Hi all,
Long time member, minimal poster.
Can I just get some eyes on this? I had an In-Play trade on the race today, I layed the second fave Thunder Flash, heavy liability on this, by my eyes, this runner came in second, VOD below for you.
https://www.attheraces.com/atrplayer-popup/VOD/1155542
The Race stayed In-Play for a full 23 minutes before the market was suspended. The results showed Voice of Dubawi coming in first, however after I noticed my funds had not been updated I checked again and the all of a sudden Thunder Flash has been crowned winner. I contacted betfair who asked for explicit results to show Voice of Dubawi came in first, all webistes at this point had been updated to show Thunder Flash in 1st.
I'm confused and disappointed to say the least. It happens, right? Most of the time I'd take it on the nose, but this one I'm not so sure about.. Betfair had this to say.
Ankita at 18:49, Aug 11:
Hi there
Ankita at 18:49, Aug 11:
How can I help you ?
You at 18:50, Aug 11:
Just curious about the LingField race today at 17:55
Read
You at 18:50, Aug 11:
The race was inplay for over 20 minutes and the winner was changed ?
Read
You at 18:51, Aug 11:
Voicer of Debawi came in for the win, but my funds have been depleted as a loss
Read
Ankita at 18:52, Aug 11:
I just checked the results for this match.
https://www.sportinglife.com/racing/res ... akes-div-2
It seems Thunder Flash won from the official results
You at 18:53, Aug 11:
Not on the live pictures, the race was only 7f, and was still in pay for 20 minutes after
Read
You at 18:54, Aug 11:
How can I take this further? It was clear as day I'd take it on the nose, but even a freeze frames on the race show the winner, so slightly was Voice of Dubawi
Read
Ankita at 18:55, Aug 11:
Can you please provide me results where is shows a different results ?
You at 18:55, Aug 11:
https://www.attheraces.com/atrplayer-popup/VOD/1155542
Read
Ankita at 18:55, Aug 11:
I mean a link to any result site please ?
Ankita at 18:57, Aug 11:
I mean a link to any result site please ?
You at 18:58, Aug 11:
The results were updated to reflect Thunder Flash winning after the original results posted
Read
Ankita at 19:00, Aug 11:
Apologies, then the bets will also be settled as per the results provided by the providers and I am very sorry about this
You at 19:01, Aug 11:
I understand, where can I take this further please?
Read
Ankita at 19:04, Aug 11:
If you can provide me any link where it shows the results otherwise , I can take this further to our traders
Ankita at 19:04, Aug 11:
But if there is nothing , then I am sorry
Ankita at 19:04, Aug 11:
Because , even if I escalated , the traders will need something to look into and everywhere the result is same
You at 19:05, Aug 11:
They can't review race footage?
Read
Ankita at 19:07, Aug 11:
No sorry , they can only review the result links and data from providers.
am I fighting a losing battle on this one, or do you guys know there I can take this?
Thanks all
Stung by Betfair LingField 17:55 Aug 11th
https://twitter.com/BHAStewards/status/ ... 0307175425
Stewards enquiry on the race. Results changed as a result.
Stewards enquiry on the race. Results changed as a result.
Hurts man. Unfortunately there's nothing you can do as the result is the result as per the stewards enquiry...
Can I ask why though and exactly what happened? Looked like the horse/jockey that actually won changed his whip into his right hand and sort of does something a bit strange with it?
Can I ask why though and exactly what happened? Looked like the horse/jockey that actually won changed his whip into his right hand and sort of does something a bit strange with it?
Voice Of Dubawi (from Sporting Life site): Mid-division, switched right to go around rivals to challenge and ridden over 1f out, led 1/2f out, hung left under pressure and hampered rival, just held on, finished first but disqualified and placed second
I've been betting since the age of eight - I remember backing Nureyev in the 1980 2000 Guineas when he was disqualified and the race handed to Known Fact. Guessing I lost 5-10 pence, but seriously, if you're going to place serious bets or give yourself, as you say, a heavy liability, you really need to brush up with the rules on racing.
