Andy Beyer says stewards' BC Classic call was the right one

[horses4courses]

http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-stewards-made-right-call-classic-bayern-deserving-champ

Personally, I'm not sure what this man is smoking these days,
but I know that he has enough loyal disciples to get the
obligatory "oohs and ahhs" going.

[Tom]

He is entitles to his opinion.
However, he's wrong.
His opinion has nothing to do with his fiqures.

You have a very weird perception of people.

[horses4courses]

. There was no DQ because stewards almost never disqualify a horse – in any race, big or small – for actions like Bayern’s. Horses don’t run like trains on a track. In the first stride or two of almost every Thoroughbred race, there is inevitable jostling and bumping. Penalizing horses for one unavoidable bump in the first stride would create chaos in the sport.

[Mr_Ed]

Beyer need glasses?

Again, for the 100th time......................this WAS NOT your normal bump 'n run.

Goof.

[Scanman]

More nonsense and this coming from Beyer.

As far as racing press goes, I have to agree with Finley on this one.

http://espn.go.com/horse-racing/story/_/id/11806565/bayern-disqualified

[horses4courses]

You have a very weird perception of people.

If we were in sync on something like that, I would be concerned.

It just interests me how many peoples' opinions might be swayed
by what Beyer writes.

As you state yourself, you feel he is wrong.
I agree.
Trouble is, figures aside, many take what this man has to say as gospel.

[dnlgfnk]

I haven't been a loyal disciple since Andy wrote two successive works after "Picking Winners", based upon the insights of his friend "Charlie" ("It's not how fast they run, it's how they run fast that counts"), but then seems not to have gone beyond the most simplistic applications of it, unable to venture too far from top figure horses.

However, for the first time in a long time, I completely agree with him.

[horses4courses]

I haven't been a loyal disciple since Andy wrote two successive works after "Picking Winners", based upon the insights of his friend "Charlie" ("It's not how fast they run, it's how they run fast that counts"), but then seems not to have gone beyond the most simplistic applications of it, unable to venture too far from top figure horses.

However, for the first time in a long time, I completely agree with him.

There are 3 positions that anyone can take on this issue.

(A) You agree that the stewards made the right call.

(B) You believe that the stewards made the wrong call.

(C) The stewards call might have been wrong, but it was inevitable.
What has gone on for years dictated that there would be no DQ.
That doesn't make the call the correct one.

I'm in the "C" camp.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's almost as if some people here have never watched a head-on break before. Are you guys all newbies?

I knew right away they were not going to DQ Bayern. And so should all of you. If you've been watching races for any length of time, that is...

Especially since it was the Breeders' Cup Classic. Why some people are acting so shocked and surprised is beyond me.

Was it the right call? That I can not say. Was it a consistent call? Given where the incident took place in the race and what kind of race it was?

Absolutely.

[letswastemoney]

It's almost as if some people here have never watched a head-on break before. Are you guys all newbies?

I knew right away they were not going to DQ Bayern. And so should all of you. If you've been watching races for any length of time, that is...

Especially since it was the Breeders' Cup Classic. Why some people are acting so shocked and surprised is beyond me.

Was it the right call? That I can not say. Was it a consistent call? Given where the incident took place in the race and what kind of race it was?

Absolutely.I agree. I've watched racing for over 20 years, and it seemed consistent with the times my tickets were screwed over by something that happened at the start.

If this was a 10k claimer, no one would care.

[Stillriledup]

It's almost as if some people here have never watched a head-on break before. Are you guys all newbies?

I knew right away they were not going to DQ Bayern. And so should all of you. If you've been watching races for any length of time, that is...

Especially since it was the Breeders' Cup Classic. Why some people are acting so shocked and surprised is beyond me.

Was it the right call? That I can not say. Was it a consistent call? Given where the incident took place in the race and what kind of race it was?

Absolutely.

Unless its the 5th race at Charlestown on Feb 25th, 2014.

Yes, it was just as consistent as the first ever Breeders Cup Classic, no DQ in there, no, none.

[PaceAdvantage]

I guess we've all just been taken to school by SRU. Better close the thread now.

[iceknight]

... Are you guys all newbies?


Was it the right call? That I can not say. in other words, you are happy with status quo. Enjoy the drugs in the sport too, and the pink glasses and the kool aid.

The bigger problem seems to be hear that you are surprised that people have opinions other than your own and you cannot deal with it.

[PaceAdvantage]

in other words, you are happy with status quo. Enjoy the drugs in the sport too, and the pink glasses and the kool aid.

The bigger problem seems to be hear that you are surprised that people have opinions other than your own and you cannot deal with it.Interesting assessment.

Care to offer an example of how I show I can't deal with differing opinions?

At least I'm mature enough to know that any decision will not be embraced fully by the masses. If they DQ'd the horse, there would be criticisms here...probably from the same people who are criticizing them for NOT DQing the horse!! :lol:

After all, SRU's motto is that at HIS racetrack, the winners get paid, and there are no DQs...now he's bitching about DQs...funny stuff...but I'm the one who can't deal? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[nijinski]

It's almost as if some people here have never watched a head-on break before. Are you guys all newbies?

