This is a place for friendly and civil discussion of horse racing of all types including handicapping.
Latest Jan-18 by DogsUpWired
Latest Nov-21 by pianot
Latest Jan-16 by DogsUpWired
Latest Jan-16 by RAESFAN
Latest Jan-13 by RAESFAN
Latest Jan-13 by RAESFAN
Latest Jan-12 by DogsUpWired
Latest Jan-3 by TexSquared
Latest Jan-1 by princeofdoc
Latest Dec-31 by Plus2lbs
Latest Dec-28 by smartyslew
Latest Dec-27 by Plus2lbs
Latest Dec-25 by TexSquared
Latest Dec-24 by SameSteve G
Latest Dec-22 by KonaNative
Latest Dec-22 by KonaNative
Latest Dec-19 by Wintertrian
The suffix -gate derives from the Watergate scandal of the United States in the early 1970s, which resulted in the resignation of U.S. President Richard Nixox. The scandal was named after the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C.
Following that infamously nom de pew' the suffix began to generate additional suffix monikers.
Other languages incorporated the add on-suffix to connote a troublesome head line.
Which leads the Dogs (Dogs no have a leash BTW) to predict the outcome of:
Gategate: The misfortunate scratch and run for purse money only BC grasser 2021 on further inspection: video shows runner did not break through gate. Asst. Starter released horse for its gate safety. Vet protocols were not initiated or followed to retain or release the runner from "the incorporated pools".
In my opinion; this specific instance, likely challenged by some will call for more than a mere refund.
Especially that the event was sponsored and run under the auspices of not the track administration, but the Breeders Cup. The Vet was surely paid for services by BC.
And as an experienced on-track Vet for safety; knew or should have known the responsibilities to "the Pool' before exercising his medical opinion only.
A highly possible; potential Hold All Tickets ruling tacitly/ All Payouts are final exception may be in the making.
As I think about it more...seems the Starter and assistant starter in Gate gate did not input their due diligence into the scatch issue.
Maybe more startling is that it is not in their responsibility to protect the pools.
And then the void becomes a Vets opinion to scratch and Stewards blessing.
Or are these issues of discovery for a scratch in place as rules but all concerned treated the day as 'free square.
Shame the outcome resulted in many a bad beat going home with just what's left purse money only
Further hope it's not a case of not my job.
The Dogs does internet data mining pretty well. Finding and accessing information and use in decision making. Ultimately Go/No Go on the data.
For business, personal, recreational and entertainment.
Searching to ascertain if there are track officials protocols for scratches late or at the gate BY the vet, Stewards, Starter and those reporting to the position, assistant starters. None was found that would have prevented the BC grasser that scratched the the ultimate winner who ran for purse money only.
In placing horizontal races often a ticket construction uses a single in 1 leg in usually a 4 pick or more. A scratch in a ticket gives the ticket the post time favorite.
Often a player will play a 'free square' horse that will end up with Off odds at 1/1 or less in their horizontal bets.
Parlay bets are tough enough.
But with the latest BC SNAFU bad beat we learned another proposition on how to get taken down. During the race!
Had official rules, protocols, mechanics of an event been in place "to protect the pools" , that is the understanding of the rules of racing; the assistant starter would have notified the Starter that the runner utimately winning for purse money had been released at the gate by the assistant starter for safety reasons. Rather than the runner had broke through the gate. And in this BC race the officiating was based on the notion that the runner broke through the gate.
Yeah 100% agree that was some kinda sneaky scandiuouls situation..How you gonna scratch a horse and then put him back in the race but you can't bet on him because they scratched him....And of course the horse wins for fun as the favorite ..
I wonder if that would. Have happened if the horse was say 25 to 1 or something would they have done all they did?? I'm guessing sure they would if they new he was gonna win like this one won...
Looking forward to see if some bettors with horizontal tickets that would be winners will litigate.
That is, assistant starter knowing that he released the horse for safety. And reporting such to the starter.
Then the starter would notify the vet that the horse did not break through the gate.
Then the vet scoped the horse as fit to run. But, for purse only in that vet thought horse broke through gate.
They have a duty to protect the horizontal pools. In this case they sent Off a horse that was released for safety reasons but the communication mechanics to allow the horse to reload as a pari-mutuel starter was not initiated.. Other flat tickets refunded also did not receive pool protection as to gate rules to navigate the runner back into the starting gate as being released for safety.
This historic occurrence proposition will keep horizontal bettors on the shy in ticket construction.