I've been betting since the age of eight - I remember backing Nureyev in the 1980 2000 Guineas when he was disqualified and the race handed to Known Fact. Guessing I lost 5-10 pence, but seriously, if you're going to place serious bets or give yourself, as you say, a heavy liability, you really need to brush up with the rules on racing.
Didn't watch the race (was enjoying the sunshinetrkizzle wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:10 amHurts man. Unfortunately there's nothing you can do as the result is the result as per the stewards enquiry...
Can I ask why though and exactly what happened? Looked like the horse/jockey that actually won changed his whip into his right hand and sort of does something a bit strange with it?
) but when a horse is drifting the jockey needs to have the whip on the drifting side to help straighten the horse up. They sometimes get criticised if they don't do it promptly.It was picked up in the commentary that Thunder Flash was carried wide by Voice of Dubawi. Here though is the official report:trkizzle wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:10 amHurts man. Unfortunately there's nothing you can do as the result is the result as per the stewards enquiry...
Can I ask why though and exactly what happened? Looked like the horse/jockey that actually won changed his whip into his right hand and sort of does something a bit strange with it?
Race 5 - 5:55pm
THE BETWAY CLASSIFIED STAKES (CLASS 6) (DIV II)
Permission was given for VOLCANO BAY to wear a hood in the Parade Ring.
An enquiry was held to consider the placings in this race after interference over the final ½ furlong when the winner, VOICE OF DUBAWI, ridden by Finley Marsh, interfered with THUNDER FLASH, placed second, ridden by Sean Levey. The Stewards considered the distance and duration that Levey was carried off his intended line and decided that the interference had improved VOICE OF DUBAWI’s placing as the filly hung right-handed carrying THUNDER FLASH, who was improving on the leader, over a distance of approximately 9 to 10 strides. The Stewards were of the view that Levey was travelling the better of the 2 in the concluding stages, being a fast finishing second, beaten a diminishing neck. The placings were revised as follows: First, THUNDER FLASH; Second, VOICE OF DUBAWI; Third, SAVOY BROWN; Fourth, MURAT ASSET. Marsh was suspended for 3 days for careless riding as he allowed his mount to drift right-handed without sufficient correction carrying Levey off his intended line for several strides.
The performance of VOLCANO BAY, which finished unplaced, was considered. Ismail Mohammed’s explanation that the filly ran flat after winning 8 days ago was noted.
Following the race, David Probert reported that MISTER MERLIN, unplaced, was slowly away and never travelling and Raul da Silva reported that BROUGHTONS COMPASS, unplaced, was never travelling.
Unlucky Dark.
I had a situation in the Japanese F1 Grand Prix on Sunday 13 October 2019 where Betfair were unable to understand and implement their own rules.
I had layed Ricciardo for a 'Top 6 Finish' and he crossed the line in 7th place behind Leclerc.
10 minutes later the podium presentation took place and I was correctly paid out as a winner on the Top 6 Finish market on Ricciardo NOT finishing in the top 6.
Betfair Motorsport (Formula 1) rules state:
"In any case where there is no podium presentation, but the Market Information states that settlement of the relevant market will be based on the result at the time of the podium presentation, then the market will be settled on the official result of the relevant governing body regardless of any subsequent disqualification or amendment to the result (except if an amendment is announced within 24 hours of the initial settlement of the relevant market in order to correct an error in reporting the result)."
This is normal and has happened many times - the result as it stands at the time of the podium presentation (considered the provisional result by the FIA, document #37) is the one Betfair always use for market settlement.
As previously said, I was paid out correctly as a winner in the Top 6 Finish market plus a few other markets a couple of minutes after the podium presentation.
