DQ Rules in NY

[PhantomOnTour]

If part of this entry comes down does the other half get to stay up?
They ran 1-2

[lamboguy]

If part of this entry comes down does the other half get to stay up?
They ran 1-2only in Harness racing

[PhantomOnTour]

The #1 is placed last and the #1a stays up

[wiffleball whizz]

It's total bs.....I got 100 win 230 place on the 3 here......betting wise this entry supposed to get ripped right off the board and I really don't think there is any room for discussion......

Go take a walk through Walmart and ask 100 non racing fans if they think if one part of entry interferes does should other half come down,...

And terrible job by nyra only showing close ups of connections and Abd jockeys and not showing any views of the inquiry as it was happening.....

I give so much credit to nyra for everything they do to be fair to horseplayers at least show some angles.......and going forward lets make this a priority on next agenda where if this situation happens again betting wise they both come down.....

Stone livid right now

[camourous]

It's total bs.....I got 100 win 230 place on the 3 here......betting wise this entry supposed to get ripped right off the board and I really don't think there is any room for discussion......

Go take a walk through Walmart and ask 100 non racing fans if they think if one part of entry interferes does should other half come down,...

And terrible job by nyra only showing close ups of connections and Abd jockeys and not showing any views of the inquiry as it was happening.....

I give so much credit to nyra for everything they do to be fair to horseplayers at least show some angles.......and going forward lets make this a priority on next agenda where if this situation happens again betting wise they both come down.....

Stone livid right now


It's thoroughbred racing, they care very little about integrity and honor..

[Stillriledup]

If part of this entry comes down does the other half get to stay up?
They ran 1-2

Why would they DQ a horse who didnt do anything wrong?

[Stillriledup]

It's total bs.....I got 100 win 230 place on the 3 here......betting wise this entry supposed to get ripped right off the board and I really don't think there is any room for discussion......

Go take a walk through Walmart and ask 100 non racing fans if they think if one part of entry interferes does should other half come down,...

And terrible job by nyra only showing close ups of connections and Abd jockeys and not showing any views of the inquiry as it was happening.....

I give so much credit to nyra for everything they do to be fair to horseplayers at least show some angles.......and going forward lets make this a priority on next agenda where if this situation happens again betting wise they both come down.....

Stone livid right now

What's BS is that the place price on the 1 and 1a would have been much higher. ALso, i loved Romansh and wanted to bet him seperately, i would have gotten 8 or 9 dollar winner had he been uncoupled....THATS the real tragedy of all of this.

[PhantomOnTour]

Why would they DQ a horse who didnt do anything wrong?
I don't have an opinion on the rule - I just wasn't sure what it was.
The easy answer is that this is horseracing :D

[wiffleball whizz]

Why would they DQ a horse who didnt do anything wrong?

Because betting wise other half commited a foul.....just like if you like one part of the entry more then the other and the other part bails out your other half you go collect your money......

The same should hold true for a dq.....if you get both sides of the fence with the entrie you liable if the other part commits foul.....total sham what happened here....and not thrilled with the 4.10 to place either

[Stillriledup]

Because betting wise other half commited a foul.....just like if you like one part of the entry more then the other and the other part bails out your other half you go collect your money......

The same should hold true for a dq.....if you get both sides of the fence with the entrie you liable if the other part commits foul.....total sham what happened here....and not thrilled with the 4.10 to place either

But what if i specifically bet on Romansh and didnt even WANT the other horse that they forced me to have on a nonsensical rule that horses are coupled. NY is a joke, no pick 5, coupling horses like this, i loved that "winner" i didnt want the other horse.

[Stillriledup]

I don't have an opinion on the rule - I just wasn't sure what it was.
The easy answer is that this is horseracing :D

If they DQd the other runner, there would have been much more controversy and a lot angrier people.

[PhantomOnTour]

Why would they DQ a horse who didnt do anything wrong?
Seriously though - the answer is chicanery.
An owner can send one jockey on a demolition derby with intentions to interfere with key runners and allow his stablemate a clean winning trip.
Tough to pull off, and a bit of a stretch, but I bet it's been done before.

[wiffleball whizz]

If they DQd the other runner, there would have been much more controversy and a lot angrier people.

