There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 59 comments are related to the topic:
Calling ascot ONCOURSE books.
Calling ascot ONCOURSE books.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 59
|
By:
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)
|
|
By:
NBPA directors meeting on 6th august....will be on agenda
|
|
By:
Adge, please let us know what happens. This cant be ignored. Cheers
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
do we know what the AGT representatives were doing whilst all this went on ?
|
|
By:
Unprecedented queues at their office.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Mmmalushka... Don't let it fester, fella.
|
|
By:
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!! |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Oh I see why the books are aggrieved!!
That's not on!! |
|
By:
WELL GEOFF,YOU SUM IT UP TO A TEE FOR THE ONCOURSE BOOKMAKERS,AS IF WE DIDNT KNOW ITS EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF
 |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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!?
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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!!!!!! |
|
By:
''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?  |
|
By:
probably gave one of the old boys a verbal warning and told them not to do it again!!!
|