Race 3 Clairwood?

Titch Wrote:

---

> Rob what about those people that backed the winner
> where does a Nul and Void result bring fairness to
> them...Im starting to sound like an echo???


Titch it is impossible to say whether the winner would have won if the stall gate opened on term with the other gates so it would be fairest to all punters to call race null and void.

Correct for those who backed the winner, and get a 60% deduction it is a disgrace. A blind man could see that if the gate of the favourite opened a second early it would have made no difference to the result!

Im sure that Craigs horse would have won had he jumped on terms and I have tickets to back me up on that point but my point is declaring a race nul and void because 1 horse got an unfair start is madness...imagine the uproar if Craigs horse won and a 33/1 shot had an unfair start due to gate not opening on time and they declared the race nul and void...there would have been a riot.

the only odds on i decide not to back and there is a refund - damn wish Cape Royals gate was a touch slow too. I agree with Flaunt i think given the time delay was so marginal and he had every opportunity to win and struggled to beat the ambulance i think whoever punted FFC can count themselves very very lucky imo even on the way to the start looked like it wasnt going to come back the winner

Titch,

Just to help you out it is loses,not looses.That is point 1.

2ndly,although I often disagree with what you post on here I prefer not to oppose your opinion as it is too tiring to try and reason with you as you are seldom prepared to listen to others opinions if they are opposed to yours.However,in this instance,you are seriously misguided to believe that the favorite would not have kept this race if it had won.

Colin F is 100% correct,the rules should be fair to both bookmakers and punters.In this instance it was a lose/lose situation for the bookmakers.If it had won the race would never have been taken away.

Just because the rules that you quote are there does not mean that get instituted as stated.

JAP thanx for the english lesson
2ndly (sic) does the world according to JAP dictate that when we have a bet opposing the fav we do so on the understanding that if the favorite gets left due to reasons beyond his/her control and does not beat us then the race will be declared nul and void??
3rdly My statement or argument as you chOse to put it is that if a fav gets left and then runs unplaced it is declared a non runner BUT if it places it remains a runner is utter bollocks are you saying that i am wrong to suggest this??

Look at the complaints because people are unhappy having to get the tote fav in their pa's as the result of the fav being scratched.Imagine how much more of an uproar there would be when people have to accept that the horse that they have bankered and wins the race is declared a non-runner because of a slow opening gate.

No ways that would ever have happened.

If stuart randolph had won the race then this thread would have had about 3 or 4 comments......

As stated above,despite virtually everyone else disagreeing with what you are saying,once again you steadfastly maintain your point of view.

Maybe you should learn to LISTEN to others opinion for a change,it's never too late.

JAP i'll take your jibber jabber from whence it came, anyone who tries to justify the scrapping of a race because the fav never won or placed no matter what the circumstances will be treated with the contempt he/she deserves so take this as a absolute...your comments or thoughts about my character are of no importance or consequence to me whatsoever and getting into a war of words with you is like taking a nuclear tank to a water pistol contest...feel free to run this thru spell check if you run out of retorts...

I've had my say,I'll leave you to continue aggravating everyone else as usual.

Hi

Rules CAN NEVER be SUBJECTIVE as some on this thread suggest, because then we will never get consistency. I fully agree with Titch as what he stated is what the Rules say,as far as I know, and not his opinion. I am getting old but I cannot recall any Race,since 1966, where this Rule has not been applied to the letter. We are sitting in the grandstands and making observations whether Craig Eudey's Horse was disadvantaged or not. On the replays on TT SUPERMAN himself stated that FFC was seriously disadvataged and I for one would not argue that fact with Anton.

To me the problem is twofold.
The first is the Rule itself which should be looked at and changed to get a happy medium for Punters and Owners alike. In this instance only one Horse WAS affected but this could affect any number of Horses in the same Race.
The second is the Starting stall themselves, a mechanical piece of equipment that should be maintained and tested regularly to ensure they operate correctly on Race days, which IMO is happening with more regularrity lately especially at Clairwood. Maybe a case of cutting costs as this track has been sold so why bother with upkeep. Maybe Craig and the connections should institute proceeding for incompetence.

Just in case anyone is wondering I am not speaking from my pocket as I did not have a bet at Clairwood today.