Orino DQ, Race 5, Aug 7th Saratoga.

[Stillriledup]

Seriously?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I had to go back and watch the replay, 'cause I heard TLG support the steward's call afterwards, and since I had no vested interest I just assumed the :3: shut off the :2: .

Wrong. Very iffy ruling. Horrible, actually.

This never would have happened at SRU Downs, where the stewards are closet dog players, and never DQ a pony....

[Stillriledup]

If you say this was a "no brainer" DQ (like the host of Saratoga in 30 tv show did) you just lose credibility as someone who really knows the game. Its hard to make a case for a DQ here much less a "no brainer".

[Grits]

Never seen anyone who continues to play this game who thinks any and everyone in it is so crooked.

Yeah, the starter is kicking horses. Good luck proving that one, buddy.

Yeah, the 3 horse came down. He needed to. Keep watching the head on maybe you'll get it.

Everyone is conspiring against you ... you're just another whiner.

[burnsy]

I didn't bet the race. But a friend of mine got taken down hard, he had the double 27 times until the inquiry. That call could of went either way in the "OLD" days, but the fact is for the last few years if you shut the rail off in NY they will get you. Shutting the rail used to be considered good race riding, these days they have consistantly been taking those moves down. You don't have to agree but at least they are treating the situation consistantly. Ask most of the "old timers" and they'll tell you they would never let a horse through there if they knew it was coming. If they were calling it differently from case to case, i could see people beefing but they are being consistant which is only fair.

[Some_One]

If the odds on the horses were reversed, do you think the call would of happened?

[burnsy]

The way they've been calling those i think it would of been taken down.......but you never know and i wondered about that myself.

[JustRalph]

If the odds on the horses were reversed, do you think the call would of happened?

I don't think it matters. For the millionth time.

I saw it as a 50/50 chance of being taken down. I thought it was pretty good riding at first. The only problem I had with taking the horse down was "when" the rail got shut off completely. I thought it really didn't get completely shut off until very late in the race. Very late.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

If the odds on the horses were reversed, do you think the call would of happened?

Or, if the :1: outbobs the 3-5 :2: horse for second, do the stewards bother since the chalk can't win?

Went back and watched the replays, both side and head-on and still don't see enough cause for the DQ. Would have hated to have taken the 12-1 risk in the :3: stretching out, and get doinked like that. Saratoga doesn't have a "racing lane" like a 5/8 mile harness track, now do they? As always, opinions vary from the players. Just another example of why the human judgement should be removed from the equation, and "dog race finish" rules adopted for the payouts. Let the inquires and objections be dealt with afterwards, and only affect the purse distribution...

[reckless]

I had a vested interest in the outcome, keying Orino in both the Race 4-5 DD and Pick 3. I have been miserable since yesterday.

Having watched zillions of races over the years, as have many of us here on PA, I know one thing is just about 100% dead certain, and it is this:

When there is interference, even the slightest of bumping, that occurs very deep into the stretch, the offending party comes down. The closer the horses are to the finish line, it is even much more likely the perpetrator comes down. You could go to the bank on that.

There is always much less room for margin in the deep stretch than there is at the start of the race or down the backside.

While one might argue if a foul actually occurred, to me, sadly, it was a fait accompli that my horse was coming down.

Prado's horse at 3-5 or Orino being a longshot had absolutely nothing to do with the steward's decision.

[The Bit]

After seeing the head on for the first time, I thought for sure and felt that Orion would and needed to come down.

I will say as a whole, these decisions are seemingly handled differently than they were 5, 8, 10 years ago.

[Stillriledup]

I don't think it matters. For the millionth time.

I saw it as a 50/50 chance of being taken down. I thought it was pretty good riding at first. The only problem I had with taking the horse down was "when" the rail got shut off completely. I thought it really didn't get completely shut off until very late in the race. Very late.

I agree.

The winner was pulling away from the 2nd place finisher under the wire, the winner was accelerating, once that horse switched to his 'wrong lead" in deep stretch, he found another burst, that horse wasnt done and the inside horse wasnt getting to him.

There's a LOT of bumping in NY that not only doesnt come down, but doesnt even blink. If you are going to take this horse down, i think you are basically saying that the standard we are going to have is extremely high and we are going to enforce that all horses must remain in an exact straight line all the time.

Is this really reasonable? Isnt horse racing a sport where its generally unreasonable to think every horse all the time will remain exactly straight? Isnt some drifting just part of the horse race, arent some horses going to shift around down the lane when the jock and horse are straining to get every last ounce out of a runner?

I think that's a very high standard to have....but, if you have it, you have to enforce it all the time and to me, that would mean NY would become the DQ capitol of racing and i'm not sure that's what they want. They certainly arent the capitol of paying off the winners, they seem like a place where you really have to win twice in order to get paid.

You said this was a 50/50 chance......shouldnt a 50/50 call go to the horse who physically won the race? Shouldnt the "burden of proof' have to be incredibly high to make a switch?

I hate seeing horses come down because the other jock put himself in a tough position needing to get 'lucky' to get out, the front running jock isnt obligated to move over to let an inside horse thru.

Seems that they have, with this DQ, that the 'cost a board placing' is not really much of a factor...if you bump or brush, you're down, no questions asked.

[Stillriledup]

Never seen anyone who continues to play this game who thinks any and everyone in it is so crooked.

Yeah, the starter is kicking horses. Good luck proving that one, buddy.

Yeah, the 3 horse came down. He needed to. Keep watching the head on maybe you'll get it.

Everyone is conspiring against you ... you're just another whiner.

Seems like you're the one whining...i never suggest i think anyone was crooked, i never mention if i bet on this race or not and i never talk about a "conspiracy".

Maybe your 3rd sentence is the only one you should have posted, its on topic and gets straight to the point. The other stuff is nonsense. Cmon Grits, you're better than that.

[RXB]

I bet $110 on the race and went from cashing $1355 ($100 win bet on Orino) to just $117 ($10 saver exacta, the odds-on fave over Orino).

So I'd have as much reason as most people to be biased. But I thought that it was the correct call. I think Orino might've held off the fave anyway but you can't tell for sure and Orino definitely crossed over into the fave's established path and caused him to steady. Not only did it quite possibly affect the order of finish but it gets quite dangerous when a horse drifts into the path of the rail runner.

Too bad for me but I think the stewards were right on this one.

[Stillriledup]

I bet $110 on the race and went from cashing $1355 ($100 win bet on Orino) to just $117 ($10 saver exacta, the odds-on fave over Orino).

So I'd have as much reason as most people to be biased. But I thought that it was the correct call. I think Orino might've held off the fave anyway but you can't tell for sure and Orino definitely crossed over into the fave's established path and caused him to steady. Not only did it quite possibly affect the order of finish but it gets quite dangerous when a horse drifts into the path of the rail runner.

