Gordon Elliott Thanks a lot

bookmakers shouldn't be taking bets on ineligible horses, ask for a refund anyway, the worst they can do is say no

last summer Mossey Joe was quite well backed for this season's RSA chase, it was found out he was ineligible for the race and **** and a few others gave out refunds

**** = spoilsports

In general if it is impossible to win when placing a bet then many would view it to be a void bet. Should try to get your money back.

To be fair Toucho if the trainer did not know his horse was not qualified one can hardly expect the bookie to know. It is a bit like backing a 4yo in the derby. I reckon any decent bookie should refund the bet. If the race was for maidens and the horse won a race subsequent to you making the bet it would be different. St N I would be interested how you get on.

I believe PP are refunding bets on Backstage.

When I posted about the heinous rule as regards ante-post bets,
all in run or not enter or not, some on here argued that the rule was right, (the headmaster for one)I think you would be in my camp
as regards a horse not eligible or not entered.
In effect it is similar.

Maybe the best advice is to have a web chat with the bookie and provide evidence as to what happened and
why. The person will probably take it higher and hopefully you'll get a refund . Good luck.

If I placed a bet on a horse that was inelgible unbeknowns to me but the bookies still took bets on it I would be phucking Livid and NOT ACCEPT it. Ring them up SNA.

He's said in another thread that Sid James has refunded him.

He's said in another thread that Sid James has refunded him.

bazzar
When I posted about the heinous rule as regards ante-post bets,
all in run or not enter or not, some on here argued that the rule was right, (the headmaster for one)I think you would be in my camp
as regards a horse not eligible or not entered.
In effect it is similar.


Total hogwash, bazz.  You will see from a thread or two that I would absolutely expect backers of Backstage with high street firms to be refunded.  Not eligible and not entered or a long way from being "similar".  It's very clear in my mind anyway.......all in run or not/enter or not is the correct rule.  All in run or not/eligible or not is nonsense ffs.  I hope you understand, but fear the worst.....

If you cant win then you shouldn't be able to lose. if the horse was ineligible at the time the bets were struck then refunds have to be given. I wouldn't like to see the big firms dressing it up as a concession to punters when its clearly not

Hear ! Hear! Yort....What's stopping bookmakers quoting a 4 year old to win the Derby, or Gareth Edwards to score the first try at Twickers Saturday, or let's go the whole hog and go for a one legged man winning the Tour De France!!! Good for B365, my £10 ew at 16s gone west, straight back to my card before I had even phoned !

All bets on this horse will be refunded.

I wish I could place bets on you making a distinction, odds on would have been a good bet, however yort re-iterates  my point which I did in our previous posts, I assume that you meant to write ARE and not OR.
Never in my posts did I advocate a NRNB system, which YOU based
your whole argument on.

You're getting me confused with someone else with that NRNB.  Anway, anyone who can't see the distinction between not entered and not eligible shouldn't be allowed out the house imo.

I'll try and get the point across again.  In my opinion, if it is at all possible that the bet could cop when you place it then it's all in run or not.  This includes backing Orfevre for the DWC when you did, as at that point in time he could have been entered (which was why you backed him, remember?) or backing Big Buck's for the Champion Chase now, as there is still a supplementary stage so, in theory, he could run in the race.  That is an extreme example and used to ram the point across.

Examples of bets that should not be even taken (and should certainly be refunded) include Backstage for the FoxHunters (as he is not eligible for British H/Cs), Cirrus Des Aigles for the Arc (as he is a gelding) or Andy Murray for the  Wimbledon Wimbledon Singles Title (as he is, supposedly, a bloke).

Do you not agree with the above, bazzar???

All makes sense The Headmaster.

...that should, of course, read the Wimbledon Womens' Singles Title, before you pick me up on it, baz.

(thanks, btw, Steamship ....I do wonder sometimes if it's 'them' or 'me')

Steamship is a tug the forelock.

how it was in the markets in the first place was shocking

I placed a bet with B 3 6 5 a while back and they have refunded

bazzar give me your email address and I will send you the rules of betting it might help you in the future. In fact I notice you have been on here 5 years, must be your dads account.

what do you mean? (as he is, supposedly, a bloke). headmaster

what do you know?

oh and how do you know

Tug, I've probably been gambling before you were born, 1953 when I started age 15, but this does not help, if a bad rule, just like a bad law, continues then it must be challenged.

As YORT has pointed out, if you can't win then you certainly cannot lose, this judgement was made more than 50 years ago in a court case I think as regards crosswords.

Ok bazzar which bookies are not refunding? As we are pointing out if it's not eligible you will be refunded. A 4year old horse will never win The Epsom Derby yet a 3 year old Filly may do. Look at balloted out horses of National. What do you not understand?

