Bookmaker largess should be taken with the proverbial pinch of salt
As we all know by now, Michael Bell’s filly went off favourite to land the Group 1 Yorkshire Oaks.
But instead of leaving the stalls when they opened, Sariska decided she’d stay put and smoke a cigar instead!
Many of those who backed her lost their money and have to admit to being one of them.
Punters were up in arms, not having had any sort of run, and there was much screaming that the Sariska money should be returned which in turn, of course, would have meant those who backed the winner, Midday, receiving less than that to which they were originally entitled.
A number of layers did refund bets on Sariska, led by the high-profile pair of Paddy Power and Boylesports.
They have, quite rightly, been commended for their actions and such philanthropy is much appreciated by the recipients.
But, having failed to register my bet with either of them, I have absolutely no complaints whatsoever about the way other bookmakers behaved.
I had no expectation of getting the money back and, if I had, would have regarded it as no more than a pleasant surprise.
Paddy Power and Boylesports saw a massive public relations opening and duly took advantage.
Paddy Power claimed it cost them in the region of €200,000. It was probably not too far from the truth, but emphasises the contradictions in such firms.
Try some morning to back a horse over the counter with them to win say €5,000 and you’ll be lucky if the gardai aren’t called!
It’s why, when these people do something like that, it’s delightful for punters who benefit, but in the overall scheme of things such gestures are to be largely taken with the proverbial pinch of salt.
And the notion that if another behaves like Sariska in the future that a rule 4 should be invoked and deductions made to the returns from the winner and the placed horses is plainly ridiculous.
Why should those who had the foresight to back Midday at York be penalised because of the stubbornness of Sarika? No, the current system is easily the best, just remind me for God’s sake to give the wager next time to dear old Paddy or Boyles.
*******
SERIOUSLY, how could Pathfork start odds-on to beat Glor Na Mara in the Group 2 Futurity Stakes at the Curragh last Saturday.
Every bookmaker in the land had Glor Na Mara a short-priced favourite in the morning and, on all known form, they were right.
But as the morning progressed it became more and more obvious there was a strong possibility of flip-flopping favourites.
And so it came to pass. Astonishingly, Glor Na Mara went as high as 11-4 on Betfair and was available at 5-2 on track.
Pathfork was literally backed as if defeat was out of the question on course, from 11-8 to 10- 11.
If someone had told you on Friday night that Pathfork would go off an odds-on shot the next day then you would nearly have drawn a line through them and resolved to never listen again.
Pathfork proved far too good for Glor Na Mara.
So what did those who backed him know, or think they knew, that the rest didn’t? Or are the Pathfork punters just brilliant judges?