Too bad for me but I think the stewards were right on this one.

I dont think they ought to be making calls on the 'danger' factor. The rider of the runner up was in a tough spot, if you bet on the favorite, you don't have a 100 % expectation of getting out.

Also, for what this is worth, the "head on" shot they showed is not really a head on, i think a straight head on would have provided a different view. Its hard to watch what is essentially a pan shot that is disguised as a head on and be able to really make a call like this.

It has to sting you that the rider of the runner up was Edgar "i always get in trouble" Prado and they rewarded him for yet another race where he got himself into a tough spot and had to take his horse up.

[RXB]

It has to sting you that the rider of the runner up was Edgar "i always get in trouble" Prado and they rewarded him for yet another race where he got himself into a tough spot and had to take his horse up.

Actually it stings me more that Luis Saez went to the left-hand whip and opened the lane for Prado, then switched to the right-hand whip and kept flailing until the horse drifted into the very lane that Saez had helped to open in the first place. Prado didn't do anything wrong.

No fun being DQ'd on a 12/1 shot that probably would've won anyway, but them's the breaks. I wouldn't say it was a "no-brainer" but I thought it was the correct decision.

[Stillriledup]

Actually it stings me more that Luis Saez went to the left-hand whip and opened the lane for Prado, then switched to the right-hand whip and kept flailing until the horse drifted into the very lane that Saez had helped to open in the first place. Prado didn't do anything wrong.

No fun being DQ'd on a 12/1 shot that probably would've won anyway, but them's the breaks. I wouldn't say it was a "no-brainer" but I thought it was the correct decision.

I'm of the mindset that a DQ is more often times, the wrong decision. At SRU downs, we let them race and we pay off the winners. You only would get taken down in a very extreme situation and this wasnt it.

Sorry about your DQ, it hurts to pick the winner at nice odds and not get paid.

[wiffleball whizz]

Without reading the whole thread just wondering how does it feel when the board goes blank?????? Welcome to my world

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I had a vested interest in the outcome, keying Orino in both the Race 4-5 DD and Pick 3. I have been miserable since yesterday.

Having watched zillions of races over the years, as have many of us here on PA, I know one thing is just about 100% dead certain, and it is this:

When there is interference, even the slightest of bumping, that occurs very deep into the stretch, the offending party comes down. The closer the horses are to the finish line, it is even much more likely the perpetrator comes down. You could go to the bank on that.

There is always much less room for margin in the deep stretch than there is at the start of the race or down the backside.

While one might argue if a foul actually occurred, to me, sadly, it was a fait accompli that my horse was coming down.

Prado's horse at 3-5 or Orino being a longshot had absolutely nothing to do with the steward's decision.

I wish I shared your optimistic view of the steward's neutrality, but I don't. This race was a classic opportunity for the steward's to put dough back in more people's pockets for the churn. DQ'ing a horse like Orino simply encourages the jocks on beaten horses, especially heavy favorites, to stand up near the wire, and hopefully get put up on the inquiry/objection.

Watching the head on for the 3rd and 4th times on the low-res replay from TS, I still don't see enough for a DQ, and hardly enough for an inquiry. Looked like the chalk staggered on his own nearest the wire anyway, so there's no way he goes by the :3: .

I've had my share of DQs, both deserved and undeserved, as well as being a beneficiary of having another horse DQ'ed and mine put up. But the whole process is such a farce and so inconsistent. And on some circuits, sometimes not always on the up and up.

Damn glad I didn't bet the :3: on this race....

[Phantombridgejumpe]

dog race rules, are you?

You know humans aren't riding the dogs, right?

[wisconsin]

Had no intention of bringing this up, but the DQ cost me plenty.

My problem with the head-on view is that you can see the lawn mower lines, but the rail is not consistent with those, it weaves all the way down the stretch, so there was the illusion of a horse being cut off when in my opinion, the rail never really had enough room to begin with. Top it off with the winner scampering away as much the best. The :2: was never going to get past the :3: and certainly was not cost a better placing.

[Stillriledup]

Had no intention of bringing this up, but the DQ cost me plenty.

My problem with the head-on view is that you can see the lawn mower lines, but the rail is not consistent with those, it weaves all the way down the stretch, so there was the illusion of a horse being cut off when in my opinion, the rail never really had enough room to begin with. Top it off with the winner scampering away as much the best. The :2: was never going to get past the :3: and certainly was not cost a better placing.

Not to mention that the shot they were using is not a direct head on shot, its really tricky watching tapes making decisions on pan shots, you need the direct head on, which they didnt have.

I agree, the inside horse wasnt getting thru, especially with that jock who is scared of his own shadow, the front running horse is not obligated to move over.

[cj]

Not to mention that the shot they were using is not a direct head on shot, its really tricky watching tapes making decisions on pan shots, you need the direct head on, which they didnt have.

I agree, the inside horse wasnt getting thru, especially with that jock who is scared of his own shadow, the front running horse is not obligated to move over.

I think the DQ was ok, could have gone either way given the terrible view we get. The horse on the lead drifted out and did leave room for a horse to come through, then closed it off when the horse began to actually come through.

I was going to comment on this same thing, the head on isn't a real head on. It is a bad angle to make that kind of decision. Some day racing will enter the 21st century, probably around 2200.

[RXB]

I suspect that the different turf rail settings can make it difficult to get a precise head-on view.

[cj]

I suspect that the different turf rail settings can make it difficult to get a precise head-on view.

I guess that depends how you define difficult. For racing, yes, but for anyone else it would be pretty damn easy.

[magwell]

I guess that depends how you define difficult. For racing, yes, but for anyone else it would be pretty damn easy. Yes racing is like Baseball, slow to evolve...... (its OK to be wrong). ;)

[Some_One]

Or, if the :1: outbobs the 3-5 :2: horse for second, do the stewards bother since the chalk can't win?

Went back and watched the replays, both side and head-on and still don't see enough cause for the DQ. Would have hated to have taken the 12-1 risk in the :3: stretching out, and get doinked like that. Saratoga doesn't have a "racing lane" like a 5/8 mile harness track, now do they? As always, opinions vary from the players. Just another example of why the human judgement should be removed from the equation, and "dog race finish" rules adopted for the payouts. Let the inquires and objections be dealt with afterwards, and only affect the purse distribution...

If the fav loses 2nd, then I think it's an easy dq, however as it happened, it's tough to say the fav would have won

[Hoofless_Wonder]

You aren't seriously suggesting dog race rules, are you?

You know humans aren't riding the dogs, right?

Yes. Yes I am.

The only argument I know of to "original finish equals tote payoffs" is the potential for larceny by rough race riding. I don't buy that, though I freely admit I'm not a jockey. It's way too dangerous to ride any more aggressively than the riders due today, IMHO, with clipping heels and breakdowns leading to horrific accidents within fractions of a second. Just the other night a female jockey in Australia was killed when her horse shied and threw her 200 meters from the finish - unfortunately, she was leading at the time and was trampled.

