Fair Start Rule

[Pacingguy]

As you are aware, when they changed the recall rule in harness racing, they virtually eliminated all recalls. In Canada, they introduced the concept of a 'fair start'; if by the time the horses reach the starting gate a trailing horse is 200 feet or more back, the races goes on, the inquiry gets posted and the money bet on the horse that refuses the gate or breaks well before the start gets refunded. In the United States, you just get to throw your ticket away. This is an outrage. If the starting car moves two feet and a horse breaks stride, the field keeps going and you loose your bet. While I agree on the reason there should be no recalls for a breaking horse, this is just a money grab by the tracks.

That being said, a proposal to amend the starting rules in New Jersey to introduce the fair start has been made and is supposed to be on the agenda for the NJRC meeting on August 19th at Monmouth Park. I am not sure there will be time for public comment at that time but from what I have been told, there will be a period for public comment once the rule proposal is published. If you are interested in getting a fair start rule in the states, it starts in New Jersey. You know the racetracks are going to oppose it, it means refunding money, so the only way it will go through is if there is enough public demand for it.

[LottaKash]

That would be nice to see a change of that sort in the "states"....

At Mohawk this happened to me 2X and I was glad to have that rule and the refund....

thx, Pacingguy, for the head's up....I will watch and see what develops and perhaps we can let our voices be heard when the time is right...

best,

[baconswitchfarm]

The Canadian rule is the worst rule ever. All pro players hate it. If the horse hits the ticket they leave him up , but if he doesn't they refund and screw every big bettor. If the gate functions properly in runners and a horse stays in , he is not a refund. Either have a recall or leave the horse , but don't screw the players by refunding money and changing all the payoffs five minutes after the race has been run.

[Pacingguy]

Well, I would agree you can't have it both ways. Originally, in Canada the horse was to pull up and return to the paddock. That is the way it should be. Either he is a no starter or he is not. No ifs and/or buts.

[LottaKash]

Well, I would agree you can't have it both ways. Originally, in Canada the horse was to pull up and return to the paddock. That is the way it should be. Either he is a no starter or he is not. No ifs and/or buts.

Yes, a "non-starter", should "remain" a non-starter.....:cool:

best,

[Pacingguy]

I have received word that the NJRC has approved the petition for introducing a fair start rule. This does not mean it will be implemented, merely they will be drafting a proposed rule change for public comment and there will be a 60 day comment period at which time the NJRC will decide whether to implement the proposed rule. It has not yet been published; once it does I will let people know and provide the link so if moved, you will be able to comment on it (actualy you need to send a letter).

If approved, this will be the most customer friendly step taken in years. Yes, apparently in Canada there has been rare occurances of a horse being able to get back into the race and they then leave the horse up but I dare say except for the rare occasion. the horse never gets back into the race. Hopefully this rule will be black and white; don't make the fair start pole and the money is refunded; no ifs or buts. Remember, we are talking about a horse that is 200 feet away from the start, that is 2/3rds of a football field back.

I know a previous poster used a t-bred equivalent and said if the horse is loaded in the gate and refuses to come out, there is no refund. That is true. However, remember wagering with the runners would have already been closed. The true equivalent example would be if we were talking about a horse that refuses to even be loaded in the gate, dumps the jockey and runs off. They would refund the money in this case wouldn't they?

Again, the current system of just hosing the person that bets that horse is perhaps the most customer unfriendly thing that can happen. You are causing people to loose money before the race even begins and people are still able to bet. I understand you can't do anything when a horse breaks just before the start but that is a big difference when compared to a horse breaking or refusing the gate just as the starting gate begins to move. The tracks and horsemen know it; in the old days they had a recall and after two attempts they would refund the money. If you don't want a recall fine, refund the money. Otherwise, all we are doing is pushing these bettors out the gate never to return when they get burnt once too many (and for some, it will only take once) times.

In the days of recalls they refunded the money because the horse was deemed uncompetitive. What now makes that horse competitive? Not introducing a fair start rule is just a money grab plain and simple. If you want to argue that the race already started so the money should not be refunded then let's be consistent and close wagering once the car begins to move.

Hopefully after the comment period concludes the NJRC does the right thing and approves the fair start rule and other states will follow. I will update you when the proposed rule is posted for comment. Assume the racetracks will oppose the rule so your comments in support will be needed.

Again, I will keep you posted as more is known.

[LottaKash]

PNG, "Well said"....You make many points that make a whole lotta sense...I agree with all of it....:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

best,