2hrs and 15 minutes AFTER the podium presentation, following a stewards enquiry, Leclerc was given a time penalty for an infringement which demoted him from 6th place to 7th place and likewise promoted Ricciardo from 7th place to 6th place - shortly after which an ill-informed Betfair busybody fool/muppet/idiot came along and incorrectly re-settled the originally correct Betfair settlement of the 'Top 6 Finish' market. The irony is that an even later stewards enquiry decided to disqualify Daniel Ricciardo altogether from the official result (FIA document #49) meaning that even after the 5 second time penalty Charles Leclerc was given (FIA document #38), Charles Leclerc ultimately finished in 6th place and Daniel Ricciardo did not finish in the Top 6! (The Final Race Classification is shown in FIA document #51)
https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula- ... ormation-9
[This was all at about the time when Betfair cancelled their phone lines and you had to contact them via messaging which all takes a load of time and much harder to explain your simple point then when on a direct person-to-person phone call]
The Betfair muppets looked into the result and couldn't see that they had done anything wrong (as they don't understand their own rules nor the markets they offer) and that was that - I couldn't make direct contact with any of the Betfair Traders - I could only exchange messages with an agent to pass on to the traders.
I took to twitter and got the full backing of everyone in the F1 know but to no avail - Betfair had it's fingers in it's ears and would not listen 'da de da da - we're not listening' - they simply said the traders have made a decision so "take it to IBAS."
The F1 stewards enquiry is a date and time stamped PDF document (also numbered in sequential ascending order by date and time over the race weekend), so there is NO DOUBT whatsoever of the date and time the 5 second post-race penalty was given to Leclerc - it says so on the document and explains their reasoning for the post-race penalty in the document. I have all of the TV footage showing all of the drivers crossing the finishing line and all of the TV pictures after the race showing the full race result after the race and after the podium presentation - the stewards penalty given 2hrs and 15 minutes after the podium presentation was long after the TV coverage had gone off air. I also have all of the stewards inquiry documents, so if I wish to take it to IBAS in the future I still can and I'll win either with IBAS or the Courts as my evidence is undisputable.
Betfair simply would not listen and said the traders had made a decision and that was that. Given that the settlement was only a 3 figure swing I decided my time was worth more than messing about with IBAS who quite frankly are also a bunch of biased idiots, in the pocket of the bookmakers who are their paymasters.
[A few years ago I had a case against Ladbrokes where Ladbrokes had paid out on 5 betting slips in full at 20/1 but disputed and refused to payout at the 20/1 odds shown on 4 other slips even though all 9 slips were placed over a two day period 8½ months BEFORE the event took place and it wasn't as though they refused on the slips from the second day and paid out on the slips from the first day, it was mixed - some from the first day and some from the second day were paid out at 20/1, but the others they wanted to payout at either 6/1 or 9/1! All 9 slips were on the same selection in the same market and all signed and verified by the cashiers who had written the odds on the slips (very important - never do that yourself - ALWAYS get the cashier to write the odds on the betting slip) having brought the market up on their in-house screens to show the odds. These days I record EVERY conversation with the cashiers in bookmakers, subtly repeating the pertinent points and requesting confirmation thereof. I also take geo-tagged photos of the in-house screens (plus anything unique to the shop) showing the odds offered at the time of the bet being struck. IBAS eventually came up with some amazing baloney in their ruling and somehow got most of the factual points incorrect and all mixed-up for which they later apologised when I brought all of these to their attention, but thought my appeal would still result in the same ruling, therefore denied it. They couldn't explain what Ladbrokes had done even though Ladbrokes own rules stated that verified bets should be paid out as shown on the betting slip. When I had previously spoken with Ladbrokes customer support team they also said the bets should be paid out at the odds shown on the verified betting slips, but said that as they were shop bets and not online bets the regional manager would have to make a final decision although they would recommend to her that she authorised the bets to be paid in full...advice which she then didn't follow! Ladbrokes also told me that they hold no record of the odds offered in shops and only held records from their online platforms - Ladbrokes very own rules state that the odds offered between their platforms can vary! IBAS themselves broke several of their own printed rules in administering my case and eventually ruled that Ladbrokes should pay all the 4 slips out at 9/1 rather than some at 9/1 and others at 6/1, so I relinquished the slips for their 9/1 payout advising that I was doing so 'under protest' and only to minimize and quantify my loss to make a future claim in Court against them for the now quantified loss. Naturally with all of my factual documentation and evidence the Court ruled in my favour and in addition to the 4 figure quantified loss sum, I was awarded all costs plus interest at 8% over 3½ years]. I always like to overwhelm the opponent in Court with knowledge, proveable facts and verifiable documents to make them look ill-informed...and of course stupid!]