I believe the potential for the stewards to make the wrong call is MUCH higher than the potential for larceny. "Original finish equals tote payoffs" would be consistent. If there is a questionable result, then the stewards and/or jockeys could enforce rules for safe riding after the fact.

And speaking of Australia, at least when they have a protest (objection), the stewards interview the jockeys in public, unlike their American counterparts.

And yes, I know humans aren't riding the dogs. But of course humans are giving Fido a pep pill now and then, or a big bowl of water before the race...

[Phantombridgejumpe]

Same rules in NASCAR too?

[Stillriledup]

Yes. Yes I am.

The only argument I know of to "original finish equals tote payoffs" is the potential for larceny by rough race riding. I don't buy that, though I freely admit I'm not a jockey. It's way too dangerous to ride any more aggressively than the riders due today, IMHO, with clipping heels and breakdowns leading to horrific accidents within fractions of a second. Just the other night a female jockey in Australia was killed when her horse shied and threw her 200 meters from the finish - unfortunately, she was leading at the time and was trampled.

I believe the potential for the stewards to make the wrong call is MUCH higher than the potential for larceny. "Original finish equals tote payoffs" would be consistent. If there is a questionable result, then the stewards and/or jockeys could enforce rules for safe riding after the fact.

And speaking of Australia, at least when they have a protest (objection), the stewards interview the jockeys in public, unlike their American counterparts.

And yes, I know humans aren't riding the dogs. But of course humans are giving Fido a pep pill now and then, or a big bowl of water before the race...

This is a great point you've touched on. I think that judges essentially "pass the baton" to the horseplayer and put the burden on the players to "police" the riders to make sure they are riding in safe fashion instead of leaving the betting alone, and policing the sport out of the public eye.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Same rules in NASCAR too?

Can you please clarify? Last time I checked, NASCAR didn't have parimutuel wagering, so your comment does not compute....

[Phantombridgejumpe]

You are equating dog racing with horse racing. While they are both animals racing, one has a human pilot, the other doesn't.

A greyhound weighs about 70lbs, a thoroughbred horse more like 1,500.

You are comparing a couple dogs bouncing off each other to two horses slamming into each other. I think a closer comparison would with with auto racing (driver and 3,000 pound car). And you certainly bet on NASCAR.

They are both completely ridiculous comparisons. Full contact horse racing would have people protesting outside from day one.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

You're assuming that "full contact" racing would result from this rule change. I disagree. How much can a jock control a 1500 pound horse anyway? It's not like driving a car. It's more like driving a car which continuously has random tire blow outs while cruising down three lanes of traffic on the freeway. It would be suicidal for jocks to ride rougher. This ain't rollerball.

I believe that there would be very little change in riding tactics, and as long the stewards and jocks did their part afterwards to enforce safe riding rules, all is well.

For example, what if a jock intentionally hits a horse going by him with his whip? Today, he would be DQ'ed, and fined and maybe get days. All fans betting him feel the pain.

In my world, he wins the race unfairly, but gets a post-race penalty of something like this:

1st offense: $10K fine, 14 days
2nd offense: 1 year ban
3rd offense: lifetime ban from riding

This, in theory, would keep him in check - or, remove him from the sport after a short career.

Regardless, in your world you're satisfied that a human, subjective element will always be a part of the results when an inquiry/objection occurs. In my world, that aspect is removed.

We'll never know which is better until my world is tried....

[Phantombridgejumpe]

My horse is easily going to sweep by and win by daylight when he gets crushed or hit with a whip.

I lose my bet, but will feel better when the jockey gets thrown out? Obviously there are flaws in the current system, and we have all seen bad calls, but to replace it with a far worse system is no solution at all.

There are many good reasons why we will never find out, no jockeys, owners, tracks or players would be willing to do it your way. (No might be extreme, too few to open a track).

[Stillriledup]

My horse is easily going to sweep by and win by daylight when he gets crushed or hit with a whip.

I lose my bet, but will feel better when the jockey gets thrown out? Obviously there are flaws in the current system, and we have all seen bad calls, but to replace it with a far worse system is no solution at all.

There are many good reasons why we will never find out, no jockeys, owners, tracks or players would be willing to do it your way. (No might be extreme, too few to open a track).

What HW is trying to say is that at SRU downs, you pick a winner, you get paid. Bettors are trying to win bets, they could care less if the jock gets thrown out, fined or suspended. Now, as compassionate human beings, they dont want to see any dangerous riding and or a guy's career harmed, but bettors bet and they are betting to win bets.

HW's system is far better because the customer gets paid.

Under the current system, a good analogy may be if a waiter at a restaurant spills your food while walking it to your table, not only does the waiter get "punished" for his/her mistake, but the prices on your food go up, they charge a "spill tax" for the mistake of an employee of the company.

That's not fair, right?

Just bet at SRU downs.
Our Motto:

SRU Downs.... where Winners get paid!

[Stillriledup]

No inquiry or DQ against palace dreams in the 9th race on Aug 8th, she bumped the 4th place finisher knocking her off stride and then beat that horse by a very small margin for the show. This particular incident was more worthy of a DQ than Orino, not sure why Joel didnt claim foul, 5k difference in purse for the owner had he been placed 3rd.

[Phantombridgejumpe]

When you two go on tilt from a DQ you really go on tilt.

I think the customers at your restaurant would have to
finish the meal by eating it out of their laps.

[aaron]

I had the disqualified horse,but I thought it was a 50-50 proposition on it coming down. NY stewards have always been inconsistent. The same thing can happen twice on the same day with different results.If they left the horse up,they would have said the outcome wasn't affected. Another reason I thought the horse might come down was because the other horse was 3/5. In my opinion,I think this subconsciously plays into their decision. The bottom line is you just have to be lucky on these decisions. Correct or incorrect decision does not play into it,since there is no rhyme or reason in their decisions.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

My horse is easily going to sweep by and win by daylight when he gets crushed or hit with a whip.

I lose my bet, but will feel better when the jockey gets thrown out? Obviously there are flaws in the current system, and we have all seen bad calls, but to replace it with a far worse system is no solution at all.

There are many good reasons why we will never find out, no jockeys, owners, tracks or players would be willing to do it your way. (No might be extreme, too few to open a track).

Yes, you should feel better when a cheating jockey gets punished. You lose your bet, but he/she gets punished. Although maybe the majority of jockeys, owners, and the stewards might not be in favor of the change, I believe that bettors would be - again, we won't know until it's tried.

The bottom line is the system today is flawed due to what can be a very subjective human judgement. Today the stewards have WAY TOO MUCH power in changing the results. I'm proposing a change that eliminates that, while hopefully not making the race riding any more dangerous. If someone has other ideas on how to improve the process today, I'm all ears.

