Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorioles
As we discussed privately, this isn't what I meant. Bettors need to be able to trust printed conditions. I'm sure you agree they are often very important when handicapping a race. For this particular race, no, bettors had the PPs and bet accordingly. I just think having "spirit of the rule" conditions sets a bad precedent. We need to be able to trust what we read in black and white in the PPs. The racing secretary can't be this haphazard about it.
You or I could have written clear, concise conditions that matched the intent of the "new" race conditions in a few minutes I'd bet. Maybe even Steve too.  |
The spirit of the rule element is for horsemen and owners. The public has been clamoring for a way to give smaller outfits a better chance to compete and then criticize the early attempts to provide that chance.
There was nothing haphazard about the provisions of the race, as stated above: Horses listed as intended to run at SA during the meet, a list that every trainer is required to provide for insurance purposes. That's what was the benchmark from inside the racing office and for the stewards to OK the concept and running of the race.
What was haphazard was an alleged journalist distorting the circumstances around the race with incomplete information, creating an unnecessary reaction from people that have nothing about which to be aggrieved.