3.30 lingers...weighed in light

Thing is its a horse that can NEVER win, Has to be a Non Runner with other bets settled accordingly. Again this is only done if its first past the post. And a 1lb is too low for a Two and a half mile chase, how much weight would anyone lose doing such exertion? Surely there should be a scale for different distances!! (is there?)

If the bookies and betfair paid out dustybin, what could stop a jockey chucking 5lb of lead after weighing out?

Salmon, your US Official Result timing is way out. Unless Stewards Eqy usually takes less than 5mins after race finish.

*had the weight dislodged and come loose then theyd question how well it was secured etc
What do they do if it wasnt a weight cloth issue?

thing is how much weight can you lose race riding over two and a half miles? Sweat alone would be vast.

The Jockey lost 1lb 2ozs ffs.

For the general betting public it is not good notccricket.   Imagine first time racing and you took the missus.   She backed a winner and despite it "winning" she not only didn't get paid but lost her money.   How can you justify that to her and would she want to bet again?

It is just a case of trying to come up with a solution that is fair and implementable.

Perhaps one for this punter forum.

???????? Swardean I'm saying it should be treated as a non runner! So she would get her money back. Currently she doesn't!

Today a load of people backed a horse that could never win and they all lost their money even though it went past the post first!

any difference to first time racing with the missus and she has a bet on one that's not going to be given a hard race ?  and it's the odds on fav in a group 1.

yep, thing is if it goes past the post first she wins. In the race today no matter where the horse finished she lost!

Big difference hulk. In you example she has not "won" the race

the point was would she be more or less likely to bet again ....

If her horse didn't win but she would have been paid out if it had then yes. If her horse "won" and she didn't get paid out then no.

This is absolutely disgusting. I think the rules are **** up as well. What difference does 1.2 lbs make? The winning distance wasn't a s.h or so. I don't understand how a horse winning by a 1/2 length and totally interfering with the 2nd can easily keep the race and if something that weighs 0.1 lbs falls off or a jockey sweats too much, he instantly loses the race, no matter how much he won by. Shouldn't winning distance be taken into consideration the same way as when an interference occurs? Also, how the hell could someone not weigh in, unless it wasn't a weight cloth issue?

Too many incidents like this recently. The weight cloth fell off from one of the horses back in July in Worcester, thank god it wasn't the winner. Then that ridiculous affair in Redcar which I couldn't even see from the replay. How often do these happen? Kinda ruins the whole in-play betting thing.

could you not argue that if her horse had been carrying the correct weight it would not have won, and she therefore backed a loser.

ihal. You are of course correct that most US stewards ( and there are a lot of them ) are over quite quickly there are a significant number that take much longer.
The problem is people don't seem to grasp this is an exchange. Layers are not going to pay out on two winners.

thing is its impossible for it to ever win so should be a non runner. Anybody betting on that horse will lose no matter where the horse finishes.

even in the final furlong people were betting on a horse that couldn't win! Even though it was going to pass the post first!

A sure fire way of making a fortune. Weigh in light, collect your dough. Open to abuse.

ITS JUST NOTCRICKET.

SERIOUSLLY THOUGH,NOTCRICKET HAS GOT A VERY GOOD POINT.
HOW CAN YOU LOSE MONEY ON A HORSE THAT CANNOT POSSIBLY WIN.?
THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF COMEBACK OR IT BECOMES FARCICAL.

It might be open to abuse I agree,but the fact is you can't expect layers to pay out on two winners. What are you critics suggesting as a solution ?

Ss
At present the customer is the one paying for somebody else's mistake, and just look at what is being defined as a mistake, the fact a jockey has over sweated ffs.
Where is the safeguard to protect the customer to stop for them paying for a jockey over Sweating?
It seems there is non.
So if the 'layers' had to pay then there would be the incentive to regulate the issue properly
That would come in the form of a more reasonable variance allowable and for greater loss of weight harsh penalties

this sport is utterly cringeworthy at times..

I can't fathom how we can be in a position where the act can be deemed serious enough to force somebody not responsible to fork out, yet Innocuous enough to not punish those involved?
Unless it's the case the jockey will now face a lengthy ban?

its 2015 ffs this sort of thing simply should never happen.

has it been stated how he weighed in light?

I had no interest in the race as it happens dustybin but if what you suggest was broought in I would stop laying,and you backers rely on we layers.
I really don't think you have grasped the meaning of an exchange. There will also have been layers who were paid out on a loser then suddenly found they had layed a winner. Hth.

