SCANDAL -cancel all your tote bets NOW

Yes we are racing but its a liberty to all the guys that placed their early bets and can`t cancel because of work etc..

All bets should be refunded but i don't see those crocks doing that...

gregbucks wrote: All bets should be refunded but i don't see those crocks doing that...

Take-out already in the bank ?? !!

There needs to be a reassessment of the rules when changing surfaces,which is a bit more extreme than when the rules were set up ,and track changes were still Turf!

One point that is obvious,is that there are a handful of people who understand odds and most bookmakers (incuding the big boys) are merely outlets of odds set by "price - fixers"
Not one of my sites ,including Interbet ,were laying anything but SP on the 2nd race, after the change!!

A bookmaker is no more a bookmaker cos the site says so, than a manager is a manager cos his business card says so!!!! :woohoo:

what is really bad is that with exception of sporting post and ABC I don't see the changes of track.

where are u reading this from P Saftote, tab Gold

Yesterday was an absolute shambles if you had taken exotics prior to the change of track,most people work during the week and had already taken there bets,some horse run exceptionally well on the sand but couldn't beat a dog on the turf in a race

mvp1 wrote: Yesterday was an absolute shambles if you had taken exotics prior to the change of track,most people work during the week and had already taken there bets,some horse run exceptionally well on the sand but couldn't beat a dog on the turf in a race

I have been accused of only finding fault when I lose.
Well as soon as there was a chance of changing surfaces I was re-handicapping the fields at turf ratings,and without being an ARM, anybody who did the same will agree that the PA, in particular, was fairly straightforward and I am pleased to report my best return ,this year, in respect of exotics!
The problem is, my gain was from punters whose money was lost the moment the decision was made.
I cannot understand why bookmakers bets are void (correctly as the basis of the contract is different) and tote bets stand (AKA forfeit)
I would think that strictly speaking ,racing horses,in handicaps,off incorrect ratings is probably contrary to the rules anyway, so at the very least, ALL bets taken under such incorrect detail, should be refunded.
If I had been out and about and my sand PA had stood,today I would be feeling, justifiably, that I had been robbed.

Once the take-out is in the bank, you are on your own...

The National Horseracing Authority have launched an enquiry into the enforced switching of the Vaal racing surface from all-weather (huh?) to turf on Thursday. Phumelela put on the show-why are they so quiet and saying so little 24 hours after the event? Taking the fifth amendment maybe?

It is an interesting situation yet again.

Let’s give credit where it’s due. Something is being done. The fact that the National Horseracing Authority have launched an enquiry is a positive and commendable step.

But Phumelela have probably got more money and legal muscle than S’manga Khumalo – and this one could go on through another decade of state of the nation speeches and power outages.

Let’s face it – what conclusion can the NHA enquiry really reach? That management is incompetent? And what is going to happen we wonder if somebody just didn’t bother to check the track before racing – or even just left the hosepipe on overnight?

That stuff happens – ask the jocks who almost collided with a rake on the Greyville track a few years back.

And the Vaal track manager works for Phumelela. He probably isn’t a licenced official either – so why should he be nervous about the NHA peeping over his shoulder and asking questions?

And again the entity who feeds the watchdog is under scruitiny. What do they say about biting the hand that feeds?

For those who may not know, a jockey delegation lodged a protest after the Vaal first race on Thursday against the condition of the sand track and voiced concerns that it was unsafe to continue racing due to the inconsistency of the going.

The track apparently experienced overnight rains.

A track inspection followed the jockey protest and it was decided to allow the surface an hour to dry out.

This desperately hoped for act of god failed to materialise and a decision was made to switch the balance of the meeting to the turf outside.

All trainers were naturally afforded the opportunity to withdraw their runners and the distances of races 3,4 and 5 were changed from 1400m to 1450m.

While we managed to get through the meeting, the spotlight has firmly placed on the level of professionalism of horseracing management – and, to a lesser degree, their PR skills.

Let’s consider a few questions:

1.Was the Vaal sand not meant to be an all-weather track in the first place and what has actually happened to it’s maintenance over time?

2.Why was there no inkling of the problem and why was no inspection of the track done in the morning prior to allowing the jockeys to go out and potentially find out the hard way?

3.What are the qualifications (and let’s ask about the commitment levels at the same time) of the Vaal track manager?

4.While Bookmaker bets were immediately null and void after the change, what about compensation to tote punters, many of whom may have been oblivious to the moving of the goal posts – some people do work hey! Are they left sucking the hind tit again?

5.The handicappers can surely not be happy about the summary surface switching? The fact that horses are running on the ‘wrong’ surface with their ‘correctly’ allocated weights/ ratings can only lead to confusion with what is already a bloody difficult job.

6. Will trainers, owners, jockeys and other folk who wasted their time on Thursday be compensated?

Nothing much changes and we don’t expect any answers.

Read More on SportingPost.co.za