Good :lol: :lol: :lol: and I'd have a extra 450+ in my pocket right now.....

For somebody that's works around gambling 8 hours a day and then around it not working sometimes I shake my head at why I bet horses....so many things don't make sense.......and this situation makes zero sense...

If you get 2 for the price of 1 in the rare instance they run 1-2 and the winner gets dq for interference they both gotta come down....

I really don't see any room for discussion?!?

I mean in theory can the 1 part of a entry be like an enforcer in hockey and see to it nobody gets to beat the other half and totally railroad the whole field?

And to my friend SRU if you liked the other half of the entry Abd he was nowhere and the horse you didn't like out of the entry won would you have cashed your ticket? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[wiffleball whizz]

Seriously though - the answer is chicanery.
An owner can send one jockey on a demolition derby with intentions to interfere with key runners and allow his stablemate a clean winning trip.
Tough to pull off, and a bit of a stretch, but I bet it's been done before.

We think alike I guess....u posted sane thing as me while I was posted....

This was a

DISGRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stillriledup]

Seriously though - the answer is chicanery.
An owner can send one jockey on a demolition derby with intentions to interfere with key runners and allow his stablemate a clean winning trip.
Tough to pull off, and a bit of a stretch, but I bet it's been done before.

But those type of shenanigans can be dealt with behind the scenes, administratively. Why must the bettors be punished? If the judges feel that the jock of one part of the entry did something malicious to help the other horse win, than they can discipline that jock behind the scenes, they are allowed to make rulings like this, there's no need to involve the other horse.

[Stillriledup]

Good :lol: :lol: :lol: and I'd have a extra 450+ in my pocket right now.....

For somebody that's works around gambling 8 hours a day and then around it not working sometimes I shake my head at why I bet horses....so many things don't make sense.......and this situation makes zero sense...

If you get 2 for the price of 1 in the rare instance they run 1-2 and the winner gets dq for interference they both gotta come down....

I really don't see any room for discussion?!?

I mean in theory can the 1 part of a entry be like an enforcer in hockey and see to it nobody gets to beat the other half and totally railroad the whole field?

And to my friend SRU if you liked the other half of the entry Abd he was nowhere and the horse you didn't like out of the entry won would you have cashed your ticket? :lol: :lol: :lol:

You don't get 2 for the price of 1, you get 2 for the price of 2.

If the other POE is an "enforcer" the judges can suspend the jock for 1 year if they think he did something dangerous on the track.

[cj]

But those type of shenanigans can be dealt with behind the scenes, administratively. Why must the bettors be punished? If the judges feel that the jock of one part of the entry did something malicious to help the other horse win, than they can discipline that jock behind the scenes, they are allowed to make rulings like this, there's no need to involve the other horse.

Heck, this goes on with uncoupled entries. Remember Dutrow sending out the dual rabbits for Saint Liam? Neither horse had a chance in hell so they just harassed Commentator for 6f. You can't DQ horses that finish last and next to last any lower.

[Robert Fischer]

It's an interesting topic for debate.

I personally think that the whole entry should be taken down, but to be honest I haven't spent any time thinking deeply about it, or sitting down with smart people and going over the pros and cons.

I know that I prefer my horse to not be gated or tactically positioned next to a 'weaker half' of the entry.

looked like the 1 and 1a were the two best horses in the race.
Hard to know how the 5 Proud Strike would have run unimpeded, but it did appear that even while fouling, Transparent had the jump on him.

I have no gripe with the ruling, but would be interested in seeing a thorough explanation of the rule.

[Robert Fischer]

Heck, this goes on with uncoupled entries. Remember Dutrow sending out the dual rabbits for Saint Liam? Neither horse had a chance in hell so they just harassed Commentator for 6f. You can't DQ horses that finish last and next to last any lower.

excellent point

[Stillriledup]

If those two horses were UNCOUPLED in the betting, but still owned by the same person (like they are in California) would you all think that the other owners horse, if it was a different betting number, should come down?

[cj]

If those two horses were UNCOUPLED in the betting, but still owned by the same person (like they are in California) would you all think that the other owners horse, if it was a different betting number, should come down?

Yes. That said, as I've said often, I'm all for DQs affecting purse money only, not betting.