Look above.
By 'layers' I thought you meant bookies or the exchange.
I'm say the bodies involved in this case the exchange should be the ones covering the loss, not their customers because it's their product that the irregularity in the system is keeping afloat, and that's what regulation should be there to address, not the individuals.
Regulation will only occur when pressed, and so it seems while punters are carrying the can not enough is being done.

If they want people to carry on using their product and not continue to walk away then the punter needs better safeguards, not only is it not a level playing field but results are effectively being changed on too much sweating ffs.

betfair have to settle on official result..ive no problem with that.

I understand your frustation dustybin but Betfair's exchange business model is already tenous for the accountants,which is why they have the Sportsbook,casino,arcade and all the other crap. No way are they going to surrender the one great advantage the exchange has. THEY CAN'T LOSE.

what punishment is metered out for 0.2lbs underweight?
I see little room for ambiguity, it's either very serious or it's not

spose deppends on the reason for the loss of weight

For as long as I can remember ( over 50 years ) there has been a rule of that sort. I suspect it goes back to the 19th if not the 18th century but I'm not a racing historian. Obviously a jockey can lose a bit in sweat during the race. Presumably 1lb is deemed excessive.
If there has been incompetence or worse involved I agree it should be punished harshly. it doesn't alter the fact that Bf pay out on the result given by the stewards on the day.

I was alluding to the fact that if a naturally occurring event (I.e not throwing weight off) was the result of the discrepancy then the rule has to be looked at as something as serious as an emended result can't surely be down to naturally occurring events?
But either way as it stands, if the result was changed (as the rules are presently) then they can't not throw the book at him surely.
We can't have a middle ground where it's serious enough to dq but not serious enough to punish.

Anyway I'm done on this f uckin issue
Like I said
Worst way to lose there is.

dustybin seems to think all of betfair customers will be unhappy,the layers of the winner certainly wont be nor the backers of the 2nd.im afraid losing a race due to incorrect weigh in has always meant disqualification although i do think the margin of weight at the weigh in needs looking at 1 lb is a very small amount.btw the result cost me a good few quid too.

Not all. But even if I wasn't involved in this it still pisses me off and lost a good deal of faith in the current system. It is simply ridiculous. Not that bf gives a flying **** about their customers though, only the very naive ones think otherwise. I can clearly see the lack of incentive in laying the 2nd at bigger odds. You carry the risk of the 2nd horse coming back and winning the race but also that the winner fails to weigh in. In 2015. Farcical.

what do you think betfair should have done this afternoon?

I rarely stick up for Betfair but I can't see how it is their fault.

As I stated earlier how is it right that punters are betting on a horse to win that is inevitably going to be thrown out in the stewards room? That horse cant win because before it hits the winning line its already underweight so its going to be disqualified. In the final few yards the odds of it winning are  100 to 1 on when its true odds are infinity to 1 against! Its destined to lose, no other result is possible. So in such cases (winners only) these horses should be declared non runners and the book settled with the appropriate rule 4 applied.

of course how 1lb 2ozs of weight loss over two and a half miles is deemed excessive I dont know! The clerk of the scales should try doing it and see how muc f"""ing weight he loses over the distance. 2 ozs too much, my a""e!!

shirley all the money buyers/fast pic'ers know their is always a risk here...do they not factor this risk into the price they back/lay?

maybe this is the best way to get rid of em all so we can all get a piece of the pie

It is all down to the amount of weight lost during the race. If the extra weight added remains the same, then any physical weightloss should be ignored. Jockeys just wander in and sit on the scales as far as I am aware. The added lead should be checked! Any discrepancy in that amount should lead to an automatic ban from racing for a while. That is unless the weightcloth was obviously dislodged during the race.

It's only you exchange punters that are concerned, old fashion BOOKMAKERS accept its part of the game, they pay on amended result and some pay on both results. Exchange punters want knew rules, hard cheese, move on, remember you play to 20% Better odds no knock backs.

No serious contender other than this place takes bets IR, and it was those that were effected as the offence occurred during the race.
People were lead to believe no offence had occurred and placed bets after.
Those betting before placed bets before the offence.

Just on that note Barry.
If the exchanges are indeed 20% better odds it's because the books are 20% worse value, so they can pay out sometimes on both. Of course the punter pays for it because first the books over rounds are crazy in many respects away from here and on here betfair take the 20% at the very least.

Hi Barry, bookmakers don't pay out on first past the post if weighed in light.

Not cricket, us on course paid out about £10k on disq. Winner, and obviously promoted winner, so plenty paid on both results on course. Guess how many brought the money back?  Would any punter think there was an obligation ?

What can't be refuted Barry is that both the exchanges and course books rely on the confidence of the punter, if that is lost where will the money come from?

