Aqu race 9. horse breaks through gate but no refunds????

[Zippy Chippy]

Anyone else find the no refund bizarre and not right?? The 9 breaks through the gate clearly before everyone else loses the rider and also takes out the 8. If I had the 8 or 9 I'd be pissed. Its not like the gate opened and he started running. It opened and it looked like either he was stuck or the jockey tried to hold him back. I'm not sure what the rule is as far as the 8 horse is concerned but the gate malfunction pretty much took him out too

[Bruiser1]

I saw that too. I'd thought they would have declared the 8 and 9 non-starters.

What if the 9 had won? Would the same no change result have stood?

I don't know the specific rule for New York, but the ruling didn't appear correct to me.

[Tuffmug]

The Stewards must have had some very hot Friday night dates!! :mad:

The 9 was the betting favorite and should definitely have been declared a nonstarter. Maybe they didn't want to refund all that handle.:ThmbDown:

[Zippy Chippy]

The Stewards must have had some very hot Friday night dates!! :mad:

The 9 was the betting favorite and should definitely have been declared a nonstarter. Maybe they didn't want to refund all that handle.:ThmbDown:

If I ever had a large sum of money on the 9 I'd need an explanation. Not only was there no refund. It seems as though the ruling took about 10 seconds of thought. It is just 100% wrong what happened. If the 9 won they would have definitely ruled him a non starter.

[The Bit]

Charles Town did something similiar a few weeks back. Horse clearly broke through the gate, than took out half the field. I have to look it up, but I believe they DQ'd the horse for interfering with the field, but left him as a starter. You know darn well had he won with no reason for DQ, he would have be declared a non-starter.

[Zippy Chippy]

Add insult to injury. It looks like the 9 would have won. I know its impossible to tell but after the start he stood there and then decided to run and looked like he had an engine attached to him. Beat the field by 10 lengths

[OTM Al]

Anyone else find the no refund bizarre and not right?? The 9 breaks through the gate clearly before everyone else loses the rider and also takes out the 8. If I had the 8 or 9 I'd be pissed. Its not like the gate opened and he started running. It opened and it looked like either he was stuck or the jockey tried to hold him back. I'm not sure what the rule is as far as the 8 horse is concerned but the gate malfunction pretty much took him out too

Do you know the rule? Probably not if you aren't citing it. I didn't find it right off, but I would bet it's much like the West Virginia rule described in this story

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2011/02/17/charles-town-model-rule.aspx

The key is gaining an unfair advantage. Since he lost the rider, that certainly didn't apply. Clearly there was no malfunction as that would have been an automatic. The starter likely informed the stewards that the horse popped the gate himself. The rest is just (bad) luck. No rider, nothing to DQ, so tough luck on the 8 as well.

[Hambletonian]

is that the Stewards determined that because he did not get an unfair advantage even though he was clearly through the gate early, he should be a starter. He would have been DQ'd if he finished in front of the 8 no doubt.

Seems the fair thing would be to make him a non starter...hard to tell but I imagine the jockey was trying to restrain him when he broke through, which would explain why he struggled in those first few strides. If the jockey had gunned him through, he would probably have been a non starter since he had a half second head start on everyone else.

[Pell Mell]

The 9 was my big bet of the day. Had him wheeled on everything. I think I need a few days of R&R:(

[Nochalk]

Add insult to injury. It looks like the 9 would have won. I know its impossible to tell but after the start he stood there and then decided to run and looked like he had an engine attached to him. Beat the field by 10 lengths

Well, he did have a 118 lb weight advantage w/o the rider.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... If the jockey had gunned him through, he would probably have been a non starter since he had a half second head start on everyone else.

I actually sort of believe that it would barely be an issue if that happened and he'd be termed having "beaten the gate".

There's an awfully fine line between the "false break", "breaking through the gate", and "beating the gate" - especially when the action coincides precisely with the starter releasing the field.

It isn't a mechanical failure when the gate opens earlier than the other gates because the horse itself is forcing the gate open much more rapidly than when it opens mechanically on its own power.

