Mountaineer DQ Race 5 Dec 14.

[Stillriledup]

If you live long enough, you might see it all. :bang:

[Pensacola Pete]

Watch MNR race 5 and judge for yourself.

Be sure to watch from the middle of the far turn, as 2B came over into 1A four times.

Also be sure to check the pan shot. 1A had 2B beaten and was pulling away when the horse came over. 2B didn't lose any more positions.

In other words, both horses were at fault; no disqualification. 2B was already beat; no disqualification. The outcome and finish position of the race wasn't affected since 1A was already winning and 2B got second; no disqualification.

Except for the "We hate anybody named Camacho" rule at MNR. That got 1A disqualified. I'm surprised it took the judges 3 minutes to disqualify the horse. I expected it to take about 10 seconds.

You can be sure that some MNR shipper going to CT in the near future will get taken down for a non-infraction because of what happened here. I stopped playing CT years ago, and I'm adding MNR to the list. They aren't going to screw me out of my money again.

Even Mark Patterson said that both horses were at fault.

Never again for me.

[tanner12oz]

What happened/

[Stillriledup]

What happened/

Inside horse drifted out, caused initial contact, carried a horse out...that horse, surged to command and was pulling away with a few yards left and drifted in and the other guy stood up, was beaten about a length. Not only did the incident not affect the outcome, but the horse who finished 2nd started the contact by pushing out the outside horse.

The guy who won the race is a low rung no name rider, the guy who claimed foul was one of the leading riders on a 3-5 shot.

[tanner12oz]

Half of the threads on this board are mtr related

[lamboguy]

take up Hong Kong racing, they have a steward for every horse in the race. if there are 14 horses in the race, they got 14 sets of eyes staring at them.

[Stillriledup]

take up Hong Kong racing, they have a steward for every horse in the race. if there are 14 horses in the race, they got 14 sets of eyes staring at them.

You mean there's more integrity in Hong Kong than at Mountaineer? :D

[Relwob Owner]

Watch MNR race 5 and judge for yourself.

Be sure to watch from the middle of the far turn, as 2B came over into 1A four times.

Also be sure to check the pan shot. 1A had 2B beaten and was pulling away when the horse came over. 2B didn't lose any more positions.

In other words, both horses were at fault; no disqualification. 2B was already beat; no disqualification. The outcome and finish position of the race wasn't affected since 1A was already winning and 2B got second; no disqualification.

Except for the "We hate anybody named Camacho" rule at MNR. That got 1A disqualified. I'm surprised it took the judges 3 minutes to disqualify the horse. I expected it to take about 10 seconds.

You can be sure that some MNR shipper going to CT in the near future will get taken down for a non-infraction because of what happened here. I stopped playing CT years ago, and I'm adding MNR to the list. They aren't going to screw me out of my money again.

Even Mark Patterson said that both horses were at fault.

Never again for me.


You are totally correct. The last 3 or 4 atrocious calls went my way so I guess I was due to be on the wrong end of one. That was ridiculous.

[Stillriledup]

You are totally correct. The last 3 or 4 atrocious calls went my way so I guess I was due to be on the wrong end of one. That was ridiculous.

They had TWO shots to leave the horse up. The first shot was that the inside horse started the bumping. The other shot was that it didnt affect the outcome.

0 for 2, How many black eyes can horse racing stand?

[Mineshaft]

The :1a: should of come down

[therussmeister]

The :1a: should of come down
Not only should of come down, but should have come down.

[SharpCat]

Inside horse drifted out, caused initial contact, carried a horse out...that horse, surged to command and was pulling away with a few yards left and drifted in and the other guy stood up, was beaten about a length. Not only did the incident not affect the outcome, but the horse who finished 2nd started the contact by pushing out the outside horse.

The guy who won the race is a low rung no name rider, the guy who claimed foul was one of the leading riders on a 3-5 shot.


Maybe you watched a different race than me. I've watched the pan shot and head on replay several times and believe they made the right. Looks like the initial contact was mutual as they brushed lightly twice. The 2B comes out into the 1A maybe 1/2 path just outside the 1/8 pole. The 1A drifts in from the 1/8 to the 1/16 pole with the jockey whipping right handed and making no attempt to straighten his horse out. Finally the jockey on the 2B has to check at the 1/16 pole so he does not get taken all the way to the rail. When the jockey on the 2B checks you see the jockey on the 1A finally pull on the right reign and straighten his horse out.


I not so sure the 1A would have won the race. They were basicall dead even at the 1/8 pole when the 1A started to drift in. I would not be suprized to see the jockey on the 1A get a couple of days off.

