Betfair.net

Last week, many F1 bettors were forced to wait for hours after the conclusion of the Hungarian GP to see if they had won. During the race F1 announced they were "looking into actions on Kimi Raikkonen" for an incident involving Sebastien Vettel. This meant there could be a subsequent penalty imposed by F1 and sportsbooks including Betfair couldn't settle the wagers until the investigation was complete.

In the end, the results stood. In horse racing similar situations occur when there is a steward's inquiry or a jockey/trainer claim of foul. Often up to half an hour will go by before the stewards make a decision on whether to uphold the results or disqualify the horse.

While auto and horse racing are the two sports where stewards' decisions are often made long after the event's conclusion, they aren't the only ones. In the past bettors on long term propositions for sports like baseball, football and soccer had to wait for weeks to have their bets settled because the governing body was investigating actions which could disqualify the winners.

Furthermore, bettors on the 2000 U.S. elections and the 2008 Minnesota Senator's race had to wait over a year until their result could be paid because courts had to look into hanging chads, suspicious voting etc.

Recently some bookies moved to a "first past the post" method to decide horse races and apparently it is catching on. In better words as the soon as the horse crosses the finish line the results are paid and any subsequent objections or inquiries do not count for betting purposes. While the practice hasn't caught on everywhere some bookies in the UK have started following a similar practice and at Betfair, Australian horse racing is settled as soon as the horses finish although the bet can be reopened if there is a claim of foul launched.

Many U.S. sportsbooks have written into their rules that the results at the conclusion of all events are official for betting purposes and subsequent changes due to administrative decisions are not taken into account. At Betfair, bettors have the opportunity of hedging their wagers on UK racing if there is a claim of foul against the winner. Once a steward's inquiry is launched the market is reopened and bettors can wager against the winner (often at very good odds) to guarantee a profit. However, this certainly isn't the case with other bookmakers.

The question that needs to be asked is whether the "first past the post" option is fair to bettors and bookmakers or whether it is best to wait for governing bodies and stewards to interject and decide the outcome. When the original bookmakers offered first past the post as the winners the reasoning they gave made perfect sense. They cited polls by their bettors who stated that they didn't want the subjectivity of stewards to decide their bets, since stewards are often wrong and moreover there is often no consensus among them.

Consequently they wanted their bets settled on the field of play rather than in a judge's room, and stewards could review tapes to settle purse money only. The same logic holds true in motor sports. In the Hungarian GP, for example, there was no question that Kimi Raikkonen hit Sebastien Vettel and knocked him out the race. The only question was whether Raikkonen deserved to be penalized for his actions. Many observers suggested it was just blatant favouritism for Ferrari that convinced the stewards not to penalize Raikkonen and had it been a team like BMW or Renault that was at fault their driver would have been disqualified.

The fact that there was such indecision, however, makes one wonder whether the stewards' ruling should have mattered for betting purposes. After all, the ruling could have easily gone the other way so how is that fair to bettors since the decision is totally arbitrary. As it turned out there wasn't much of an outcry that the results in the race stood but without question if Raikkonen had been disqualified those who bet on Raikkonen for podium, points or in matchups would have felt ripped off.

Of course some sports like boxing, figure skating and diving are based on judging by their nature but for other sports bettors expect to win or lose on the field of play and they expect the final judge to be the clock, finish line or final out, whistle or horn. If someone bets on a soccer game they expect when the whistle blows to end the game their bets will be settled. Few would be willing to accept a notion that they won't be paid until a group of arbitrary judges review tapes to determine whether they played fairly and deserve to win, so why should it be alright for auto or horse racing?

Also, judges' decisions are often very political and bettors have no way of hedging against a bias or unreasonable decision that prevents them from having a fair chance of winning. For example, two years back Williams were going to run away with the Constructor's championship until F1 unilaterally decided that McLaren cheated by spying on Ferrari and took away all McLaren constructor points.

Bettors on McLaren had all chances of winning the wager they placed fair and square taken away from them for something that had nothing to do with the racing on the track while Ferrari bettors were unduly rewarded. And bettors who wagered against Al Franken for Minnesota Senator still feel ripped off since the original results had Franken losing.

The easiest way to avoid arguments and uphold the integrity of bets is one of two options. The books can declare the results official at the finish of the event or books can offer a duo betting option (one for first past the post and one with administrative penalties considered). Bettors could have the option of playing either one, and those who bet first past the post will be paid immediately while those who play the other option will wait for the official final results.

Betfair certainly has the platform to offer both options and the volume of bets on both options will determine which method bettors prefer. Although, as mentioned previously, Betfair players on UK horse racing always have the opportunity to hedge.

The bottom line is bettors should have an option to have their wagers decided on the field of play and not in some locked judge's chamber or steward's room. A race or game after all is not a court room.