I knew right away they were not going to DQ Bayern. And so should all of you. If you've been watching races for any length of time, that is...

Especially since it was the Breeders' Cup Classic. Why some people are acting so shocked and surprised is beyond me.

Was it the right call? That I can not say. Was it a consistent call? Given where the incident took place in the race and what kind of race it was?

Absolutely.

I think most here were aware that he wasn't coming down . That for the same reasons you mentioned .
For some they're sore at Baffert . For many , including myself , they lost .
If Bayern came down but there would e other threads condemning the
DQ.
My take...
If the race is lost at the gate for something unavoidable ,that's just bad
luck . When it appears aided , could be unfair .
Is it not time to treat big races with the same rules they would on any
other day ? Also the gate infraction rules could use revision , badly .

I wonder how many lengths were lost by that mess yesterday . Likely
more than some other infractions we've seen elsewhere on the track .

NY stewards have taken Maragh down for gate antics . I would think and
would hope those rulings would have stood the same if it were in a Classic
race . I'd like to believe there is integrity within those decisions
Some here have doubts regarding the Cali stewards . I'm undecided

I say this and I also know "be careful what you wish for" . I'm well aware
as a bettor I can be on either end of an inquiry and DQ . LOL .

[Stillriledup]

Interesting assessment.

Care to offer an example of how I show I can't deal with differing opinions?

At least I'm mature enough to know that any decision will not be embraced fully by the masses. If they DQ'd the horse, there would be criticisms here...probably from the same people who are criticizing them for NOT DQing the horse!! :lol:

After all, SRU's motto is that at HIS racetrack, the winners get paid, and there are no DQs...now he's bitching about DQs...funny stuff...but I'm the one who can't deal? :lol: :lol: :lol:

At MY (MINE MINE ALL MINE) racetrack, i would have set a long standing precedent that if you bet at SRU, WE PAY WINNERS.

Now, i'll tell you what SRU would offer the gambler (besides 1.25 coffee and low takeout rates) is the option to bet into the "stewardless pool" Yes, that's right, only at SRU can you decide if you want to bet into the "meddling" pool or the "pay me if i win" pool. So, there would be no bettors complaining if the BCC was run at SRU.

So, back to the precedent. Unfortunately in horse racing, there are some tracks that don't honor the long standing "bumps at the start get paid" mantra. I had money taken out of my pocket for a bump like this at CT earlier this year.

My long standing position on DQs has been this. Pay the winners unless you absolutely have to make a call. To me, this was a no brainer DQ, you can't crash into a horse in that fashion and get away with it. If the bump happened and it was less severe and Bayern's rider made a more serious attempt to straighten his horse out, he would have stayed up.

If i had bet Bayern i would have thought to myself "im down" and then been shocked that they paid me.

[nijinski]

I read somewhere Eric Guillot lost his Baffert doll , that's what happened
folks !

[aaron]

It's almost as if some people here have never watched a head-on break before. Are you guys all newbies?

I knew right away they were not going to DQ Bayern. And so should all of you. If you've been watching races for any length of time, that is...

Especially since it was the Breeders' Cup Classic. Why some people are acting so shocked and surprised is beyond me.

Was it the right call? That I can not say. Was it a consistent call? Given where the incident took place in the race and what kind of race it was?

Absolutely.
I agree and I also feel that the horse would have stayed up no matter where the race was run. NewYork,Kentucky,Florida-no DQ.They just don't take horses down one step out of the gate. Was it the right call ? I just don't know. If I had the 2nd horse,I would certainly be rooting for a DQ. If you watch the race the 2nd horse might have done more damage than the first,somehow a double DQ was not happening.If you are judging by stewards being consistent,then it was a good call.

[castaway01]

At MY (MINE MINE ALL MINE) racetrack, i would have set a long standing precedent that if you bet at SRU, WE PAY WINNERS.

Now, i'll tell you what SRU would offer the gambler (besides 1.25 coffee and low takeout rates) is the option to bet into the "stewardless pool" Yes, that's right, only at SRU can you decide if you want to bet into the "meddling" pool or the "pay me if i win" pool. So, there would be no bettors complaining if the BCC was run at SRU.

So, back to the precedent. Unfortunately in horse racing, there are some tracks that don't honor the long standing "bumps at the start get paid" mantra. I had money taken out of my pocket for a bump like this at CT earlier this year.

My long standing position on DQs has been this. Pay the winners unless you absolutely have to make a call. To me, this was a no brainer DQ, you can't crash into a horse in that fashion and get away with it. If the bump happened and it was less severe and Bayern's rider made a more serious attempt to straighten his horse out, he would have stayed up.

If i had bet Bayern i would have thought to myself "im down" and then been shocked that they paid me.

So you've posted thousands of times there should be no DQ, it's your whole Internet gimmick, and NOW you suddenly do think there should be DQs...can you be any more of a hypocrite? We've had to endure your endless "pay the winners" BS for years and now you suddenly changed your mind?

I know I've been told to let the troll troll and all that, he's good for message board traffic, etc., and I wish I could, but isn't there a line where it all gets ridiculous, even for you, and you realize that posting direct contradicting opinions a thousand times renders it all meaningless?

[cj]

in other words, you are happy with status quo. Enjoy the drugs in the sport too, and the pink glasses and the kool aid.

The bigger problem seems to be hear that you are surprised that people have opinions other than your own and you cannot deal with it.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with changing the status quo on DQs at the start if it were done well. How that can be done without racing turning lots of races into chaos I have no idea, but that is for another day.

I just don't think you can suddenly do it for the biggest race in the country on a whim. If an announcement was made PRIOR to 2015 that policy is changing and here are the rules, great.

[classhandicapper]

I agree with Beyer that it's fairly typical to allow more leeway at the start of races because there is almost always some contact. IMO, that's
appropriate.

The problem is that this wasn't the typical bumping you see in the typical race. It wasn't incidental or even moderate contact.

Bayern banged the 2-1 favorite and almost turned him sideways. He put him at an extreme disadvantage and also took out another horse that was key to the race. I don't expect the stewards to be smart enough to consider how critical Moreno might have been to the outcome, but that's still 2 horses that were virtually eliminated.

If you don't take this horse down, then don't ever take any horse down for bumping at the start unless the jockey was wildly reckless.

[iceknight]

Interesting assessment.

Care to offer an example of how I show I can't deal with differing opinions?

At least I'm mature enough to know that any decision will not be embraced fully by the masses. If they DQ'd the horse, there would be criticisms here...probably from the same people who are criticizing them for NOT DQing the horse!! :lol:

After all, SRU's motto is that at HIS racetrack, the winners get paid, and there are no DQs...now he's bitching about DQs...funny stuff...but I'm the one who can't deal? :lol: :lol: :lol: If you are mature enough, you should not be calling people "newbies" just because they seem to not agree with the status quo on how DQ's are applied, especially when it comes to big races. I thought that a little below the belt, hence I had to bring up the pink glasses.

And no, I don't agree with SRU on most of his threads. In fact my response was based solely on the topic and not on who was anchoring it

[cj]

If you don't take this horse down, then don't ever take any horse down for bumping at the start unless the jockey was wildly reckless.

I'm still waiting for an example of a horse DQed at the start of a race in SoCal in the last 20 years. I saw one of Tight Spot I think, but that was a LONG time ago.

[PhantomOnTour]

Let's start yet ANOTHER thread on the non DQ in the Classic and have the same argument all over again!
:D

[classhandicapper]

I'm still waiting for an example of a horse DQed at the start of a race in SoCal in the last 20 years. I saw one of Tight Spot I think, but that was a LONG time ago.

I don't watch enough CA racing to know. They may always allow stuff like this.

I'm in the camp that believes DQ's should be extremely rare and obvious, but I just can't past how eliminating 2 horses in not worthy of a DQ.

[aaron]

I don't watch enough CA racing to know. They may always allow stuff like this.

I'm in the camp that believes DQ's should be extremely rare and obvious, but I just can't past how eliminating 2 horses in not worthy of a DQ.
Problem is if they start taking horses down at the gate,you will probably have DQ's every day. I see races everyday when there is some trouble at the gate. I don't know what the answer is,but in this case,I do believe it affected the running of the race and the outcome of the race,but if I was an steward,I probably would have let the result stand.

[thaskalos]

Problem is if they start taking horses down at the gate,you will probably have DQ's every day. I see races everyday when there is some trouble at the gate. I don't know what the answer is,but in this case,I do believe it affected the running of the race and the outcome of the race,but if I was an steward,I probably would have let the result stand.

In your estimation...how often do we see trouble of this magnitude at the start of a race?

[classhandicapper]

Problem is if they start taking horses down at the gate,you will probably have DQ's every day. I see races everyday when there is some trouble at the gate. I don't know what the answer is,but in this case,I do believe it affected the running of the race and the outcome of the race,but if I was an steward,I probably would have let the result stand.

I said the same thing in another thread. That's why the start is unique and there has to be greater leeway for bumping.

I HATE the idea of allowing the stewards to make any judgement calls. They are too inconsistent and in some cases incompetent. That's why I am so against DQs in general unless they are obvious and clearly cost a position. But there also has to be a point where you have to DQ a horse for demolishing other horses at the start.

I'm not sure where the line is and how to make an objective rule that could keep the stewards under control, but I felt this incident crossed it.

[alydar]

It's almost as if some people here have never watched a head-on break before. Are you guys all newbies?

I knew right away they were not going to DQ Bayern. And so should all of you. If you've been watching races for any length of time, that is...

Especially since it was the Breeders' Cup Classic. Why some people are acting so shocked and surprised is beyond me.

Was it the right call? That I can not say. Was it a consistent call? Given where the incident took place in the race and what kind of race it was?

Absolutely.

I have to agree with you. But I would hardly call myself an expert when it comes to assessing whether a foul has been committed or not. I am wrong on these calls more often than I would like. What I thought was interesting, was on the HRTV feed Migliore was predicting a DQ, and I have to at least listen to his judgement, considering his experience.

To say this was clear cut does not seem right to me. Many people more knowledgeable than myself questioned this call.

In the end I was not surprised. Taking down a horse in the biggest race of the year takes a lot of guts. The stewards were in a no win situation. Whatever decision that they made was going to be questioned.