[Pensacola Pete]

I made a thread about this before I saw this one.

The DQ ended up costing me nothing. I had a few pick 4 tickets with the 1 entry, and and I wouldn't have cashed it anyway. I watched the head-on and pan shots again. It's mutual interference. There should not be a disqualification. Both jockeys should get days, and Chirstian Pilares should get the Pat Valenzuela award for pulling up when beaten and drawing a DQ.

[Pensacola Pete]

We're all welcome to our opinion. It so happened that this didn't cost me any money. I had some pick 4 tickets with the 1 entry that I wouldn't have cashed if it was left up. That's not the point. There were two good reasons to not disqualify 1A. Each horse fouled the other, so both were at fault. I watched it again just now, head-on and pan, just in case I over-reacted. There were four separate cases of 2B coming out into 1A on the turn and upper stretch. You might call one of them herding. The other 3 were flagrant bumps. He made no effort to control his horse or keep it away. 1A was almost clear of 2B at the 16th when the crowding happened. 2B was beaten. Didn't affect the outcome, since 2B finished 2nd.

Both jockeys should get days for not properly controlling their mounts. The jockey on 2B (Christian Pilares was named on both halves of the entry) should get the Pat Valenzuela acting award for drawing the DQ. As far as I'm concerned, 1A was taken down because Hilary Camacho is the owner/trainer. It's just plain dirty politics, and as I said, it's a sure thing that CT will payback a MNR shipper the same way. That's WV racing. Fat purses haven't changed a thing, except that they now cheat for more money than they used to.

[Stillriledup]

Maybe you watched a different race than me. I've watched the pan shot and head on replay several times and believe they made the right. Looks like the initial contact was mutual as they brushed lightly twice. The 2B comes out into the 1A maybe 1/2 path just outside the 1/8 pole. The 1A drifts in from the 1/8 to the 1/16 pole with the jockey whipping right handed and making no attempt to straighten his horse out. Finally the jockey on the 2B has to check at the 1/16 pole so he does not get taken all the way to the rail. When the jockey on the 2B checks you see the jockey on the 1A finally pull on the right reign and straighten his horse out.


I not so sure the 1A would have won the race. They were basicall dead even at the 1/8 pole when the 1A started to drift in. I would not be suprized to see the jockey on the 1A get a couple of days off.

The only reason the horse drifted in was because he was clearing off. If those horses were still noses apart, the "winner" wouldnt have come in. This had no bearing on the outcome, the inside horse had every shot to be the horse who pulled clear in the final 16th and didnt....but was rewarded for essentially being slower.

[SharpCat]

The only reason the horse drifted in was because he was clearing off. If those horses were still noses apart, the "winner" wouldnt have come in. This had no bearing on the outcome, the inside horse had every shot to be the horse who pulled clear in the final 16th and didnt....but was rewarded for essentially being slower.


How was the 1A clearing off? They were basically dead even at the 1/8th pole and midstretch. Finally at the 1/16th pole after being taken in about 3 paths Pilares had to check up or risk being run into the rail because Buchanan did not attempt to straighten his horse out until Pilares checked. I actually think Pilares did a good job trying to give his horse a shot to win but eventually had no choice but to check up. Have you never seen a situation where 2 horse are dead even and 1 of the horses takes the other horse in or out multiple paths?

[AlbertButtry]

I watched the replay to see what everyone was talking the about. The inside horse did initiate contact,however the outside horse then proceeds to take him in a couple of paths while dead even. The rider never tried to straighten the 1A and deserved the DQ.

[AlbertButtry]

How was the 1A clearing off? They were basically dead even at the 1/8th pole and midstretch. Finally at the 1/16th pole after being taken in about 3 paths Pilares had to check up or risk being run into the rail because Buchanan did not attempt to straighten his horse out until Pilares checked. I actually think Pilares did a good job trying to give his horse a shot to win but eventually had no choice but to check up. Have you never seen a situation where 2 horse are dead even and 1 of the horses takes the other horse in or out multiple paths?

The 1a wasn't clearing off. Not until Pilares was forced to check.

[Stillriledup]

I watched the replay to see what everyone was talking the about. The inside horse did initiate contact,however the outside horse then proceeds to take him in a couple of paths while dead even. The rider never tried to straighten the 1A and deserved the DQ.

Who's to say the initial contact didnt throw the horse outside off physically or mentally and that caused him to bear in?

Also, if the 2 horses were nose to nose, the outside horse wouldnt have bore in, horses bear in when they don't see a horse to their inside, this happens all the time when a horse circles up and clears around another horse.

