History made at 16:25 Towcester

[Euler]

No finishers under the new rules.

[andyfuller]

I had to

Still don't get why it has to be voided though. Just because no one finishes doesn't mean a race hasn't taken place.

[SilentDave]

No finishers means the race hasn't been completed so I guess that means it didn't take place

[mugsgame]

I didn't bet in the race, but surely if you had LAY bets on any runners would you be paid out on all them them. After all they didn't win.

A LAY BET IS A BET TO SAY THE HORSE WILL NOT WIN - NONE OF THEM DID
sorry about caps

[LeTiss]

I agree with that mugsgame

I'm sure some punters would moan about bookies keeping the whole pot, but you're right

[andyfuller]

Fully agree - why should you get your back bet back, you had the chance to win but didn't. Daft rule imo, all horses had a fair chance of winning, a race took place non won.

The inverse of this would be all horses winning in a dead heat - should that be voided as no one lost?

[Euler]

Surely you would suddenly get a lot of races where no horse ever finished though. Big pot of money that dwarfs the prize money, probably not a good move.

I think the rule is a bit daft though, what was the reason that they banned remounting?

[sweetybt]

I think in the place market, if there are 2 places for example but only 1 horse finishes the race, the market is settled and layers only pay out on one horse and pocket the rest.

So don't dutch 2 place markets in novice handicaps with 3 or 4 runners (Quickest way to the poor house)

[andyfuller]

They banned it on welfare grounds Peter. Correct decision imo.

[hgodden]

If every jockey has gone they should just call the winner whichever horse crosses the finishing line first by itself! Can you imagine the carnage IR

[SpikeyBob]

... or maybe the jockeys could sprint for the line and settle it that way

[SilentDave]

Correct decision imho. If nobody completes the course then it seems pretty obvious to me that the race has to be voided. Anyway the rules are clear so it's not exactly controversial unless you disagree with the remounting rules.

[Euler]

They banned it on welfare grounds Peter. Correct decision imo.

Yep, that's fair enough, hadn't thought of that.

[andyfuller]

I was reading the article last night on the Racing Post website that the jockies and trainers were saying it was a ridiculous rule as the vet had checked the horses over and therefore all they needed to do was remount and cross the line. I think I actually saw one of the jockies remounting so as to avoid having to walk back in!

I really think the banning of remounting was a great decision by the BHA. Obviously there are occasions when the horse is perfectly fine, say when the jockey unseats rather than it being a fall.

But, I don't feel you can have a rule that leaves it open to discretion as to whether it was an unseating or a fall. I think a carpet ban is the correct way.

The number of times you hear a trainer say, 'when we got him back home we found x y and z wrong'.

Also on a pure reputation the sport can't afford to risk remounting imo. One incident of a jockey getting back on board and the horse falling over dead and the anti's have all the ammunition they need.

Finally I think the quick check over that is done by the vet is anything but thorough so could easily miss things.

As for there being any controversy about yesterday I don't think there was. I was just saying I don't agree with the rule. It seems to me there is no benefit for the layer, it is all for the backer. The backers can get their money back if there horse falls and all others do, but if just one horse stays on its feet they lose - so why should you benefit from another horse falling...

[mugsgame]

The no remounting debate started after Kauto Star fell in that 3 runner race when he was a novice. Ruby remounted him and he was beaten a short head. He was injured by this. It kicked off the debate if I remembered right.