If you have ever wondered what a contract involves ask the Victorian TAB. A friend of mine had a sizeable bet on Zarita in the Australian Cup based on a dead track, his opinion that the mare would be perfectly suited on a 21 day break and on her recent good runs as well. The bet was made on Saturday at Fixed Odds at Flemington racetrack. Naturally, after the race he presented his ticket for a refund and that's when it all started. He now has to wait for a decision to be made on Wednesday to firs
If you have ever wondered what a contract involves ask the Victorian TAB. A friend of mine had a sizeable bet on Zarita in the Australian Cup based on a dead track, his opinion that the mare would be perfectly suited on a 21 day break and on her recent good runs as well. The bet was made on Saturday at Fixed Odds at Flemington racetrack. Naturally, after the race he presented his ticket for a refund and that's when it all started. He now has to wait for a decision to be made on Wednesday to firstly see if Shocking is reinstated into the field. Why Shocking is allowed back in the field is a bit of a mystery if the same field that was going to race is to race again with the same barriers. If Shocking is reinstated my mate was told, on the phone thus unofficially, that we would get his money back. Time will tell if that happens!
Now, I believe that once a bet is made a contract is formed between two parties based on prevailing conditions at the time. The bets any punter made on the Australian Cup would have been based on several different criteria depending on how a punter read the race. If the race is to be run ONE WEEK later any numbers of different circumstances could occur such as a dramatic change of track conditions, the extra week away from actually racing and even the jockey situation could be different. It IS a COMPLETELY different race one week later. The TAB should refund all monies, which I believe the corporate bookmakers have done or will do, and simply start again and not hide behind legislation or any other twists to commonsense that masks greed.
While I am on the TAB's back here is another reason why serious punters want to deal with the corporate bookmakers rather than with this greedy bunch of people. The Newmarket was the first leg of the quadrella and subsequently a dividend was paid on all holders of tickets that had Wanted, the winner, as their first leg however the deduction was 20% which is the deduction from all quadrella bets. As only ONE horse is involved why wouldn't the TAB show some commonsense and only deduct the standard 15% (actually a bit less) taken from win only bets seeing as only one horse is involved. Is it greed or a lack of commonsense? Add the two together and you have it.
As a postscript news is through that the TAB has shown commonsense and is refunding the monies bet on the Australian Cup if the punter wishes to cancel their bet.
Just testing a few ideas:
March 13: Flemington: All Each Way
Race 2 No 4 Carbon Trader
Race 4 No 6 Mr Riggs
Race 9 No 9 Solchow
Race 10 No 7 Confidence Reef
March 13: Randwick: Each Way
Race 8 No 5 Bejewelled