The circumstances of the DQ at Redcar the other week were that some people were betting without knowing the weight cloth had fallen off.
Yesterday Seemingly nobody knew, how could they?
If Barry thinks that that is part of racing and just to get on with it without questioning it then business must be booming.

There must be people who backed the winner at 1.01 and people who laid the 2nd at 1000 who have every right to be fuming right now. But the people who laid at 1.01 and backed at 1000 will be loving it.

I think it's a rare thing to happen but has to be considered when betting/trading. Don't risk more than you can afford to lose. If the first across the line isn't always the winner then we need to tread carefully not to blow the bank.

Is there a solution to this problem? I agree that if it is somebody's mistake they should be severely punished. It brings the whole sport into disrepute and punters cannot trust anything they're seeing. If it is naturally occurring events then surely the result should not be changed.

When there is interference the punters know there's a chance the result will be changed. The winner will pass the post around 1.1 or 1.2 or higher. But in these cases lots of punters are going to feel robbed.

Would voiding the race be a better solution? Not ideal but it would be less damaging for the punters.

Dustybin, the point I'm making is, traditional bookmakers have no problems, it's exchange punters that are kicking off

Barry, I'm sorry but your meagre £10k on course payout pales into insignificance when talking national betting shop amounts. Hills didn't pay me the £949.50 Id "won". The fact is that it was impossible for that horse to win so should have been declared a non runner with all bets settled accordingly rule 4 et al.

I gathered that Barry, but I've said of these affairs compensation can be the only way, so if the likes of you placate your customers to the extent they don't feel hard done by then we are in agreement
Like I said ppl bet on confidence, it doesn't matter whether it's a course book or off course exchange, if the punter isn't given recompense in the circumstances then people will become reluctant to bet.
Taking a hit for the greater good of staying in business you could say, otherwise things continue to diminish.
If you don't see a decline then logic dictates your customers are probably getting poor value.

I just want to add in fairness, I don't know whether your customers do or don't get value, I've never bet with you nor do I venture on course

Not cricket, horses not carrying correct weight  treated as non runners plus rule 4, that means every horse even 24 runner hcps or 18 runner maidens must weigh in, need races spaced out to an hour, 30 mins too long in some opinions

So where did the 1.2lbs go?
I know it was a mild day yesterday but doubt he sweated that off.

ejaculate?

For those people who say that people take the possibility of a horse getting thrown out under such circumstances in the price they bet.....have a word with yourself ffs.

IR betting is about who you think will win the race, not about factoring in further chance of it getting thrown out on a variable you cant possibly know has occurred or not.
Thats not betting on horses, thats a lottery.
For the people saying that the people who just chance their arm in betting all 1000 second placed horses who themselves were happy by the turn of events consider how happy they would be if people reduced betting on the basis they cant know for certain if a result is genuine.

its like the tail wagging the dog

Barry, only "winners" treated this way.

dustybin
11 Nov 15 13:00

For those people who say that people take the possibility of a horse getting thrown out under such circumstances in the price they bet.....have a word with yourself ffs


As you wish dusty but i often lay at 3-fig odds IR and if i have i dont like them finishing 2nd just in case ie when i'm laying something at big odds, i'm basically laying it not to be first 2...i'd lay more losers if i wasnt so circumspect but i avoid incidents like this (plus stewards jobs etc)

anyone know what was matched at 1000 on new winner

and 1.01 on FPTP

thanks

Im not denying that you and others and me arnt aware that it happens.
My point is that its one of the variables you cant legislate for, you bet IR on whats happening or what might happen.....not what might occur after it
Like I said that to me is pure chance, bingo or lottery

Anyway I said Id done with this 5hite last night and Ive carried on with it
Life too short, the game is phooked like drago said in rocky...
If it dies it dies

yes Dunc. Silly comment from Dusty. You have to take EVERYTHING into account when laying at 1000.  Of course people that have more money than knowledge of betting rules may not.

how can you take the amount of weight might be lost during a race, theres nothing to differentiate between each or any race, no determining factors, nothing.

just to add
you pro you, you saw it coming in light I take it?
Tell us how you do it, in the water I bet?

On what you just said howard youd never back anything because you cant see the weight

i clicked to lay the eventual winner for £15 @1000 50yds out...i got 1p matched at 1000

but it's not like its never happened before, dusty...even if it's only a 1 in 10,000 chance of happening in any given race, it's a variable you are aware of and thus have to take on the chin when it happens if you decide to play at the extremes

it shudnt happen full stop...any excuse given where the weight went?

