Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
im thinking you paid out in full no r4 after weigh in.
Then deemed a nr people with and without tickets wanting money back.some people now paid with r4.
Then chaos while trying to bet on king George.
TIME FOR BOOKMAKERS TO UNITE FOR COURT CASE AGAINST RACECOURSE IF THERE TO BLAME.
way they treat books "LIVE BY SWORD DIE BY SWORD"
But we all know you will just have to swallow it.
Then deemed a nr people with and without tickets wanting money back.some people now paid with r4.
Then chaos while trying to bet on king George.
TIME FOR BOOKMAKERS TO UNITE FOR COURT CASE AGAINST RACECOURSE IF THERE TO BLAME.
way they treat books "LIVE BY SWORD DIE BY SWORD"
But we all know you will just have to swallow it.
Show More
Geoff banks.have a good think cos you will be the main voice of reasoned complaint next week.
just read it in the racing post radgepot I thought the original post was regarding golden horn been a non runner.
where does the book stop ?
where does the book stop ?
adge
am I right in thinking he is a good friend of yours ?
and was the attacker arrested or is that something else we need just to put down to experience.
am I right in thinking he is a good friend of yours ?
and was the attacker arrested or is that something else we need just to put down to experience.
me to adge
f.....g disgrace though I thought boxers were the only people who got punched while doing there job.
f.....g disgrace though I thought boxers were the only people who got punched while doing there job.
Hi everyone.
I was the bookmaker who got punched on my face yesterday!!
No help from security; none to be seen.
I was the bookmaker who got punched on my face yesterday!!
No help from security; none to be seen.
Security came just before the 7th race, we had to take things into our own hands and punters helped to get the gang of lads away from us.
sorry to hear that suv I don't know who you are but I hope your ok,the money we pay to go to work we all deserve better security especially on summer Saturdays.
nice to hear some punters helped you out.
nice to hear some punters helped you out.
Over the speculative bid scenario, covered everywhere on facebook, twitter and the racing post
Foxy... Wonder if the Racecourse Executive will give themselves a 'One Day Ban' for their C*ck-Up. 
(Somehow doubt it !!!!)
Suv... Glad to hear you're not too bad.
(Somehow doubt it !!!!)
Suv... Glad to hear you're not too bad.
Thank you Radge!
Feel we all should boycott the next meeting!!!!
Feel we all should boycott the next meeting!!!!
Yeah sorry, I realised it would be about speculative bid,
Just curious as to what was the attackers actual issue? ie had he been paid out less because of the R4?
Just curious as to what was the attackers actual issue? ie had he been paid out less because of the R4?
Feel we all should boycott the next meeting!!!!
Could not agree more, Suv.
Could not agree more, Suv.
Sure the morning line bookie mouth piece will agree to a boycott
A boycott would def. be right.show racecourses ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR.would make papers.problem would have to be everyone.could be tricky for offices represented ONCOURSE and some books would be glad of move up.interested in what sports advisor thinks.i know he prefers "jaw not war ".this is a small part of why I got out.most racecourses treat us terribly.
SUV what was info like ONCOURSE.interested on passage of events.
time for dope..testing in racing game ....not horse ...
Surely Ascot will let you in free at the next meeting as a bit of compo.
suv
Hope you weren't too badly hurt. Disgraceful behaviour from a scum faction of racegoers. Any CCTV ? They should be banned from every course in the country.
Hope you weren't too badly hurt. Disgraceful behaviour from a scum faction of racegoers. Any CCTV ? They should be banned from every course in the country.
Just read racing post.apparently lots of excuses and talk but forgot one word SORRY.
When the two books were banned for a day they were told ascot didn't tolerate mistakes so WILL THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE RESIGN !!
The way I read this is as follows.
In the Stewards room there is one professional who is supposed to know the rules inside out & advise the stewards of the rules.This is the Stewards secretary & it is on his advice the stewards have got to interpret and follow the rules.In the rules it quite clearly states(I believe) no result can be changed after the weighed in is announced.Any change after the weighed in is announced can only be changed at Portman Square where all inquiries are held.So if prior to the weighed in being announced all horses were deemed to have come under starters orders, then after the weighed in is announced the horse is deemed to have been a non runner then the stewards did not have the power to change the result.Therefore either the Secretary did not advise the stewards of this or the stewards over ruled his advice.Whichever is the case heads should certainly fall but there should certainly be an inquiry as to what happened for the result to be changed.If the stewards over ruled the secretaries advice then they should all be stood down.However if the secretary did not advise them of this rule then he/she should be sacked immediately.