[RXB]

I talked to my local stewards 20 years ago and they said that they allow contact within three strides from the gate because there's just no way that the horses can be expected to break in straight lines. If a horse is still causing problems from the fourth stride onward, then they would DQ.

[cj]

In your estimation...how often do we see trouble of this magnitude at the start of a race?

Shared Belief finished 3.5 lengths behind third. Do we want stewards deciding gate trouble cost a horse 3.51 lengths? I don't. I'd also argue that the runner up caused him more trouble than the winner.

[aaron]

In your estimation...how often do we see trouble of this magnitude at the start of a race?
Not often,but I don't watch the start of every race,every day. I have seen many races where a horse I bet didn't have position because something happened at the gate. It happens and you can't dq all of them. In light of all the problems racing has,this is a minor issue.

[horses4courses]

With 27 years of watching races in the US behind me,
and another 20 before that in Ireland, I would guess
that I have seen DQs due to bad starts around 5 times.

Very rare, and I believe that all were in sprints.
I don't recall ever seeing one in a route race.

[bello]

Honestly, some of you guys have got to be kidding me. There are a number of starting gate take downs all over the country every single year. No I don't have all of them cataloged and never thought about it to "show proof", but the very same day at Penn National look at the head on and the DQ of the favorite #2 in race 3. Far less guilty than Bayern and a DQ. It happens, this lunacy that horses are not taken down for out of gate interference is just that, lunacy.

[cj]

Honestly, some of you guys have got to be kidding me. There are a number of starting gate take downs all over the country every single year. No I don't have all of them cataloged and never thought about it to "show proof", but the very same day at Penn National look at the head on and the DQ of the favorite #2 in race 3. Far less guilty than Bayern and a DQ. It happens, this lunacy that horses are not taken down for out of gate interference is just that, lunacy.

Different rules, different stewards...


What about SoCal? I'm still waiting on one of those.

[bello]

That will have to be someone else to give the So Cal proof. I don't follow that circuit for very obvious reasons. Listed in another thread.

[dilanesp]

Honestly, some of you guys have got to be kidding me. There are a number of starting gate take downs all over the country every single year. No I don't have all of them cataloged and never thought about it to "show proof", but the very same day at Penn National look at the head on and the DQ of the favorite #2 in race 3. Far less guilty than Bayern and a DQ. It happens, this lunacy that horses are not taken down for out of gate interference is just that, lunacy.

Is Penn National in California and governed by California rules?

[ultracapper]

It's almost as if some people here have never watched a head-on break before. Are you guys all newbies?

I knew right away they were not going to DQ Bayern. And so should all of you. If you've been watching races for any length of time, that is...

Especially since it was the Breeders' Cup Classic. Why some people are acting so shocked and surprised is beyond me.

Was it the right call? That I can not say. Was it a consistent call? Given where the incident took place in the race and what kind of race it was?

Absolutely.
I wasn't so sure they weren't going to DQ him, but I wasn't at all surprised they didn't. It was a bit more severe than what you usually see.

[dilanesp]

I wasn't so sure they weren't going to DQ him, but I wasn't at all surprised they didn't. It was a bit more severe than what you usually see.

One thing nobody has mentioned is that most horseplayers don't usually see the severity of this stuff because the starting gate is on the backstretch or closer to the finish line. Very few races start up at the top of the stretch.

Had this been a 6 furlong race, it wouldn't have looked nearly as dramatic on television. The camera angle is almost a head-on when the race is 1 1/4 miles at Santa Anita.

[ILovetheInner]

Different rules, different stewards...


What about SoCal? I'm still waiting on one of those.

I am aware I am not arguing your point, only the sweeping nature of it. Did find a 6/22/12 of Gomez taken down on Supreme Summit in favor of Sahara Sky. In this case, the latter was caused to clip heels, and did finish fast to just miss. Clearly, here it was far more overt that the incident caused Sahara Sky to lose. No rider error.

Now in referencing 3/4/12, apprentice Frederic Lenclud did receive days for angling in on Unmarked Bills, the stewards feeling he could have waited for proper clearance. Not a dq. But a sentiment as to what is expected of a jockey's actions/decisions in leaving the gate. I would thereby consider it arguable days not being given to be consistent, going off Migliore's take as a rider that Bayern was not righted with opportunity to do so. I am trusting his eyes and ample knowledge in this instance, assuming the stewards would have similar knowledge. And if they don't....well, okie dokie.

Clearly, emotion reigns here over the black-and-white, but for as rare as dqs are in major events, the actions that led to a compromise for both the main tactical threat (Moreno) and race favorite (Shared Belief) doesn't have a lot of people loving CA right now. The end result may be no dq, but the purse money may need to be accepted over an Eclipse Award, for had Bayern prevailed over SB with Moreno having attended the pace, there would be no question. Now there is one, and IMO it will hand the title to SB, who by this stage is looking "picked on," exiting the BCC as the great race that wasn't, and defining him in the eyes of many in the press as the horse you need to foul to beat.