If you play IR you cant be expected to get it right on all the variables of the race, and get the unseen stuff that nobody knows, to suggest people factor that into their assessment of odds is fanciful.

presume he just lost it in body weight, roida...1.2lb dont seem a lot...personally i would be in favour of no disq provided the lead/tack weighed the same as when weighed out..unless the weight loss was appreciable ie suspicious or there were other suspicious circs

to suggest people factor that into their assessment of odds is fanciful.


i've just told you I DO ffs

dunc youre a superstar mush
bet your farts dont stink either

i'm far from a superstar...i win a fraction of what roida and maybe even yourself wins...but i know that when i'm laying something at 100+, i dont want those idiot stewards or freak incidents like that wiping out a month's work so i try not to take that chance

@howard
yes Dunc. Silly comment from Dusty. You have to take EVERYTHING into account when laying at 1000.  Of course people that have more money than knowledge of betting rules may not.

How can you take "EVERYTHING" into account? You're saying you can't lay the 2nd when it has no chance of winning just because the winner might not weigh in correctly? You shouldn't lay the 3rd then as well because even the 2nd might fail to weigh in. What dustybin is saying you cannot take into account everything because noone knows that a horse is 1.2 lb lighter than it should be. You're basically betting on who will be first past the post and yes, you can take into account interference etc. but then those are known for everyone and is reflected in the odds. You can't possibly know the winner is too light. If this has to be taken into account the whole in-play betting becomes a farce.

but dunc with all due respect that different, you dont want to lay the second, so attempt to defer liability
somebody got to lay the second, or poss third (whos to say two wont weigh in light?)
on that basis there wont be any betting at all
hence my point

sorry lynxx I didnt see the above post

when have 2 ever when in light? now you're getting silly

there'll always be someone (like yourself) to lay the 2nd @ 1000...it just wont be me

weighed in light obv

and if thats true dunc and Im saying the rules are wrong, perhaps there is a danger that those laying the second dont want it?
You are being facetious, there hasnt been 2 weighed in light to my knowledge but as its a variable that you believe to be part of racing its still possible
back to confidence in betting again

*dont want to be chucking big amounts into the market I meant.

There's a possibility, if you want to take everything into account.

The best solution I believe would be to void all bets in this case like when a player gets injured and retires in tennis. Noone would really mind it if it didn't happen regularly. Also why does it matter if the jockey is a bit lighter? Weigh him in before the race and check if he carried all the external weight during the race and then don't give a **** about how much he weighs. See boxing. Noone cares about Mayweather's weight after the match, do they? Then the jockey can sweat as much as he likes.

Stewards opt not to disqualify winner after jockey weighs in light

• Paul Moloney was a pound and a half below allotted weight
• Officials accept explanation of excessive sweat on a hot day

Chris Cook

Wednesday 25 July 2012 19.48 BST

In what is believed to have been the first case of its kind, stewards opted not to disqualify a winning horse at Worcester on Wednesday after its jockey weighed in light by a pound and a half.

Green To Gold, the well-supported even-money favourite and part-owned by Sir Alex Ferguson, coasted home five lengths clear of his rivals in a handicap chase but was nonetheless expected to lose the race when it emerged that Paul Moloney had weighed in at 11 stone eight and a half pounds, rather than the 11 stones and 10 pounds which the horse was supposed to carry.

Instead, the stewards opted to exercise their discretion, explaining afterwards that "the day was exceptionally hot and the rider … had been sweating excessively". They noted that Moloney had weighed out for the race, the second on the card, before the first race, in which he had also taken part.

After the first race, Moloney was called into the stewards' room, his mount having suffered interference. The time he spent there prevented him from rehydrating before the second race, the stewards said.

"Fair play to the stewards for using common sense," Moloney said. "If you've ever gone into the weighing room at Worcester on a hot day, it's like a sauna. It's got wooden floors and wooden walls and the heat makes you feel like passing out. It was 30 degrees.

Moloney said that Don Cantillon, trainer of Green To Gold, had wanted to saddle the horse in the stableyard rather than by the pre-parade ring. It had therefore been necessary for Moloney to weigh out early for the race, so that Cantillon could take the saddle to the stableyard.

"I'd been sweating hard to do 10 stone 1lb for the first race," Moloney added, "and, after I rode in a race, if I ran my finger across my forehead, the sweat coming off it was like a tap. The amount of weight you're talking about is about the same as a deck of cards, so it's not rocket science."

In light of the winning margin, it is hard to believe that the pound and a half made any difference to the outcome. Even so, it was a surprise to many that the stewards had any discretion over whether to disqualify a horse in such circumstances.

