Refunds at Saratoga in the 8th on a "non starter"

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thespaah

So what's the problem here? Are you upset because you think that money should not have been removed from the pool?

Just having a problem with the inconsistency. I don't mind them refunding the horse, but i've seen where this scenario doesn't get refunded. They say the horse caused the problem and even though the starter is still holding on, they blame the horse and don't refund the money. I would just like to see consistent rulings and not guesswork.

[098poi]

SRU I found your photo on the web.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Just having a problem with the inconsistency. I don't mind them refunding the horse, but i've seen where this scenario doesn't get refunded. They say the horse caused the problem and even though the starter is still holding on, they blame the horse and don't refund the money. I would just like to see consistent rulings and not guesswork.

If you have an example then please present it.
Mind you, this is not an exact science.
I could go on and on explaining that statement. To make it simple.....Shit happens and someone has to make the call.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's do a "Gillette you make the call".
What is SRU Down's ruling?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by 098poi

SRU I found your photo on the web.

CLASSIC!!!!!

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Looked to me as though the horse became fractious just prior to the start. A good assistant starter is going to attempt to control the horse.
it was the 'perfect storm'....Starter sees the horses in order, and just a moment before hitting the button, a horse acts up in the gate.....It happens. It's rare, but it happens. So the track management gave a break to the people that had that horse on their tickets.
So what?

So what? It was the correct call, which I tried to explain to sru. Yes, she was fractious and the gate opened early, really not clear if she caused the gate to open early or it just, malfunctioned. The asst. starter tried to control her, nothing wrong with that. But he held her too long to just blame the horse for its trouble, which is what sru wanted done.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thespaah

If you have an example then please present it.
Mind you, this is not an exact science.
I could go on and on explaining that statement. To make it simple.....Shit happens and someone has to make the call.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's do a "Gillette you make the call".
What is SRU Down's ruling?

Whatever SRU would have done, they would have always done, we wouldn't pick and choose which horses to refund and which ones to not refund.

As far as my example goes, there was a race at Mountaineer, i'm thinking it might have been last year, but its possible it was early last year or late the previous year. The starter held onto the horse as it was rearing up, there was no refund because they said the horse caused its own trouble. I think there was a discussion about this here at PA, but i can't find the thread or remember the horse.

[camourous]

there was a race a little while back in New York the Sheepshead Bay may 26th 2012 at Belmont., where the #1 Mystical Star reared up and broke the gate open early and ended up breaking 10 lengths behind the field,he managed to somehow finish 3rd, the stewards did not scratch the horse, but dq'd the horse to last because he caused his own problem by rearing up before the start.

I feel in both cases the horses should of been scratched.

I think SRU posted about this race before