I appreciate it would have been mayhem in the ring and the betting ring managers would have been busy all day trying to sort this out so they wouldn't have had time to request to see the stewards but I wonder if the A.G.T. will take this matter further.They should demand to know who was responsible for this c--- up & ensure action is taken to prevent it happening again.
In the Stewards room there is one professional who is supposed to know the rules inside out & advise the stewards of the rules.This is the Stewards secretary & it is on his advice the stewards have got to interpret and follow the rules.In the rules it quite clearly states(I believe) no result can be changed after the weighed in is announced.Any change after the weighed in is announced can only be changed at Portman Square where all inquiries are held.So if prior to the weighed in being announced all horses were deemed to have come under starters orders, then after the weighed in is announced the horse is deemed to have been a non runner then the stewards did not have the power to change the result.Therefore either the Secretary did not advise the stewards of this or the stewards over ruled his advice.Whichever is the case heads should certainly fall but there should certainly be an inquiry as to what happened for the result to be changed.If the stewards over ruled the secretaries advice then they should all be stood down.However if the secretary did not advise them of this rule then he/she should be sacked immediately.
I appreciate it would have been mayhem in the ring and the betting ring managers would have been busy all day trying to sort this out so they wouldn't have had time to request to see the stewards but I wonder if the A.G.T. will take this matter further.They should demand to know who was responsible for this c--- up & ensure action is taken to prevent it happening again.
regarding the two books I believe others were warned but not suspended at the royal meeting just wonder what the difference was.
It will be interesting to see Ascot's reaction when the bill comes in. Their announcements alone were responsible for all refunds given on-course over the running-nonrunning- running now-you-seem-him-now-you-don't favourite.
perhaps the marketing fee slush fund could contribute to the compensation pot
Marketing Fee already spent on bubbly for the shareholders.
talking about fees are the frb been serious about all staff going on a course regarding under aged gambling at the reduced rate of 35 quid plus vat ?
By far and away the best approach is wristbanding like they do at Newbury. You would think the racecourses would implement immediately. No showing ID at the bar everytime they buy a drink surely speeds things up for them, also at the tote.
I'm not a fan of this generic wristbanding etc
Scenario - you take a bet off somebody who is wearing a wristband so you assume they are over 18 having been 'checked' by somebody else. Later that day you are challenged by officials saying that the person is under age and don't know how the wristband has been obtained.
In an environment where there are multi-selling outlets, i.e. bookmakers/tote/bars, the onus should be on the individual bookmaker to ask for ID and not fall back on the assumption that somebody else has checked it correctly. That's why we will not recognise the 'hand stamp' as 'ID checked' & will continue to ask if we think someone looks under 21
Scenario - you take a bet off somebody who is wearing a wristband so you assume they are over 18 having been 'checked' by somebody else. Later that day you are challenged by officials saying that the person is under age and don't know how the wristband has been obtained.
In an environment where there are multi-selling outlets, i.e. bookmakers/tote/bars, the onus should be on the individual bookmaker to ask for ID and not fall back on the assumption that somebody else has checked it correctly. That's why we will not recognise the 'hand stamp' as 'ID checked' & will continue to ask if we think someone looks under 21
I was asked by ATR to go on racing news about this incident which I did at 11am. Hope I got our point of view over, never had a day like it at a racecourse. Hope you are Ok Neil.
Wasn't just the money lost was the way both bookmakers & punters were treated. Horrible atmosphere all day afterwards.
That was after having to queue for 30mins to buy badge, 1 old bloke in a wooden hut dealing with 100 plus bookmakers, then they ran out of bookmaker tickets & workmans tickets. Told to pay then just walk in. You couldn't make it up. Told off for dropping tickets on floor although not given a plastic bag. All of this after giving Ascot £580 for the privilege! Great day out, NOT!
Wasn't just the money lost was the way both bookmakers & punters were treated. Horrible atmosphere all day afterwards.
That was after having to queue for 30mins to buy badge, 1 old bloke in a wooden hut dealing with 100 plus bookmakers, then they ran out of bookmaker tickets & workmans tickets. Told to pay then just walk in. You couldn't make it up. Told off for dropping tickets on floor although not given a plastic bag. All of this after giving Ascot £580 for the privilege! Great day out, NOT!
Yes i'm fine. Thank you Pacey
I'm in the process of writing letters to Ascot, BHA, NBPA and emailed the Racing Post and Mirror Group.
Action needs to be done over the whole episode.
I'm in the process of writing letters to Ascot, BHA, NBPA and emailed the Racing Post and Mirror Group.
Action needs to be done over the whole episode.
