Astounding DQ at DMR race 1 (Aug 13th)

[Stillriledup]

Beyond words.

[TucsonGreyhound]

Textbook DQ to me.

The :4: had no one near him along the rail then goes out 3 lanes and just hammers the :1:

:1: was leading when the :4: pounds him then goes on to lose by a nose.

[camourous]

Not sure what they saw

[Stillriledup]

Textbook DQ to me.

The :4: had no one near him along the rail then goes out 3 lanes and just hammers the :1:

:1: was leading when the :4: pounds him then goes on to lose by a nose.

So you didnt really watch it is what you're saying?

[banacek]

Textbook DQ to me.

The :4: had no one near him along the rail then goes out 3 lanes and just hammers the :1:

:1: was leading when the :4: pounds him then goes on to lose by a nose.

I had the :4: to win and luckily a cover on the :1: / :4: exacta. I figured the :4: was going to come down. I saw the same thing as you.. :4: came over several lanes and slammed into the :1: causing a loss of momentum.

[DelMarJay]

When you get these 50/50 calls that the stews probably flipped a coin, I'd rather they make no change unless the foul is clearly(which should be more like 95/5) shown.

The inconsistent results do nobody a real favor.

[Stillriledup]

When you get these 50/50 calls that the stews probably flipped a coin, I'd rather they make no change unless the foul is clearly(which should be more like 95/5) shown.

The inconsistent results do nobody a real favor.

Its not even a 50/50 call. When the 4 came out at the top of the lane, the 1 also came in, Than, the 1 lugged onto the winner the entire final 70 yards pushing him down on the fence. The bump didnt cost the 1 the race, he pushed the winner down at the wire and he still couldnt win, he had every chance while causing most of his own problems.

[wisconsin]

Neutral onlooker here-no money riding.

The :1: drifted in ever so slightly while at the same time the :4: bore out hard. Then, kept drifting with the :1: while bumping the :1: 2 more times.

In deep stretch, they both drifted inward, but the :4: again slammed into the :1: hard near the finish.

Not easy, but still enough there to DQ. Sorry.

[Stillriledup]

Neutral onlooker here-no money riding.

The :1: drifted in ever so slightly while at the same time the :4: bore out hard. Then, kept drifting with the :1: while bumping the :1: 2 more times.

In deep stretch, they both drifted inward, but the :4: again slammed into the :1: hard near the finish.

Not easy, but still enough there to DQ. Sorry.

You watched a different race. The 1 pushed the 4 down onto the inside the final yards, there was no "slam" at all.

As far as the 1 drifting "ever so slightly" it doesn't matter, he drifted in, so he was part of his own problem.

None of any of this "contact sport" stuff cost the 1 the race. He was lame, he wasnt game and had every shot, the jock never stopped riding, he didnt "drop back" when he was bumped and he pushed the 4 down to the rail at the end. He wasnt 'cost the race' and that is the 'standard of proof' that So Cal uses.

Well, sometimes they use it.

[theiman]

Vic Stauffer might be able to explain the DQ. I heard he is one of the 3 Stooges, errrr, I mean Stewards, at Del Mar this week.

[cj]

No problem at all with that DQ, thought it would be tough to keep the 4 up even from the pan shot. Once the head on was showed, no brainer in my opinion. Now if they left it, I could live with that because I always favor no DQ, but tough to argue against this one.

[wisconsin]

You watched a different race. The 1 pushed the 4 down onto the inside the final yards, there was no "slam" at all.

As far as the 1 drifting "ever so slightly" it doesn't matter, he drifted in, so he was part of his own problem.

None of any of this "contact sport" stuff cost the 1 the race. He was lame, he wasnt game and had every shot, the jock never stopped riding, he didnt "drop back" when he was bumped and he pushed the 4 down to the rail at the end. He wasnt 'cost the race' and that is the 'standard of proof' that So Cal uses.

Well, sometimes they use it.

Yeah, he pushed the :4: down inside. Oooooooooooooook. Watch it once more. They drifted in together and then the :4: leaned out late. Sorry, we only see what we want to see. Do I like these arguable DQ's, no, but I do see why the horse came down.

