Controversial call at FL

[markgoldie]

Just had something of a controversial stewards call at FL in R2 12/4:

A #2 entry was installed as the favorite and the #7 was the co-choice.

In the race, the #7 ran down the #2, for what was to be a very popular exacta. In addition, there was heavy place and show money on the #2.

However, the stewards ruled that the entry mate, clearly the weaker half of the entry, was not given a fair start and therefore declared the #2 entry a non-starter. This call not only robbed the 7-2 exacta players and 7-2-3 trifecta players of a substantial hit, but it also cost the #2 place and show bettors their profits. It also left the #7 win bettors with a $2.40 payout instead of the $4.40 they had apparently earned.

Opinions??

[schweitz]

Just watched the replay. The 2 (the other half of the entry) reared up in the gate as the race started and never left the gate. I guess they called the 2 a non starter and then that goes for the entry as well. I didn't wager on the race.
If anybody knows if this is what happened or if there is another explanation I would like to hear it.

[Jay Trotter]

I watched the replay and obviously the #2 didn't receive a fair start.

This could go in your favor as easily as against -- in this case it went against but the rules would be in place to deal with entry situations and you gotta take the good with the bad.

It would still hurt no doubt! :bang:

[Steve 'StatMan']

Oh crap! The NY rule where if one half of entry is late scratch/non-starter, the other half runs for purse money only. And the remaining half didn't win the race, if that would even be a legally permissible work-around. So those tickets were instead refunds, right? Yeah, some consolation in this case, but yup, those are the rules - have to protect all the bettors of that entry, even those with the #2 to Win and the 2-Any Exacta, 2-Any-Any Trifecta, etc. who get refunds as well. Wow. Stuff happens, and sometimes not the way we personally would like. Sorry this one didn't work out for you. Yet another way to recieve a tough break.

[FantasticDan]

I'm surprised that Tony Calo didn't even notice that the :2: reared and never left the gate. Then again, the end of the very long season is Monday.. ;)

[Jeff P]

Don't know why, but for some reason this thread triggered a memory of an event buried deep in the back of my mind.

Mid 1990's... It's a Sunday morning in the middle of winter... I spent all of last night counting cards. Things did not go well for me the night before. I'm down a few hundred for the trip.

I'm sitting in the racebook at Ceasar's Palace in Las Vegas playing Aqueduct. I'm really not trying to get even. I'm too wired to want to sleep and my plane leaves in a few hours... I'm mainly killing some time before I have to catch my plane. I'm sure that my eyes are red and my clothes smell from second hand smoke.

I sit through the first 4 or 5 races without playing anything. The guy sitting to my right is playing every race at several tracks and is not cashing anything. There's a growing stack of losing tickets on the table top next to him.

Finally a race comes up that I think is playable. I like the 1A which of course is part of an entry. I bet $20.00 to win (and cheer a little bit) as the 1A wins wire to wire at 7-2.

There's an inquiry.

They show the video... Towards the back of the field on the far turn I see that the other half of the entry, the 1, had cut in front of another horse... the horse that was cut off clipped heels with the 1 and went down...

The numbers are flashing on the big screen.

The guy to my right, who heard me cheering for the 1A, turns to me and says "If they leave the 1A up I got the tri."

"What do you mean if they leave the 1A up?" I said. "The inquiry is on the 1 not the 1A."

"No," he explains. "In New York, when one part of an entry is disqualified - the other half of the entry is disqualified too."

"You sure about that?" I ask.

"Yeah."

"How much do you think that tri is going to pay?" the guy sitting behind us asks.

"$150.00... maybe $175.00..." the first guy says.

"Show me the ticket," the guy sitting behind us says.

The first guy then hands the guy behind us the ticket. He looks at the ticket, looks at the numbers flashing on the big screen, looks at the ticket again and says "Tell you what... I'll give you $100.00 for this ticket right now."

The first guy hesitates for a few seconds and finally says "Ok." The guy behind us hands him a $100.00 bill.

A few seconds later John Imbriale announces the results of the inquiry... The 1 has been disqualified from 5th place and placed last for interference on the far turn.

The guy who sold the ticket pumps his fist in the air and goes "Yessss!"

I head to the window to collect. The guy sitting behind us gets up and follows me to the window. We stand in line for a few minutes and they make the race official. I collect something like $92.00 for my $20.00 win bet. I wait for the guy who bought the other guy's ticket to collect his money and then ask him "By the way, how much did that tri pay?"

He gives me a shit eating grin. "$275.00 and change," he said.

I go back to my seat.

The guy sitting to my right isn't there any more. But his Racing Form is... ripped up into a bunch of wadded up little pieces.


-jp

.

[Cardus]

That was you sitting next to me?

If I ever see that guy again, I swear I'll...

[Tom]

At Finger Lakes, we call refunds "winners!":D

[Zman179]

When a horse receives an unfair start and finishes second, it would be unfair to reward those who used the horse to run 2nd in their bets while penalizing players who bet the horse to win, in the double, pick 3, etc. You have to take the horse completely out of all the pools.

[markgoldie]

I'm sure the ruling complies with the rules. The problem is that the rules allow for some basic unfairness, as in this case. I know entry racing with a common ownership goes back a long way but maybe it's time to revisit the underlying assumptions for having them.

In the bad old days, if a common ownership of two horses were raced separately, the owner could decide to "go" with one horse and "stiff" the other. But simply having two horses in a race does not prevent connections from running "hot" and "cold" if they are so inclined- it can be done with one horse. At any rate, dishonest racing is the purview of the stewards and entry racing or no entry racing, they have to judge rides and intent all the time.

Then there's the question of racing one horse as a "sacrificial rabbit" to advantage the closing half of two entered horses. But this tactic is used even with entries (generally in high-profile graded stakes) or even non-entries from the same trainer in such races, so it's unclear how entry racing prevents this. In addition, the notion that a non-entry common interest can pick and choose which animal to make the "rabbit' in a given race is far-fetched. Either the horse has early speed or doesn't in most cases, so the idea that an S-type might be suddenly pressing a hot pace is not likely.

In short, there are ways and means of influencing the outcome of races other than non-coupled common interest horses, if the participants are so inclined. And it would seem clear that the stewards would give extra scrutiny to the actions of jockeys in races with non-coupled common interest horses. In other words, if you screw around in these circumstances, you are shooting off a flare.

On the plus side, racing common interest horses separately would considerably help the national wagering scenario which is suffering from a lack of horses. For example, I use the Brisnet "Custom Card" filter to narrow down what races I might play. If I ask for a 10-horse field minimum (among other things), I will get a bunch of races with only 7-9 betting interests due to entries. These smaller fields, of course, are also subject to late scratches. Since larger fields tend to attract greater wagering action, it would seem in the interest of racing in general to race common-interest horses a separate entities.

[cj]

What if it was the better half of the entry that reared, and the other horse plugged along and ran last? What do you do in that case? This rule seems about as fair to me as possible.

[Tom]

It was the rule in place when you laid your money down. No one forced you to.

[JustRalph]

At Finger Lakes, we call refunds "winners!":D

nice........... :lol: