Wheres my refund Aqueduct in the 5th?

[only11]

Is it me or did anyone see Super Child in the gate jumping unseated Ramon didnt run,and stewards didnt refund the wagers on Super Child

[onefast99]

Is it me or did anyone see Super Child in the gate jumping unseated Ramon didnt run,and stewards didnt refund the wagers on Super Child
It did look as if the assistant starter had a nice hold on him, Ramon jumped off as horse reared, starter pulled the trigger too quickly maybe because of the weather.

[only11]

It did look as if the assistant starter had a nice hold on him, Ramon jumped off as horse reared, starter pulled the trigger too quickly maybe because of the weather.
So wheres my money?Had $120 win

[cj's dad]

So wheres my money?Had $120 win

When the gates open, are starts are official !!

From the charts:

"reared at the start"

[only11]

When the gates open, are starts are official ?? YES/NO ??

Had $120 to win ?? operative here is HAD !!
The horse was being held by the assistant starter and unseated the rider isnt that enough.

[cj]

The horse was being held by the assistant starter and unseated the rider isnt that enough.

I missed it. Was there an inquiry? Did the stewards announce a decision? NYRA had a lot of gate problems in the past that led to lots of scratches after the race.

[ALL CIRCUITS GO]

It did look like the horse wanted to leave the gate, but was held back, and therefore reared, causing jock to jump off. but who knows the real story told by the starter to the stewards.... just another example of the supporters being left out in the cold

[only11]

I missed it. Was there an inquiry? Did the stewards announce a decision? NYRA had a lot of gate problems in the past that led to lots of scratches after the race.
Cj please take a look...

[andymays]

If only11 has a legitimate complaint then as a group we should email the racing officials and CC several reporters. When stuff like this happens they should at least have to give an explanation.

[Moyers Pond]

Wow. Talk about getting ripped off. NYRA is a joke in terms of fiscal responsibility and corruption but they are usually somewhat friendly to the gambler on things like that.

Write them a letter and maybe they send you a voucher for the amount. That is criminal. Would it really have made a difference if they just declared him a non-starter?

[only11]

If only11 has a legitimate complaint then as a group we should email the racing officials and CC several reporters. When stuff like this happens they should at least have to give an explanation.
Andy take a look head on

[Moyers Pond]

Andy take a look head on

That is unbelievable. The starter literally has a hold on the horse. How can the stewards not see that.

at .05 seconds of the head on on calracing you can literally see the starter jerking the horse around.

[only11]

That is unbelievable. The starter literally has a hold on the horse. How can the stewards not see that.

at .05 seconds of the head on on calracing in the head on you can literally see the starter jerking the horse around.
MP how can we see it and them do nothing about it....Do they even care?

[Moyers Pond]

MP how can we see it and them do nothing about it....Do they even care?

I will be honest and say I didn't bet the race, but I would literally have thrown my computer through a window if I saw that and lost money.

You can e-mail NYRA suggestions@nyrainc.com and I know a bunch of NYRA employees post here. You could call that Steve Byk guys radio show. He is a NYRA homer but he is honest when it comes to gamblers and he might avoid it all together but even he might take your call on it. He hammered Tampa stewards today about Gio Ponti and that was not nearly as bad as this screw up.

NYRA sucks and is always broke but I bet they will send you a voucher of some type. That was beyond criminal.

[andymays]

Andy take a look head on


The result chart from twin spires says:

SUPER CHILD was fractious in the gate and reared at the start unseating the rider in the process. Following a stewards inquiry there was no change in the order of finish.

That looked pretty bad to me. Maybe the little guy can get an explanation.

[Moyers Pond]

The result chart from twin spires says:

SUPER CHILD was fractious in the gate and reared at the start unseating the rider in the process. Following a stewards inquiry there was no change in the order of finish.

That looked pretty bad to me. Maybe the little guy can get an explanation.

So they actually took a look at it and still didn't just declare him a non-starter. Is there any more blatant example of a horse that shouts REFUND on all tickets?

That is a HUGE screw up and they have to know that the guy betting a Thursday winter race in the snow on a sloppy track is a good customer. It is amazing how they treat the gambler aka customer.

[Stillriledup]

I've seen quite often rearing horses will have the starter's hand still holding the horse. I think that the reason horses like this don't get refunded is because they are assuming that the only reason the starter is holding the horse is because the horse is causing his own problem. Now, lets also look at a different hypothetical scenario. Lets say that the horse was standing perfectly still and the starter just made a mistake and held onto the horse when the gate opened. Than, i think there would be a refund. I dont think tracks are in the business of refunding every horse who acts up right as the gates spring, its the starter's job to hold that horse to protect the rider's health, if you bet on a horse who acts up and gets a bad start, that's just bad luck, you have to factor bad actors into your handicapping...racing would go broke if they refunded every horse who got a bad start due to his own unrulieness.

[only11]

I've seen quite often rearing horses will have the starter's hand still holding the horse. I think that the reason horses like this don't get refunded is because they are assuming that the only reason the starter is holding the horse is because the horse is causing his own problem. Now, lets also look at a different hypothetical scenario. Lets say that the horse was standing perfectly still and the starter just made a mistake and held onto the horse when the gate opened. Than, i think there would be a refund. I dont think tracks are in the business of refunding every horse who acts up right as the gates spring, its the starter's job to hold that horse to protect the rider's health, if you bet on a horse who acts up and gets a bad start, that's just bad luck, you have to factor bad actors into your handicapping...racing would go broke if they refunded every horse who got a bad start due to his own unrulieness.
Not soooooo fast there wasnt even a steward inquiry posted...

[Moyers Pond]

I've seen quite often rearing horses will have the starter's hand still holding the horse. I think that the reason horses like this don't get refunded is because they are assuming that the only reason the starter is holding the horse is because the horse is causing his own problem. Now, lets also look at a different hypothetical scenario. Lets say that the horse was standing perfectly still and the starter just made a mistake and held onto the horse when the gate opened. Than, i think there would be a refund. I dont think tracks are in the business of refunding every horse who acts up right as the gates spring, its the starter's job to hold that horse to protect the rider's health, if you bet on a horse who acts up and gets a bad start, that's just bad luck, you have to factor bad actors into your handicapping...racing would go broke if they refunded every horse who got a bad start due to his own unrulieness.

A horse sitting in the mud on a snowy day in the gate is going to act up, but the starter should never have opened the gate, and then when he did the starter holding the horse can't be still holding onto the horse.

NYRA has a terrible history with starters doing a terrible job and when something that blatant happens it is a no-brainer. It isn't like he unseated the rider as they left the gate.

[bigmack]

I zoomed the vid to 240x from the head-on CalRacing. They recorded the vid late but it appears the handler had a strong hold after the others were off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY3qim9Xmxw

[Robert Goren]

MP how can we see it and them do nothing about it....Do they even care? No they don't care.

[Moyers Pond]

I zoomed the vid to 240x from the head-on CalRacing. They recorded the vid late but it appears the handler had a strong hold after the others were off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY3qim9Xmxw

Wow. Great job. If that doesn't convince people I don't know what will. Lucky the horse, jockey and starter did not get hurt.

[cj's dad]

The horse was being held by the assistant starter and unseated the rider isnt that enough.

Just watched the video- you are right - I stand corrected !!

[only11]

Just watched the video- you are right - I stand corrected !!
Im not here to bitch its a part of the game,i work hard for my money and when things like this happen i wonder why i even continue in the game..i dont get it!im a fan a i love the game...i guess like everything else.. accepted it and just move on.. :(

[miesque]

No they don't care.

Not only that but I am convinced that the phrases "we don't give a flying ****" and "nothing is ever our fault" are somewhere in the corporate charter, by-laws or mission statement.

NYRA = Now You're Really Angry

[the little guy]

It's pretty interesting that these conclusions are being drawn without seeing a head-on of the actual start.

That Youtube video, and this is obvious, is AFTER the start.

[Charlie D]

Horses head is over in next stall and thats why he is not let go when gate opens.

[the little guy]

However, just to correct some comments in this thread....

There was a Steward's Inquiry into the incident.

Having seen the head-on of the ACTUAL start, there was no reason for a refund, as the horse got a fair start but caused the unfortunate incident himself. The gate person that is seen holding him grabbed him after the break.

Believe me, it sucks when your horse, for whatever reason, has a problem at the gate. Unfortunately this is part of the game. NYRA has a good record of both looking at gate incidents and making refunds.....as anyone who plays the circuit knows. This was not a situation that dictated a refund.

Remember something else, if a horse is deemed a refund, the winning bettors receive less than they would have had the horse been considered a starter, so there are many interests involved.....and everyone has to be treated fairly. This horse got a fair chance at the break.

[only11]

However, just to correct some comments in this thread....

There was a Steward's Inquiry into the incident.

Having seen the head-on of the ACTUAL start, there was no reason for a refund, as the horse got a fair start but caused the unfortunate incident himself. The gate person that is seen holding him grabbed him after the break.

Believe me, it sucks when your horse, for whatever reason, has a problem at the gate. Unfortunately this is part of the game. NYRA has a good record of both looking at gate incidents and making refunds.....as anyone who plays the circuit knows. This was not a situation that dictated a refund.

Remember something else, if a horse is deemed a refund, the winning bettors receive less than they would have had the horse been considered a starter, so there are many interests involved.....and everyone has to be treated fairly. This horse got a fair chance at the break.
Wait a minute the assistant was holding the horse way before the gate opened...his neck was all over the place,the point being the gate shouldve never been open....couldve been backed out of the gate?

[the little guy]

Wait a minute the assistant was holding the horse way before the gate opened...


Once again, he was not holding him when the gate opened. The horse was given a fair start.

[bigmack]

That Youtube video, and this is obvious, is AFTER the start.
Do tell. Both CalRacing & NYRA replays start the head-on just after the start. If there is another source, I'm all eyes.

[the little guy]

Do tell. Both CalRacing & NYRA replays start the head-on just after the start. If there is another source, I'm all eyes.


It was shown during the Steward's Inquiry.....ya know....the one the author of this thread claimed didn't happen.


Unfortunately, more than a few head-ons begin right after the break. I know this from watching them frequently.

[Charlie D]

Once again, he was not holding him when the gate opened. The horse was given a fair start.


I see and that explains the no refunds

[only11]

Once again, he was not holding him when the gate opened. The horse was given a fair start.
lm not going back and forth ,watching the head on numerous times he was holding the horse..whatever ...

[Rise Over Run]

It's pretty interesting that these conclusions are being drawn without seeing a head-on of the actual start.

That Youtube video, and this is obvious, is AFTER the start.

NYRA should look into showing the start from the head on view on the racereplays.com site. The horses are already several strides out of the gate on the video that's currently available. On that video it looks terrible, as the assistant starter has a hold on the horses reins and RD is trying to figure out how to get out of the starting gate.

And yes, NYRA has had more gate refunds over the past few years than any track I follow. Maybe that's because they are fair to the bettors, or maybe that's because the starting gate crew is no good. I guess the jury is still out on that one.

[the little guy]

lm not going back and forth ,watching the head on numerous times he was holding the horse..whatever ...


Being that the head-on of the actual start, the break so to speak, isn't available, this would be impossible.

[bigmack]

Not soooooo fast there wasnt even a steward inquiry posted...
How could you not know there was an inquiry when Serling just informs us otherwise?

[Rise Over Run]

Being that the head-on of the actual start, the break so to speak, isn't available, this would be impossible.

C'mon, how is that possible? How is it not available?

[only11]

How could you not know there was an inquiry when Serling just informs us otherwise?
I apologize i didnt see one posted on the screen.

[the little guy]

C'mon, how is that possible? How is it not available?


The head-ons on replay sites ( like racereplays ) are taped from the track feed. If for some reason a head on is not shown, or started late, they will only have what is shown. Unfortunately, and if you watch a lot of head-ons you will notice this, occasionally the absolute break is missed. This is the case at many tracks I have viewed.

[Charlie D]

watching the head on numerous times he was holding the horse


gates already open on NYRA replay. What i think we see is the starter trying to pull horses head round which then causes horse to rear up.

[bigmack]

C'mon, how is that possible? How is it not available?
They hurriedly slap together the replays. The head-on simply began just after the start. The world ain't perfect. Unless you have another source?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Can't tell enough from the available head-on replay - couldn't Serling have the entire inquiry posted on youtube? Isn't that what he's here for? :)

[the little guy]

Can't tell enough from the available head-on replay - couldn't Serling have the entire inquiry posted on youtube? Isn't that what he's here for? :)


I'm lucky when I don't get locked out of my office.

[Rise Over Run]

The head-ons on replay sites ( like racereplays ) are taped from the track feed. If for some reason a head on is not shown, or started late, they will only have what is shown. Unfortunately, and if you watch a lot of head-ons you will notice this, occasionally the absolute break is missed. This is the case at many tracks I have viewed.

Yes, I understand this. But the full video of the start is out there some where. What exactly did the stewards watch to review this?

I'll default to the opinion of those who were able to see the race live, but I'd like to see the available video.

[only11]

Yes, I understand this. But the full video of the start is out there some where. What exactly did the stewards watch to review this?

I'll default to the opinion of those who were able to see the race live, but I'd like to see the available video.
Thats all we want...

[Charlie D]

I'm satisfied with TLG's explanation and the NYRA can keep my dosh :)

[the little guy]

Yes, I understand this. But the full video of the start is out there some where. What exactly did the stewards watch to review this?

I'll default to the opinion of those who were able to see the race live, but I'd like to see the available video.


You did see the available video.

[bigmack]

Here's the side view @ 40% speed. I've highlighted the back legs of Super Child in the bottom right corner. Just a split second before the start she breaks. It was after this that the handler grabs her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=131V8VW9ZmQ

[FenceBored]

The race replay available from Twin Spires continues the track feed after the race and includes the head on of the start. Anybody with access to that source with the skills to move it to YouTube?

It was a non-starter. The horse had its head over the wall when the gate opened. I'm not blaming the starter or the gate crew, it happened in that split second right before the start.

[PaceAdvantage]

I know a bunch of NYRA employees post here.You know of exactly one...the one we all know of...

PM me privately of the others you know...I'd love to see if you're right.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's pretty interesting that these conclusions are being drawn without seeing a head-on of the actual start.

That Youtube video, and this is obvious, is AFTER the start.I was just going to say that. The video shows the gates ALREADY OPEN, and the horses HEAD HANGING OVER INTO THE OTHER STALL.

Perhaps, after the gates OPEN, and the horse leans over INTO THE OTHER STALL, the starter THEN grabs the horse's head in an attempt to get him to lift his head OUT of the other stall and get going...

If this is the case, does this horse STILL deserve to be refunded?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I was just going to say that. The video shows the gates OPEN, and the horses HEAD HANGING OVER INTO THE OTHER STALL.

Perhaps, after the gates OPEN, and the horse leans over INTO THE OTHER STALL, the starter THEN grabs the horse's head in an attempt to get him to lift his head OUT of the other stall and get going...

If this is the case, does this horse STILL deserve to be refunded?

More likely, he's pulling him out of the next stall to help keep Ramon from getting killed if he's looking out the open gate next door.

And no, if that is the case, of course he isn't a refund - he had every chance to start fairly and caused his own trouble.

But, rather than the hypothetical, I guess I'll mosey over to TwinSpires and see if I can form an opinion based upon what the Stew's view showed.

[the little guy]

I mentioned this earlier, but I think it's important to remember that more than just the interests of the people who bet on the horse involved are relevent. If a horse is refunded, pretty much every winning wager pays less as a result, so the correct decision influences more than just those that bet the involved horse. I am not saying if a horse doesn't get a fair start it shouldn't result in a refund, it clearly should, but if a refund is given that should not be, other bettors are getting screwed. Therefore, it is extremely important that the correct decision is made, as I believe was in this particular case.

[johnhannibalsmith]

But, rather than the hypothetical, I guess I'll mosey over to TwinSpires and see if I can form an opinion based upon what the Stew's view showed.

Not that my opinion means much - but the horse just starts to blow in the nanosecond before they spring. It's a starter hitting a button - when he's hitting it, it seems to me the horse is set fine and just as the stall opens, he's just begun to blow. The assistant starter turns loose as the gate opens as he should, the horse goes back, tries to lean into the stall next door, the starter grabs him and Ramon bails, the horse thrashes his way out of the starter's grip on a cold, wet day who was trying to keep him from getting loose.

It just looks like a bad, unfortunate moment for the horse, starter, rider, and those that bet on him - but I can't fault the Stews for the decision to deem him a starter based upon the head-on that they viewed and showed at the time on the live feed.

[Stillriledup]

I mentioned this earlier, but I think it's important to remember that more than just the interests of the people who bet on the horse involved are relevent. If a horse is refunded, pretty much every winning wager pays less as a result, so the correct decision influences more than just those that bet the involved horse. I am not saying if a horse doesn't get a fair start it shouldn't result in a refund, it clearly should, but if a refund is given that should not be, other bettors are getting screwed. Therefore, it is extremely important that the correct decision is made, as I believe was in this particular case.


This is a good post, i completely agree.

[tzipi]

Saw this live and it looked bad but then saw the video with the head on. The horse got a fair start. He had troubled himself at the start. If that's a refund then 95% of slow starts should be a refund. Stinks, but it was fair.

[toussaud]

In the end I just chalk up to "crap that cost me races"

SOMETIMES you can handicap a race perfectly, and still lose. Rather it be chantel moving too late giving a horse too much to do or a starting gate issue like this or having the displeasure of having alex showlis on your horse, sometimes things happen that you cannot control.

on the other hand, you will win some races you should not have won.

in the end it all balances out, and a serious bettor never takes the result of 1 race all too seriously. I mean it sucks but all tough bets suck. that's why they are tough. I have never heard of a pleasant beat.

[PhantomOnTour]

I had Storming Home in the Arlington Million.

I know that wasnt a starter/non-starter issue and the DQ was obvious, but its just one of the ways this game will get ya some times.

Keep your chin up.

PS-I had Powerscourt when he got DQ'd also.

[Stillriledup]

I had Storming Home in the Arlington Million.

I know that wasnt a starter/non-starter issue and the DQ was obvious, but its just one of the ways this game will get ya some times.

Keep your chin up.

PS-I had Powerscourt when he got DQ'd also.

I was also on Storming home, but i made a monster score because Powerscourt got taken down.

[FenceBored]

Saw this live and it looked bad but then saw the video with the head on. The horse got a fair start. He had troubled himself at the start. If that's a refund then 95% of slow starts should be a refund. Stinks, but it was fair.

Hmm, a slow starting horse actually comes out of the gate with the jock on its back. This horse didn't. If you consider the "starting line," as it were, the line through the hinges of the front gates I don't see how you can consider a horse/rider combination to have "started" if they never pass that line together. Yes, I see that the wording of the NY rule is:4009.21. Refund-- non-starter.

(a) When a horse starts. Every horse shall be considered a starter when the stall gates open on the signal of the starter, unless the stewards declare a horse or horses non-starters because, in their opinion, the horses’ chances were compromised leaving the starting gate. If so, all bets on the non-starters will be refunded unless the horse wins. For placing and program purposes, the non-starters will be considered to have run for purse only.

(b) If it be determined by the stewards that a horse is declared a non-starter, the money bet on the horse shall be refunded; if such horse is part of an entry or field, such circumstances shall be treated as a scratch for wagering as provided in section 4009.20 of this Part, notwithstanding the placing of any remaining part of the entry or field.

-- http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/thbred/sec4005.1-4009.27.html#4009.21


By these rules a horse who never leaves the gate doesn't have it "chances compromised leaving the gate," so clearly it's a starter. If a horse flips over and is waving all four in the air when the gates spring, it's a "starter." :rolleyes:

Note: The rule doesn't say a thing about who compromises its chances, just that the "chances were compromised."

[Robert Goren]

I don't care what the rules say, It has been my experience that the only way you get a refund is if there some malfunction and the gate didn't open for a horse. I am saying that the way it should be, but that is the way it is.

[atlasaxis]

In the end I just chalk up to "crap that cost me races"

SOMETIMES you can handicap a race perfectly, and still lose. Rather it be chantel moving too late giving a horse too much to do or a starting gate issue like this or having the displeasure of having alex showlis on your horse, sometimes things happen that you cannot control.

on the other hand, you will win some races you should not have won.

in the end it all balances out, and a serious bettor never takes the result of 1 race all too seriously. I mean it sucks but all tough bets suck. that's why they are tough. I have never heard of a pleasant beat.

Absolutely. In the LONG run, we will ALL get our share of both types of results. It doesn't make swallowing a bad beat easier, but in the long run it all evens out, both good and bad, which afterall that's what this game is all about, in the long run. (nonetheless I am sorry anytime someone takes a bad hit like that)

[eastie]

I'm lucky when I don't get locked out of my office.

any pics of your office ?

The asst starter was NOT holding the horse's head when the gates opened. Just after they did, the horse turned his head to the left and his nose got stuck between the iron of the inside horse's gate and his own. The asst starter pulled his head to dislodge it. Even though you got screwed on your bet. There was no cause for refund as he had a fair chance when the gates opened. Sorry Charlie.

[InTheRiver68]

I don't care what the rules say, It has been my experience that the only way you get a refund is if there some malfunction and the gate didn't open for a horse. I am saying that the way it should be, but that is the way it is.
This. Well, except that's the gist of the rules that are written. It's super-bad luck for those with tickets on that horse, but it's balanced by the good luck for people who bet against it.

- InTheRiver68

[FenceBored]

any pics of your office ?

The asst starter was NOT holding the horse's head when the gates opened. Just after they did, the horse turned his head to the left and his nose got stuck between the iron of the inside horse's gate and his own. The asst starter pulled his head to dislodge it. Even though you got screwed on your bet. There was no cause for refund as he had a fair chance when the gates opened. Sorry Charlie.

I don't know what the heck you're looking at. Watching the head on this is what I'm seeing:

[GC = Gate Closed, GO = Gate Open]

3:26 in Twinspires video (extended excerpt of the track feed from start of race through inquiry):

GC - The asst starter was holding the :2: horse's head UNTIL
GC - The horse yanks his head TO THE RIGHT, away from the starter, who loses hold.
GC - This carries the horses nose over the partition into the stall of the :3: horse.
GC - :2: horse has nose over side partition. (3:26)
Gate opens - :2: horse could not run forward due to nose being over wall, entire head goes over wall. (3:26-3:27)
GO - Asst Starter reaches across and grabs the horse's halter again and pulls head back into his own stall. (3:29)
GO - Horse rears, jockey bails. (3:30)
GO - Horse alone goes out the front of the gate. (3:33)

NYRA has a strict liability view of non-starters ("if you can't prove it's our fault, tough luck"), fine, that is what it is. But ain't no way that horse had a "fair chance" to run out of the gate when the doors opened.

[the little guy]

But ain't no way that horse had a "fair chance" to run out of the gate when the doors opened.

Let's see, many knowledgable people completely disagree with this.....but there " aint no way " they are correct.

Good to know.

[only11]

Let's see, many knowledgable people completely disagree with this.....but there " aint no way " they are correct.

Good to know.
Thats funny read the whole thread its split in the middle..

[FenceBored]

Let's see, many knowledgable people completely disagree with this.....but there " aint no way " they are correct.

Good to know.

Fine, you tell me how does an animal with the end of its nose over a stall partition run forward without injuring itself? If it goes forward more of the head goes over the wall (which it did). It then gets upset, which it did. But, and here's the tricky part, it doesn't leave the starting gate. So, how did it have an "uncompromised chance" of competing? Detail it. Don't just give your snarky response, detail it.

[the little guy]

The horse was given a fair start....and through actions of its own it took itself out of the race. Unfortunate for those that bet on her...but to refund the horse would be incorrect and a gross injustice to others that had winning plays on the race.

You have no interest in understanding any of this, which is your prerogative, but that doesn't make you correct.

[only11]

Fine, you tell me how does an animal with the end of its nose over a stall partition run forward without injuring itself? If it goes forward more of the head goes over the wall (which it did). It then gets upset, which it did. But, and here's the tricky part, it doesn't leave the starting gate. So, how did it have an "uncompromised chance" of competing? Detail it. Don't just give your snarky response, detail it.
:ThmbUp:

[tzipi]

That was a fair start. The horse messed up. If you want a refund because the horse pulled up over the side right as they were starting then where's ALL my refunds for the horses I bet who reared up right before they sprung the gates and spotted the field numerous lengths?
It was a fair start with no one holding him back. It was just bad luck the horse did that right before they sprung the gates. Happens everyday.

[Charlie D]

I don't know what the heck you're looking at. Watching the head on this is what I'm seeing:

[GC = Gate Closed, GO = Gate Open]

3:26 in Twinspires video (extended excerpt of the track feed from start of race through inquiry):

GC - The asst starter was holding the :2: horse's head UNTIL
GC - The horse yanks his head TO THE RIGHT, away from the starter, who loses hold.
GC - This carries the horses nose over the partition into the stall of the :3: horse.
GC - :2: horse has nose over side partition. (3:26)
Gate opens - :2: horse could not run forward due to nose being over wall, entire head goes over wall. (3:26-3:27)
GO - Asst Starter reaches across and grabs the horse's halter again and pulls head back into his own stall. (3:29)
GO - Horse rears, jockey bails. (3:30)
GO - Horse alone goes out the front of the gate. (3:33)
NYRA has a strict liability view of non-starters ("if you can't prove it's our fault, tough luck"), fine, that is what it is. But ain't no way that horse had a "fair chance" to run out of the gate when the doors opened.



So the starter, jockey didn't have much chance of doing anything about the situation and that being so, this was all the horses fault and what TLG states is correct. It was a fair start.

[FenceBored]

So the starter, jockey didn't have much chance of doing anything about the situation and that being so, this was all the horses fault and what TLG states is correct. It was a fair start.

Let me ask you, if they had had time to correct the situation prior to the gate opening would they have attempted to do so, or would they just have him with his head over the wall? I think the answer is yes, they would have tried to correct it.

If the starter had known, and had time to react to the situation, would he have held the start so that the situation could be corrected? Again, yes.*

Does any starter go ahead and push the button if he sees that a horse has flipped in the gate (It's the horse's fault that he flipped, so clearly doesn't impact the question of whether it's a fair start, right)? The answer here, is no.

There are two questions here, in my mind.

Was the horse's ability to leave the gate when it opens compromised?
If yes to 1., was this the fault of the starting gate crew?
Now, I can see someone saying that the answer to 1. is no (they'd be wrong, but hey we're all wrong about something sometime). I can see someone saying that 1. is yes, and 2. is no (mainly because I agree with that). But, what I cannot see, is saying that 1. is yes, but because 2. is no, the answer to 1. becomes no.



*What is the point of the starter waiting for all the asst. starters in the gate to say that their horse is ready, if not to prevent a situation where one or more horses is not in a position to start "uncompromised?"

[Charlie D]

Going by your post the starter had little chance of doing anything, just like he/she has little chance of doing anything when a horse rears and gets left as gate opens.


I bet the horse and i'm satisfied.

Time to move on to the next race i think.

[FenceBored]

That was a fair start. The horse messed up. If you want a refund because the horse pulled up over the side right as they were starting then where's ALL my refunds for the horses I bet who reared up right before they sprung the gates and spotted the field numerous lengths?
It was a fair start with no one holding him back. It was just bad luck the horse did that right before they sprung the gates. Happens everyday.

The metal side partition of the starting gate held him back. That's not being held back?

[FenceBored]

The horse was given a fair start....and through actions of its own it took itself out of the race. Unfortunate for those that bet on her...but to refund the horse would be incorrect and a gross injustice to others that had winning plays on the race.

You have no interest in understanding any of this, which is your prerogative, but that doesn't make you correct.

Assume the conclusion and all else follows. Wonderful. Your ability to marshall facts is astounding. Now I see why you get the big bucks, oh wait ...

Is it the winning bettors NYRA is concerned with, or the lost takeout and consolation adjustments to multi-race wagers which would necessarily follow?

[tzipi]

The metal side partition of the starting gate held him back. That's not being held back?

I'm not saying that. But I've had horses get caught up in the gate right before the gates open and I didn't get a refund. The horse did it to himself right before the gates sprung open. What's the difference from the other day my horse reared up big time just a second before the gates open. Every other horse got to take off my horse had to come down, settle then run. He was in a way held back by his own doing and spotted field big time. Why were the gates opened as my horse reared up?? That's racing. He had a fair chance.

The horse here got himself caught right before the gates opened. He had a fair chance but bad luck happened. No one or starter did it to him. All I can say :)

[the little guy]

Is it the winning bettors NYRA is concerned with, or the lost takeout and consolation adjustments to multi-race wagers which would necessarily follow?


The stewards make the call.....not NYRA....so the lost revenue never even enters into the equation. And, please feel free to list the other racetracks that have been fairer than NYRA in issuing refunds due to unfair starts. LIST THEM.

You don't understand the issue. You don't understand the rules. You don't know how to judge what constitutes a fair start. You have it all.

[FenceBored]

I'm not saying that. But I've had horses get caught up in the gate right before the gates open and I didn't get a refund. The horse did it to himself right before the gates sprung open. What's the difference from the other day my horse reared up big time just a second before the gates open. Every other horse got to take off my horse had to come down, settle then run. He was in a way held back by his own doing and spotted field big time. Why were the gates opened as my horse reared up?? That's racing. He had a fair chance.

The horse here got himself caught right before the gates opened. He had a fair chance but bad luck happened. No one or starter did it to him. All I can say :)

Help me with this, let's take that horse you had who reared. Let's say that he reared so much that instead of coming down on his feet he flips over. Think of all the possible combinations of his position when the gate opened, from the gate opens before his front feet leave the ground to the gate opening just as his body hits the ground in its backward fall. I'll agree with you that in that first case it would be called a "fair chance", but I hope you'll agree that it would be an injustice to call the other one a "fair chance." A horse on its back can't run.

If the tracks want to say that they only give refunds in a case like this when a horse's fair chance is compromised by malfunction of the track's equipment or improper actions on the part of track's employees (didn't do something they should have, or did do something they shouldn't have), fine, I'd just rather they didn't try to tell me that a horse waving its legs in the air when the gate opened had a "fair start"

[ALL CIRCUITS GO]

IMHO, any horse that leaves the starting gate without a jockey should be declared a non-starter. I especially hate when a horse without a jockey runs a different pace and finishes well in the front of the pack...

BUT, the rules are written, and there is no bright line, so we have to accept the stewards ruling.

IMHO

[FenceBored]

The stewards make the call.....not NYRA....so the lost revenue never even enters into the equation. And, please feel free to list the other racetracks that have been fairer than NYRA in issuing refunds due to unfair starts. LIST THEM.

You don't understand the issue. You don't understand the rules. You don't know how to judge what constitutes a fair start. You have it all.

Let's see, I posted the NYSRWB Rule, therefore I don't know what it says. Hmm, that's brilliant. Oh, I don't understand it? Doesn't freakin' look difficult to understand to me
Every horse shall be considered a starter when the stall gates open on the signal of the starter, unless the stewards declare a horse or horses non-starters because, in their opinion, the horses’ chances were compromised leaving the starting gate.
-- http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/thbred/sec4005.1-4009.27.html#4009.21

I don't understand how the stewards working NYRA tracks apply it? I believe I said in the very post which prompted your first response to me that they use a "strict liability" test, (i.e. "if it's not the track's fault, no refund"), so I guess I do know how they apply it, because that's how you've been portraying it all through this thread.

As to listing other tracks that are fairer than NYRA, don't get so defensive. You can disagree with a decision of the Tampa stewards, but nobody can disagree with a NYRA stewards' decision? Please.

[PaceAdvantage]

Where is this doubt/debate coming from?

A horse is only declared a non-starter if he isn't afforded a fair start. That can only happen if:

a) the particular starting gate stall door does not open for that particular horse when all the other gates open

or

b) the assistant starter is holding the horse back and preventing him from breaking when the gates open

The gates all opened properly, and the assistant starter was not holding the horse back when the gates swung open...the HORSE was holding himself back by placing his head across into the adjoining stall...it's the same as if the horse had reared and dumped his jock at the same split second the gates opened...no refund...just bad luck/timing.

Can't understand why this isn't obvious to everyone.

[postpicker]

Where is this doubt/debate coming from?

A horse is only declared a non-starter if he isn't afforded a fair start. That can only happen if:

a) the particular starting gate stall door does not open for that particular horse when all the other gates open

or

b) the assistant starter is holding the horse back and preventing him from breaking when the gates open

The gates all opened properly, and the assistant starter was not holding the horse back when the gates swung open...the HORSE was holding himself back by placing his head across into the adjoining stall...it's the same as if the horse had reared and dumped his jock at the same split second the gates opened...no refund...just bad luck/timing.

Can't understand why this isn't obvious to everyone.

I watched the head on of the Super Child incident and I am in total agreement with the stewards and The Little Guy, the horse caused his own trouble and no action should have been taken. At NYRA, whenever there is an incident that causes a jockey to be dismounted from a horse for whatever reason, there has always been an inquiry to determine what happened. It might be quick, maybe as fast as 30 seconds because it is so obvious, but it is looked at by the stewards.

[Stillriledup]

Let's see, I posted the NYSRWB Rule, therefore I don't know what it says. Hmm, that's brilliant. Oh, I don't understand it? Doesn't freakin' look difficult to understand to me
Every horse shall be considered a starter when the stall gates open on the signal of the starter, unless the stewards declare a horse or horses non-starters because, in their opinion, the horses’ chances were compromised leaving the starting gate.
-- http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/thbred/sec4005.1-4009.27.html#4009.21

I don't understand how the stewards working NYRA tracks apply it? I believe I said in the very post which prompted your first response to me that they use a "strict liability" test, (i.e. "if it's not the track's fault, no refund"), so I guess I do know how they apply it, because that's how you've been portraying it all through this thread.

As to listing other tracks that are fairer than NYRA, don't get so defensive. You can disagree with a decision of the Tampa stewards, but nobody can disagree with a NYRA stewards' decision? Please.


He's getting defensive because he works for them. That also means his 'opinion' is completely biased and should be taken with a tenth of 1 grain of salt.

[Stillriledup]

Listen, here's the situation.

For those of you who say that the starter held the horse and therefore should be a refund, i say that the starter didn't MISTAKENLY hold the horse. Those guys are trying to protect the health of the jocks, so the horse is going to be held onto if he's acting up. When the head starter opens the gate, sometimes its just bad luck that the asst starter is just in the process of holding an unruly horse and they're off and you lose. If you bet on a horse who's acting up and you get a bad start, that's just bad racing luck, time to turn the page and accept the loss.

[the little guy]

He's getting defensive because he works for them. That also means his 'opinion' is completely biased and should be taken with a tenth of 1 grain of salt.


This is BS on all fronts.

Big shock.

[PaceAdvantage]

Listen, here's the situation.

For those of you who say that the starter held the horse and therefore should be a refund, i say that the starter didn't MISTAKENLY hold the horse. Those guys are trying to protect the health of the jocks, so the horse is going to be held onto if he's acting up. When the head starter opens the gate, sometimes its just bad luck that the asst starter is just in the process of holding an unruly horse and they're off and you lose. If you bet on a horse who's acting up and you get a bad start, that's just bad racing luck, time to turn the page and accept the loss.All of these words you just typed couldn't be more wrong.

If the gates open and the assistant starter is holding a horse and preventing him from starting, NO MATTER THE REASON, you will get a refund.

That was not the case here.

[Stillriledup]

All of these words you just typed couldn't be more wrong.

If the gates open and the assistant starter is holding a horse and preventing him from starting, NO MATTER THE REASON, you will get a refund.

That was not the case here.

Ive seen plenty of cases where an asst starter was holding a horse a split second too long and there was no refund. Tracks seldom give out refunds on this type of thing.

[PaceAdvantage]

Ive seen plenty of cases where an asst starter was holding a horse a split second too long and there was no refund.Split second does not necessarily equal "prevented from starting."

Obviously, the interference from the assistant starter has to have a noticeable impact...noticeable enough to trigger an inquiry.

[FenceBored]

Where is this doubt/debate coming from?

A horse is only declared a non-starter if he isn't afforded a fair start. That can only happen if:

a) the particular starting gate stall door does not open for that particular horse when all the other gates open

or

b) the assistant starter is holding the horse back and preventing him from breaking when the gates open

The gates all opened properly, and the assistant starter was not holding the horse back when the gates swung open...the HORSE was holding himself back by placing his head across into the adjoining stall...it's the same as if the horse had reared and dumped his jock at the same split second the gates opened...no refund...just bad luck/timing.

Can't understand why this isn't obvious to everyone.

Pace,

What you list is indeed the rule as applied, but could you point me to where that is the rule as written? I've posted the State rule twice, once in its entirety and once the relevant section. I'll now post the entire section again:

4009.21. Refund-- non-starter.

(a) When a horse starts. Every horse shall be considered a starter when the stall gates open on the signal of the starter, unless the stewards declare a horse or horses non-starters because, in their opinion, the horses’ chances were compromised leaving the starting gate. If so, all bets on the non-starters will be refunded unless the horse wins. For placing and program purposes, the non-starters will be considered to have run for purse only.

(b) If it be determined by the stewards that a horse is declared a non-starter, the money bet on the horse shall be refunded; if such horse is part of an entry or field, such circumstances shall be treated as a scratch for wagering as provided in section 4009.20 of this Part, notwithstanding the placing of any remaining part of the entry or field.
-- http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/thbred/sec4005.1-4009.27.html#4009.21

The rule states "the horses' chances were compromised leaving the starting gate." It does not mention gate malfunction, assistant starters, or give any definition of "compromised" chances at all. A google search of "compromised" site:www.racing.state.ny.us (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22compromised%22+site%3Awww.racing.state .ny.us) doesn't turn up a further definition. A google search of "malfunction" site:www.racing.state.ny.us (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22malfunction%22+site%3Awww.racing.state .ny.us) doesn't gives us any hits on Thoroughbred racing, just Harness and various non-racing games of chance. Even the wonderful search "fair start" site:www.racing.state.ny.us (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fair+start%22+site%3Awww.racing.state. ny.us) doesn't help, it just gives us the rule that "The starter shall give all orders necessary for securing a fair start," but doesn't indicate what those might be. Oh, and "fair start" site:www.nyra.com (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fair+start%22+site%3Awww.nyra.com)retu rns a null set, ditto "gate malfunction," and "malfunction" by itself only points to two stories on Eightyfiveinafifty in the Whirlaway.

If being prevented from running by the physical presence of the gate partition isn't being compromised, well ...

----

On the broader question, I spy in my mind's eye a video:

Starters and Non-Starters.


Black screen with white lettering "Starter or Non-Starter?"
Horse being held back by asst. starter but making the early lead; cut to him fading to fourth.
Black screen with white lettering "Non-Starter"


Black screen with white lettering "Starter or Non-Starter?"
Horse beginning to rear before the gate opens, losing the jockey as the gate opens, and running loose out of the gate
Black screen with white lettering "Starter"


Black screen with white lettering "Starter or Non-Starter?"
Horse being held back by asst. starter and trailing the field; cut to him finishing 3rd by 4 lengths.
Black screen with white lettering "Non-Starter"


Black screen with white lettering "Starter or Non-Starter?"
Head on of Super Child incident
Black screen with white lettering "Starter"


Black screen with white lettering "Starter or Non-Starter?"
Horse being held back by asst. starter; cut to shot of close photo at wire
Black screen with white lettering "Starter, if he wins <Blank Line> Non-Starter if he loses"
Horses who actually compete in the race are non-starters while horses who don't compete are starters; if I were the NY State Racing and Wagering Board, I'd be embarrassed by that. [Yes, I know, you too would be embarrased if I were on that, or any, racing Board.]

You really have no problem with the idea that a horse who does not leave the starting gate with the jockey aboard (or can't leave it at all) is a starter, but a horse who's in a tight photo for 1st might be a non-starter if he loses? Extraordinary.

[PaceAdvantage]

Pace,

What you list is indeed the rule as applied, but could you point me to where that is the rule as written? I've posted the State rule twice, once in its entirety and once the relevant section. I'll now post the entire section again:If these rules were supposed to be black and white gospel, there would be no need for stewards, now would there?

As for your last example in that imaginary video: how is it extraordinary? The rule states that if a horse's chances are compromised while leaving the starting gate by either a mechanical failure or asst. starter interference, the horse is a non-starter...except if he wins.

Makes total sense to me. If he wins, then he wasn't compromised. Completely logical.

The bottom line key is determining the cause of the interference. Was it the horse that did it to himself or was it mechanical / asst. starter interference?

Once you answer that question, the rest is simple.

And if he wins the race, the question is moot to begin with.

[ALL CIRCUITS GO]

IMHO,

I think its like being a little pregnant..... no such thing ... you are or you aren't

if the horses chances are compromised at the start, whether the horse wins or not, it should be a non-starter

I have read the NYRA rules posted here, and the rules don't say mildly compromised or somewhat compromised.

it either is or isn't

[johnhannibalsmith]

...if the horses chances are compromised at the start, whether the horse wins or not, it should be a non-starter...

Really, whether it wins or not? Any and all possible kind of compromised, a.k.a. not 100% perfect as we've learned here, start leads to an auto non-starter regadless of whether it runs first, second, sixth, third, eleventh?

I'm sure that would hugely popular.

And to think there is some debate about why the stewards interpret this rule and remain consistent in that application instead of just applying them as broadly as possible...

[PaceAdvantage]

it either is or isn'tAnd if it won, it definitely "isn't."

The easiest of concepts.

[ALL CIRCUITS GO]

um..... just because the horse won the race doesn't mean that its chances were not compromised. maybe the horse would have run a 100 beyers but instead ran an 88.

or, ran a 100 instead of 88 because it was pushed to catch up

what does this mean for the horses next race?

just because the horse won, just means it beat the others... it does not mean it was not compromised at the start.

I think fairness is best obtained where all are treated the same, and win or lose, are declared a non starter.

and lets not forget larcenous intent to darken form..

but I digress..

[PaceAdvantage]

um..... just because the horse won the race doesn't mean that its chances were not compromised.How so? If a horse wins, that means his chances TO WIN were not compromised.

Like I said, the easiest of concepts.

[FenceBored]

If these rules were supposed to be black and white gospel, there would be no need for stewards, now would there?

Oh, t'would that were so, oh t’would that were so.


As for your last example in that imaginary video: how is it extraordinary? The rule states that if a horse's chances are compromised while leaving the starting gate by either a mechanical failure or asst. starter interference, the horse is a non-starter...except if he wins.

Makes total sense to me. If he wins, then he wasn't compromised. Completely logical.


Logical and sensible, but not the point. The point of that sequence was to illustrate (clearly without success) the absurdity of a policy whereby a horse who never leaves the starting gate is offically deemed to have run the race, while a horse who comes a hairs breadth from winning is offically declared to have not run the race. Perhaps if I’d used the phrases “This horse ran in this race” and “This horse didn’t run in this race” instead of “Starter” and “Non-Starter” it would have been clearer and maybe even more persuasive. Live and learn.


The bottom line key is determining the cause of the interference. Was it the horse that did it to himself or was it mechanical / asst. starter interference?

Once you answer that question, the rest is simple.

And if he wins the race, the question is moot to begin with.

I understand what you’re saying, but let me take one last stab at it with this.

Think of the stewards’ decisions surrounding an offical start in the way we do the end of the race. There are three main categories, horses that finish the race without incident, horses that finish the race having endured trouble during the running, and horses that don’t finish (pulled up, fell, lost jockey, took that hard left at the 1/8th pole with an eye to exploring the infield, etc.). The stewards' job for the first group is relatively easy: order of finish. The stewards' job in the second case is the one we all know and debate: what happened, whose fault was it, and what should be done about it? A horse that goes from the 3 path to the 12 path coming off the final turn had trouble. The next question is cause. If no outside force caused the horse to swing out like that, then let it go. If the horse in the 2 path bumps into and carries our horse out to the 12 path, then you DQ the offending horse behind our horse (if he didn’t finish there anyway). The stewards' job for the third group may also involve that second question of cause, but the first question (of placement) is easy: DNF. That additional question of cause, i.e. did he jump the inner rail of his own choosing, or was he pushed is only important to the order of finish if the failure to finish was due to another competitor who deserves punishment for the incident.

Getting back to the start of the race the categories here are then, horses that leave the gate uncompromised, horses that are compromised leaving the gate, and horses that never leave the gate. These three categories here should be viewed in the same relationship as the end of racee ones, i.e afforded the same treatment. The first can be ignored (stewards unconcerned). The second needs investigation (if the horse fails to win) to determine the extent and cause of the impairment. Here, if the impairment is held to be minimal or is self-inflicted then let it go (just as it is for trouble during the running), if caused by an outside agent (gate failure, or asst. starter) then declare the horse a non-starter (the starting equivalent to being put up). Now we get to the last category, the one we’ve all spent 7 pages arguing about, the horse who does not stick so much as a nostril out the front of the gate while the rider is aboard. Again, my contention is that, regardless of cause, this horse is by definition a non-starter. Just as the horse that jumps the inner rail does not finish the race, regardless of why he jumped the rail, so too the horse that doesn’t leave the gate hasn’t started the race, regardless of cause. Historically, the gate replaced the line-up behind the starting rope, thus the front of the gate would have been placed on, or just behind, the starting line. This was undoubtedly the case with the first models which didn’t have doors. A horse that doesn’t leave the gate in a condition to compete (say, with a rider aboard) fails to cross the starting line as a legitimate competitor, in other words never starts the race, thus a non-starter. QED

As to the horse that stumbles and loses its rider while its hind end is still in the gate, no problem. The starting line, like the finish line, is a plane which is deemed to have been reached when the nose of the animal crosses it. If the horse has its rider when its nose breaks the plane, it has crossed the line onto the race’s course in a condition to compete and the rules which apply to the actual running of the race come into play. In this case, as the horse is not completely outside the gate yet, for NY tracks that would be our old friend. NYSRWB Rule 4009.21(a).

How does all I’ve written here square with the NYSRWB rule I’ve quoted so often? Rule 4009.21(a) is meant to deal with horses whose “chances were compromised leaving the starting gate,” in other words the horses in the second category. Horses in the third category should rightly be considered beyond the scope of this rule, in the sense that they are the very definition of non-starters, a definition this rule seeks to expand to cover those who manage to get out of the gate, but in some compromised condition.

There. :faint: Now for my next trick watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat [oh, that trick never works].

[Bobby Seller]

The horse was given a fair start, period.

The stewards performed their due diligence


However, we can improve on the PRODUCT
It so happens that the greatest issue from this race is that of showing a complete replay.
Two inexcusable and fixable issues:

the HEAD-ON is not complete and should start a few seconds Before gate is open. - Not only for "evidence", but for "handicapping" gate behavior.
the "PAN SHOT" (normal) view should show the steward's process

[Bobby Seller]

CONTINUED...

2 MAJOR AVOIDABLE PROBLEMO'Z
1. - THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IS OFTEN WORSE THAN THE SIN ITSELF.
2. - THE ABOVE IMPROVEMENTS NOT ONLY SOOTH THE CUSTOMER'S FEELING OF BEING CHEATED, BUT THEY ALSO IMPROVE THE CUSTOMER'S HANDICAPPING EXPERIENCE.

[Bobby Seller]

of course they could do what some of the CALI tracks do and skip over the run on the backstretch with Head Ons :bang: :bang: :bang:

[PaceAdvantage]

Getting back to the start of the race the categories here are then, horses that leave the gate uncompromised, horses that are compromised leaving the gate, and horses that never leave the gate.I read your entire reply. But before we get all tangled up in everything you wrote, allow me to ask a simple question:

Are you advocating that a horse who DWELLS in the starting gate...just sits there...refuses to break "the plane" of the front of the gate and thus never enters the race....through no fault of the starting gate itself or any assistant starter...are you advocating that this horse be treated as a non-starter and all bets be refunded?

Because that's what it sounds like...and that would be completely wrong, since the horse had every opportunity to start the race fairly and squarely, but for whatever reason inside that horse's brain, he refused to run (in your hypothetical example). Why should that horse be refunded? How is it much different than a horse that does break from the gate, but runs slow as molasses and finishes beaten 100 lengths?

[the little guy]

I read your entire reply.




You need help. Serious help.

[JustRalph]

You need help. Serious help.
:lol: :lol:

[ranchwest]

I read your entire reply. But before we get all tangled up in everything you wrote, allow me to ask a simple question:

Are you advocating that a horse who DWELLS in the starting gate...just sits there...refuses to break "the plane" of the front of the gate and thus never enters the race....through no fault of the starting gate itself or any assistant starter...are you advocating that this horse be treated as a non-starter and all bets be refunded?

Because that's what it sounds like...and that would be completely wrong, since the horse had every opportunity to start the race fairly and squarely, but for whatever reason inside that horse's brain, he refused to run (in your hypothetical example). Why should that horse be refunded? How is it much different than a horse that does break from the gate, but runs slow as molasses and finishes beaten 100 lengths?

What simpler definition of non-starter could there be than whether the horse leaves the gate?

When I put my money on a horse and it doesn't leave the gate, I feel cheated. Of course, noboby ever said a racetrack would consider the opinion of a customer to be of significance or importance.

[PaceAdvantage]

What simpler definition of non-starter could there be than whether the horse leaves the gate?

When I put my money on a horse and it doesn't leave the gate, I feel cheated. Of course, noboby ever said a racetrack would consider the opinion of a customer to be of significance or importance.I feel cheated when the horse I bet on doesn't run very fast and gets beaten 25 lengths. Who do I complain to?

It's the same as a horse who refuses to leave the gate, even though the gate opens for him just like everyone else, and nobody holds him back from breaking.

Is it me?

[the little guy]

Is it me?




It's not you. I was going to respond in a like manner but fortunately I saw your post first.

Maybe it's just another extension of people not being able to accept personal responsibility. If I bet a horse, it better do what I expect dammit.....or I want my money back.

Wow.

[tzipi]

Maybe it's just another extension of people not being able to accept personal responsibility. If I bet a horse, it better do what I expect dammit.....or I want my money back.

Wow.

I think all the frustrated refund posts comes down to that the person put good money on the horse to win. Stinks but that's racing. Anyway I agree, it was a fair start.
If you gave a refund for THAT start, they would probably have to start refunding tons of races everyday ha.

[FenceBored]

I read your entire reply. But before we get all tangled up in everything you wrote, allow me to ask a simple question:

Are you advocating that a horse who DWELLS in the starting gate...just sits there...refuses to break "the plane" of the front of the gate and thus never enters the race....through no fault of the starting gate itself or any assistant starter...are you advocating that this horse be treated as a non-starter and all bets be refunded?

Because that's what it sounds like...and that would be completely wrong, since the horse had every opportunity to start the race fairly and squarely, but for whatever reason inside that horse's brain, he refused to run (in your hypothetical example). Why should that horse be refunded? How is it much different than a horse that does break from the gate, but runs slow as molasses and finishes beaten 100 lengths?

The horse who leaves the gate and runs slowly has entered the area in which the race is contested. The horse who stays in the gate has not entered that area. If the section of the racetrack upon which this particular race is run is a house, then the gate is the front stoop, attached to, but not inside the structure. Entering the starting gate, you've stepped onto the stoop and indicated that you're going to go inside. If you step through the front door you're inside (a starter), if you don't step through the door you're still outside (a non-starter).

If someone should be penalized for a horse who dwells in the gate and never leaves it, it should be the connections for failing to have the horse properly prepared to participate, for which I imagine you could use NYSWRB rule 4034.2:
4034.2. [Failure of horse to start.]

If a horse whose number has been exhibited or whose starting is obligatory does not start and run in the race, the stewards may suspend any person or persons responsible therefor.
-- http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/thbred/Sec4030.1-4034.15.html#4034.2
The NY rules clearly state that the horses are started behind the starting post (with a separate rule stating that any start in front of the post is void), so can a horse who never passes the starting post be said to have "started the race?"
4034.13. [Position at starting post.]

The horses shall be started as far as possible in a line, but may be started at such reasonable distance behind the starting post as the starter thinks necessary. -- http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/thbred/Sec4030.1-4034.15.html#4034.13
Whoops, I certainly don't mean to suggest that a horse who doesn't complete the run-up to the timing pole should be a non-starter. As I've said I consider the front of the gate to be the starting post for the purpose of determining starters.

[FenceBored]

I think all the frustrated refund posts comes down to that the person put good money on the horse to win. Stinks but that's racing. Anyway I agree, it was a fair start.
If you gave a refund for THAT start, they would probably have to start refunding tons of races everyday ha.

Tons, really? Anybody got an idea what the number of horses who don't leave the gate at all per 1,000 starters might be? I don't recall seeing it much, but maybe I'm just not remembering them.