"...and also take geo-tagged photos of the in-house screens showing the odds offered at the time of the bet being struck" - this procedure has borne fruit on several occasions when bookies have tried to welch paying out on the odds shown on the betting slips - when they are on the phone to head office who are saying the odds were less favourable at the time the bets were struck, simply show the cashier the photo of their in-house screen showing the odds as also shown on the verified betting slip and they have no room to manoeuvre and they have to pay-out correctly in full....and they then and only then do!
Anyway Dark, we've all experienced this sort of stuff - it seems that the winning horse was given a penalty demoting it to second place in your case and the correct result unfortunately ended in a loss for you.
Keep at it and good luck!
I had a situation in the Japanese F1 Grand Prix on Sunday 13 October 2019 where Betfair were unable to understand and implement their own rules.
I had layed Ricciardo for a 'Top 6 Finish' and he crossed the line in 7th place behind Leclerc.
10 minutes later the podium presentation took place and I was correctly paid out as a winner on the Top 6 Finish market on Ricciardo NOT finishing in the top 6.
Betfair Motorsport (Formula 1) rules state:
"In any case where there is no podium presentation, but the Market Information states that settlement of the relevant market will be based on the result at the time of the podium presentation, then the market will be settled on the official result of the relevant governing body regardless of any subsequent disqualification or amendment to the result (except if an amendment is announced within 24 hours of the initial settlement of the relevant market in order to correct an error in reporting the result)."
This is normal and has happened many times - the result as it stands at the time of the podium presentation (considered the provisional result by the FIA, document #37) is the one Betfair always use for market settlement.
As previously said, I was paid out correctly as a winner in the Top 6 Finish market plus a few other markets a couple of minutes after the podium presentation.
2hrs and 15 minutes AFTER the podium presentation, following a stewards enquiry, Leclerc was given a time penalty for an infringement which demoted him from 6th place to 7th place and likewise promoted Ricciardo from 7th place to 6th place - shortly after which an ill-informed Betfair busybody fool/muppet/idiot came along and incorrectly re-settled the originally correct Betfair settlement of the 'Top 6 Finish' market. The irony is that an even later stewards enquiry decided to disqualify Daniel Ricciardo altogether from the official result (FIA document #49) meaning that even after the 5 second time penalty Charles Leclerc was given (FIA document #38), Charles Leclerc ultimately finished in 6th place and Daniel Ricciardo did not finish in the Top 6! (The Final Race Classification is shown in FIA document #51)
https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula- ... ormation-9
[This was all at about the time when Betfair cancelled their phone lines and you had to contact them via messaging which all takes a load of time and much harder to explain your simple point then when on a direct person-to-person phone call]
The Betfair muppets looked into the result and couldn't see that they had done anything wrong (as they don't understand their own rules nor the markets they offer) and that was that - I couldn't make direct contact with any of the Betfair Traders - I could only exchange messages with an agent to pass on to the traders.
I took to twitter and got the full backing of everyone in the F1 know but to no avail - Betfair had it's fingers in it's ears and would not listen 'da de da da - we're not listening' - they simply said the traders have made a decision so "take it to IBAS."