The prevailing opinion is that "over time" the DQs even out for the bettors, and since we only see an objection or inquiry in five or 10 percent of the races, I don't see this as a huge change. It would simply remove the agony of suffering through the "secret inquiry" we have today. In a sport that has a serious P/R image in terms of integrity, this would help.

Back in 1987 I was, shall we say, between "opportunities" after getting out of the service and drove up to Sportman's Park one cold, early spring Thursday. Being a bull ring, the 6.5 furlong races used to start in the chute at the top of the stretch. I wandered up to the starting gate one race to watch the horses spring from the gate. After the start, I started walking back to the grandstand and was right at the turn as the horses came around for the stretch drive. The 4/5 chalk was on the lead (the rail was golden), was passed by a 15-1 shot in the two path, who once clear by two lengths moved back down to the rail and cruised home for an easy win. The horse I bet was nowhere, so I started to look at the next race.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, please hold all tickets".

Showing only the head-on and the normal top-of-the-grandstand views, the stewards eventually took down the winner for alleged interference. I couldn't believe it. The replay simply showed the <dying> chalk shying a bit from getting dirt in his face after losing the lead. There is no doubt in my mind the stewards had a desire to put up the chalk - not sure if it was for the owner, their own bets, or some other reason. But they robbed the players and connections of the winner.

Although this is an extreme example, and I believe that 95% of the steward's calls are on the up-and-up, there's really no reason for them to have the ability to change the results like that....

After all, if the race had been the Kentucky Derby instead of the 5th at the Spa on 8/7, does Orino still come down?

[Phantombridgejumpe]

And I know your heart is in the right place. I simply dislike (strongly) your solution.

My quick ideas. We know who the stewards are at every track, know they cannot wager, and so the best we can to insure they are independent.

Every stewards decision is discussed with them on a TV feed available to all players for 1/2 hour before the next race card. Players are free to contribute questions.

Jockeys are NOT talked to after a race. The stewards can see what happened and decide from the evidence.

[wiffleball whizz]

I suspect that the different turf rail settings can make it difficult to get a precise head-on view.

It's such a joke......how bout a cable that runs perpendicular to the turns and put the camera on a zip line and now u have a dead on angle to look at on the straightaways.......it's crazy how u you can't have a good straight shot to see a foul......if the rail on the turf course is out far u just adjust the camera.....it's not hard and it's cheap......and to save money u can take the cable and camera down and bring it to Belmont and aqueduct

Walking out of Charlestown last night I didn't notice but I parked right underneath the stewards stand its out in the middle of the parking lot literally I say to myself how the f*** can they dq from this angle.....sure enough I turn around and it's dead on straight looking into the stretch

[Hoofless_Wonder]

And I know your heart is in the right place. I simply dislike (strongly) your solution.

My quick ideas. We know who the stewards are at every track, know they cannot wager, and so the best we can to insure they are independent.

Every stewards decision is discussed with them on a TV feed available to all players for 1/2 hour before the next race card. Players are free to contribute questions.

Jockeys are NOT talked to after a race. The stewards can see what happened and decide from the evidence.

Stewards cannot wager and are independent. Nice concept. Don't believe that's the case at most tracks. Nor do I see a sport which has a HORRIBLE history of policing itself being capable of implementing and enforcing such a concept. I do like the idea of players being able to question the stewards, though it could devolve into a riot pretty quickly with an unpopular decision.

This topic reminds me somewhat of the history of the replay review in the NFL. It slowly came about as fan feedback and increased scrutiny of bungled calls affecting the outcome of the games occurred. Horse racing does not seem to have this same focus except for a handful of races.

Orino stays up if it was the Derby....

[Phantombridgejumpe]

Is a foul in the finals of the NBA the same as game one? Or even the first minute of an NHL game vs the third period.

PS: I'm against replay in the NFL.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Is a foul in the finals of the NBA the same as game one? Or even the first minute of an NHL game vs the third period.

PS: I'm against replay in the NFL.

I like the replay rules in the NFL - big improvement to make the calls as accurate as possible. Not surprising that we end up with different opinions on that, but it is a little surprising what side we're on.

As for the NBA and NHL, I would agree that they suffer from the same subjective calls that we have in horse racing. That doesn't make it right.

So do you agree that Orino stays up in the Derby? So what's up with that? Makes it okay if millions are on the line, but not so much for $60K?

In horse racing, we have a discrete and exact finish, which could allow us to remove the subjectivity, and make it more quantitative. And, more consistent.

[Stillriledup]

I like the replay rules in the NFL - big improvement to make the calls as accurate as possible. Not surprising that we end up with different opinions on that, but it is a little surprising what side we're on.

As for the NBA and NHL, I would agree that they suffer from the same subjective calls that we have in horse racing. That doesn't make it right.

So do you agree that Orino stays up in the Derby? So what's up with that? Makes it okay if millions are on the line, but not so much for $60K?

In horse racing, we have a discrete and exact finish, which could allow us to remove the subjectivity, and make it more quantitative. And, more consistent.

You're on a roll today hoof, fantastic posting, great ideas, logical and intelligent thinking, thanks for "getting it".

I love your idea that Orino stays up if its the Derby. The Derby is the most rough run race, there's a ton of bumping, jockeying for position, 20 horse fields. Guess what happens in the derby? Horses don't break down for the most part, jocks don't fall off either and everyone is fine with that race being 'exempt' from disqualifications. There could be massive bumping but nobody puts their arms up and yells "hey, where's the DQ". Its "understood" that they pay the winners.....and, don't you like it that way? Doesnt it make you feel comfortable knowing you can make your biggest bet of the year in the Derby and you are going to get paid if you win? I have to admit, i kind of like the idea of being paid for my hard work.

That Orino race could be some bettors "ky derby". He could have been waiting for that exact situation for weeks, you know, to get Orino on the turf going long.

You mention that they say all DQ"s "even out" and if that's the case, just pay off the results as they came in, if they even out anyway, its all the same.

I mentioned a situation in a few posts above this about Palace Dreams, no inquiry, no nothing. If a judge is going to nitpick and place a horse who was beaten by more than a length first when you can't really make any kind of case that horse was going to actually win, why isnt the Palace Dreams situation looked at, the margin was a small one, the horse who was jarred off his tracks was nose to nose at the time of the incident with plenty of time left in the race and yet, this one just didnt warrant a looksee. Maybe Durkin didnt yell "oh my John's Mariah almost got knocked over, great job by Joel Rosario just to say aboard" and that's why there was no dq?

[Phantombridgejumpe]

I had my Jockey fall off with 100 yards to go, but my horse still won, no sweat, correct?

Next race my horse burst through the starting gait, that was an awesome head start to get!