When I watch a trapped horse struggling to get free in the starting gate once the gates have sprung, strangely enough "fair start" is not the term that comes to mind. That's where this is coming from, at least for my part.

[the little guy]

When I watch a trapped horse struggling to get free in the starting gate once the gates have sprung, strangely enough "fair start" is not the term that comes to mind. That's where this is coming from, at least for my part.




Honestly, and if you think about this for 15 minutes and don't make a knee jerk response you will understand, all this really shows is that you haven't watched the head-on of a great many starts.

[ALL CIRCUITS GO]

Tons, really? Anybody got an idea what the number of horses who don't leave the gate at all per 1,000 starters might be? I don't recall seeing it much, but maybe I'm just not remembering them.

When I watch a trapped horse struggling to get free in the starting gate once the gates have sprung, strangely enough "fair start" is not the term that comes to mind. That's where this is coming from, at least for my part.

:ThmbUp:

[KidCapper]

I just read this whole thread and now I'm going to go light myself on fire. The end is near!

[johnhannibalsmith]

I just read this whole thread and now I'm going to go light myself on fire. The end is near!

Don't use non-starter fluid...

(couldn't help it, sorry...)

[FenceBored]

Honestly, and if you think about this for 15 minutes and don't make a knee jerk response you will understand, all this really shows is that you haven't watched the head-on of a great many starts.

I believe you're overreading what I wrote, imagining it to be more emotionally based than it was. While I freely admit to not having watched as many head-ons as you have, I'm not sure that's the issue.

Was this horse "trapped?" Well, with its head over the wall it wasn't going anywhere. And it didn't look like it was going to think of pulling its head back if the asst. starter hadn't reached over and pulled the head back over the wall.
Was the horse "struggling to get free?" It wasn't standing quietly, nor was it frantic. I think "struggling to get free" covers it.
While the trouble was on the minor end of the scale, the effect on Super Child's chances of winning the race were total.

[MNslappy]

I just read this whole thread and now I'm going to go light myself on fire. The end is near!

:D

I just read the entire thread too and had the opposite reaction, I was looking for my popcorn. Maybe I'm a masochist....

No really, I thought it was a great discussion. Both sides make compelling arguments for their positions and no one is getting overly personal. +1

[Stillriledup]

The horse who leaves the gate and runs slowly has entered the area in which the race is contested. The horse who stays in the gate has not entered that area. If the section of the racetrack upon which this particular race is run is a house, then the gate is the front stoop, attached to, but not inside the structure. Entering the starting gate, you've stepped onto the stoop and indicated that you're going to go inside. If you step through the front door you're inside (a starter), if you don't step through the door you're still outside (a non-starter).

If someone should be penalized for a horse who dwells in the gate and never leaves it, it should be the connections for failing to have the horse properly prepared to participate, for which I imagine you could use NYSWRB rule 4034.2:
4034.2. [Failure of horse to start.]

If a horse whose number has been exhibited or whose starting is obligatory does not start and run in the race, the stewards may suspend any person or persons responsible therefor.
-- http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/thbred/Sec4030.1-4034.15.html#4034.2
The NY rules clearly state that the horses are started behind the starting post (with a separate rule stating that any start in front of the post is void), so can a horse who never passes the starting post be said to have "started the race?"
4034.13. [Position at starting post.]

The horses shall be started as far as possible in a line, but may be started at such reasonable distance behind the starting post as the starter thinks necessary. -- http://www.racing.state.ny.us/about/thbred/Sec4030.1-4034.15.html#4034.13
Whoops, I certainly don't mean to suggest that a horse who doesn't complete the run-up to the timing pole should be a non-starter. As I've said I consider the front of the gate to be the starting post for the purpose of determining starters.


if the gate opens and the horse doesn't run, you lose. The reason you lose is because if you DIDNT lose, than the money you get back comes out of the pockets of the people who actually picked the winner. Those people, who won, have to share their money with you, a guy who bet on a horse who didn't run at all. That's less fair than you, who bet on the rogue horse, not getting your money back.

[PaceAdvantage]

The horse who leaves the gate and runs slowly has entered the area in which the race is contested. The horse who stays in the gate has not entered that area. If the section of the racetrack upon which this particular race is run is a house, then the gate is the front stoop, attached to, but not inside the structure. Entering the starting gate, you've stepped onto the stoop and indicated that you're going to go inside. If you step through the front door you're inside (a starter), if you don't step through the door you're still outside (a non-starter).I totally disagree with your logic and thinking on this issue.

Once a horse enters the gate, and the gates open, that horse is a starter regardless if he sits down in the gate on his own accord or sprints out like a rocket.

The only way he isn't a starter is if the gate fails to open at the same time as all the others, or the asst. starter mistakenly holds him back after the gate opens. This protects the betting public from unscrupulous asst. starters and those who wish to perhaps fix a race or two in the starting gate.

[tzipi]

Tons, really? Anybody got an idea what the number of horses who don't leave the gate at all per 1,000 starters might be? I don't recall seeing it much, but maybe I'm just not remembering them.

When I watch a trapped horse struggling to get free in the starting gate once the gates have sprung, strangely enough "fair start" is not the term that comes to mind. That's where this is coming from, at least for my part.

Wait so your horse should be refunded because right at the start he put his head in a place all by himself BUT my horse who leaps right at the start and doesn't get off and spots the field huge lengths is a fair start and should not be refunded? Sorry, just don't get it. If someone held him or pushed him over, THEN I would agree. He had the same opportunity as the rest for a start but blew it. Their animals, it happens. Bad starts happen all the time. We will just have to agree to disagree. :)

[ALL CIRCUITS GO]

They're in the gate....... and ...... They're off!

Slowtostart jumps out for the early lead. He's followed on the rail by Blacksquare running alongside Charcoalbriquet. Fourth a length behind is Toowettoburnevely and then Balledupnewspaper runs fifth. Those two are quickly followed by Quicktolight and Starterfluid. The last one away is the longshot Litmatch who appears to be under a stern hold as they make their way down the backstretch.

Blacksquare has taken over the lead as Slowtostart appears to be troubled and backing up into third allowing Charcoalbriquet to continue to pace the leader nicely. Starterfluid is continuing his run between horses in fourth. Balledupnewspaper runs next followed by Toowettoburnevenly and Quicktolight, with a strongly held Litmatch starting to come alongside in last.

At the top of the stretch, its Charcoalbriquet alongside Blacksquare being joined now by the fast closing Starterfluid chased by Balledupnewspaper with Quicktolight alongside. Then comes Toowettoburnevenly with Litmatch and then Slowtostart in last.

With less than a sixteenth to go, its Starterfluid with a neck in front as Quicktolight and Balledupnewspaper battle for second against a fast closing Litmatch.

Litmatch is blazing down the backstretch past horses and draws closer to Starterfluid. Starterfluid is quickly evaporating under a frenzied fanning as Litmatch draws alongside. Starterfluid and Litmatch neck and neck. At the wire, its Litmatch lighting up the toteboard at 99-1!


Official order of finish: Litmatch, Starterfluid, Balledupnewspaper, Quicktolight, Blacksquare, Charcoalbriquet, Slowtostart and Toowettoburnevenly.


:)

[DeanT]

since there are AQU players here and no need to start a thread about this................. I wonder, did anyone see anything wrong on the track with Our Honor in race three that just went off? He was 3-5 on the board and came last, however watching some of the exotics markets and trading on the exchange the horse looked to me to be bet at over 2-1 on those boards. He traded up to 2.2-1 at betfair.

Someone must have seen something to make such a difference in the odds, and I wonder if there were any huge red flags that someone noted that was watching the race and the horse on the track.

not sure the little guy is reading this thread, but if so, did you see anything Andy that would give you a hint this horse would race to dead last?