The F1 stewards enquiry is a date and time stamped PDF document (also numbered in sequential ascending order by date and time over the race weekend), so there is NO DOUBT whatsoever of the date and time the 5 second post-race penalty was given to Leclerc - it says so on the document and explains their reasoning for the post-race penalty in the document. I have all of the TV footage showing all of the drivers crossing the finishing line and all of the TV pictures after the race showing the full race result after the race and after the podium presentation - the stewards penalty given 2hrs and 15 minutes after the podium presentation was long after the TV coverage had gone off air. I also have all of the stewards inquiry documents, so if I wish to take it to IBAS in the future I still can and I'll win either with IBAS or the Courts as my evidence is undisputable.
Betfair simply would not listen and said the traders had made a decision and that was that. Given that the settlement was only a 3 figure swing I decided my time was worth more than messing about with IBAS who quite frankly are also a bunch of biased idiots, in the pocket of the bookmakers who are their paymasters.
[A few years ago I had a case against Ladbrokes where Ladbrokes had paid out on 5 betting slips in full at 20/1 but disputed and refused to payout at the 20/1 odds shown on 4 other slips even though all 9 slips were placed over a two day period 8½ months BEFORE the event took place and it wasn't as though they refused on the slips from the second day and paid out on the slips from the first day, it was mixed - some from the first day and some from the second day were paid out at 20/1, but the others they wanted to payout at either 6/1 or 9/1! All 9 slips were on the same selection in the same market and all signed and verified by the cashiers who had written the odds on the slips (very important - never do that yourself - ALWAYS get the cashier to write the odds on the betting slip) having brought the market up on their in-house screens to show the odds. These days I record EVERY conversation with the cashiers in bookmakers, subtly repeating the pertinent points and requesting confirmation thereof. I also take geo-tagged photos of the in-house screens (plus anything unique to the shop) showing the odds offered at the time of the bet being struck. IBAS eventually came up with some amazing baloney in their ruling and somehow got most of the factual points incorrect and all mixed-up for which they later apologised when I brought all of these to their attention, but thought my appeal would still result in the same ruling, therefore denied it. They couldn't explain what Ladbrokes had done even though Ladbrokes own rules stated that verified bets should be paid out as shown on the betting slip. When I had previously spoken with Ladbrokes customer support team they also said the bets should be paid out at the odds shown on the verified betting slips, but said that as they were shop bets and not online bets the regional manager would have to make a final decision although they would recommend to her that she authorised the bets to be paid in full...advice which she then didn't follow! Ladbrokes also told me that they hold no record of the odds offered in shops and only held records from their online platforms - Ladbrokes very own rules state that the odds offered between their platforms can vary! IBAS themselves broke several of their own printed rules in administering my case and eventually ruled that Ladbrokes should pay all the 4 slips out at 9/1 rather than some at 9/1 and others at 6/1, so I relinquished the slips for their 9/1 payout advising that I was doing so 'under protest' and only to minimize and quantify my loss to make a future claim in Court against them for the now quantified loss. Naturally with all of my factual documentation and evidence the Court ruled in my favour and in addition to the 4 figure quantified loss sum, I was awarded all costs plus interest at 8% over 3½ years]. I always like to overwhelm the opponent in Court with knowledge, proveable facts and verifiable documents to make them look ill-informed...and of course stupid!]
"...and also take geo-tagged photos of the in-house screens showing the odds offered at the time of the bet being struck" - this procedure has borne fruit on several occasions when bookies have tried to welch paying out on the odds shown on the betting slips - when they are on the phone to head office who are saying the odds were less favourable at the time the bets were struck, simply show the cashier the photo of their in-house screen showing the odds as also shown on the verified betting slip and they have no room to manoeuvre and they have to pay-out correctly in full....and they then and only then do!
Anyway Dark, we've all experienced this sort of stuff - it seems that the winning horse was given a penalty demoting it to second place in your case and the correct result unfortunately ended in a loss for you.
Keep at it and good luck!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.