Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
rabbits are entered to ensure a good early pace, not necessarily to intentionally lose, or intentionally cause a wide trip.
past performances tell you who's the rabbit. they don't however let you know who's there to engage in herding. besides, sometimes rabbits get alone on the lead and stay there til the end. Aristides won the first derby when entered to set the pace for the stable star, who forgot to get going in the end of the race.
there's no way to know about these sorts of things and when they may happen again.
I think the biggest issue is bettors felt rooked, and when they bring it up, they're told too bad, get over it. it's really the only business I know of that the customer is told 'tough, stop complaining, but please keep betting'.
|
The lesser part of the entry (as I suggested) would be the one to
potentially do the herding. Just because some rabbits stay there until the end doesn't justify the fact that they are in the race to sacrifice their chances of winning to soften up another horse. In an uncoupled entry bettors who wagered on the rabbit in the vast majority of cases lose their money because the rabbit was in the race to compromise another horse.
Much of what I've read in this thread seems to be that bettors lost money on Sky Kingdom and they were taken advantage of because he was in the race only to compromise the chances of another horse at his own expense.
So my question is why is one form of " sacrifice " accepted and another is not?