[thespaah]

Beyond words.
can you please post a link to the video. dmtc.com requires this idiotic form to "register" for access to race replays....UGH!!!!!!

[ArlJim78]

I don't agree with it. The one didn't deserve to have the stewards hand him the win. He managed to take the lead even after the so-called foul and still couldn't hold on. When two horses stagger home, neither clearly superior to the other, I don't like to see the result manipulated.

[RXB]

I think the winner should've stayed up. I've seen worse calls, I wouldn't call it a terrible decision but I don't agree with it.

[Stillriledup]

I don't agree with it. The one didn't deserve to have the stewards hand him the win. He managed to take the lead even after the so-called foul and still couldn't hold on. When two horses stagger home, neither clearly superior to the other, I don't like to see the result manipulated.

Thank you.

The end result is that in So Cal, they leave the result alone if it didnt affect the outcome. Its extremely hard to see that the 1 would have won otherwise. He had every shot, he even cost the 4 by coming into him late in the race, he had every chance to win and couldn't.

[horses4courses]

I was surprised the :4: came down.

Yes, he initiated the contact turning for home.
It was, also, the heaviest contact between them.

But, down the stretch, I saw the :1: veer in and make contact
more than once. The rider appeared to cause the :1: to swerve
left towards the rail because he was whipping right-handed.
This caused the contact with the :4: on his inside.

I had no interest in this race.
It was a surprise, though, when they made a change.
50/50 blame, imo, shouldn't result in a DQ.

Not the worst call I've seen, though - by a long way.

[Stillriledup]

I was surprised the :4: came down.

Yes, he initiated the contact turning for home.
It was, also, the heaviest contact between them.

But, down the stretch, I saw the :1: veer in and make contact
more than once. The rider appeared to cause the :1: to swerve
left towards the rail because he was whipping right-handed.
This caused the contact with the :4: on his inside.

I had no interest in this race.
It was a surprise, though, when they made a change.
50/50 blame, imo, shouldn't result in a DQ.

Not the worst call I've seen, though - by a long way.

The 1 wasn't maintaining a straight line when the first bump happened. The 1 wasn't 'throw off stride' and the jock didnt stop riding and the horse lost no momentum, had every shot to win, bumped the 4 for good measure costing him some ground and hung on the wire a no excuse 2nd.The people who bet the 1 got a gift because they weren't ever winning otherwise.

[horses4courses]

The 1 wasn't maintaining a straight line when the first bump happened. The 1 wasn't 'throw off stride' and the jock didnt stop riding and the horse lost no momentum, had every shot to win, bumped the 4 for good measure costing him some ground and hung on the wire a no excuse 2nd.The people who bet the 1 got a gift because they weren't ever winning otherwise.

I said that I didn't agree with the call.

However, let me put it this way.
The initial contact coming around the last turn was caused by the :4: .
imo, had there been no further contact down the stretch (which was not
the case), that bump would have been enough to take down the :4: .

The :1: was the culprit the rest of the way.
I don't think he should have been put up.

I would also give the rider of the :1: a brief suspension
for failing to keep a straight course down the stretch,
which likely resulted from right-handed urging.

[RXB]

I said that I didn't agree with the call.

However, let me put it this way.
The initial contact coming around the last turn was caused by the :4: .
imo, had there been no further contact down the stretch (which was not
the case), that bump would have been enough to take down the :4: .

The :1: was the culprit the rest of the way.
I don't think he should have been put up.

I would also give the rider of the :1: a brief suspension
for failing to keep a straight course down the stretch,
which likely resulted from right-handed urging.

That's how I see it, too, except that I find no cause for any suspensions to either jockey. Minor stuff all-around.

[Stillriledup]

I said that I didn't agree with the call.

However, let me put it this way.
The initial contact coming around the last turn was caused by the :4: .
imo, had there been no further contact down the stretch (which was not
the case), that bump would have been enough to take down the :4: .

The :1: was the culprit the rest of the way.
I don't think he should have been put up.

I would also give the rider of the :1: a brief suspension
for failing to keep a straight course down the stretch,
which likely resulted from right-handed urging.

I apologize, i didnt mean to suggest you were wrong, that wasn't my intent.

