Race 8 DQ

[jk3521]

BOGUS !

Imagine engineering this putover since last October and then getting disqualified? :bang:

[horses4courses]

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but this didn't look right.

The :3: was the wiseguy bet down of the meet,
All I could see for track TV coverage during the inquiry
was shots of people and horses standing around.

The view they showed afterwards was not a head-on shot.
Certainly, there probably was contact.
It would be nice to see it, though, to determine whether
it cost the runner-up a placing.

The disqualified :1: looked like a deserving winner from what I saw.

[thespaah]

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but this didn't look right.

The :3: was the wiseguy bet down of the meet,
All I could see for track TV coverage during the inquiry
was shots of people and horses standing around.

The view they showed afterwards was not a head-on shot.
Certainly, there probably was contact.
It would be nice to see it, though, to determine whether
it cost the runner-up a placing.

The disqualified :1: looked like a deserving winner from what I saw.
NYRA showed the head on. I watched it on HRTV.
The :1: came over 3 or 4 paths and bothered the :3: causing that horse to check and lose action.
This was one of those deals where the DQ was not one which cost a runner position, but more of a penalty for failure to maintain course. JMHO...
I believe the :1: was the best horse in the race. However, safety must be maintained and that is why I believe the DQ was justified..

[horses4courses]

NYRA showed the head on. I watched it on HRTV.
The :1: came over 3 or 4 paths and bothered the :3: causing that horse to check and lose action.
This was one of those deals where the DQ was not one which cost a runner position, but more of a penalty for failure to maintain course. JMHO...
I believe the :1: was the best horse in the race. However, safety must be maintained and that is why I believe the DQ was justified..

I'm with you.
I missed it. I'll watch a replay soon.

I had no interest in the race,
and I have baseball on TV with my laptop for racing.
Just felt it unusual that the track feed wasn't showing much.

[classhandicapper]

I can see how some people could think that was a legitimate DQ, but I disagree with the philosophy that gets you there.

My feeling on this continues to be that a horse should only get DQ'd when it interferes with another horse and clearly costs that horse a finishing position. Without a hard standard, you get into more subjective territory and inconsistent rulings. IMO you should deal with the safety issue as a separate matter by fining or giving jockeys days.

The :3: was clearly interfered with, but IMO the race was essentially over when the infraction occurred. The :1: had the race won. By my standard the winner stands and you review the tapes and talk the jockey as a separate matter.

[jk3521]

Just think how Albertrani feels !

[tanner12oz]

I can see how some people could think that was a legitimate DQ, but I disagree with the philosophy that gets you there.

My feeling on this continues to be that a horse should only get DQ'd when it interferes with another horse and clearly costs that horse a finishing position. Without a hard standard, you get into more subjective territory and inconsistent rulings. IMO you should deal with the safety issue as a separate matter by fining or giving jockeys days.

The :3: was clearly interfered with, but IMO the race was essentially over when the infraction occurred. The :1: had the race won. By my standard the winner stands and you review the tapes and talk the jockey as a separate matter.

the NFL still calls penalties in garbage time..

[Stillriledup]

the NFL still calls penalties in garbage time..

Yes, but they only penalize the participants, not the fans.

[Stillriledup]

NYRA showed the head on. I watched it on HRTV.
The :1: came over 3 or 4 paths and bothered the :3: causing that horse to check and lose action.
This was one of those deals where the DQ was not one which cost a runner position, but more of a penalty for failure to maintain course. JMHO...
I believe the :1: was the best horse in the race. However, safety must be maintained and that is why I believe the DQ was justified..

Some circuits, including the major SO Cal circuit has no problem punishing jocks on horses who aren't taken down, which means you don't have to DQ in order to fine or suspend someone.

Why do you think its best to punish the hard working horseplayer and owner in order to make a point to the jock?

[horses4courses]

Some circuits, including the major SO Cal circuit has no problem punishing jocks on horses who aren't taken down, which means you don't have to DQ in order to fine or suspend someone.

Why do you think its best to punish the hard working horseplayer and owner in order to make a point to the jock?

The irony here is that by leaving the :1: up, they would have punished many
more horseplayers, as the :3: was heavily bet.