There once was a 4yo won the DERBY, was subsequently murdered
and buried, obviously the plot was discovered and the horse was disqualified, fillies are the only 3 yo who can win all of the classics, I understand most things about racing but as I will repeat yet again, a bad rule must be challenged, but I will excuse you as JESUS was supposed to have said forgive them for they know not what they do, this rule by bookmakers, was made more than a century ago when gambling on race horses was illegal,
would you kick up a fuss knowing that you had committed a criminal
act, of course you wouldn't?

"You can't win, you can't lose"

Exactly - at the time the bet is placed.  Geddit?

If, when you place your bet, the horse is eligible and is or could be entered....then you could win and your bet is ON, run or not.  Is this really that hard to understand?

You use the nom de plume "the headmaster" obviously designed to take people in like TUG, yet you cannot write and spell using ENGLISH, so why is it SO hard to grasp the obvious?
The rule was made by criminals to steal from people who could not fight back, without admitting that they were part of a criminal
act, if you really had brains then you would see that, plus we live in an age when gambling has become legal in the eyes of the law, but this heinous , outmoded rule persists, in your home idiocy rules!!!!!

bazzar in plain easy to understand English tell me what is wrong with this rule. Are you saying horses not eligible are not being refunded?

TUG, why don't you learn to read and digest the posts, the headbanger mentioned a horse called ORFEVRE, who had headed an ante-post list by Mountains and was never entered for the DUBAI WORLD CUP, Mountains tell me I have lost my money because of the ALL IN RUN OR NOT, ENTER OR NOT rule, but you supported the headbanger without knowing the facts.

TUG, I refer you to the ALL IN RUN OR NOT ENTER OR NOT thread which I have brought to the fore, especially for YOUR perusal.

I've read the other thread and sorry bazz but I don't agree with your point. To make sure that I am reading it correctly tell me your opinion of this.
After Best Mate won his first Gold Cup and I had made a nice sum I rang LADS and got 7-2 for the following year. Are you saying that if Best Mate did not get an entry for the following years Gold Cup, that I should be refunded? If so then I feel it was my choice to place the bet and I should not get my money. If I had backed Backstage for the Foxhunters I would expect to get my money back.

In answer to your hypothetical question, if the horse was not entered then bets should be refunded, this actually happened with the same firm, I backed BEAU to win the Grand National, at the time I backed him he HAD sustained an injury which put him out of training, I emphasised had because the injury HAD occurred BEFORE  I placed my bet, I was never warned by the firm and they took my money never the less, they have ACTUALLY laid horses which had died!!!
If the injury was reported in the racing press, I had not read it,
obviously, but the horse was entered.

My latest ante-post bet has been withdrawn from the TRIUMPH HURDLE because of sickness, but it was entered so I will take my loss.

bazzar, it was my decision to back Best Mate at 7-2 even with a full year to go. Why should I expect a refund if he had not been entered? If that rule came in force then the Ante Post market would collapse, you see it now with these NRNB for Cheltenham you will get bigger prices on the day for a lot of the runners. You were unlucky to have backed Beau but nobody forced your hand and if you feel that strongly about it, then don't get involved. I know that FOBT's are a rip off so I don't go near them.

As I wrote in reply to the headbanger, my first ante-post bet was SUNDEW in Grand National of 1967, so don't try to teach me when you are still wet behind the ears, the rule is a bad one and has never been challenged, so shut it.
This nation of our people has been manipulated since time immemorial, we just meekly accept it, they tell us we have democracy, yet a guy who owns newspapers in our country has more sway than you or I who are allowed to vote , he does not have the vote because he is a foreigner, that is why I name you forelock TUG.

Silly old git

Not so much of the old,you cheeky B and it was 1957 not 1967.

I see no reply yet from SNA? You should get a full refund. Did you?

TUG, a little consistency would help you, firstly you say I must be a very young unknowing person, now you call me a silly OLD git.
Clean up your sloppy thinking you will then learn to understand things better.

horse wasnt even entered for the race, so not sure how its gordon's fault for you backing a horse that wasn't entered for a race.

I mistakenly thought you were young, but you told me the year you were born. You then went off on one writing about Murdoch, and because I disagree with you on this ante post point you told me to shut up. I enjoy a debate and more often than not will try to understand the other persons thinking. You are not worth debating with. Goodnight.

But you kept on about INELIGABILITY and not enter or not.

TUG, I refer you to YOUR post 24 Feb 22:00, you started withe insults I held off as long as I could, but excasperation took over, but I am not sorry.