I cashed the pick 3 when my Jock came back carrying 112 when he was supposed to carry 122. No sweat for me!!



I am guessing at the Derby result. And yes I do think it should take a little more for a DQ in a big race. Within reason.

[Stillriledup]

I had my Jockey fall off with 100 yards to go, but my horse still won, no sweat, correct?

Next race my horse burst through the starting gait, that was an awesome head start to get!

I cashed the pick 3 when my Jock came back carrying 112 when he was supposed to carry 122. No sweat for me!!



I am guessing at the Derby result. And yes I do think it should take a little more for a DQ in a big race. Within reason.

At SRU's crib, you need to win the race...if your jock falls off, you lose. Good day sir.

BUT, on the bright side, if you WIN, you get....drum roll Alex.....PAID! *ta dahhh*

You say "within reason" but this is the entire gist of the discussion. What"s a "big race"? Who's to say that Orino's win wasnt MY big race as a bettor? Any bettor could be alive for hundreds of thousands or millions in a pick something into the last race which is a 5k claimer..don't tell that bettor its not a " big race".

The "big race" concept just goes to show everyone that its all about the horse owners, trainers and jocks...its THEIR "big race" so its counted as a big race. My "big race"? Not so much.

[Phantombridgejumpe]

My horse finished first! Outrage.

It was less of a 'big race' call than a 20 horses in a race call. I allow a little common sense to be applied, you don't (and I know why because you think he common people are crooked).

Which policy do you like for police monitoring a highway...

Speed limit is 60 on this road

A) Everyone going 61 or higher gets a ticket
B) Nobody gets a ticket, let people police their own driving
C) The cop tickets everyone going at a dangerous speed, generally
above 70

I don't think either of us like A. I'm not willing to try B, you are frustrated with
the vagueness of C.

[Stillriledup]

My horse finished first! Outrage.

It was less of a 'big race' call than a 20 horses in a race call. I allow a little common sense to be applied, you don't (and I know why because you think he common people are crooked).

Which policy do you like for police monitoring a highway...

Speed limit is 60 on this road

A) Everyone going 61 or higher gets a ticket
B) Nobody gets a ticket, let people police their own driving
C) The cop tickets everyone going at a dangerous speed, generally
above 70

I don't think either of us like A. I'm not willing to try B, you are frustrated with
the vagueness of C.

I think your analogy deals with public safety where others are involved, so, its a different slope altogether. Nobody wants to be ticketed doing 61 and in fact, if you know the law, and i was reading up on this recently at a Barnes and Noble, that the speed limits are just "suggested" speed limits...in other words, if the conditions permit, you can actually go over the posted speed limit and its not breaking the law. If its sunny and dry conditions and there's only a small amount of traffic on the road, you don't have to adhere to 60 if it says 60. Now, this varies from state to state obviously, but if you got a ticket going 61 on a dry, sunny day when the roads were basically empty, you would be able to get that ticket tossed out in court.

At any rate, my problem with the way DQs are handled is the inconsistency and the nit picking. Sometimes, judges will be disqualifying horses for political reasons and personal conflict......i'm sure this doesnt happen all that often, but in the history of DQs in america, i'd be willing to bet that a steward not liking a trainer, owner, jock or someone else contributed to a borderline DQ going one way and not the other. Its kind of as a bettor, i sort of want to be paid unless the cirumstances are outrageous.

If there's a situation where a horse is buried on the rail and swings out, physically crashes into a horse in reckless abandon trying to get a lane, 3 horses have to check hard than yeah, i wont have a problem with that horse coming down. However, i do have a problem with a DQ like the Orino DQ, that wasnt a disqualification was a "Must" takedown. It was one that could have been left alone on many different grounds. That is what i dont like, them playing god with OPM.

Leave them results alone unless you truly have to make a DQ. Some were saying this Orino situation was 50/50. Not good enough, it can't even be close to 50/50 because in my book, the winner gets the benefit of the doubt.

And, this Orino race, he didnt cost the inside horse a board spot, that horse held 2nd and wasnt ever winning and yet, they altered a result that absolutely didnt have to be altered.

[notoutofpounds]

Did anybody notice the two people inside the inner rail just to the right of the totalizator board ? You can see them on the head-on replay at about the 5:00 mark. They move away abruptly as the horses have entered the stretch. As they bolt from the rail they knock down a horizontal piece of the rail. The knocked down rail piece appears at about 1:48 on the replay.

Bogus DQ, clearly trying to keep the chalk happy.

[Stillriledup]

Did anybody notice the two people inside the inner rail just to the right of the totalizator board ? You can see them on the head-on replay at about the 5:00 mark. They move away abruptly as the horses have entered the stretch. As they bolt from the rail they knock down a horizontal piece of the rail. The knocked down rail piece appears at about 1:48 on the replay.

Bogus DQ, clearly trying to keep the chalk happy.

Excellent observation Pounder, well done.

I do believe that because the horse who was blocked was 3-5, there is some expectation that he's by far the best horse in the race and when the 'best horse' gets blocked, the logical conclusion was that the block cost him the win. After all, he was 3-5 for a reason (that's the logic).

IF that horse was 30-1 the reverse might happen and they might think that because the horse was 30-1, he wasnt going to be good enough to win anyway.

[notoutofpounds]

The stewards delivered a poor decision very slowly. Boo !

[Stillriledup]

The stewards delivered a poor decision very slowly. Boo !

The standard they set there was incredibly high, its a standard that they rarely adhere to. That DQ essentially said that they're forcing you to run an exact straight line. If you waver one inch to either side, it could cost you. In other words, there's no expectation that a horse who is in the position of the runner up will get clear or has to get clear. If he gets caught behind horses, that's just bad racing luck and bad racing luck happens sometimes when you're fishing for a lane (with the temp rails out) and it doesnt develop.

Also, the jock on the runner up made a mistake to think he was actually going to get thru and the judges rewarded him for trying.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I had my Jockey fall off with 100 yards to go, but my horse still won, no sweat, correct?

Next race my horse burst through the starting gait, that was an awesome head start to get!

I cashed the pick 3 when my Jock came back carrying 112 when he was supposed to carry 122. No sweat for me!!



I am guessing at the Derby result. And yes I do think it should take a little more for a DQ in a big race. Within reason.

Phantom, now you're just getting silly with your "Mad Max" analogies and comparisons to highway safety. I'm not promoting that we go all "Ben Hur" chariot racing here.

The jock still has to stay aboard, the jock still has to weigh out (no quick officials), and the stewards still have latitude for late scratches for horses breaking through the starting gate, OR if a horse does not get a fair start - it can be ruled on non-starter. Ya know, like you say, a little common sense.

By your own admission you're leaving the stewards the latitude to alter the results on a whim, and that's our beef. I believe the vast majority of them are on the up-and-up, though like the common people, are human - and we know what that means.