The :1: looked close to uncontrollable as he veered over towards the rail.
The contact was minimal. Had there been much more, the :3: and Rosie
Napravnik could have gone over the rail.

I can't disagree with the call.
There was definite interference.
You would have to consider the :1: very unlucky, though.

[Stillriledup]

The irony here is that by leaving the :1: up, they would have punished many
more horseplayers, as the :3: was heavily bet.

The :1: looked close to uncontrollable as he veered over towards the rail.
The contact was minimal. Had there been much more, the :3: and Rosie
Napravnik could have gone over the rail.

I can't disagree with the call.
There was definite interference.
You would have to consider the :1: very unlucky, though.

It goes deeper than just viewing the "punished" as the ones who came down, if wrong calls are made, and the integrity of the game is soiled, and all horseplayers suffer. The game suffers if judges don't hold the slower horse to a higher standard. The winners won, and in order to take that away from them, there needs to be something above and beyond the ordinary...not just some "50/50" call where it could go either way, so we decided to reward the slower animal.

A very high percentage of interference in this game is "slower" horses getting interfered with, horses who are 2 wide turning for home and the 3 wide horse sweeps around the leader and the 2 wide horse and lugs in when he clears off...and the 2 wide horse "Takes up" because he wasnt fast enough to keep up with the 3 wide sweeper. Or, a horse coming from behind trying to fit thru a little keyhole and the leader moves an inch either way and the slower runner takes up and the jock puts on a show and the judges buy it.

Its SO hard to win in this game, whether you're a horse, a jock, an owner or a bettor....that if you physically win, something drastic had to happen for them to take that away from you...if you're a judge and you hold the DQ to that extremely high standard, you'll be more consistent and the game will be better because of it.

[EMD4ME]

It goes deeper than just viewing the "punished" as the ones who came down, if wrong calls are made, and the integrity of the game is soiled, and all horseplayers suffer. The game suffers if judges don't hold the slower horse to a higher standard. The winners won, and in order to take that away from them, there needs to be something above and beyond the ordinary...not just some "50/50" call where it could go either way, so we decided to reward the slower animal.

A very high percentage of interference in this game is "slower" horses getting interfered with, horses who are 2 wide turning for home and the 3 wide horse sweeps around the leader and the 2 wide horse and lugs in when he clears off...and the 2 wide horse "Takes up" because he wasnt fast enough to keep up with the 3 wide sweeper. Or, a horse coming from behind trying to fit thru a little keyhole and the leader moves an inch either way and the slower runner takes up and the jock puts on a show and the judges buy it.

Its SO hard to win in this game, whether you're a horse, a jock, an owner or a bettor....that if you physically win, something drastic had to happen for them to take that away from you...if you're a judge and you hold the DQ to that extremely high standard, you'll be more consistent and the game will be better because of it.

Ditto.... plus did anyone realize that this race was run in a heavy rain on a course changing from firm to yielding? Doesn't that create a unique scenario where thru judges can give some leeway.

That horse was pulling away when he came over, the second horse did not lose a placing. PAY THE WINNERS, FINE THE JOCK.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, but they only penalize the participants, not the fans.In horse racing, as opposed to the NFL, fans ARE participants. I thought that was one of your core beliefs...

[Stillriledup]

In horse racing, as opposed to the NFL, fans ARE participants. I thought that was one of your core beliefs...

I should have said on field participants. My bad.

[burnsy]

I can see how some people could think that was a legitimate DQ, but I disagree with the philosophy that gets you there.

My feeling on this continues to be that a horse should only get DQ'd when it interferes with another horse and clearly costs that horse a finishing position. Without a hard standard, you get into more subjective territory and inconsistent rulings. IMO you should deal with the safety issue as a separate matter by fining or giving jockeys days.

The :3: was clearly interfered with, but IMO the race was essentially over when the infraction occurred. The :1: had the race won. By my standard the winner stands and you review the tapes and talk the jockey as a separate matter.