The reason the inside horse got bumped was because he wasnt fast enough to keep up. Hard for me to reward the slower horse for being slower.

[Stillriledup]

The 1a wasn't clearing off. Not until Pilares was forced to check.

Of course he was, he was going to win, the race was over, the battle was won and the horse on the outside, despite being carried out, was edging away. The inside jock did the only thing he could, grandstanded and the judges bought it, they never factored in the initial contact was started by the runner up as well as the bumping didnt affect the outcome.

[Knowclew]

Sitting here awake at 4:30 in the morning, decided this would keep my interest...it did.

Totally unbiased, it really could go either way.

If you look only at the last 1/8, I feel the horse has to come down. It does look like the 1 is going to win, and maybe "clear off". But he hadn't yet. I do agree Pilares sold the crap out of it. Why not if you can, I am sure he knew he was well clear of the field.

A closer look once they enter the stretch shows the 2 did come out a little, and did make contact, which may have knocked the 1 slightly off line, as shortly after the tap he starts bearing in.

I do think the action in the turn was nothing more than normal racing, although "if" there was a culprit, it would be the 2.

I don't have a problem with him coming down, but if he stayed up someone else could have started the same thread upset about it going the other way.

[mountainman]

Sitting here awake at 4:30 in the morning, decided this would keep my interest...it did.



Good lord, dude. Try warm milk and an old Burt Lancaster flick entitled "The Swimmer."

On the DQ: Sure, the promoted horse did initiate, but that contact was mild compared to the first finisher dropping over in late stretch. And while I do suspect the best horse was taken down, the incident probably warranted disqualification. Because the 2B did knock his rival off-stride in early stretch, however, I would not have taken much issue with an "official as is."

On a broader note, our stewards can HARDLY be characterized as nitpickers. Their obvious and well-established policy has been to let 'em run. These people do NOT act on ticky-tack fouls.

[Stillriledup]

Good lord, dude. Try warm milk and an old Burt Lancaster flick entitled "The Swimmer."

On the DQ: Sure, the promoted horse did initiate, but that contact was mild compared to the first finisher dropping over in late stretch. And while I do suspect the best horse was taken down, the incident probably warranted disqualification. Because the 2B did knock his rival off-stride in early stretch, however, I would not have taken much issue with an "official as is."

On a broader note, our stewards can HARDLY be characterized as nitpickers. Their obvious and well-established policy has been to let 'em run. These people do NOT act on ticky-tack fouls.

You're a horse racing expert who has seen more races at Mountaineer than all of us combined and you feel that if the winner was left official, you wouldnt have had a problem with it. Can't you make the case that if there's any possible way to leave up the winner, judges should leave them up and pay off the horse who got the wire first?

I've been watching racing a long time and i don't believe i've ever seen a DQ where the horse who started the bumping was rewarded, this was a first for me, i've seen tens of thousands of races spanning over decades.

As far as "letting them run" wasnt there a DQ of a "Famous" top class Mountaineer horse this past summer who won by about 10 lengths and they took that horse down for something that happened early in the race? I dont know the gist of it, but when a horse wins by daylight, shouldnt they pay off that horse?

[Bruiser1]

You're a horse racing expert who has seen more races at Mountaineer than all of us combined and you feel that if the winner was left official, you wouldnt have had a problem with it. Can't you make the case that if there's any possible way to leave up the winner, judges should leave them up and pay off the horse who got the wire first?

I've been watching racing a long time and i don't believe i've ever seen a DQ where the horse who started the bumping was rewarded, this was a first for me, i've seen tens of thousands of races spanning over decades.

As far as "letting them run" wasnt there a DQ of a "Famous" top class Mountaineer horse this past summer who won by about 10 lengths and they took that horse down for something that happened early in the race? I dont know the gist of it, but when a horse wins by daylight, shouldnt they pay off that horse?

Go back and look at the replay. The key (to me) is Bachanan using a right handed stick which caused his mount to impede the path of the rail horse Magical Disguise. Pilares had two choices; Either checking his mount or running into the rail The winning margin isn't always a determining factor when upholding an objection. If you really want to accurately assess blame, look no further than the decision of the jockey on the original winner.

[Stillriledup]

Go back and look at the replay. The key (to me) is Bachanan using a right handed stick which caused his mount to impede the path of the rail horse Magical Disguise. Pilares had two choices; Either checking his mount or running into the rail The winning margin isn't always a determining factor when upholding an objection. If you really want to accurately assess blame, look no further than the decision of the jockey on the original winner.

Some tracks don't make a change if it didnt affect the outcome, Mountaineer seems like they're not one of those tracks.