U.S. Horse Racing
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Here's a bizzarre question that maybe a pr person can answer regarding New York racing. In the United States and Canada horses are often coupled in entries. So there's a 1 and 1A, 2 and 2B etc. At Betfair those entries are treated as separate betting options. I noticed in one race the other day at Saratoga a #1 horse finished 2nd and the 1A finished 4th. There was a disqualification against the #1A and by NYRA rules any disqualification against one part of the entry results in a disqualifcation of both parts.
So here's the question. Had you bet the #1 horse to place would the bet have lost? I assume they go by the official order of finish which put the #1 4th and 1A 5th but it hardly seems fair. If you're treating the 2 horses as separate entries for betting purposes then there's no reason a disqualification against the horse that has nothing to do with your wager should affect your horse.
Again I didn't bet the race so I don't know how it was paid out but I think New York is the only jurisdiction that has this rule in place.
So here's the question. Had you bet the #1 horse to place would the bet have lost? I assume they go by the official order of finish which put the #1 4th and 1A 5th but it hardly seems fair. If you're treating the 2 horses as separate entries for betting purposes then there's no reason a disqualification against the horse that has nothing to do with your wager should affect your horse.
Again I didn't bet the race so I don't know how it was paid out but I think New York is the only jurisdiction that has this rule in place.
Show More
? sry dont get ur question, if ur horse is unplaced when the race goes offical how can they pay u
Because they're treating the horses as separate betting interests at Betfair but they're coupled on the track.
Think of it this way - Suppose Blue Bunting and Genius Beast are entered in the same race. In England they're seperate betting options on both the exchange and the tote. If Blue Bunting wins and Genius Beast finishes 3rd but Genius Beast is relegated for interference Blue Bunting would still be the winner on both.
If this same race happened in New York then since they are by the same stable they would have to be coupled in the parimutuel betting. But according to NY rules since the 3rd place horse was disqualified the winner gets disqualified also even though he did nothing. If you bet it on the tote then obviously they can only pay the tote payoffs but it seems assinine to offer separate betting interests and you lose even though your horse won legitimately.
But I'm open to other opinions.
Think of it this way - Suppose Blue Bunting and Genius Beast are entered in the same race. In England they're seperate betting options on both the exchange and the tote. If Blue Bunting wins and Genius Beast finishes 3rd but Genius Beast is relegated for interference Blue Bunting would still be the winner on both.
If this same race happened in New York then since they are by the same stable they would have to be coupled in the parimutuel betting. But according to NY rules since the 3rd place horse was disqualified the winner gets disqualified also even though he did nothing. If you bet it on the tote then obviously they can only pay the tote payoffs but it seems assinine to offer separate betting interests and you lose even though your horse won legitimately.
But I'm open to other opinions.
I should note that about a decade ago Woodbine (Toronto) offered NY racing but the pools were seperate. A similar situation occurred and the #1A horse was disqualified resulting in the winner's disqualification also. Woodbine announced at the time that the rules for Ontario racing were different than New York so the results before the disqualification stood and bettors in Canada got paid on the #1 horse even though he was off the board in the "official" results at Belmont. It seems that since the BF betting exchange is separate from the NY rules that the results should pay according to rules that BF deems reasonable regardless of the final result on the tote.
? nether horse got placed, or have mis-understood the question
The original post has a significant error in it unfortunately. The disqualification of one part of an entry DOES NOT automatically mean the DQ of the other half. It is conditional on the runner causing the offense CHANGING the order of finish as such that another runner was PREVENTED from finishing ahead of the other part of the entry. Here's the rule at NYRA:
(e) (i)If two or more horses are coupled in the betting as an entry, and one or more of them shall be disqualified for violation of the rules of racing, the balance of the entry shall also be disqualified if in the judgment of the stewards such violation prevented any other horse or horses from finishing ahead of the other part of the entry. If said violation is without such effect upon the finish of the race, penalty therefore may be applied against the offender and the balance of the entry may go unpunished.
None of this will matter soon anyways as I believe the coupled entry rules in New York will be changed in the near future to completely mirror the rules in California. The New York State Racing and Wagering board has already taken the first step by enacting a rule change last summer, relaxing the coupled entries rules, allowing uncoupled runners by the same trainer PROVIDED the ownership is not the same. The next step, full Californification. :-)
In the meantime, just be aware of the rules and the nuances involved with their application on occasion.
(e) (i)If two or more horses are coupled in the betting as an entry, and one or more of them shall be disqualified for violation of the rules of racing, the balance of the entry shall also be disqualified if in the judgment of the stewards such violation prevented any other horse or horses from finishing ahead of the other part of the entry. If said violation is without such effect upon the finish of the race, penalty therefore may be applied against the offender and the balance of the entry may go unpunished.
None of this will matter soon anyways as I believe the coupled entry rules in New York will be changed in the near future to completely mirror the rules in California. The New York State Racing and Wagering board has already taken the first step by enacting a rule change last summer, relaxing the coupled entries rules, allowing uncoupled runners by the same trainer PROVIDED the ownership is not the same. The next step, full Californification. :-)
In the meantime, just be aware of the rules and the nuances involved with their application on occasion.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539