It's A Bird regains 2009 Oaklawn Handicap purse

[Merlinsky]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...-redistributed

What was the reason for the overturn? It's A Bird tested positive for naproxin which led to the disqualification. Was there dispute about testing procedures or the level found? I assume Runforthedoe goes back to 2nd. When drug DQs occur, what is the impact on bettors?

[eajinabi]

no impact on bettors. Just like when there is an inquiry and no official disqualification but the jockey gets a suspension anyways for careless riding.

Bettors are treated like fools and are considered the industry's least priority.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by eajinabi

no impact on bettors. Just like when there is an inquiry and no official disqualification but the jockey gets a suspension anyways for careless riding.

Bettors are treated like fools and are considered the industry's least priority.

I absolutely agree with the bolded part.

But what impact should something like this have on bettors? Unless you want to hold off on paying people until post race drug tests come back. That doesn't seem like it could ever work. You also can't expect people to give back money they might have won if their horse won and was DQ'd days, weeks or months later. Same thing with your jockey example. I'd rather the jockey be punished than the bettor or owner. Especially for something like careless riding.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...-redistributed

What was the reason for the overturn? It's A Bird tested positive for naproxin which led to the disqualification. Was there dispute about testing procedures or the level found? I assume Runforthedoe goes back to 2nd. When drug DQs occur, what is the impact on bettors?

You didn't read the story.

The Gann Estate returned the purse money. He was disqualified...then and now.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You didn't read the story.

The Gann Estate returned the purse money. He was disqualified...then and now.

Sorry about that, I really gotta stop eating Christmas cookies so late. I did read the story, multiple times, so how I missed that I'm not sure. I'll blame a spike in my blood sugar. I think I was under the impression the purse had already been returned so when it got redistributed, that's probably what confused me. I must've been thinking of the ruling that got upheld from before.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Sorry about that, I really gotta stop eating Christmas cookies so late. I did read the story, multiple times, so how I missed that I'm not sure. I'll blame a spike in my blood sugar. I think I was under the impression the purse had already been returned so when it got redistributed, that's probably what confused me. I must've been thinking of the ruling that got upheld from before.

I made the same mistake the first time I saw the story.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I made the same mistake the first time I saw the story.

It is because the first time they wrote it they said it was denied or said it in terms that they got to keep the funds. They redid the story because I thought they kept the funds also until I read the update yesterday

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Scav

It is because the first time they wrote it they said it was denied or said it in terms that they got to keep the funds. They redid the story because I thought they kept the funds also until I read the update yesterday

You can expect mistakes like that when DRF has to compete with TMZ to deliver breaking news.