I cannot understand why punters who backed Sariska in yesterday's Yorkshire Oaks believe they should get their money back because of her refusal to race.
Quite frankly I have never heard so much rubbish talked after the majority of bookmakers stood by the rules and were right in not refunding bets on Michael Bell's filly.
Sariska went into the stalls, they opened, and she decided that she didn't want to race despite Jamie Spencer's frantic efforts to get her to take part.
It happens in racing, and it's tough luck if you backed her. She come under starters orders and it's all part of the risks involved in backing horses.
The likes of Paddy Power, Boylesports, Sky Bet, and Jenningsbet decided that they would return stakes on the 85-40 favoruite as a "goodwill gesture".
But that was merely a PR stunt, and shouldn't hide the facts that rules are rules and that Sariska was deemed to have taken part.
Goodwill gestures like this are dangerous. Next we will have punters calling for refunds on horses that fall at the first or when 30 lengths clear at the last.
Or when a jockey drops his hands in the final furlong when clear and gets collared on the post.
I don't care what anyone says, Sariska "took part" in yesterday's race and anyonewho backed her should have lost their money.
If she had been deemed a non runner it would have been totally unfair on those who had backed Midday as they would have been hit with a massive Rule 4 deduction of 35p in the pound.
You cannot please all of the people all of the time, but in this case the majority of bookmakers were right in standing by the rule book.
Anyone who feels that they have been hard done by should not be betting.