I see your point about the initial contact, but how could one horse be at fault if both horses were not maintaining a straight line when the first bump happened? I think the judges were thrown off by the appearance that the 4 drifted more, but if the one stays straight, and the 4 bumps him, you have a case.

[SandyW]

Textbook DQ to me.

The :4: had no one near him along the rail then goes out 3 lanes and just hammers the :1:

:1: was leading when the :4: pounds him then goes on to lose by a nose.

What race were you watching ???????

[Stillriledup]

What race were you watching ???????

Not the same one you were.

[JustRalph]

I thought he should have stayed up

Once the :1: gets a head by him, I think the earlier bump becomes moot

[Moto Pete]

I think it would be a good idea for a poll to be posted when questions about a dq is the subject. I'm interested in how the PA community judged this as a whole.

No dog in the fight. After watching the replay, when the 4 came out 3 paths at the top of the stretch and bumped the 1 soundly that was reason enough for me to dq the 4. The fact that the 1 got a head in front and still lost the race means nothing to me. A hard hit like the 4 put on the 1 takes something physically out of a horse, breaks his momentum and sometimes will also intimidate. They both herded in at the finish but I find that inconsequential.

I absolutely HATE IT when 14-1 is taken down for 8-5 because I'm the guy with 14-1. I'm never the guy with 8-5. Sometimes I think it's a PR move when they put the heavy fave up. But not this time. I have to agree with the stewards on this one.

[Poindexter]

I just think this is so similar to so many non dq's I see, where Trevor gets on the mike and will say "well while the stewards acknowledge that the 4 bumped the one, the result did not affect the order of finish". In fact there is no doubt in my mind that if the 4 was 8/5 and the 1 was 14-1, we would have heard Trevor say that exact sentence. I didn't have either horse in there so I really do not care, but I was surprised he came down, because I do not feel it influenced the result.

[Stillriledup]

I think it would be a good idea for a poll to be posted when questions about a dq is the subject. I'm interested in how the PA community judged this as a whole.

No dog in the fight. After watching the replay, when the 4 came out 3 paths at the top of the stretch and bumped the 1 soundly that was reason enough for me to dq the 4. The fact that the 1 got a head in front and still lost the race means nothing to me. A hard hit like the 4 put on the 1 takes something physically out of a horse, breaks his momentum and sometimes will also intimidate. They both herded in at the finish but I find that inconsequential.

I absolutely HATE IT when 14-1 is taken down for 8-5 because I'm the guy with 14-1. I'm never the guy with 8-5. Sometimes I think it's a PR move when they put the heavy fave up. But not this time. I have to agree with the stewards on this one.

Was it just me, or was i the only person who saw the 1 not maintain an exact straight line in the 1 or 2 seconds before he was bumped?

As far as the poll goes, people see what they want to see, there was a race the other night at Mountaineer where a horse smashed into a rival, the horse who got smashed was jarred, it was a jarring hit that was mostly caused by the outside horse, the inside horse came out a hair while the outside horse came in more than a hair...the judges left the result alone, this was a perfect example of horses not maintaining exact straight lines and still the judges just paid the result.

When you or anyone else says no dog in the fight, you all have dogs in the fight, you just don't know it. The dog in the fight you have is that you want DQs made in situations where the judges have no choice........because if you let judges nitpick and "use their opinion" their opinion will change from day to day, week to week and than you have a situation where you have human beings playing god with other people's money.

To me, the problem with this dq, among other things, is that i see stuff like this happen all the time with no change. Horses don't maintain exact straight lines all the time, as a bettor, i just want the standard for a DQ to be very high.

I know So Cal does a pretty good job at leaving results alone that didn't cost a placing, but the rule that they must have is if there's ANY bump at all and the margin is a nose or a neck, the letter of the law is take the horse down. In this particular instance, a little common sense would say that the 1 came in a bit and was at least a minor contributor to his own problem and he also herded the winner late in the race causing that winner to possibly not be able to draw away. If the 4 draws away and wins by 5, they don't make a change even with all other things being equal. How can you say that the 1 leaning into 4 late in the race didn't cost the 4 the ability to draw away and win by a comfortable enough margin as to where the judges would say it didn't affect the outcome?

I'm of the philosophy to just pay the winners unless you absolutely have to go the other way. This was not a situation where you had to make a change as the 4 did come out and bump, but the 1 was coming in at the same time and they met in the middle.

