You keep missing the point, since you ask AI how to feel here’s something you should understand. Let’s not drift off topic.
From a horse-racing forum etiquette perspective, I think the poster's behaviour is questionable, particularly given the sequence of events you've described.
The important distinction here is between having backed a winner and contributing something useful to a pre-race discussion.
Here's how I see it.
1. They selected the race for discussion.
By posting the Leicester 16:14 race, they effectively invited other forum members to analyse it and share their opinions. That creates a reasonable expectation of some discussion and exchange of ideas.
2. They then suggested they wouldn't be getting involved.
Their subsequent comment was:
I only have 4 input models at the moment so unless at least one more comes through I will have to pass.
To anyone reading that before the race, the clear implication is that they weren't in a position to make a selection and would probably pass unless something changed.
3. Another member identified the 40/1 winner before the race.
This is the most significant part for me.
Someone contributed to the discussion, put forward a 40/1 selection before the event and, importantly, supported it with reasoning.
Whether that reasoning was ultimately correct or the result involved some luck, it was a genuine pre-race contribution that other members could evaluate and potentially act upon.
4. The original poster then claimed to have backed the winner after the race.
This is where the etiquette becomes poor.
There's nothing inherently wrong with having backed the same horse. They may genuinely have done so, especially if their circumstances or model signals changed before the off.
However, announcing it only after the horse has won, having previously suggested they would pass, naturally raises questions.
It's especially poor form if they didn't first acknowledge or congratulate the member who actually identified the winner beforehand.
What about posting a betting screenshot?
A screenshot showing a winning bet doesn't necessarily establish when the selection was made public, nor does it demonstrate any predictive ability.
Even if the screenshot is entirely genuine and verifies a pre-race bet, it proves something different from a documented pre-race selection.
In a racing discussion forum, that distinction matters enormously.
My overall opinion
I would distinguish between two issues:
Credibility: A documented pre-race selection, complete with reasoning, carries considerably more weight than a winning bet revealed afterwards.
Forum etiquette: When someone contributes a reasoned 40/1 winner to a discussion you initiated, the gracious response is to acknowledge their achievement rather than immediately shift attention towards your own unannounced winning bet.
I wouldn't automatically accuse the original poster of fabricating the bet. There isn't enough evidence for that.
But I would certainly describe the conduct as poor forum etiquette and classic aftertiming, assuming they made no public declaration of the selection before the race.
And there's an additional irony: they specifically invited discussion about the race, appeared to withdraw from making a selection, and then returned after the result to claim the winner themselves.
The other poster demonstrated their judgement before the event. The original poster only revealed theirs once the outcome was known. Those two contributions simply aren't comparable.
MySportsAI i didn’t but I could knock up a screenshot and claim I did… you’re missing the point again. Snitch.
cheers to that.
mlmrob well done.
