Gordon Elliott Thanks a lot

**** = spoilsports

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.

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.

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.

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

All bets on this horse will be refunded.

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???

...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')

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

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.

oh and how do you know

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.

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 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!!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.