No harm, no foul, didnt affect the outcome, the 1 had every chance to go by but was getting lame and wasn't showing much heart and didnt want to win as badly as the 4 did.....shame a horse who fought his heart out to win and deserved to win, didn't get paid off.

Hopefully these judges have a more higher standard for a DQ than they showed yesterday, this was tough to take if you had the winner.

[Dark Horse]

Textbook DQ by me as well, and a unanimous decision by the stewards.

[Moto Pete]

I admit I was focused on the 4 when I watched the replay so I went back and watched it again. The 1 IMO came in 1 path while the 4 came out 2-3 paths and most importantly instigated the contact. The 1 didn't hit the 4, the 4 hit the 1. DQ right there.

I agree we all have a dog in the fight. My referencing that cliche was meant to show my impartiality. That's all.

I know you got your back up towards people who disagree with you on this but my suggestion of a poll was only meant to enhance the enjoyment of this topic.

I'm east coast and east coast stewards in general take down horses more than their west coast counterparts. I have to say over the years I've been more incensed over the lack of action from the west than I have from the action of the east. Horse racing is no different from any other sport. Follow the rules.

[Stillriledup]

I admit I was focused on the 4 when I watched the replay so I went back and watched it again. The 1 IMO came in 1 path while the 4 came out 2-3 paths and most importantly instigated the contact. The 1 didn't hit the 4, the 4 hit the 1. DQ right there.

I agree we all have a dog in the fight. My referencing that cliche was meant to show my impartiality. That's all.

I know you got your back up towards people who disagree with you on this but my suggestion of a poll was only meant to enhance the enjoyment of this topic.

I'm east coast and east coast stewards in general take down horses more than their west coast counterparts. I have to say over the years I've been more incensed over the lack of action from the west than I have from the action of the east. Horse racing is no different from any other sport. Follow the rules.

Good post.

The rules are just interpretations, they're not set in stone. My point was that they take down horses on whims and leave horses up on whims and the inconsistency is maddening. My belief is that you only DQ the horses that you have no other choice in the matter, those are the most obvious 1 out of 1,000 dq, not a situation where both horses contributed.

As far as the 4 coming out more, all bets are off if one horse comes in and the other one comes out, if the 1 maintained a straight line and was bumped, so be it. If two horses are drifting towards each other, and contact is made in a contact sport, you 'let them play' and pay the winners.

The jock on the 4 corrected as soon as he could have yet the guy on the 1 kept whipping right handed coming down into the winner yet, he was the one who got rewarded.

[cj]

Horses almost never maintain a straight line, that is a standard that could never be applied.

[Moto Pete]

Oh I agree Guiterrez whipping right handed through deep stretch was damning but he didn't benefit. I guess it all boils down to the bump at the top of the stretch. If you feel that was sufficient enough for a dq then it's done. If not then no. It's that simple.

[TucsonGreyhound]

the rule that they must have is if there's ANY bump at all and the margin is a nose or a neck, the letter of the law is take the horse down.

Yes, that is pretty much the way the rule is written. If the :4: had gone on to win by more than a length they probably would not have dropped him to 2nd.

Below is CA rule #1699 which defines it pretty clearly. You should familiarize yourself with Part (a) next time you decide to complain about the leader not running in an "exact straight line."



During the running of the race: (a) A leading horse is entitled to any part of the course but when another horse is attempting to pass in a clear opening the leading horse shall not cross over so as to compel the passing horse to shorten its stride. (b) A horse shall not interfere with or cause any other horse to lose stride, ground or position in a part of the race where the horse loses the opportunity to place where it might be reasonably expected to finish. (c) A horse which interferes with another and thereby causes any other horse to lose stride, ground or position, when such other horse is not at fault and when such interference occurs in a part of the race where the horse interfered with loses the opportunity to place where it might, in the opinion of the Stewards, be reasonably expected to finish, may be disqualified and placed behind the horse so interfered with. (d) Jockeys shall not ride carelessly, or willfully, so as to permit their mount to interfere with or impede any other horse. (e) Jockeys shall not willfully strike or strike at another horse or jockey so as to impede, interfere with, intimidate, or injure. (f) If a jockey rides in a manner contrary to this rule, the mount may be disqualified and the jockey may be suspended or otherwise disciplined by the Stewards.

