William Hill.Horse Won but DQ by stwards

the whole year inn

I placed a bet on this race http://www.attheraces.com/racecard/Thistledown/09-July-2018/2110/ .

It was in a double and both won but this horse was classified as DQ by stewards due to being over weight and William Hill classes it as a loser.Do I have a leg to stand on.
I said the horse is DQ so it should be at least void if not win.
I was on to chat for a long while and they finally said they will forwarded it to there settling department for review.

If I take this to IBAS have I much of a shot?

kiers47

the whole year inn wrote: »

I placed a bet on this race http://www.attheraces.com/racecard/Thistledown/09-July-2018/2110/ .

It was in a double and both won but this horse was classified as DQ by stewards due to being over weight and William Hill classes it as a loser.Do I have a leg to stand on.
I said the horse is DQ so it should be at least void if not win.
I was on to chat for a long while and they finally said they will forwarded it to there settling department for review.

If I take this to IBAS have I much of a shot?

In short no. Bookies paying double results on UK and Irish racing is a bonus and is not a requirement by law. The result would be the weighed in result.
Bookies do not provide this bonus outside of the UK and Ireland.
A horse DQ'd is treated as a loser not a void bet and you have no chance of having it changed tbh.

the whole year inn

kiers47 wrote: »

In short no. Bookies paying double results on UK and Irish racing is a bonus and is not a requirement by law. The result would be the weighed in result.
Bookies do not provide this bonus outside of the UK and Ireland.
A horse DQ'd is treated as a loser not a void bet and you have no chance of having it changed tbh.

If it's classed as a DQ what chance have I for the horse ever to win.Surely if it's DQ it's void .

kiers47

the whole year inn wrote: »

If it's classes as a DQ what chance have I for the horse ever to win.

If the jockey weighed in light then that is just how it goes. Frustrating I know but would the horse have won if the horse carried the correct weight?
The rule is there to protect punters as much as bookies. The punters who bet the other horse would be fairly pee'd off if the result stood in light of the jockey weighing in light.

the whole year inn

kiers47 wrote: »

If the jockey weighed in light then that is just how it goes. Frustrating I know but would the horse have won if the horse carried the correct weight?
The rule is there to protect punters as much as bookies. The punters who bet the other horse would be fairly pee'd off if the result stood in light of the jockey weighing in light.

Ok, so what does dis qualified mean.Does it mean that he is second.

CeilingFly

the whole year inn wrote: »

Ok, so what does dis qualified mean.Does it mean that he is second.

I would think it means he's last as it works in other sports

the whole year inn

CeilingFly wrote: »

I would think it means he's last as it works in other sports

Well that's my point if he was disqualified from the off then the bet is void.It was always going to be a losing bet which is unfair.

kiers47

For the DQ the horse is treated as a runner but he would forfeit any place and any prize money.

Actually now that I think of it. Bookies don't pay double result if a horse is disqualified due to weighing in light even in Ireland and UK.

Healio

https://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=TDN&raceDate=07/09/18&cy=USA&rn=6

THE STEWARDS
POSTED THE INQUIRY SIGN AND THE TRAINER OF CLASSIC MO LODGED A CLAIM OF FOUL AGAINST THE RIDER OF CHROMIUM FOR
INTERFERENCE AT THE TOP OF THE STRETCH. AFTER REVIEW THE STEWARDS DISQUALIFIED GAME OVER WHO WAS A COUPLED ENTRY
WITH CHROMIUM AND PLACED HIM SECOND.

Interesting that the coupled horse got the winner DQ'ed.

If they price every runner (some books do this) it is a bit harsh, i am unfamiliar with hills though.

Did they price it numbers 1 to 8, or 1,1A then 2 to 7?

CeilingFly

the whole year inn wrote: »

Well that's my point if he was disqualified from the off then the bet is void.It was always going to be a losing bet which is unfair.

Was he not disqualified AFTER running the race?

kiers47

the whole year inn wrote: »

Well that's my point if he was disqualified from the off then the bet is void.It was always going to be a losing bet which is unfair.

He wasn't DQ'd from the off. He obviously weighed out correctly otherwise he wouldn't have run.

the whole year inn

CeilingFly wrote: »

Was he not disqualified AFTER running the race?

Yea

the whole year inn

kiers47 wrote: »

He wasn't DQ'd from the off. He obviously weighed out correctly otherwise he wouldn't have run.

So why can't I get a void result if he has no chance of winning is what I am saying.

kiers47

Healio wrote: »

https://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=TDN&raceDate=07/09/18&cy=USA&rn=6

Interesting that the coupled horse got the winner DQ'ed.

If they price every runner (some books do this) it is a bit harsh, i am unfamiliar with hills though.

Did they price it numbers 1 to 8, or 1,1A then 2 to 7?