[Cannon shell]

Apparently the rule which used to be that both parts of the entry are DQ'ed automatically was changed in 2006 so that discretion is given if the foul doesnt improve the other part of the entry's chances or wasn't done intentionally.

[PICSIX]

Apparently the rule which used to be that both parts of the entry are DQ'ed automatically was changed in 2006 so that discretion is given if the foul doesnt improve the other part of the entry's chances or wasn't done intentionally.

That makes sense to me.

[Dave Schwartz]

Why would they DQ a horse who didnt do anything wrong?

So, my stablemate can take out the competition and I get to keep the win?

IMHO, that is just wrong.


It is as wrong as a scratch in the Pick6 being an automatic winner. How many trainers do you suppose have cashed in on THAT proposition?

[davew]

But what if i specifically bet on Romansh and didnt even WANT the other horse that they forced me to have on a nonsensical rule that horses are coupled. NY is a joke, no pick 5, coupling horses like this, i loved that "winner" i didnt want the other horse.

Betfair agrees with you, and all runners are separate

[BMustang]

I do believe that sometime in the past in New York, the rule was that if one part of the entry came down, they both came down. That was a long time ago.

In this particular case, I was surprised that a DQ took place. Had the #5 horse not bobbled, nothing would have been said. I felt it was a case of "incidental contact."

[Tom]

Entry....or tag team?

[Midnight Cruiser]

It's total bs.....I got 100 win 230 place on the 3 here......betting wise this entry supposed to get ripped right off the board and I really don't think there is any room for discussion......

Go take a walk through Walmart and ask 100 non racing fans if they think if one part of entry interferes does should other half come down,...

And terrible job by nyra only showing close ups of connections and Abd jockeys and not showing any views of the inquiry as it was happening.....

I give so much credit to nyra for everything they do to be fair to horseplayers at least show some angles.......and going forward lets make this a priority on next agenda where if this situation happens again betting wise they both come down.....

Stone livid right now

Why Walmart?

[Stillriledup]

I do believe that sometime in the past in New York, the rule was that if one part of the entry came down, they both came down. That was a long time ago.

In this particular case, I was surprised that a DQ took place. Had the #5 horse not bobbled, nothing would have been said. I felt it was a case of "incidental contact."

Totally. They overreacted to the horse bobbling. Hey, we cant have that at our track, lets DQ a winner because of that.

there's a LOT of 'contact' at this place that goes un looked at, i've said quite a few times in the last few weeks "geez, how was THAT not looked at" so you just assume they 'let them play' ....well, until they don't. Seems pretty inconsistent if you ask me.

When you said "nothing would have been said" is sort of true, they let a LOT go in NY.

[wiffleball whizz]

Why Walmart?

Because I watched the race in the tv part of the store and was getting toothpaste while I was typing this.....at Walmart!!!!

I meant no disrespect to anybody at Walmart if I was at foot locker I would have used that for an example....

And as the dq goes they never showed it during the inquiry...

And of courses the 1 dq I saw at otb tonite I was taken down.....they don't even out....I take it down the throat every time!!!

[iceknight]

"Go take a walk through Walmart and ask 100 non racing fans if they think if one part of entry interferes does should other half come down,..."

That was funny. What would "non racing fans" know about the concept of 'entry'?

Secondly... all these discussions about DQ-ing the other horse is complete BS. Trainers can easily have uncoupled entries and do that same too. How are you going to prove/assign culpability.

When one part of the entry runs 1st or on the board and other part trails and field and finishes last, bettors still collect money on the one half right? So why should they lose because one half gets DQ-ed out of its position. The only correct thing is the reduction in the Place money.. other than, it is fine what was done.

[wiffleball whizz]

"Go take a walk through Walmart and ask 100 non racing fans if they think if one part of entry interferes does should other half come down,..."

That was funny. What would "non racing fans" know about the concept of 'entry'?

Secondly... all these discussions about DQ-ing the other horse is complete BS. Trainers can easily have uncoupled entries and do that same too. How are you going to prove/assign culpability.

When one part of the entry runs 1st or on the board and other part trails and field and finishes last, bettors still collect money on the one half right? So why should they lose because one half gets DQ-ed out of its position. The only correct thing is the reduction in the Place money.. other than, it is fine what was done.