Back in the early 1990s when I was able to start playing the full-card simulcasts form Southern California, I thought the stewards there were awesome. They let the jocks ride, rarely took down a horse, and I agreed with their decisions about 90% of time. Then I got DQ'ed one race at Hollywood in 1998 for a ticky tack call in which no way affected the outcome. I was in such shock, and I had to leave for the day (it only cost me about $200, but was SHOCKING). That crooked DQ at Sportsman's came flooding back, and since then I've always been leery of the motives of the stewards unless the foul is flagrant - which seems to be about 1/10th of the time.

Ya know, the "no brainer" DQs.... :)

[Stillriledup]

Adirondack Dancer clobbered the 3rd place finisher the entire stretch, no inquiry no DQ no nothing, Race 11 on Aug 10th.

[Phantombridgejumpe]

guys find it an give your opinion?

You would almost need the head to answer the question.

I don't use replays like that, so I don't even know if it is possible.

It is from Fingers Lakes. I'll look for the details if you think
you might be able to find a replay. It had a long inquiry and
the OTB was VERY split on the decision.

[Phantombridgejumpe]

It is Race 4 on August 2nd at Finger Lakes.

Seemed like the Old Guard thought it shouldn't be a DQ and the newer
players thought it certainly would.

Just an interesting case where the fans (majority of who
didn't even bet the race) could not agree.

[notoutofpounds]

:2: should have come down. The contact initiated by the :2: easily costs the :8: at least the slim margin he lost by.

[Stillriledup]

:2: should have come down. The contact initiated by the :2: easily costs the :8: at least the slim margin he lost by.

I like the idea that certain jurisdictions will factor in margin of win/loss in their decisions. It doesnt appear NY has these rules and when you don't have these rules in place, it makes it just that much harder to know when to do the right thing.

[Millpond68]

9 at Saratoga looks like a repeat of the Orino DQ

[Ocala Mike]

9 at Saratoga looks like a repeat of the Orino DQ

Not even close, in my opinion. A textbook case for a dq in today's race.

[Stillriledup]

9 at Saratoga looks like a repeat of the Orino DQ

At first glance, it doesnt look like even the same, but i'll have to watch it again later tonight.

[thespaah]

Seriously?
Watched the head on several times. The :3: did slightly impede the :2: .
The problem I have with this DQ is while the :2: was gaining on the :3:, just before the interference took place, the :2: appeared to flatten and stopped gaining on the :3: ...I do not think the :2: would have headed the :3: before the finish. IMO the DQ is incorrect.
Of course I am not the guy with the white shirt, tie, binoculars and the power to change the order of finish.

[thespaah]

Never seen anyone who continues to play this game who thinks any and everyone in it is so crooked.

Yeah, the starter is kicking horses. Good luck proving that one, buddy.

Yeah, the 3 horse came down. He needed to. Keep watching the head on maybe you'll get it.

Everyone is conspiring against you ... you're just another whiner.
In your opinion, where did the infraction take place that in your opinion necessitated a DQ....I see the 3 move in slightly. I did not believe the 2 would have gotten by the 3 before the wire.
How do you see it?

[nijinski]

In your opinion, where did the infraction take place that in your opinion necessitated a DQ....I see the 3 move in slightly. I did not believe the 2 would have gotten by the 3 before the wire.
How do you see it?

Even the start was bad but horses rarely come down when they impede at the gate .
I think Rosario may get some days for this too . That's just from reading the chart . I'm going to look at the race again , but the DQ was deserved .

B. Calhoun was not happy with Rosario either .

“It’s very disappointing,” he said. “It looked like we were coming through and going to win. Race riding is race riding, but I think [Rosario] overdid it today. He endangered a lot of riders and horses, and I hope he gets a long vacation to think about it. He’s a great rider, but that was very uncalled for.”

Print

[Hoofless_Wonder]

It is Race 4 on August 2nd at Finger Lakes.

Seemed like the Old Guard thought it shouldn't be a DQ and the newer
players thought it certainly would.

Just an interesting case where the fans (majority of who
didn't even bet the race) could not agree.

Well, at SRU downs there would have been NO long inquiry, and the original finish stands. :)

Excellent example of "50-50" sort of call, IMHO (unlike the Orino race). The :8: was definitely gaining, the :2: comes out under left hand urging, and contact is made. After, reviewing the low-res pan and head-on shots replay of the race, it comes down to several subjective outlooks:

a. The :8: was going to go by the :2: and win
b. The :2: , once challenged, was going to fight back since it had a bettor trip and had more "left in the tank"
c. The :8: , though impeded, had further opportunity to go by the :2:, and failed to do so

A case can be made for either result, but I happen to agree with the stewards in leaving the deuce up. Contact, while it occurred, was not flagrant enough to know if it altered the outcome....for sure.

To add to the flawed, subjective system, we also have to consider the factor of "where the foul occurred" during the race. Obviously, the deep stretch incidents make up the majority of the inquiries. But had the :2: made similar contact with the :8: going into the first turn, is there even an inquiry? Especially if the :8: goes wide, fades and finishes 6th? Like holding in the NFL on every play, there's contact between the horses in every race.

If the stewards DQ the :2: , then bettors of the :2: scream foul, and assume the officials had an interest in that result. Since the stewards leave the :2: up, the bettors of the :8: can complain that they got the short end of the stick. Either way, there will be some players that are unhappy.

Only at SRU Downs can everyone look at the result, shrug, and move on to the next race without malice in their hearts.... :jump:

[Hoofless_Wonder]

9 at Saratoga looks like a repeat of the Orino DQ

It is similar in that it involves yet another attempt of a heavy favorite to come up the rail, requiring horses outside of it to maintain an absolutely straight path in the stage of the race in which they are most tired, and hence least likely to do so. The horse in between, while appearing to be the worst offender on the head-on replay, is of course also getting bumped from both sides.

A tough, though perhaps correct call for the stewards, and a bad break for Rosario fans. At least the show bettors on Fiftyshadesofgold got their money back to churn more dough in the last two race... :rolleyes:

Another excellent example of where under "SRU Downs" rules, we get a consistent, less subjective result with well understood payouts. Then we allow for the stewards to follow up and give Rosario days for rough riding, if they can make the case for it....

[nijinski]

It is similar in that it involves yet another attempt of a heavy favorite to come up the rail, requiring horses outside of it to maintain an absolutely straight path in the stage of the race in which they are most tired, and hence least likely to do so. The horse in between, while appearing to be the worst offender on the head-on replay, is of course also getting bumped from both sides.

A tough, though perhaps correct call for the stewards, and a bad break for Rosario fans. At least the show bettors on Fiftyshadesofgold got their money back to churn more dough in the last two race... :rolleyes:

Another excellent example of where under "SRU Downs" rules, we get a consistent, less subjective result with well understood payouts. Then we allow for the stewards to follow up and give Rosario days for rough riding, if they can make the case for it....