Well that's a bit different than weighing in light. Tbh I've never seen that before. I would probably take that info to William Hill and Lodge a complaint with them.

the whole year inn

kiers47 wrote: »

Well that's a bit different than weighing in light. Tbh I've never seen that before. I would probably take that info to William Hill and Lodge a complaint with them.

I'm not sure how to even explain that to them.Any help on what to say?

kiers47

the whole year inn wrote: »

So why can't I get a void result if he has no chance of winning is what I am saying.

Because they are the rules the horse is treated as a runner and DQ'd after the race was run.

In any case this is a bit different than what you explained. The horse was DQ'd due to interference caused by the coupled horse. I'm not sure on the rules of this for our bookies tbh but you probably have a bit of a case. I would take that info to William Hill and Lodge a complaint.

In the US trainers are allowed to Lodge a complaint about the running of a race and that is what happened here.

the whole year inn

kiers47 wrote: »

Because they are the rules the horse is treated as a runner and DQ'd after the race was run.

In any case this is a bit different than what you explained. The horse was DQ'd due to interference caused by the coupled horse. I'm not sure on the rules of this for our bookies tbh but you probably have a bit of a case. I would take that info to William Hill and Lodge a complaint.

In the US trainers are allowed to Lodge a complaint about the running of a race and that is what happened here.

Ok apologies on the incorrect info.

This is the rules they gave me

https://williamhill-lang.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/15862

kiers47

the whole year inn wrote: »

I'm not sure how to even explain that to them.Any help on what to say?

Show them the official report that is in the link provided. Tell them the horse was disqualified due to his stablemate the coupled runner causing the interference. Ask them for a reason why this is allowed?
Did you bet the 2 horses coupled? Or was it just 1 horse you bet with a separate price for the other runner? If that was the case then if be asking them why that runner could affect your bet when they were priced individually and not how they are priced coupled on the US tote.

Tell them that runner should not be able to affect your bet as you were not betting the runners coupled.

Healio

If they priced this numbers 1 to 8; then it is a bit dubious for them to say your disqualfied from a coupled horse.

If they priced it 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 then there is a warning that there are coupled selections. Its a strange one to think up but at least the 1A warns you could get done.

There is no mention of coupling in their rules, and there appears to be slight contradictions in relation to their Double result offer.

If big sum to you id chase them, but probably one to chalk down to experience.

the whole year inn

After further checking, it was correctly re-settled as losing. The rules on Horses Stewards Enquiry will apply only on UK and Irish Horse Racing Rules.

They just email me that?

kiers47

I'd be sure they had the coupled horses priced separately as most of the books here do. But I can't be sure as it's rare enough id have a bet in the US racing.

But if that is the case as I'm thinking then send them the report (you can download the PDF in that link the other poster provided). Then ask them why a horse who they were also taking bets on would effect a result of another horse. Tell them the reason the horse was disqualified was that they were coupled on the US tote which means you get 2 horses running for you for a reduced price obviously. Make sure they understand that. So ask them why another independent horse(as they weren't betting on the horses coupled) not involved in the finish can affect the result?

Healio

the whole year inn wrote: »

The rules on Horses Stewards Enquiry will apply only on UK and Irish Horse Racing Rules.

They just email me that?

I would have a go taking it to IBAS, they have no provisions in their rules for objections/stewards enquiries under the US racing banner.

They have no provision for coupled horses mentioned in their US racing rules, and also I suspect they priced this race as eight separate runners (cant confirm though)

Also a tad strange for them to hide behind rules of racing when they are quite clearly producing a fixed odds book.

Might be worth checking how B365/PP settled this, although i'll concede both advertise this as a concession.

the whole year inn

Healio wrote: »

I would have a go taking it to IBAS, they have no provisions in their rules for objections/stewards enquiries under the US racing banner.

They have no provision for coupled horses mentioned in their US racing rules, and also I suspect they priced this race as eight separate runners (cant confirm though)

Also a tad strange for them to hide behind rules of racing when they are quite clearly producing a fixed odds book.

Might be worth checking how B365/PP settled this, although i'll concede both advertise this as a concession.

Bet365 has both as first

the whole year inn

After about an hour on the web chat they offered 10 free bet I declined it ,was passed to the supervisor she was little help but 30 mins later she offered my money back . I thought I would take it .So a positive result in the end .

del roy

Lads
anyone remember Terry rodgers rule

if you can't win, you can't lose.

Wonder what he would make of the small print cowboys nowadays.

Shemale

the whole year inn wrote: »

she offered my money back. I thought I would take it

So did you take it ..

the whole year inn

Shemale wrote: »

So did you take it ..

Sorry only seen this now.Yea I took it thought it was the bestvI could get.
Thanks everyone for the help