[ArlJim78]

You see this all the time in races for younger inexperienced horses, so yes it is common. I think what we saw in the BCC was not common by any stretch for a race of that stature. Both Bayern and Toast of NY came in dramatically and changed the complexion of the race for horses on the inside. Bayern has not had a history of this kind of thing, why couldn't the rider keep him straight and not bear in on his main competitors on Saturday? Very convenient for him though. The way that track was playing it made it even more of a factor.

[RXB]

Clearly, emotion reigns here over the black-and-white, but for as rare as dqs are in major events, the actions that led to a compromise for both the main tactical threat (Moreno) and race favorite (Shared Belief) doesn't have a lot of people loving CA right now. The end result may be no dq, but the purse money may need to be accepted over an Eclipse Award, for had Bayern prevailed over SB with Moreno having attending the pace, there would be no question. Now there is one, and IMO it will hand the title to SB, who by this stage is looking "picked on," exiting the BCC as the great race that wasn't, and defining in the eyes of many in the press as the horse you need to foul to beat.

I think California Chrome will be HoY.

Although the worst of the interference occurred in the first three strides, Bayern continued to tack hard left thereafter. I wasn't surprised that they left him up but I'm really not convinced it was the right call. I know this much: California stewards in the past have DQ'ed much more convincing winners of major races for much less. Hello, The Wicked North.

[classhandicapper]

Shared Belief finished 3.5 lengths behind third. Do we want stewards deciding gate trouble cost a horse 3.51 lengths?

IMO we want the stewards doing as little as possible, especially at the start.

But when horses are seriously compromised I'm not sure ignoring it is the right answer either.

[Hambletonian]

It's almost as if some people here have never watched a head-on break before. Are you guys all newbies?

I knew right away they were not going to DQ Bayern. And so should all of you. If you've been watching races for any length of time, that is...

Especially since it was the Breeders' Cup Classic. Why some people are acting so shocked and surprised is beyond me.

Was it the right call? That I can not say. Was it a consistent call? Given where the incident took place in the race and what kind of race it was?

Absolutely.

Agree 100%

[cj]

IMO we want the stewards doing as little as possible, especially at the start.

But when horses are seriously compromised I'm not sure ignoring it is the right answer either.

I don't see any way that start cost the horse that much. Now, combine it with the later trouble when Toast of New York sandwiched everyone and he probably did, but you can't punish Bayern for both.

[Hambletonian]

Interesting assessment.

Care to offer an example of how I show I can't deal with differing opinions?

At least I'm mature enough to know that any decision will not be embraced fully by the masses. If they DQ'd the horse, there would be criticisms here...probably from the same people who are criticizing them for NOT DQing the horse!! :lol:

After all, SRU's motto is that at HIS racetrack, the winners get paid, and there are no DQs...now he's bitching about DQs...funny stuff...but I'm the one who can't deal? :lol: :lol: :lol:

So you caught that too :)

[classhandicapper]

I don't see any way that start cost the horse that much. Now, combine it with the later trouble when Toast of New York sandwiched everyone and he probably did, but you can't punish Bayern for both.

I had no bet on the race.

When I saw that replay I had two immediate reactions.

1. This horse should definitely come down.
2. They aren't going to take him down because it's the Classic.

[Hambletonian]

If you are mature enough, you should not be calling people "newbies" just because they seem to not agree with the status quo on how DQ's are applied, especially when it comes to big races. I thought that a little below the belt, hence I had to bring up the pink glasses.

And no, I don't agree with SRU on most of his threads. In fact my response was based solely on the topic and not on who was anchoring it

PA is wondering whether they are newbies because anyone who has any experience in this game would not be able to muster the certainty that a DQ was warranted. Anyone in the "this was an absolute DQ situation" just on the face of it appears to be an inexperienced observer.

[iceknight]

What about SoCal? ..Yes what about them.

You know what, for those of you who want to view Cal racing through a different set of lenses, have you considered that this was a Graded stakes race and aren't the Graded Stakes rules more uniform throughout at least the continent?

This is the same issue that comes up with all these nose strips and non-consistent drug rule application too.

So I am not sure how some committee decides if a race is Gr 1 or Gr IT or not, but then local stewards decide the outcomes. Of course, being a newbie, I am not sure if I am going off on a tangent on this or if I am bringing up something relevant to the issue.

By resorting to calling people who have opinions and have been in the game for more than 300days/year for four years (at the minimum) as newbies, all anyone does is alienation. This is more of what I see on political front normally. Don't expect that here.

[PaceAdvantage]

If you are mature enough, you should not be calling people "newbies" just because they seem to not agree with the status quo on how DQ's are applied, especially when it comes to big races.Man, if you put me into any tighter of a box, I'll be reduced to the size of a gnat.

What else is now off limits?

[Tom]

I had no bet on the race.

When I saw that replay I had two immediate reactions.

1. This horse should definitely come down.
2. They aren't going to take him down because it's the Classic.

I had a decent amount on it.
Mostly, place and show, but the win would have provided much comfort.

I also had a third immediate and lingering reaction that shall remain unsaid. :rolleyes:

[PhantomOnTour]

Is Penn National in California and governed by California rules?
Ain't that just the problem though?
Different rules in different states.