Cheers, will try and keep everyone informed of any answers; at Goodwood for the next five days but will not be attending the next Ascot meeting (Shergar Cup)
Adge, please let us know what happens. This cant be ignored. Cheers
a couple of points for Bookmaker friends at Ascot
1. This is a clear BHA issue - and nothing whatsoever to do with the track. The officials are BHA employees and Ascot are not involved in decisions
2. Stewards first gave incorrect 'stewards looking into incident at start but placings would not be altered message' - bookies assumed fav runner and paid out net of any r4
3. Weighed in - off track markets settle. On course markets can officially settle though practicably most have already paid out - customer service - stewards instruction given previous etc
4. Illegal instruction that fav a non runner and r4 message - bookmakers refund- would be unprecedented after decades if they were to withold refunds- although a few chose to
5. 90 minutes later- stewards clarify favourite as runner and therefore refunds should not have occurred on speculative. Some customers returned for their refunds.
As I see it, we were given a series of incorrect instructions. ****,inating in spec bid a 'non runner' after weigh in signal (which some may not have heard) caused mayhem as well known. I believe BHA 100% culpable in giving false instruction - which had we not followed- would have leant itself to a riot on course
BHA refused initially to apologise- and stewards report hid the results of their investigation into the affair. 'to be reported to the BHA'
I will be taking legal action if the BHA decline my request to refund monies I rebated to customers on favourite. This will be in form of small claim and costs £60 to pursue.
The money I am seeking is very small - but the principle is large. Namely they can make a mistake - and the bookmakers have to foot the bill. Free badge suggestions and so forth are inapporpriate.
I ask those in like mind to write to Jamie Stiers at BHA immediately and request a refund. How you proceed after that is your own affair. I do think it's important for the authority to stand on notice that it cannot reasonably expect us to foot the bill for their clear errors, and to boot to be more open and transparent
Important to show some backbone here. The FRB will not be taking up this case. You will have to ask RG why he feels it's not in their interest
Geoff Banks
1. This is a clear BHA issue - and nothing whatsoever to do with the track. The officials are BHA employees and Ascot are not involved in decisions
2. Stewards first gave incorrect 'stewards looking into incident at start but placings would not be altered message' - bookies assumed fav runner and paid out net of any r4
3. Weighed in - off track markets settle. On course markets can officially settle though practicably most have already paid out - customer service - stewards instruction given previous etc
4. Illegal instruction that fav a non runner and r4 message - bookmakers refund- would be unprecedented after decades if they were to withold refunds- although a few chose to
5. 90 minutes later- stewards clarify favourite as runner and therefore refunds should not have occurred on speculative. Some customers returned for their refunds.
As I see it, we were given a series of incorrect instructions. ****,inating in spec bid a 'non runner' after weigh in signal (which some may not have heard) caused mayhem as well known. I believe BHA 100% culpable in giving false instruction - which had we not followed- would have leant itself to a riot on course
BHA refused initially to apologise- and stewards report hid the results of their investigation into the affair. 'to be reported to the BHA'
I will be taking legal action if the BHA decline my request to refund monies I rebated to customers on favourite. This will be in form of small claim and costs £60 to pursue.
The money I am seeking is very small - but the principle is large. Namely they can make a mistake - and the bookmakers have to foot the bill. Free badge suggestions and so forth are inapporpriate.
I ask those in like mind to write to Jamie Stiers at BHA immediately and request a refund. How you proceed after that is your own affair. I do think it's important for the authority to stand on notice that it cannot reasonably expect us to foot the bill for their clear errors, and to boot to be more open and transparent
Important to show some backbone here. The FRB will not be taking up this case. You will have to ask RG why he feels it's not in their interest
Geoff Banks
do we know what the AGT representatives were doing whilst all this went on ?
Lets get this right Sportsadvisor you are still whingering about refunding punters for a riderless horse which was rightly deemed a non runner,you never heard of the "if you cant win you cant lose rule"
Good luck with your small claims case I hope they fight their corner and ask for your book on the race to be open to scrutiny because all they are liable for is any rule 4 which you failed to deduct minus any sleepers.
Good luck with your small claims case I hope they fight their corner and ask for your book on the race to be open to scrutiny because all they are liable for is any rule 4 which you failed to deduct minus any sleepers.
Sorry for being ignorant of the full facts.
Was the horse a NR on here aswell?
Or did the books who hedged on here do their money twice?
If so that's not funny!!
Was the horse a NR on here aswell?
Or did the books who hedged on here do their money twice?
If so that's not funny!!
It was declared a runner after about an hour and a half. So if you hedged the horse on here you would have lost here but refunded to the on course punters.
Oh I see why the books are aggrieved!!