Paul Barton, the stipendiary steward working at Worcester, described the circumstances as "exceptional". "The rule gives the stewards the power to disqualify if they are not satisfied, or even on some occasions where they are satisfied and they know the reason [for the weight loss].
If a rider lost a weight cloth in a race and it led to the 1lb under weight, the horse would be disqualified, but the rider would not be penalised."

The decision led to accusations of inconsistency in stewarding, notably from the trainer Peter Bowen, whose Catch The Fire was disqualified from second place at Stratford on 15 July after the jockey, Donal Devereux, weighed in light by a pound and a half.
Bowen was fined £500 and the jockey banned for two days, which infuriated the trainer, who pointed out at the time that the horse had not carried a weight cloth in the race, indicating that weight loss by the jockey could be the only cause of the discrepancy.

"Shouldn't be one rule for some and different for others," Bowen tweeted in response to the Worcester verdict.

Later, Bowen said he "couldn't believe it" when he heard of the Green To Gold case, which he described as being similar to the one involving his horse. "Donal only had a saddle, a pad and a number cloth when he weighed out. There was no way for him to lose any of the equipment; he must have lost the weight himself.

"It was a very hot day and he had to weigh out early because we wanted to saddle the horse in the stable. It was exactly the same. They [the stewards] haven't done themselves any favours with this."

Bowen said he had rung the British Horseracing Authority to complain about the apparent inconsistency in stewarding, but had not received "a good answer".

has there been any excuse put forward yet for the weight loss yesterday ?

Majority of you want rules changed to protect I/R, some of us couldn't give a toss if they suffer

That was a very intelligent remark. It would be even better if the rules were changed so that more people suffered, as long as you're not involved, right?

dunc...100% spot on.

Anyone backing 1.01's in final furlong and laying 2nd placed horses at daft odds deserve all they get...i'm pretty sure over time they will be well in profit but don't come crying on here when it goes belly up and they have to give some of their profit back.

As the saying goes "You can't have your cake and eat it".

Well thats all well and good TT
Ive never backed at tiny odds close to the line, Ive laid plenty of big prices that have both lost and plenty that went on to win.
Do you think the only operators are you, and the 1.01 merchants?
What about the rest of us?
What seems to be over looked is that its not about just laying the second or backing the first past the post at skinny odds, its about backing the winner at any odds for decent money.
Also any bets placed during the race that can determine a horse will come second does just as well as anyone backing the winner, you could lay something a long way out that ends up second...are they also sacrificial in your view?
Most of the make up of the IR markets are skin and bones nowadays, the PC2 has had an effect that will never recover from, we now seem to have had a period of results where the rules have been made to look daft, if more and more turn away as a result your game will ultimately be effected too in the end, so that moralistic stance wont do you much good when youre matching nowt.

^^because for all your beliefs of the 1.01 merchants or anyone else that win, they dont win exclusively, they tend to slosh money around in other areas.
very few have a systematic system that they stick to rigidly and only ever win.

Well said dustybin.

Such individuals do not seem to understand that incidents like yesterday may come to affect overall liquidity on horse racing.

After all, why have a bet in good faith, when due to some technicality, the result gets overturned.

May as well stick to footy, for example, some might say.

Quite right Wesdag

what surprises me is that people dont seem to want to improve the rules.
Who do they think they are benefiting? The person placing a scabby 50p on every runner just on the off chance a winner gets thrown out?
Im sure bf really value those customers.
But the reality is these probably dont even exist anyway, since there is absolutely no pattern to determine who will get thrown out.
Or do they think people will 'beat the handicapper' by infinitesimal changes in weight due to the jockey sweating?
Get real, the suggestion regarding weighing the horse and added cloth and making sure that remains constant sounds a decent idea to me, if jockeys sweat during exertion so what?
Are we in the realms of picking the sweatiest jocks to gain an advantage?
pmsl

Wesdag
11 Nov 15 19:36

Such individuals do not seem to understand that incidents like yesterday may come to affect overall liquidity on horse racing.


what, such individuals that have already posted 'i would be in favour of no disq provided the lead/tack weighed the same as when weighed out..unless the weight loss was appreciable ie suspicious or there were other suspicious circs'?

Is your name "such individuals"?

not sure a low key affair on a tuesday with an underweight jock is going to kill the sport as some on here are suggesting...i would say the high profile disqualifications such as the Leger incident are far more damaging.

anyways...i think the morale of the story here is to ensure you factor in a "sweaty" jockey into your odds before you lay the 2nd for 999/1.
Instead of looking for froth under saddles pre-race, maybe check for rosy cheeks and sweaty silks

Im surprised Hot Grove wasn't disqualified from second place in the Derby. Willie Carson said he shti himself when Lester appeared on The Minstrel!