[banacek]

As I said earlier..it cost me money, but I expected the dq. Clearly there is a difference of opinion on this, but in no way was the decision "astounding" or "beyond words" as was initially posted. I have had a few "Beyer hole in the wall" dq's through decades of betting the races. This was not even close to one that I would get upset about.

It is a difference of opinion, nothing more or less..nobody's opinion is right or wrong.

[Stillriledup]

Horses almost never maintain a straight line, that is a standard that could never be applied.

In my opinion, this was the standard that they applied here. Sometimes they permit horses to not run exactly straight, other times they don't.

Why they didn't take into consideration that the 1 came in when he was bumped is only a question that god could answer.

Too bad God isn't a PA member.

[Moto Pete]

I think we all should be stewards for a week. Only then will we really know what really goes on in circumstances like this.

[Stillriledup]

As I said earlier..it cost me money, but I expected the dq. Clearly there is a difference of opinion on this, but in no way was the decision "astounding" or "beyond words" as was initially posted. I have had a few "Beyer hole in the wall" dq's through decades of betting the races. This was not even close to one that I would get upset about.

It is a difference of opinion, nothing more or less..nobody's opinion is right or wrong.

Its a matter of philosophy. There are mostly 2 kinds of DQs in the world, most fit under one of two categories. The really obvious ones, or the ones that could go either way. My argument is that if it could go "either way" you leave up the winners, you pay the winners so you don't have to interject an 'opinion'.

Go back to the 1st race at Santa Anita on Jan 2, 2014. THAT was a DQ a blind man could make. That DQ needed no "opinion" to be rendered. THAT is ONLY kind of DQ that i want them to make...if they have to think about it and decide if it could go "either way" err on the side of paying the winner.

[banacek]

Its a matter of philosophy. There are mostly 2 kinds of DQs in the world, most fit under one of two categories. The really obvious ones, or the ones that could go either way. My argument is that if it could go "either way" you leave up the winners, you pay the winners so you don't have to interject an 'opinion'.

Go back to the 1st race at Santa Anita on Jan 2, 2014. THAT was a DQ a blind man could make. That DQ needed no "opinion" to be rendered. THAT is ONLY kind of DQ that i want them to make...if they have to think about it and decide if it could go "either way" err on the side of paying the winner.

I don't disagree with your philosophy. I would say the same thing about pass interference in football.

I could live with it that way. But we don't make the rules.

[ArlJim78]

Yes, that is pretty much the way the rule is written. If the :4: had gone on to win by more than a length they probably would not have dropped him to 2nd.

Below is CA rule #1699 which defines it pretty clearly. You should familiarize yourself with Part (a) next time you decide to complain about the leader not running in an "exact straight line."



During the running of the race: (a) A leading horse is entitled to any part of the course but when another horse is attempting to pass in a clear opening the leading horse shall not cross over so as to compel the passing horse to shorten its stride. (b) A horse shall not interfere with or cause any other horse to lose stride, ground or position in a part of the race where the horse loses the opportunity to place where it might be reasonably expected to finish. (c) A horse which interferes with another and thereby causes any other horse to lose stride, ground or position, when such other horse is not at fault and when such interference occurs in a part of the race where the horse interfered with loses the opportunity to place where it might, in the opinion of the Stewards, be reasonably expected to finish, may be disqualified and placed behind the horse so interfered with. (d) Jockeys shall not ride carelessly, or willfully, so as to permit their mount to interfere with or impede any other horse. (e) Jockeys shall not willfully strike or strike at another horse or jockey so as to impede, interfere with, intimidate, or injure. (f) If a jockey rides in a manner contrary to this rule, the mount may be disqualified and the jockey may be suspended or otherwise disciplined by the Stewards.
Hard to make the case that the 1 was caused to shorten stride, or lost ground or position. I didn't see anything like that.
The effect on the 1 of the drifting out was minuscule and if anything probably cost the 4 as much as much as it did the 1.
It was just too close of a race with too little in the way of drifting or bumping for the stewards to assume that they can ascertain the proper correction with any degree of certainty.