Non racing fans would be able to put 2 and 2 together and see if you get 2 for the price of 1 and one commits a foul the other should be taken down as well....you shouldn't have a safety valve if one part of the entry interferes with a horse....

Anybody that has any idea would say that:.....and the more I think about it the more I think this rule should be....

Getting real tired of biased judges or whatever they are making inconsistent decisions..........would to know why I was taken down at maywood tonight another criminal dq......these judges don't have a clue and generally speaking I love hearing when they get fired or replaced.....

I just don't know how anybody that bets racing can't see that both part of the entry should have been down town Julie brown.....

It's to a point now I'm running so bad in inquiries that I'm starting to think the judges and horses are saying how can we f*** rob tonight....it's just getting old

[Stillriledup]

Non racing fans would be able to put 2 and 2 together and see if you get 2 for the price of 1 and one commits a foul the other should be taken down as well....you shouldn't have a safety valve if one part of the entry interferes with a horse....

Anybody that has any idea would say that:.....and the more I think about it the more I think this rule should be....

Getting real tired of biased judges or whatever they are making inconsistent decisions..........would to know why I was taken down at maywood tonight another criminal dq......these judges don't have a clue and generally speaking I love hearing when they get fired or replaced.....

I just don't know how anybody that bets racing can't see that both part of the entry should have been down town Julie brown.....

It's to a point now I'm running so bad in inquiries that I'm starting to think the judges and horses are saying how can we f*** rob tonight....it's just getting old

You're getting 2 for the price of 2.

If Irad Ortiz is riding #1 and Jose Ortiz is riding the 2 horse, and Jose crashes the field and Irad goes on to win, should Irad be disqualified? After all, they could have conspired before the races to have one help out the other?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Because I watched the race in the tv part of the store and was getting toothpaste while I was typing this.....at Walmart!!!!

I meant no disrespect to anybody at Walmart if I was at foot locker I would have used that for an example....

...

I swear if I was a screenwriter I think I'd hire you for some of these gems. I can usually barely get through a thread after only one cup of coffee. You can drag me right into these stories and your world like nobody else can. :lol:

[Tom]

I walked into Walmart this morning and the greeter said,"Good morning. Pletcher looks beatable in the 5th today."

[wiffleball whizz]

I swear if I was a screenwriter I think I'd hire you for some of these gems. I can usually barely get through a thread after only one cup of coffee. You can drag me right into these stories and your world like nobody else can. :lol:

Hahahahaha.......

How can you not dq another part of a entry if one causes interference to another horse.......a situation so rare that entry runs 1-2 then a horse gets dq very rare....

The bottom line to the thread they gotta change this rule

[Stillriledup]

I swear if I was a screenwriter I think I'd hire you for some of these gems. I can usually barely get through a thread after only one cup of coffee. You can drag me right into these stories and your world like nobody else can. :lol:

Nobody beats the Whizzzz! :D

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I walked into Walmart this morning and the greeter said,"Good morning. Pletcher looks beatable in the 5th today."

I need to start going to that Walmart - nice tip ya got having that 2-5 shot run out......

[thespaah]

If part of this entry comes down does the other half get to stay up?
They ran 1-2
Yes. The individual horse is DQ'd.. Not the betting interest.

[thespaah]

Because betting wise other half commited a foul.....just like if you like one part of the entry more then the other and the other part bails out your other half you go collect your money......

The same should hold true for a dq.....if you get both sides of the fence with the entrie you liable if the other part commits foul.....total sham what happened here....and not thrilled with the 4.10 to place either
Ok...Civil discussion here..
I disagree with you. Even though the horses in an entry are coupled for wagering purposes, those two( or more) entrants are still individual participants in the race. As such, the actions of one would not affect the other.

[thespaah]

Yes. That said, as I've said often, I'm all for DQs affecting purse money only, not betting.
Cannot agree with that. Fouls. collisions and other issues which impede the other horses must be taken into account in the wagering. The simple reason is the interference changed the outcome of the race.
Bettors should not be punished because of an error or willful act by a rider or horse.

[thespaah]

We think alike I guess....u posted sane thing as me while I was posted....