That said, this one was so close to all of those lines and so hard to discern with any certainty (particularly when the stew view pauses to show the gate open with the others still closed) that I cannot disagree that it probably would have been smart to "protect the bettors" and strongly consider both horses non-starters as making the case for the refund is a lot easier (and more convincing) than making the case that everyone had a fair start.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

There isn't a lot of consistency when it comes to horses opening the gate before the gate opens for the rest of the field.
To me, I would refund any horse who does this no matter what. No judgment calls. Pretty simple stuff.
I think tracks are reluctant to make this the rule because of refunds.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...I think tracks are reluctant to make this the rule because of refunds.

I agree with the premise of most of your post CanGamble, but I don't necessarily think that this is the motive. I think it is one of those scenarios where the films can't unequivocally substantiate the scenario in any direction and the general rule of the thumb in those cases is that the result stands.

I think that in cases such as this, when the films DO substantiate the possibility that bettors are getting the shaftand that most will perceive it as such - just reverse the protocol to protect them and declare that the films failed to substantiate that everyone did in fact get a fair start.

[Robert Goren]

I really doubt it is a handle thing. I have seen some very late scratches of very heavy favorites in NYRA races. I remember one last year where they announced it with less than 1 MTP. They promptly loaded the horses and the races went off on time. There was no time for anyone to change their bets. They lost over 50k of handle in the win pool alone. Most other places would have delayed the race for a few minutes so people could change their bets.

[Tape Reader]

TVG said that the 9 took "late money" (I think). Conspiracy?

IMO the 9 and the 8 should have been declared "non starters." JMO

[Zippy Chippy]

The 9 was my big bet of the day. Had him wheeled on everything. I think I need a few days of R&R:(

Reminds me of the time my friend was waiting for race 9 at palmbeach.his best bet was the 5 dog. The box opens and 7 dogs run out and all u can see if the5 dogs ass. He must have somehow turne daround in the box

[cj's dad]

wait- the resident NYRA defenders will be posting soon.

[misscashalot]

wait- the resident NYRA defenders will be posting soon.


watch the replay...that was the correct call. :ThmbUp:

[Zippy Chippy]

watch the replay...that was the correct call. :ThmbUp:


So if you have the 9 its impossible to win. If he wins, they refund your money and if he loses too bad?

[The Bit]

So if you have the 9 its impossible to win. If he wins, they refund your money and if he loses too bad?

Not good.

[misscashalot]

So if you have the 9 its impossible to win. If he wins, they refund your money and if he loses too bad?\

If Ifs and Ands were Pots and Pans, there never would be need for Tinkers. :D

[OTM Al]

Again, there are rules in place here. Stewards would be breaking them by doing a refund here. Especially for the 8. If you don't like the rules, argue against them, but don't complain because the rules were followed.

[Relwob Owner]

Again, there are rules in place here. Stewards would be breaking them by doing a refund here. Especially for the 8. If you don't like the rules, argue against them, but don't complain because the rules were followed.


What is the rule in place? In post 7 you referenced the WVA rule it might be similar to but I havent seen a clear explanation of the rule in NY since.....maybe I missed it. I would be interested to hear what it is.

[Marlin]

Not that it was the case here but flipping halter horses are typically caveat emptor. I would be surprised if there was any "judgement" used here. The rules are pretty much set in stone in most if not all jurisdictions.

[JustRalph]

I bet the 9 on a conditional bet that didn't fire because the price was too low.

Missed it by that much !

[v j stauffer]

I recently went through the 6 day stewards accredation course offered by the University of Arizona racetrack industry program. They are responsible for posting and updating what are called the Model Rules. While each state has a seperate rulebook many closely mirror the Model Rules. Many states have adopted the Model Rules pretty much verbatim. If I'm not mistaken NYRA and other New York tracks have embraced these rules.

Here is how the rule reads as taken off the RTIP & ROAP website.


(1) The Start

(a) The starter is responsible for assuring that each participant receives a fair start.

(b) If, when the starter dispatches the field, any door at the front of the starting gate stalls should not open properly due to a mechanical failure or malfunction

　

or should any action by any starting personnel directly cause a horse to receive an unfair start, the stewards may declare such a horse a non-starter.

