THE Sandown (Hillside) track, rated fair’ over all distances, leaves the focus on races where RVL has ‘accepted’ nominations that will inflate fields with runners given ‘no hope’ in pre-post markets.
The policy issues are:
-
First, about why runners given ‘no chance’ were nominated (and accepted); and
-
Next, about whether any increased betting turnover they may generate is likely to recover RVL’s $3000 ‘cost’ if they were to run 10th.
While all sorts of reasons can be conjured for both, questions remains:
-
Does the policy compromise the integrity of races (and RVL’s outlays)?;
-
Are fixed-odds bookmakers the main beneficiaries of any ‘rough results’?; and
-
Are punters (and owners) being denied a fair bet (and a fair outcome)?
Considering Saturday at Sandown, today, Races 2, 3, 6 & 9. look ‘risky’.
Not to labour the point, half the field in these races has, apparently, ‘no chance’ of winning but, not scratched, every ‘chance’ of being an impediment to the fair running of these races if they ‘go to the front’ before falling back.
There is no point saying this on Sunday.