Last I checked, the NFL rules are the same in every state. There is no "Arizona holding rule" and a "Wisconsin holding rule" that have completely different interpretations....HOLDING IS HOLDING.

[dilanesp]

Ain't that just the problem though?
Different rules in different states.

Last I checked, the NFL rules are the same in every state. There is no "Arizona holding rule" and a "Wisconsin holding rule" that have completely different interpretations....HOLDING IS HOLDING.

I 100 percent agree.

But what is and what ought are two separate things. Under California's current rules, there is no DQ.

[classhandicapper]

I 100 percent agree.

But what is and what ought are two separate things. Under California's current rules, there is no DQ.

You can't argue with fair application of the existing rules, but you can argue with rules.

[dnlgfnk]

Since everyone's speculating, I'll add that I've rarely seen Mike Smith depart from the "aw, shucks" attitude post-race. I think it was because he was answering to Jim Rome, et.al., rather than a Frances Genter type.

[clocker7]

Ain't that just the problem though?
Different rules in different states.

Last I checked, the NFL rules are the same in every state. There is no "Arizona holding rule" and a "Wisconsin holding rule" that have completely different interpretations....HOLDING IS HOLDING.
So your argument is that holding (or other judgment calls like pass interference) is called purely in the NFL?

My word. You couldn't have selected a worse analogy to make your point.

[Stillriledup]

You can't argue with fair application of the existing rules, but you can argue with rules.

I would bring up the point that if there's not an actual lengths margin listed in the rules, than its all up for interpretation and the stewards have to make a judgment call. if SB was flying at the finish and was beaten 1 length instead of 3 and 3/4s, would things have been different? If you believe what the judges have said, you have to think there would have been a DQ. So, is there something in the actual bylaws that says you can make the change at 1 length or less? Anything more than 1 length can't produce a DQ?

I'd love to know if beaten lengths is listed in the rules, if its not, its all up to stewards jugement.

[clocker7]

Do horse racing fanatics watch other sports to notice judgment calls?

Compared to the Detroit Tiger dude a few years ago that lost a perfect game due to a blown call at first base in the ninth, this BC Classic was a cold nothingburger.

And the NFL rules about what constitutes a legal reception ... criminy. Some of the interpretations are bizarre, even with replays.

And don't give me the sob story that serious betting was involved last Saturday. Betting on the NFL is in another dimension every game.

[Stillriledup]

Do horse racing fanatics watch other sports to notice judgment calls?

Compared to the Detroit Tiger dude a few years ago that lost a perfect game due to a blown call at first base in the ninth, this BC Classic was a cold nothingburger.

And the NFL rules about what constitutes a legal reception ... criminy. Some of the interpretations are bizarre, even with replays.

And don't give me the sob story that serious betting was involved last Saturday. Betting on the NFL is in another dimension every game.

But the difference is most penalties and judgement calls in the NFL don't result in "loss of game". A DQ results in loss of bet. A penalty in a sports game doesn't result in automatic loss of game.

[iceknight]

Man, if you put me into any tighter of a box, I'll be reduced to the size of a gnat.

What else is now off limits? I think I got a little carried away, and took your comment too seriously. You could still be one dangerous gnat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folland_Gnat) though :lol: .

[clocker7]

But the difference is most penalties and judgement calls in the NFL don't result in "loss of game". A DQ results in loss of bet. A penalty in a sports game doesn't result in automatic loss of game.
Au contraire. Any football fan can point to crucial plays that DID cost their team a game.

C'mon, every poker player can cite dozens of really, really bad beats. This was not even close to being a bad beat. This wasn't even a late-game crucial bad call.

Here's my impression of the race: it was another 2014 contest among a fairly equally-talented horse class that produced a different outcome. And that Shared Belief fits well within the class, but does not tower over it. So that this should have not been a surprise at all. I don't see where the "offense" here was a whole lot different to the racing luck "suffered" at the PA Derby. It's racing, and time to move on.

[Stillriledup]

Au contraire. Any football fan can point to crucial plays that DID cost their team a game.

C'mon, every poker player can cite dozens of really, really bad beats. This was not even close to being a bad beat. This wasn't even a late-game crucial bad call.

Here's my impression of the race: it was another 2014 contest among a fairly equally-talented horse class that produced a different outcome. And that Shared Belief fits well within the class, but does not tower over it. So that this should have not been a surprise at all. I don't see where the "offense" here was a whole lot different to the racing luck "suffered" at the PA Derby. It's racing, and time to move on.

There could be a penalty that costs a team a game indirectly, my point was that the penalty is not actual loss of game. In racing, a DQ's punishment is loss of game/win.

[ultracapper]

But the difference is most penalties and judgement calls in the NFL don't result in "loss of game". A DQ results in loss of bet. A penalty in a sports game doesn't result in automatic loss of game.
Oops. Do you want that one back.

[Stillriledup]

Oops. Do you want that one back.

Here's what i meant, let me explain differently.