[Stillriledup]

Horses almost never maintain a straight line, that is a standard that could never be applied.

So it wasn't applied in Race 6 today at DMR?

[bks]

That was a repulsive, sickening, DQ. I'm unable to communicate how bad it was. It cost me plenty, too, but I challenge anyone to defend this terrible decision.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't understand how any, relatively hardened horseplayer, still wastes energy getting all upset over a DQ.

Stewards have always been inconsistent, ever since I started betting back in the late 80s. Do you guys think it was much different back then? Opinions and judgement calls weren't made? People don't look at EVERY INQUIRY just a little bit differently than the last?

I learned early on pretty much to accept these things as is. Sometimes they go against you, and sometimes they go in your favor. Nothing you can do except quit the game if you don't want to deal with this kind of thing on a semi-regular basis.

It's NEVER going to get to the point where you're going to be satisfied with EVERY decision. NEVER. Too much human judgement, varying opinions, and live flesh and blood out on the track.

So either accept it as part of the game, or wear yourself out getting pissed off every time a call goes against you.

These threads give off the vibe for some of you who have been involved in racing for years, that you just picked up the hobby last month. :lol:

[Tom]

You never get used to being robbed the the Three Stooges.
Maybe that is why gaming is doing so good - the know who the customer is.
Just another part of the game that has gone broken for decades and the power that be could not care less about - after all, they are just suckers who will bet the next race no matter what we do.

Make the stewards sit out in the crowd, where they can be reached.
That should fix it. Take away their safe room.

[PaceAdvantage]

A ridiculous answer Tom. Nothing has changed as far as inquiries go, since I took up the game.

So....

Either you do away with DQs completely and it's every man (and horse) for himself out there, or you continue as-is with judges often times being forced to make very subjective decisions.

[Tom]

Of course that is the standard answer to all racing problems - nothing we can do about it.

Or want to.

I say there is much that could be done if racing were not run by dead tree stumps in the front offices.

Open your mind, get off your duff.
Two thing not likely to happen at the track.

[Dark Horse]

One solution, as I suggested before, would be a national center where all videos are instantly analyzed.

The level of stewarding at DMR may actually be up this week, but it's inconsistent with the accepted standard. Raise that standard, and it would benefit honest racing, and therefore handicappers as well.

[Stillriledup]

A ridiculous answer Tom. Nothing has changed as far as inquiries go, since I took up the game.

So....

Either you do away with DQs completely and it's every man (and horse) for himself out there, or you continue as-is with judges often times being forced to make very subjective decisions.

Why not have 2 separate betting pools and give horseplayers an option to get paid as is and give horseplayers an option to have 3 random people play god with their money. If you want to accept human judgement in the results, you can bet into the stewarding pool, nobody will stop you.

[thaskalos]

Why not have 2 separate betting pools and give horseplayers an option to get paid as is and give horseplayers an option to have 3 random people play god with their money. If you want to accept human judgement in the results, you can bet into the stewarding pool, nobody will stop you.
Two betting pools? Aren't today's pools small enough already?

[banacek]

Seriously, as a horseplayer it took me years to learn to not get so emotional about these types of things. When they took the horse down I said a quiet (but expected) 'damn' and went onto the next race.

30 years ago I would get all upset. It would mess me up for days sometimes. That's more money down the drain. But when I look at it through the years I have been a beneficiary of many questionable DQs, so in the long run it doesn't matter.

Watch an NFL game. See a questionable PI call. Sometimes it makes the difference in the game. But rarely does it affect the players except for that instant. That's the only way a professional can deal with it. They have many more plays to go..and we have many more races.

If you want to try to change the criteria, fine. But (as PA said) the way they do it now is pretty much the way they've done it as long as I can remember.

[Stillriledup]

Two betting pools? Aren't today's pools small enough already?

Racing still hasn't done away with Quinellas, which siphons a few grand away from the exacta pool. The Q was invented before racing had the capability to have a 1 dollar exacta box, that was a bet that cost 2 dollars instead of the standard 4 dollars for a 2 dollar exa box. Now, the Q player can do a 1 dollar exa box, it costs the same as the 2 dollar Q.

