Reduced stakes for reduced fields

To my horror and disbelief, i was informed that the gross stake in the MR90 race that our lad, Cappoquin ran in over the weekend was reduced from 90k to 58k because of the reduced field (6 runners eventually).

Is this standard or just in the Western Cape and why ?

Truly madness.

Are they trying to piss all owners off.

cuckoo

perhaps gold circle can confirm that a quid pro quo reduction in rake off on bets on these reduced races take place.

i think we both know the answer to that one!

i must admit to have been in a similar situation with a runner about two years ago ( Natal, also GC). the final field cut to seven runners and a reduced stake became applicable. my trainer to his credit phoned me immediately with the reduced amount and we proceded to scratch the horse due to this. the race was eventually abandoned. it would be interesting to see if stakes are reduced in the uk where we regularly have "fields" of two, three and four runners.

a final point - what happens to the MR of your horse in a reduced stakes race? from the looks of things you get the same medicine for reduced moola.....
not a good situation and one that should be adressed as a matter of urgency.

can anyone give any details of how P reduce stakes ( if at all? ) in similar circumstances?

Thought about this a bit more does not make sense. You have horse that every time it runs something could go wrong. Certain horses have earned their MR and when they run they run for a higher stake. Not less than a maiden plate. Otherwise owners would be crazy to run them.

Kimberley should then have same rule as most of their higher MR races are badly represented.

kimberley is an excellent example sly, and do not recall reduced stakes becoming applicable there. not too sure that this happens in P land, but do not have the facts.

To the best of my knowledge, P introduced this policy briefly a couple of years ago, but soon did away with it. I also think that this policy used to apply in KZN but now only applies to the Western Cape.

I agree, it is ridiculous, unfair, and should be stopped immediately. It is unfair on those who support a race to bear the brunt for those who didn't support it, and as far as I know we may very well be the only country in the world who implement this practice.

But this is Gold Circle we are talking about, and if they could save ten cents by removing the wheels from the starting stalls they wouldn't hesitate. "Cheap" doesn't begin to describe them. (Barry Irwin will know what I mean).

AP Indy, 2 weeks ago in JOBURG Let's Rock 'n Roll was in a 4 horse race - reduced from 7 runners to 4

He duly won the race at short odds of 7/10. For this win he was BUMPED UP 5 points for beating 3 horses home !! Totally unfair I thought & I told my trainer so.
As far as I am aware, the stakes pot was NOT reduced.

I think they're trying to push this horses MR so high AGAIN, that it takes him another 18 months to win a race again.

Must say was not aware of this and if not mistaken even a "walk-over" in the U.K. the nominated horse gets the first prize stake cheque? and walks the course.

Elvis a few years ago your horse "Speak of the devil" was in the field that cause them to drop the stake was he not?

does not seem fair at all

This has happened in Western Cape ever since I've been involved. As far as I remember 7 horses less 5%, 6 less 10%, etc. R90K to R 58K must be an error by GC. New on site but very nice site. Keep up the good work.

Hi bit, yes that field was reduced to THREE runners only. ( Dec 2005 ) I think they did reduce the stakes pot that particular night , but I think P has done an about turn on the stakes issue - I think today they pay the full stakes for 4 horses, obviously 5th stake cheque falls away- if there are only 4 runners in the final field. I stand to be corrected.

catsmug, I would have been pissed of If they'd reduced the stakes. Don't penalise the horses WHO DO TAKE PART IN A RACE.