When a ref calls a penalty or a foul in the NBA or a 2 minute minor in the NHL, the only time the penalty would be "loss of game" is if it was on the last play of the game and the ref knows that if he throws the flag, the game is over and the team he's penalizing will lose the game because of the penalty he's calling. But, 99% of penalties or fouls aren't last play of the game situations, so the punishment is either 5, 10 or 15 yards in the NFL, 2, 4 or 5 mins in the NHL and 2 or 3 FTs in the NBA. Those penalties might result in loss of game, but its an indirect loss of game and not a direct loss of game.

The punishment in racing is loss of bet. Or loss of race.

[ultracapper]

I get what you're saying. OK.

[Spiderman]

I think most here were aware that he wasn't coming down . That for the same reasons you mentioned .
For some they're sore at Baffert . For many , including myself , they lost .
If Bayern came down but there would e other threads condemning the
DQ.
My take...
If the race is lost at the gate for something unavoidable ,that's just bad
luck . When it appears aided , could be unfair .
Is it not time to treat big races with the same rules they would on any
other day ? Also the gate infraction rules could use revision , badly .

I wonder how many lengths were lost by that mess yesterday . Likely
more than some other infractions we've seen elsewhere on the track .

NY stewards have taken Maragh down for gate antics . I would think and
would hope those rulings would have stood the same if it were in a Classic
race . I'd like to believe there is integrity within those decisions
Some here have doubts regarding the Cali stewards . I'm undecided

I say this and I also know "be careful what you wish for" . I'm well aware
as a bettor I can be on either end of an inquiry and DQ . LOL .

Maragh crossed-over and impeded Animal Kingdom in the Belmont Stakes. Animal Kingdom still finished ahead of Maragh's mount (Mucho Macho Man?). However, Maragh was later disciplined for the "race-riding" tactic.

[NY BRED]

So, since we have some "juice here" let's have someone contact NYRA to
show previous gate incidents such has what happened on Saturday
and what actions the stewards followed.
Oh, I forgot, we are playing in California, little incidents that took
place on Saturday don't really count in the scheme of things.

This race will impact various owners for Eclipse awards
due to the insane decision of the stewards regarding the bumping
and the resulting finish on a horse that coasted to victory due
to the riding tactics of the jockey.


I've posted this thought earlier and again state:

If SB, Moreno and their Jocks, or any other jocks were injured would
Bayern still stay as the winner?
Thankfully, this was not the case, but since no action was taken,
there is a message, at least in CA that Jocks have little to fear
in breaking from the gate as the standard has been set by
the Stewards.

[rrpic6]

I had no bet on the race.

When I saw that replay I had two immediate reactions.

1. This horse should definitely come down.
2. They aren't going to take him down because it's the Classic.

Agree 100% with points 1 and 2. I wish I had no bets going. In my Top Ten category all time Bad Beats
for sure. I needed Toast of New York, Shared Belief, Tonalist, or California Chrome to hit the Pick 3. Also needed those horses 1st and 2nd for the Superfecta. Not sure how much I would have won??? 50K maybe?? Sorry for the late post...been self-medicating.

RR

[Spiderman]

After thorough review of the start, Garcia was intent on the lead, at all costs. His hold on the right side of the rein, first move out of the gate, was controlling tight to maneuver Bayern to his left causing the disruption of Bayern, Moreno and others. Garcia could have maintained control and stay in his running lane and likely have achieved the goal of getting to the lead and the "golden" rail without causing the incident.

Later, Toast of New York did impede Shared Belief causing SB to take-up and lose lengths. Not as serious an incident as the one caused by Bayern but would have been reviewed in-depth had SB finished closer and all of the Inquiry attention not been focused on Bayern.

Ruling: Bayern placed behind Moreno (last). Toast of New York declared winner, objection by Smith aboard SB not allowed. Cal Chrome placed 2nd and SB third, Tonalist 4th, Candy Ride to 5th.

Disclaimer: My play was Tonalist

[aaron]

Read Charles Hayward's commentary. He makes a better case for the stewards getting it wrong than Beyer makes for them getting it right.

[Greyfox]

the resulting finish on a horse that coasted to victory due
to the riding tactics of the jockey.


.

Bayern didn't exactly "coast to victory."
That was a tremendous battle down the stretch between three horses that were intent to win.
Bayern had to fight for every inch in that final stretch drive.
The gate incident is an unfortunate distraction from what turned out to be a great race.
Had the gate veering not occurred the outcome would have been the same, or perhaps Bayern might have won by as much as half a length.
Give it up gang.
It was a great race.

[aaron]

Bayern didn't exactly "coast to victory."
That was a tremendous battle down the stretch between three horses that were intent to win.
Bayern had to fight for every inch in that final stretch drive.
The gate incident is an unfortunate distraction from what turned out to be a great race.
Had the gate veering not occurred the outcome would have been the same, or perhaps Bayern might have won by as much as half a length.
Give it up gang.
It was a great race.
And you know this for sure.

[Wickel]

Bayern didn't exactly "coast to victory."
That was a tremendous battle down the stretch between three horses that were intent to win.
Bayern had to fight for every inch in that final stretch drive.
The gate incident is an unfortunate distraction from what turned out to be a great race.
Had the gate veering not occurred the outcome would have been the same, or perhaps Bayern might have won by as much as half a length.
Give it up gang.
It was a great race.