This was a

DISGRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!
No slight intended, but I think you might be more upset at not being aware of the rules regarding DQ's and coupled entries.
That's ok.

[thespaah]

I walked into Walmart this morning and the greeter said,"Good morning. Pletcher looks beatable in the 5th today."
Oh yeah...I walked into a Walmart and the ghost of Sam Walton told me, "bet on Johnny V today"....

[cj]

Cannot agree with that. Fouls. collisions and other issues which impede the other horses must be taken into account in the wagering. The simple reason is the interference changed the outcome of the race.
Bettors should not be punished because of an error or willful act by a rider or horse.

The problem with that in my opinion is often the "changes" don't seem to really fix what happened because of the foul anyway.

[Stillriledup]

No slight intended, but I think you might be more upset at not being aware of the rules regarding DQ's and coupled entries.
That's ok.

I love Whizz, but if he bet on the entry and they DQ'd the other half for no reason, he'd be on here going ape doo doo also. No way he would take that lying down.

[thespaah]

Nobody beats the Whizzzz! :D
Ah..An electronics store commercial tag line.

[Stillriledup]

Cannot agree with that. Fouls. collisions and other issues which impede the other horses must be taken into account in the wagering. The simple reason is the interference changed the outcome of the race.
Bettors should not be punished because of an error or willful act by a rider or horse.

At SRU downs, we would have no DQs. If you win, you get paid, period. As long as you, the bettor, knows that going in you get paid no matter what (like dog racing) they wouldnt be up in arms if they got bumped. Would you bet races at my track if i said no DQs (with all other things being equal?)?

[thespaah]

The problem with that in my opinion is often the "changes" don't seem to really fix what happened because of the foul anyway.
There lies the problem. The Stewards make their decisions based on perception.
That is "if horse A did not interfere with horse B, would horse B have finished in a better position than Horse A?"
I cannot see a better way to decide whether or not to DQ a horse.
Fortunately there are not a high percentage of races where a DQ situation may arise.

[thespaah]

At SRU downs, we would have no DQs. If you win, you get paid, period. As long as you, the bettor, knows that going in you get paid no matter what (like dog racing) they wouldnt be up in arms if they got bumped. Would you bet races at my track if i said no DQs (with all other things being equal?)?
Enter the element of " if you cannot beat the other horse, beat the crap out of it"..
Not a good idea.

[Stillriledup]

Enter the element of " if you cannot beat the other horse, beat the crap out of it"..
Not a good idea.

We would have very severe fines for any jock who appeared to willingly cause interference. It won't be tolerated and they'll know going in that this is the case.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

There shouldn't be any entries. If a trainer or owner sticks a rabbit in the race, handicap it as such. Interfering with another horse would be extremely dangerous, so I just don't see that as an issue. I can't think of a reason to mandate entries for same owner or trainer....

[Stillriledup]

There shouldn't be any entries. If a trainer or owner sticks a rabbit in the race, handicap it as such. Interfering with another horse would be extremely dangerous, so I just don't see that as an issue. I can't think of a reason to mandate entries for same owner or trainer....
I agree, the reason they mandate it is because of possible 'collusion' but that type of collusion can happen at any time in any race and can happen whether or not horses are owned, trained or ridden by "common" connections. Racing is a tight knit community, many people know almost everyone at their circuit on a first name basis, if these people wanted to collude, they can and no 1 and 1a is going to stop them.

The judges need to uncouple horses and be vigilant to fine and suspend offenders who do things on the track that are either not in the best interests of racing, or lack of effort stuff...if you're a judge and you have eyes, you don't really need to have to couple stuff.

The thing about coupling entries is that they do it so that owners can't use one betting interest to help out the other...sort of like protecting the public. Here's what bugs me. If this is true, that they couple to "protect the public" how come you never hear about fines or suspensions for drivers or jockeys who use one betting interest to help out the other? In other words, if they're not ever going to fine a jock or harness driver for driving "not to win" and helping someone else, there's no need to couple entries in the first place...its not like this type of stuff ever draws a fine or a suspension, judges dont care and they don't punish anyone for this.

[thespaah]

We would have very severe fines for any jock who appeared to willingly cause interference. It won't be tolerated and they'll know going in that this is the case.
The result would be lots of litigation.