Aug 6 Saratoga Late Pick 5 debacle -- The novel solution

[Socalman3]

Why Isn\'t the Fair and Correct Solution to the Late Pick 5 scandal as follows --

They should declare all races -- ALL WIN -- and then everybody gets their bet back plus the nickel on the dollar minimum payout.

The theory is as follows -- when there is a race in the sequence where extremely pertinent information to the betting on the race is not known at the time the bet is made on the race (and the extremely pertinent information is a matter 100% within the control of track), the race needs to be declared ALL WIN.  Basically, there was just as much uncertainty with the dirt races as there was with the turf races because nobody knew what the rules of the bet were so you had no idea what tickets you should put in or keep in.  If you were a person who heard the announcement and then put in an off the turf ticket, you were totally reamed because you bet it exactly the right way and they changed the rules on you after the bet started to your detriment viz a viz other bettors.  It seems to me they must EITHER pay out tickets that had the 5 actual true winners regardless of surface OR declare all the races ALL WIN and give everybody their money back plus 5%.

You might say that it is unfair for the track to have to suffer a minus pool; but it is not unfair because the track had the right to cancel the pool rather than accept the money and they also had the choice as to whether or not to change the rules of the bet midstream.  They would not be an innocent victim of the minus pool, the minus pool would be a direct result of their voluntary choices. When they decided after the bet started to change the rules and screw over one segment of the bettors (the ones playing by the pre-existing rules) in the pool - they made their bed - if you change rules mid-stream, you can\'t change rules for some bettors and not for other bettors -- you need to change for all or none.  If they are going to change the rules of the bet after the pool closes but before they determine results (which was voluntary on their part), they need to make sure when they make such mid-contest rule changes, that they do it in a neutral way.

This is not unlike declaring a horse a non-starter for betting purposes -- the horse did not have a fair chance at the race, so bets on the horse are treated as if the horse was scratched.  The only difference here is you are declaring all the horses non-starters because THE BET on the horses did not have a fair chance.  The reason it is not a refund situation is that the horse itself actually had a fair chance, it was the bet that did not have the fair chance.  The bet was actually made and put at risk, so it needs the minimum payout. That is the whole concept of the minimum pay out - if you put your money at risk, you are entitled to some minimum compensation for it.  In the non-starter, your money was not at risk.  The easy way to see this is that the guys who bet for all dirt put their money at risk - i am sure there are plenty of people who actually \"hit\" the late pick 5 but lost overall on the sequence. That is why the minimum payout is required.

[pip4126]

How much does it affect a horse\'s action when a jockey shifts their weight to look over their shoulders or under their arms during a race?
The reason I ask this is that in watching the replay of the Maple Leaf Mel breakdown I noticed Rosario look under his right arm two jumps before the breakdown.