BB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe it's two separate issues, and O'Rourke's
> opacity was due to his not wanting NYRA to look
> even worse than it already does.
>
> On the inability to refund the wager, see page 67
> of the NYSGC rules on horse racing. There are no
> provisions for refunding P5 wagers due to any
> number of surface changes. As to who made that
> decision, that would be the stewards, who are
> charged with enforcing the rules as written.
>
> O'Rourke's saying that they WANTED to refund the
> wagers is either disingenuous (because he should
> have known they couldn't) or damning (in the case
> that he/they DIDN'T know that).
>
> As to being unable to delay the race, Im guessing
> it was Fox Sports that said no. NYRA delays or
> moves up post times all the time. If they didn't
> delay the race because TV guys said so, well, I
> guess that puts Fox in charge of the henhouse.


Thank you, this is very interesting.

I wonder why they couldn't have just done my novel solution? Once they broke the rules by declaring the off the turf ALL WINS, they then needed to declare the rest of the bet ALL WINS so that the breaking of the rules did not prejudice players who played by the rules and expected the rules to be enforced. Yes, that would have resulted in a $50,000 minus pool with everybody getting back 105% but also it is a result that nobody can complain about. Who can complain about it? O'Rourke himself said he wanted to give the money back and he wants to seed pools. Well declaring the whole bet all wins does exactly what he says he wanted to do. Plus, it is entirely justified.

The other thing that is completely missing is nobody is talking about the violation of the rules and why that was okay and why there is no remedy for a breach of the rules. If there is no remedy for the breach of the rules, aren't the rules pretty meaningless? If the answer is one of interpretation - they didn't think the public knew because there wasn't enough time for the public announcement to be heard by everybody - that would establish an absolutely awful precedent and would be completely unmanageable on a going forward basis. Imagine every time there is a switch off the turf, you have to do an analysis of whether the public got enough notice or not? Also, how do you make the decision after the fact instead of at the time? How are people supposed to know the rules before they bet if they are only told of them after the bet? It just seems like a completely ludicrous interpretation and terrible precedent. Who could possibly justify such an action as consistent with the rules? if it is, the rules are worthless for two reasons, one there is no remedy if they are breached, plus, they are allowed to be changed after the fact with impunity.