That's not on!!
That's not on!!
WELL GEOFF,YOU SUM IT UP TO A TEE FOR THE ONCOURSE BOOKMAKERS,AS IF WE DIDNT KNOW ITS EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF
you never heard of the "if you cant win you cant lose rule"
You never heard of the 2005 Gambling Act which did away with that rule?
You never heard of the 2005 Gambling Act which did away with that rule?
It's not often that racecourse management get much praise but I think the way that they dealt with the farce that was the charity race at Goodwood on Thursday is an occasion for saying well done for the quick reaction and decisions taken. (Probably with the Ascot debacle fresh in their minds).
This race has taken place over the last few years and is moderately popular with the punters on Trundle hill. It is mainly amateur riders/celebrities with a flag start (what could go wrong!!). There was a false start which 4 or 5 riders did not realise and rode out and enthusiastic non race and were disqualified
The race proper then took place with all but one runner taking an active part, this one cantered in about two minutes after the rest. The 4 or 5 who false started were disqualified and all horses that lined up (which was all of them) were deemed to be runners. So winnings paid in full with no rule 4 and no non runners to refund. My point is that timely and decisive action was taken with clear and concise announcements.
This race has taken place over the last few years and is moderately popular with the punters on Trundle hill. It is mainly amateur riders/celebrities with a flag start (what could go wrong!!). There was a false start which 4 or 5 riders did not realise and rode out and enthusiastic non race and were disqualified
The race proper then took place with all but one runner taking an active part, this one cantered in about two minutes after the rest. The 4 or 5 who false started were disqualified and all horses that lined up (which was all of them) were deemed to be runners. So winnings paid in full with no rule 4 and no non runners to refund. My point is that timely and decisive action was taken with clear and concise announcements.
Whilst not normally being in agreement with bookmaker moans on this forum,this is very different,and I agree 100% with Geoff,and he is entitled to follow this matter through the courts,and I would take a short price about him winning his case.
The "weighed in" message is what the whole of our racing revolves around,and in this case the authorities went against this sacred,and 100% trusted rule.Then,when realising that they can't break this important rule,reversed their decision,which in itself is an admission of guilt.The timing was awful,to say the least,and showed gross ineptitude on the part of the authorities.
Also guilty of inefficiency was the starter,letting the race start when clearly all was not well,but that is a separate issue.Many may not like bookmakers, for their own personal reasons,but rules are in a place for good reason,and the authorities clearly messed up by not adhering to this most important rule of the "weighed in" being official,and freedom for bookmakers to pay out in safety.
It can't just be swept under the carpet,it is too serious for that.Maybe those concerned think that by correcting themselves that the matter was cleared up,but no,it wasn't,and resulted in a mess.
GUILTY AS CHARGED
The "weighed in" message is what the whole of our racing revolves around,and in this case the authorities went against this sacred,and 100% trusted rule.Then,when realising that they can't break this important rule,reversed their decision,which in itself is an admission of guilt.The timing was awful,to say the least,and showed gross ineptitude on the part of the authorities.
Also guilty of inefficiency was the starter,letting the race start when clearly all was not well,but that is a separate issue.Many may not like bookmakers, for their own personal reasons,but rules are in a place for good reason,and the authorities clearly messed up by not adhering to this most important rule of the "weighed in" being official,and freedom for bookmakers to pay out in safety.
It can't just be swept under the carpet,it is too serious for that.Maybe those concerned think that by correcting themselves that the matter was cleared up,but no,it wasn't,and resulted in a mess.
GUILTY AS CHARGED
It will be interesting to see what punishment is handed out to the people that clearly flouted the rules of racing.They soon clamp down on small owners,trainers,jockeys,so let's see what they do in this case.Changing a result after the weighed in has been given is a very serious matter,and brought the game into disrepute,so the punishment must fit the crime.But will it!?
In more than 50 years of betting I can never remember anything quite like this happening before. So many officials at fault here that it is all quite unbelievable.
BHA taking the blame but not compensating. Basically trying to put all episode under the carpet.
If on-course bookmakers make a mistake we have to pay!!!!!!
If on-course bookmakers make a mistake we have to pay!!!!!!
''We must and will learn lessons from this episode, and implement the recommendations of the investigation. This includes appropriate formal disciplinary action being taken against those responsible, which the BHA has already acted upon.''
Why the lack of transparency?
Is there any particular reason why the details of the 'disciplinary action' have not been revealed?
Why the lack of transparency?
Is there any particular reason why the details of the 'disciplinary action' have not been revealed?
probably gave one of the old boys a verbal warning and told them not to do it again!!!
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539