Honestly, i'd rather have the option of being paid when i win, there's always going to be something you 'give up' when changes are made, but this gives players the option. With my idea, you won't have a player put in a position where he or she might have to "quit the game" after feeling like they got robbed.

[Stillriledup]

Seriously, as a horseplayer it took me years to learn to not get so emotional about these types of things. When they took the horse down I said a quiet (but expected) 'damn' and went onto the next race.

30 years ago I would get all upset. It would mess me up for days sometimes. That's more money down the drain. But when I look at it through the years I have been a beneficiary of many questionable DQs, so in the long run it doesn't matter.

Watch an NFL game. See a questionable PI call. Sometimes it makes the difference in the game. But rarely does it affect the players except for that instant. That's the only way a professional can deal with it. They have many more plays to go..and we have many more races.

If you want to try to change the criteria, fine. But (as PA said) the way they do it now is pretty much the way they've done it as long as I can remember.

You're still emotional, you're just better at dealing with it outwardly. A DQ still hurts badly, but if its a DQ that could have gone "either way" it hurts 10X more. If you go back and watch the first race at Santa Anita on Jan 2, you'll see the blueprint for a legit DQ, a severe bump where the jock almost fell off. A jarring hit. If THAT is the standard that is applied to DQs and everything else just gets paid and is made official, wouldn't we be much better off? Wouldn't we take out the guesswork and actually honor the physical result?

The physical result should matter so much that it takes something dramatic to alter it....and, the last 2 days at DMR change that standard to "if you win, hold your breath as you might have to win twice".

[banacek]

You're still emotional, you're just better at dealing with it outwardly..

Never. Not if I want to make money at this game.

[Poindexter]

The shot that Dark Horse is talking about is slightly past the 6:00 mark of the race replay on calracing.com(free service). Admittedly from that shot, perhaps the incident looks a little incriminating on the dq'd horse. He did drift out, the bothered horse did take up and lost position(got passed for 3rd). That being said, the winner was drifting in quite a bit in the lane, which certainly sealed the deal on the hole being closed off and more importantly was it reasonable for the horse that was bothered have claim of that hole(it was there for a very short duration-as you wills see on the head ons). Obviously the stewards felt he had claim on it. Based off that I cannot say that the dq was without merit, but, as mentioned by SRU, calls like this either set a precedent or lead to a lot of inconsistency. When horses start getting dq's every time a jockey tries to go up a hole that may or not actually exist................... a very slippery slope. IMO, I think it should be a clear hole that was closed up leading to the dq, and not a brief hole that jockey took a gamble and lost on closing up. Also I will bring up the point again, if this horse was the 2-1 favorite with Mike Smith riding, he is not coming down, but because he is a longshot with a low profile rider they take him down (I think this issue bothers me more than the judgement issue).

[Poindexter]

Disregard last post as it belongs in other thread. Back to the subject, I think the sport/game would be better served(I believe that this is the point SRU is trying to make), if it used "beyond a reasonable doubt", like our criminal justice system does and not "preponderance of the evidence" like our civil courts do. I have no idea what the current standard is, but I find it impossible to believe they are currently using "beyond a reasonable doubt". If there are 3 stewards and 2 say that beyond a reasonable doubt this horse should come down than take him down. If only 1 or less can make that claim, leave him up.

[Big Sal]

The horse who crossed the wire first did come out a couple of paths at the top of the lane, make contact, and herd a bit.

After that it was mutual contact when they together later in the stretch, if anything, more the 1 coming in, than the 4 coming out.

However, the eventual winner via DQ was vanned off after the race. He seemed to be on his way to an easy victory on the far turn, before the contact occured.

The rider of the eventual winner via DQ also claimed foul.

Said horse was taking a huge "for sale sign" class drop out of Graded Stakes company, coupled with a long layoff.

You have to wonder, if the horse wasn't vanned off, do the stewards make the same call?

On merit, I thought it was 70-30 to stay up...but the jockey objected and the horse was vanned off after the race...and the rider of the horse who crossed the wire first was a bug-rider (I don't think a Mike Smith is getting taken down for that)

[Moto Pete]

If I ever get to the point where I don't get emotional over an unfair (in my mind) dq then that's when I'll know it's time to throw the dirt over me.