I didn't have either one but that's my problem with a call like this. The :1: was winning that race no matter what. The safety issue is the jockeys responsibility, not anybody else's. You can punish the jockey without screwing everyone else involved. If there was anyway the :3: could of won......I could see the DQ but the :1: was winning that race for fun. The stewards discretion is awful so many times and these things are a coin toss. Safety is an issue but the safety of peoples wallets, integrity and fairness should be held to a higher standard too. If that horse had any chance of winning I could see the DQ........ but it didn't. You can handle that differently than screwing the poor bastard that was lucky enough to have that best horse in the race that day. I was sitting inside yesterday and saw more than one person storm out of there bitching about this. Burnsy usually doesn't like conspiracies but longshots have been disproportionately taken down here the last couple of years. Don't believe me? Take a look at the charts. When there's a non call, its usually logical contenders. It should not be a popularity poll...which by appearances, it seems to be. The offended horse should have a chance to win to get that benefit.....if its getting passed like its standing still....too bad, so sad. The punishment can be dealt out without fiascos like this. I even heard people that cashed saying they never should of. If that horse got beat for second...I could see that too......but that didn't happen either.

[Tom]

"Fans" are customers.
A fact racing has not fully grasped yet.
And never will.

[Stillriledup]

"Fans" are customers.
A fact racing has not fully grasped yet.
And never will.

I agree.

People are fans of their pockets first and foremost. I'm a fan of ME and my wallet, the rest of the stuff is just conversation.

[BMustang]

I guess my beef is inconsistency. Earlier in the meet, horses were getting knocked sideways and it was the wild, wild, west out there with no changes made. This week we get two takedowns that would have stood two or three weeks ago. Again, no consistency.

[burnsy]

"Fans" are customers.
A fact racing has not fully grasped yet.
And never will.

And that's racings problem....has been for years. Treat CUSTOMERS (fans) like shit while everyone else is kissing ass to acquire more CUSTOMERS (fans). Then they sit there like this decline is some Nancy Drew mystery. The worst thing to do to a BETTING CUSTOMER (fan, bettor) is make them feel like there's price gouging, collusion, favoritism or cahoots. There's bookies in the streets that give people better treatment and they wonder why the casinos kick their ass in.....regardless of take out! I go to the Racino regularly because the simulcast is upstairs. I ask people I know that play the slots why they don't play horses. About 75% say because of the bullshit in horse racing and the way they are treated. ie. the start up prices, program, parking etc., drugs, cheating and incidents like yesterday. If people didn't love horses and this game....it would be on life support right now.....and some places it already is. I heard one guy bitching by the time he parked his car, got a form and went into the track to his seat....he was down 60 bucks because his wife was with him. Then someone like that sees their 120 dollar winner taken down like that? Gee, I wonder why people are turning to go elsewhere?:bang: Last week...leave em up...next week take em down?????? In case people don't actually watch........there's bumping, jostling and shut offs in almost every other race...they can't judge them better??????????? The :11: T Sizzle who I had , took the worst of it....that's turf racing.

[thespaah]

I can see how some people could think that was a legitimate DQ, but I disagree with the philosophy that gets you there.

My feeling on this continues to be that a horse should only get DQ'd when it interferes with another horse and clearly costs that horse a finishing position. Without a hard standard, you get into more subjective territory and inconsistent rulings. IMO you should deal with the safety issue as a separate matter by fining or giving jockeys days.

The :3: was clearly interfered with, but IMO the race was essentially over when the infraction occurred. The :1: had the race won. By my standard the winner stands and you review the tapes and talk the jockey as a separate matter.
I can roll with that. However, there are other considerations. Purse money being the main issue.
If it were my horse that was bothered to the point where the rider had to hit the brakes so as to cost my horse any chance of winning, I'd want a DQ of the offender from the Stews as well.
Here's the conundrum. We've gotten used to a system whereby the official results and placings have ties the pari-mutuel to the purse distribution.
In an ideal world, these in some cases would be separated.
For example, Let's say in the race here. The bettors get the finish as it happened because as most could plainly see, the :1: was going to win.
So now, with the changed rules, we then have the Stewards adjust the finish for purse purposes only. Of course this would most likely create even more controversy as trainers and owners would protest with "how can you( Stewards) say there is no interference when dealing with the bettors, but say there IS interference and adjust the finish for purse only"?
With the clout horsemen have over racetrack managements and so on, this change will probably never happen.

[BMustang]

There is such a thing. It's called Greyhound racing.