With a first timer winning the final race at Kenilworth, the second placed previously raced Dinesen (who also happened to be the tote favourite), qualified, together with the scratched horse(3).
Saftote initially declared a final dividend of over R100 000, with only the 11, Good Girl Flies, showing as a qualified runner.
The Sporting Post was immediately inundated with calls from confused and irate punters after the race, who had left out the winner, but had Dinesen or the scratched horse.
They were generally enquiring as to whether the rules had changed, or whether they had been done a dirty.
A phone call to Phumelela’s Executive of Sports Betting Vee Moodley, quickly clarified that the rule had not changed.
Moodley investigated and reverted to us within ten minutes to advise that an error had occurred in the final audit process and that a revised dividend of R18 319.90 had been declared, with all of 1,3 and 11 qualifying in the final leg.
The fact that this is the first time that this has happened in our memory, does not detract from the fact that the system has now proven to be fallible and possibly subject to be manipulated, in the words and minds of a few punters and readers.
After all, a ‘closed bet’ was effectively opened.
Then the Saftote rules and policy (two separate documents) also make for interesting, and possibly confusing reading.
5.10.4. FIRST TIMER RULE: The first timer Rule shall not apply to the Pick 6, unless otherwise specified.
In the policy, it states under section 0.7.3.2 : First timer Rule does apply.
Vee Moodley clarified this by indicating that it gave them the flexibility to adapt and to change with the changing requirements.
We have not been able to ascertain what the extent of losses suffered by Saftote are, after paying out on the incorrect dividend. And what of the legal position of those punters who benefitted and were illegally enriched?
While Telebet customers would have suffered a nominal inconvenience, but would have been paid correctly in the end, one thinks of the less sophisticated smaller tote punters who went to the payout window after the race went final and were told that they were not winners. Those tickets are now lying in the bin.
On the flipside of that coin, there are those who would have gotten lucky and been paid over five times what they were supposed to be paid.
In the light of what happened yesterday, Saftote may want, in fairness, to revisit their rules section 2.10 which deals with complaints.
It reads:
No complaint either in regard to the correctness of a ticket, the correctness of change or the payment of a dividend shall be entertained unless it is made before the complainant leaves the teller/Operator’s window.
That sounds highly impractical to us and seriously slanted against the customer, if read literally.
Two other rules may also be worth a read by customers:
2.12 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: The Operator or any Steward, Official, Member, Authorised Contractor, Agent or Employee shall not be liable for damages resulting from any breach of contract or any act relating in any way to totalisator betting for which they are responsible either directly, indirectly, vicariously or in any way, and in particular none of the aforementioned shall be liable in damages either directly, indirectly, vicariously or in any other way for loss, destruction or disappearance of any original betting ticket, or for any error made by any of the aforesaid persons, subject to Rule 2.24
2.24 DISPUTES: Subject to the provisions of applicable provincial or national legislation, gambling or otherwise, the Operator shall decide on any dispute arising in any way whatsoever from the running of the totalisator betting transactions. For this purpose, the Operator shall be entitled to conduct an inquiry, which the complainant shall be obliged to attend, answer questions and be entitled to be heard, make representations and call witnesses.
No press release has yet been received from the racing operator.