Stewards gave Rosario 7 days which will equal 3 days if no appeal .

[Stillriledup]

Interesting there was no inquiry or DQ in theStga Special. The winner Corfu, came out and brushed Wired Bryan right near the wire starting a bit of a chain reaction back and forth bumping between the two. The result was a win by the smallest of margins for Corfu..if he doesnt brush or touch Wired Bryan, the result might have been different.

Now, i'm not calling for a DQ here becuase you know SRU leaves em up, but if you're going to take Orino down, why not this race? Corfu didnt travel in an exact straight line, that seems to be the standard the judges set with the Orino DQ yet this one was left alone.

[1st time lasix]

The interference by Rosario in the Spa feature on Sunday cost me a winning pick six as i had Fiftyshadesofgold as my logical single in the sequence. I get a $350 consolation at least---- instead of the likely $3-6k return. Not my worst bad "beat" of the weekend however. Not even close. I had a monster pick five at Monmouth taken down by the stewards when the 4 horse on the turf was taken down in the fourth leg of the sequence. My chosen horse was trying to get through a hole at the top of the lane and he finished 3 or 4 lengths ahead of the others at a price. Much the best. The 5 horse he bumped was a tiring fifth....with zero chance of winning. It paid $44,000 on a fifty cent ticket. The horse that was moved up was about 13-1...the horse i had on my two tickets that was taken down was around 11-1. Not a material difference in a pick five. Here is the real kicker....i had TWO fifty cent tickets! :bang: I figure at best it cost me $21 k....it could possibly have cost me $ 88 k. Truth is .....I needed a stiff drink after that one and i have keopt the tickets as a reminder in the future it could always be worse.

[Stillriledup]

The interference by Rosario in the Spa feature on Sunday cost me a winning pick six as i had Fiftyshadesofgold as my logical single in the sequence. I get a $350 consolation at least---- instead of the likely $3-6k return. Not my worst bad "beat" of the weekend however. Not even close. I had a monster pick five at Monmouth taken down by the stewards when the 4 horse on the turf was taken down in the fourth leg of the sequence. My chosen horse was trying to get through a hole at the top of the lane and he finished 3 or 4 lengths ahead of the others at a price. Much the best. The 5 horse he bumped was a tiring fifth....with zero chance of winning. It paid $44,000 on a fifty cent ticket. The horse that was moved up was about 13-1...the horse i had on my two tickets that was taken down was around 11-1. Not a material difference in a pick five. Here is the real kicker....i had TWO fifty cent tickets! :bang: I figure at best it cost me $21 k....it could possibly have cost me $ 88 k. Truth is .....I needed a stiff drink after that one and i have keopt the tickets as a reminder in the future it could always be worse.

Jeez FTL, that's rough. I've had stuff like that happen to me too, for huge huge money, so i know how you feel.

A quote from the 1978 movie Animal House "my advice to you is to start drinking....heavily"

[cj]

Hmmm, DQ in the feature at DMR today. Thoughts?

[Show Me the Wire]

Hmmm, DQ in the feature at DMR today. Thoughts?

Bad DQ an earlier race had more bumping, involving the same two Jocks and no DQ. Good acting job by Gary.

[cj]

I actually thought it was a pretty clear cut foul. The leader came out two different times pretty sharply.

[menifee]

I put together a p6 and did not play. Good thing I did not as that DQ would have cost me the ticket. I disagree with this call. Yes, the horse did come over, but Stevens way overreacted and the contact was minimal. I don't think the horse coming over would have changed the result. What cost Stevens' horse second was the overreacting.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I put together a p6 and did not play. Good thing I did not as that DQ would have cost me the ticket. I disagree with this call. Yes, the horse did come over, but Stevens way overreacted and the contact was minimal. I don't think the horse coming over would have changed the result. What cost Stevens' horse second was the overreacting.

FWIW, I didn't think Steven's "overreacted", but again it's another example of how subjective the calls can be. I had money riding on Gary's horse, and he sure did look the winner at the 1/8th pole. Got some dough back on my place wager, but still prefer the "Let'em race" approach at SRU Downs.

BTW - three or seven days for Rosario on the 9th Race from Sunday seems, err, a bit light. If he was truly guilty of rough-riding and endangering the other riders and their mounts, doesn't it seem more appropriate to bring down a stiffer penalty? I know in dollars a week's worth of mounts is a tidy sum to guys like me, but it's still only a week (at most)....

[Show Me the Wire]

I actually thought it was a pretty clear cut foul. The leader came out two different times pretty sharply.


I voted bad DQ, based on the inconsistency of the stewards. There have been plenty of rougher races with no DQ.

As far as horses drifting, the stewards should start enforcing stricter enforcement of maintaining a straight path. A horse that drifts over 4 lanes or more should be subject to DQ if any contact is made or cuts into a path of another horse without being well clear, such as 2 or more lengths. The stewards should really discourage herding, especially if the herdee is more than 2 lanes over.

All I would like is consistency in the rulings, like any other sport. For example if the umpire is calling high strikes or some other variation, I expect him to be consistent in his calls for the whole game. Consistency is missing by the So. Cal stewards on the same card and especially day-to-day.

[Stillriledup]

I voted bad DQ, based on the inconsistency of the stewards. There have been plenty of rougher races with no DQ.

As far as horses drifting, the stewards should start enforcing stricter enforcement of maintaining a straight path. A horse that drifts over 4 lanes or more should be subject to DQ if any contact is made or cuts into a path of another horse without being well clear, such as 2 or more lengths. The stewards should really discourage herding, especially if the herdee is more than 2 lanes over.

All I would like is consistency in the rulings, like any other sport. For example if the umpire is calling high strikes or some other variation, I expect him to be consistent in his calls for the whole game. Consistency is missing by the So. Cal stewards on the same card and especially day-to-day.

You say that you would like to see more strict enforcement of straight path, my beef is that this is not a video game, these are flesh and blood creatures with flesh and blood humans sitting on their backs, in horse racing, its understood that you won't always maintain a straight path, its pretty hard to do and its a pretty high standard.

Instead of having "consistency in rulings" how about just leave the horse up and pay the winners?

Judges need to judge under the mission statement that there are no DQs unless something outrageous happens...most DQs at most track don't fall into that category, they fall into the nitpicking stuff, the impossibly high standard stuff where you would have just left things alone and paid the rightful winners...like the Orino DQ that is discussed at length here in these pages.

[Show Me the Wire]

You say that you would like to see more strict enforcement of straight path, my beef is that this is not a video game, these are flesh and blood creatures with flesh and blood humans sitting on their backs, in horse racing, its understood that you won't always maintain a straight path, its pretty hard to do and its a pretty high standard.

