh. Ok. Now they should be lauded for promising to look into the situation? I would have preferred they didn't screw the bettors in the first place, but hey, it's NYRA. Let's pretend they never do anything wrong.

If NYRA was actually was the best that racing in this country had to offer a lot of people, myself included, would have stopped playing horses a long time ago.

PaceAdvantage

02-11-2005, 03:28 AM

I guess you missed this line:

Canceling the wager altogether is not a fair option since bettors who fail to nab the winner of the first leg often discard their tickets immediately. Hayward called any rule change "a lengthy process." He said he believes "the best solution to the problem is just not to start any card we can't finish."

And for the record, I said at the time I posted (and you are now attacking, for whatever reason) that NONE OF US knew exactly what went on, so to criticize one way or the other was foolish.

So, be a wise-ass all you want. If you've stopped playing NYRA, you have nothing to worry about. Move along.

PaceAdvantage

02-11-2005, 03:34 AM

Why are they addressing any concerns? What concerns? They did nothing wrong. You told me so, and convinced me. They didn't intentionally screw the public, remember? They didn't know they were taking bets on races they had no intention of running, right? It was the jockeys' fault, wasn't it?

Whether they did anything wrong or not (and I still maintain my original position that they did not do anything wrong), they are addressing obvious concerns... concerns which were expressed right on this board by folks such as yourself (even though you don't play NYRA anymore).

Take a deep breath and count to 10. You'll feel better....really....

If NYRA isn't the best racing this country has to offer on a year-in and year-out basis, you tell me who is so I can get a good laugh. Then, when you come up with your answer, we'll compare takeout rates to top it all off. Lowest takeouts in the country WPS, EX and DD, and best racing in the country. An unbeatable combination.

And you can thank NYRA, and only NYRA, for fighting to get the take reduced.

The Hawk

02-11-2005, 12:04 PM

If NYRA isn't the best racing this country has to offer on a year-in and year-out basis, you tell me who is so I can get a good laugh.

I answered this already, it's in Kentucky, where they actually run the races they take bets on.

Then, when you come up with your answer, we'll compare takeout rates to top it all off.

Let's compare indictments. Wait, you're right. NYRA wins!!!

And you can thank NYRA, and only NYRA, for fighting to get the take reduced. Lowest takeouts in the country WPS, EX and DD, and best racing in the country. An unbeatable combination.

Yeah, they're so excited about their low takeout they apply it even when they don't run the races!

A lot of people think horseplayers are fools. When a track treats them as such, and they keep coming back, it's hard to argue with them.

the little guy

02-11-2005, 12:11 PM

The Hawk

02-11-2005, 12:34 PM

PaceAdvantage

02-11-2005, 12:45 PM

Hawk,

How many times are you going to harp on this cancellation? Is that the best you can do?

The Hawk

02-11-2005, 12:47 PM

And for the record, I won't be posting on this thread anymore. It's deteriorated into a "my-father-can-whip-your-father" kind of situation, and I don't want to be part of it. Also, I respect the "non-NYRA" opinions of both PA and TLG and don't want that to change. No one is going to change their mind on this, obviously (7 pages later). There seems to be little else to add to this and little to gain from any further posts on this topic. I'll accept any possible cheap shots that are to come and move along, as PA suggested.

the little guy

02-11-2005, 04:27 PM

Apparantly " a lot of people " aren't wrong in everybody's case.

A-P-P-A-R-E-N-T-L-Y, you're right. Look in the mirror. NYRA players get stepped on and keep coming back, even blindly waving the pom-poms. I'm not the one shilling for NYRA. Your insight would be enlightening if you weren't so biased.

Once again, anyone anti-NYRA is "snide", just as I and others were "negative" because we don't like the fact that your racetrack did a disservice to their bettors. Snide, huh? How wonderfully hypocritical, coming from the guy who called another poster an "a--hole" on another thread.I make no claims not to be snide myself ;) So I know snide when I see it!

I know of a number of things NYRA is trying to do, but unfortunately I'm not allowed to discuss them here, and believe me I asked if I could. I'm not trying to be cryptic, as you know I would love to, because as you obviously well know, there is nothing I want to do more than shill for NYRA.

I am biased towards NYRA, but I don't believe my thoughts are particularly biased. Just as I think that guy was being an asshole ( and I don't really mind being called one if I'm being one ) and I also feel your answer was snide ( and I have a sneaky feeling you do too ).

Peace.