(c) Should a horse, not scratched prior to the start, not be in the starting gate stall thereby causing it to be left when the field is dispatched by the starter, the horse shall be declared a non-starter by the stewards.

(d) Should an accident or malfunction of the starting gate, or other unforeseeable event compromise the fairness of the race or the safety of race participants, the stewards may declare individual horses to be non-starters, exclude individual horses from all pari-mutuel pools or declare a "no contest" and refund all wagers except as otherwise provided in the rules involving multi-race wag

[Bruiser1]

I recently went through the 6 day stewards accredation course offered by the University of Arizona racetrack industry program. They are responsible for posting and updating what are called the Model Rules. While each state has a seperate rulebook many closely mirror the Model Rules. Many states have adopted the Model Rules pretty much verbatim. If I'm not mistaken NYRA and other New York tracks have embraced these rules.

Here is how the rule reads as taken off the RTIP & ROAP website.


(1) The Start

(a) The starter is responsible for assuring that each participant receives a fair start.

(b) If, when the starter dispatches the field, any door at the front of the starting gate stalls should not open properly due to a mechanical failure or malfunction

　

or should any action by any starting personnel directly cause a horse to receive an unfair start, the stewards may declare such a horse a non-starter.

(c) Should a horse, not scratched prior to the start, not be in the starting gate stall thereby causing it to be left when the field is dispatched by the starter, the horse shall be declared a non-starter by the stewards.

(d) Should an accident or malfunction of the starting gate, or other unforeseeable event compromise the fairness of the race or the safety of race participants, the stewards may declare individual horses to be non-starters, exclude individual horses from all pari-mutuel pools or declare a "no contest" and refund all wagers except as otherwise provided in the rules involving multi-race wag



Thanks for that. It would certainly appear under these rules (B) that at least the 8 horse should have been declared a non-starter. The 9 clearly broke through the gate and took an immediate left turn, blocking the path of the 8 when the gates fully opened. In addition, since the 9 was no longer in the starting gate when the gate opened (C), an argument could be made that he too should have been declared a non-starter.

I'm still very surprised that there was no change. I have to imagine there are some fairly angry bettors over this.

[OTM Al]

Thanks for that. It would certainly appear under these rules (B) that at least the 8 horse should have been declared a non-starter. The 9 clearly broke through the gate and took an immediate left turn, blocking the path of the 8 when the gates fully opened. In addition, since the 9 was no longer in the starting gate when the gate opened (C), an argument could be made that he too should have been declared a non-starter.

I'm still very surprised that there was no change. I have to imagine there are some fairly angry bettors over this.

B) Deals with a malfunction. There was none.
c) Deals with being left. That means the horse did not load. This did not happen.

I know I've seen a ruling about a horse breaking through, I'm just not finding it right off and don't really have time to look. Enough people griping on this one that one of you should be able to find the applicable language, whether I'm right or wrong about this.

[point given]

B) Deals with a malfunction. There was none.
c) Deals with being left. That means the horse did not load. This did not happen.

I know I've seen a ruling about a horse breaking through, I'm just not finding it right off and don't really have time to look. Enough people griping on this one that one of you should be able to find the applicable language, whether I'm right or wrong about this.

Blewitt said on the replay show he would look it up for todays show, so tune in

[Horseplayersbet.com]

(d) Should an accident or malfunction of the starting gate, or other unforeseeable event compromise the fairness of the race or the safety of race participants, the stewards may declare individual horses to be non-starters, exclude individual horses from all pari-mutuel pools or declare a "no contest" and refund all wagers except as otherwise provided in the rules involving multi-race wag

[/size]
May is the word I have trouble with.
Generally, if a horse breaks through the gate before the gate springs open, and it goes gate to wire, it will be refunded for getting an unfair start. If the horse loses, generally there is no refund. If the horse breaks through and falls back but still runs well, the Stewards get to flip a coin.

I believe the rule should be that if any horse opens the gate before the gate springs open, it should be assumed the horse got an unfair advantage and a refund should be given. No exceptions.