Instead of having "consistency in rulings" how about just leave the horse up and pay the winners?

Judges need to judge under the mission statement that there are no DQs unless something outrageous happens...most DQs at most track don't fall into that category, they fall into the nitpicking stuff, the impossibly high standard stuff where you would have just left things alone and paid the rightful winners...like the Orino DQ that is discussed at length here in these pages.

Did you see what I qualified as a straight path? I stated 4 or more lanes, that is a substantial leeway to accommodate some drifting of flesh and blood animals. Most of these rough races are due to jocks herding. Allowing the winner to stay up would only encourage more rough riding most likely resulting in injuries to the flesh and blood horses and jocks.

[Stillriledup]

Did you see what I qualified as a straight path? I stated 4 or more lanes, that is a substantial leeway to accommodate some drifting of flesh and blood animals. Most of these rough races are due to jocks herding. Allowing the winner to stay up would only encourage more rough riding most likely resulting in injuries to the flesh and blood horses and jocks.

Honestly, i have to admit, i just care about cashing my bet if i pick the winner. The rough riding and injuries is not really high on my list of things that i'm worrying about on a day to day basis. Its the stewards job to police the sport from within, they're the ones who need to be vigilant to create safe racing environs, im just worried about being paid when i win. Not really a heck of a lot to ask.

[Show Me the Wire]

Scott Chaney, steward, explained today the DQ was based on the costing of a better placing. So if Stevens kept on riding, without the exaggerated pull-up, he would have run 2nd and there would have been no DQ.

The emphasis on this costing of a better placing causes more problems because it is too subjective and the same type of ride can result in no DQ or a DQ.

[Show Me the Wire]

Honestly, i have to admit, i just care about cashing my bet if i pick the winner. The rough riding and injuries is not really high on my list of things that i'm worrying about on a day to day basis. Its the stewards job to police the sport from within, they're the ones who need to be vigilant to create safe racing environs, im just worried about being paid when i win. Not really a heck of a lot to ask.


I care about cashing my bet too. I would not be happy if you cashed because your jock drifted over 4 lanes and knocked my selection off stride.

[Stillriledup]

I care about cashing my bet too. I would not be happy if you cashed because your jock drifted over 4 lanes and knocked my selection off stride.

I agree. If its a blatant and obvious Stevie Wonder type of DQ than by all means, make the DQ. If its anything less than a mugging, i want to be paid.

[Stillriledup]

Scott Chaney, steward, explained today the DQ was based on the costing of a better placing. So if Stevens kept on riding, without the exaggerated pull-up, he would have run 2nd and there would have been no DQ.

The emphasis on this costing of a better placing causes more problems because it is too subjective and the same type of ride can result in no DQ or a DQ.

This scenario happened with Stevens not riding out a mount in a controversial NON dq recently, there might have been a huge thread about this incident at hollywood right here at PA, but i dont remember the race, gary was sawed off and the winner, a Jim Rome horse, stayed up, but because Gary stopped riding and didnt continue riding after the incident, the judges didnt realize his horse was actually cost a placing.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I agree. If its a blatant and obvious Stevie Wonder type of DQ than by all means, make the DQ. If its anything less than a mugging, i want to be paid.

The problem with nine out of ten inquires is that they are not "slam dunkers" or obvious muggings. We can't even get three posters here to agree on a call. Then we must suffer through the subjective whim of the stewards to settle the matter.

I'd be really curious what the jockeys would think of a change in rules to "pay'em as they finish", and whether or not that would increase the rough riding. As players we can only guess.... :confused:

[Stillriledup]

The problem with nine out of ten inquires is that they are not "slam dunkers" or obvious muggings. We can't even get three posters here to agree on a call. Then we must suffer through the subjective whim of the stewards to settle the matter.

I'd be really curious what the jockeys would think of a change in rules to "pay'em as they finish", and whether or not that would increase the rough riding. As players we can only guess.... :confused:

This goes back full circle to stewards, doing their jobs, and handing out severe fines and suspensions for rougher than normal riding on the SRU Downs new rules of pay the man if he wins.

Jocks, especially the ones at top tier tracks, arent going to intentionally ride rougher if the rules for DQs were changed because they would still be fined and suspended even if there was no DQ, so its not likely to change all that much.

I've always proposed to have seperate betting pools on the same race....the DQ-less pool and the "normal" pool. You, the bettor, can decide if you want to be paid off the way they cross the line no matter what, or you want to be paid off in the pool where the judges have a say in the outcome.

It would certainly be a great case study on which pools would get more betting. I know personally i would be leery of betting into the "hand of god" pools where humans can alter results. I'd be in the other pool...pay me if i win and if i get crashed into, that's my tough luck, i can live with it.

[thespaah]

Honestly, i have to admit, i just care about cashing my bet if i pick the winner. The rough riding and injuries is not really high on my list of things that i'm worrying about on a day to day basis. Its the stewards job to police the sport from within, they're the ones who need to be vigilant to create safe racing environs, im just worried about being paid when i win. Not really a heck of a lot to ask.
Well here's the rub If your "winner" had to break the rules in order to be a winner, then your horse is not the winner at all.
And that is the point of DQ's altering the order of finish for both purse and betting purposes.
I despise being pulled down, but that's the breaks.
We will have to agree to disagree.

[Stillriledup]

Well here's the rub If your "winner" had to break the rules in order to be a winner, then your horse is not the winner at all.
And that is the point of DQ's altering the order of finish for both purse and betting purposes.
I despise being pulled down, but that's the breaks.
We will have to agree to disagree.

You mean like offensive holding penalties in the NFL that get "ignored" because they want to protect the QB and not have 7 hour games with 40 holding penalties called on each team?

"Breaking the rules" is all judgment, they're all judgment calls, sometimes judges let things slide and sometimes they call it tight....with rare consistency.

I actually don't despise being pulled down if i deserve to come down. What i hate is when its borderline and they decide to pay off the other guy. That's the part i don't like.

[thespaah]

You mean like offensive holding penalties in the NFL that get "ignored" because they want to protect the QB and not have 7 hour games with 40 holding penalties called on each team?

"Breaking the rules" is all judgment, they're all judgment calls, sometimes judges let things slide and sometimes they call it tight....with rare consistency.

I actually don't despise being pulled down if i deserve to come down. What i hate is when its borderline and they decide to pay off the other guy. That's the part i don't like.
Ok...
However, I believe my point is unambiguous.

[Stillriledup]

Its a miracle! Orino won and they decided to actually pay the winners this time!

:ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

h8Cdd6tg3aM

They made a TV show about this inquiry.

Enjoy! :D

[cj]

In other timely news, the Jets won Super Bowl III.

[Stillriledup]

In other timely news, the Jets won Super Bowl III.
:lol:

Good one!