Moreno was sawed off at the start of the race, losing all chance.

Moreno never got a chance to exhibit his front-running talent. Many, including I, expected he would set the pace.

Moreno was uncharacteristically so far back he couldn't even be rushed into contention.

Shared Belief was obliterated at the start, easily losing two lengths. He visually lost two lengths. That's not counting position and momentum that many handicappers don't take into consideration.

Shared Belief, despite being wiped out at the start, still made a strong run to finish 3.5 lengths behind.

BAYERN was responsible for all the calamity. He received a perfect trip, got rid of his major competition at the start and still labored to hold off two charging horses. Ditto for California Chrome--perfect trip, but just didn't have it. I admire the horse's tenacity, but I feel it would have a different outcome had he kept a straight course. But, hey, that's horse racing.

[Greyfox]

And you know this for sure.

Yes, I know for sure that he did not "coast to victory."
The early bumping might have cost him half a length too.
I know for sure it was a great race.

[Greyfox]

Moreno never got a chance to exhibit his front-running talent. Many, including I, expected he would set the pace.

.

Moreno's ability to keep Bayern company would never have lasted long. By the 4 furlong mark they'd be in different time zones.

[aaron]

Yes, I know for sure that he did not "coast to victory."
The early bumping might have cost him half a length too.
I know for sure it was a great race.
So you say,he didn't coast to victory,which I agree,but don't you think with the advantage,he was accorded at the start of the race,he should have coasted to victory.He was given a tactical advantage and other horses lost position and lengths,which sort of ruins your argument.

[Wickel]

Moreno's ability to keep Bayern company would never have lasted long. By the 4 furlong mark they'd be in different time zones.

I think Moreno would have stuck to Bayern a bit longer, but even pressing Bayern for 4 furlongs would have had an effect on his stretch run.

[Greyfox]

So you say,he didn't coast to victory,which I agree,but don't you think with the advantage,he was accorded at the start of the race,he should have coasted to victory.He was given a tactical advantage and other horses lost position and lengths,which sort of ruins your argument.

Believe what you want.
But let's not forget that was as mile and quarter race with a purse that attracted many of the very best steeds on the planet.
Who among them was capable of getting the distance that was a questionmark for most handicappers before the race.
Bayern ran a great race, as did Toast of NY, and California Chrome.
No front runner was going to "coast home to victory" in that field over that distance.
The horses that were there at the end, figured to be there at the end.
It was a thrilling finish.

[dilanesp]

I would bring up the point that if there's not an actual lengths margin listed in the rules, than its all up for interpretation and the stewards have to make a judgment call. if SB was flying at the finish and was beaten 1 length instead of 3 and 3/4s, would things have been different? If you believe what the judges have said, you have to think there would have been a DQ. So, is there something in the actual bylaws that says you can make the change at 1 length or less? Anything more than 1 length can't produce a DQ?

I'd love to know if beaten lengths is listed in the rules, if its not, its all up to stewards jugement.

There isn't a specific number of lengths, but the DQ of Perrault in the 1982 Santa Anita Handicap shows you how even a fairly mild foul can lead to a DQ where the winning margin is a nose and it happens in the stretch.

[bello]

Read Charles Hayward's commentary. He makes a better case for the stewards getting it wrong than Beyer makes for them getting it right.

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/commentary/stewards-got-breeders-cup-classic-decision-wrong-whats-next

For those who don't know Charles was President of NYRA and DRF. But according to one of our "esteemed" posters, since he may not have ever lived in California he actually may not be qualified to offer this very good view of the fiasco.

[QTwithTQ]

Read Charles Hayward's commentary. He makes a better case for the stewards getting it wrong than Beyer makes for them getting it right.
Agree, especially enjoyed the part where he questions the stewards review process and its involvement of the jockeys. It's like asking Colin Kaepernick if he crossed the plane before fumbling in that pivotal game-ender against the Rams Sunday.

Here is a direct link to that article:

Stewards got Breeders' Cup Classic decision wrong - but what's next? (https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/commentary/stewards-got-breeders-cup-classic-decision-wrong-whats-next)

[dilanesp]

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/commentary/stewards-got-breeders-cup-classic-decision-wrong-whats-next

For those who don't know Charles was President of NYRA and DRF. But according to one of our "esteemed" posters, since he may not have ever lived in California he actually may not be qualified to offer this very good view of the fiasco.

Depends. Migliore was totally within his expertise to say what he thinks the rule should be. And so is the former head of NYRA.

But if you want to know what California stewards actually DO in this situation, ask the horseplayers who see their rulings day in and day out.

[dilanesp]

Having that, I have a simple question for Charles the former President of NYRA.

Does he have a single example of stewards disqualifying a horse because he did something at the start that prevented an anticipated speed duel from materializing? Because that's the argument he is making.

Imagine if Goldencents had fouled Vicar's in Trouble at the start of the Dirt Mile, and the stewards had concluded that prevented a speed duel which would have cooked Goldencents. Good ruling?

[iceknight]

Maragh crossed-over and impeded Animal Kingdom in the Belmont Stakes. Animal Kingdom still finished ahead of Maragh's mount (Mucho Macho Man?). However, Maragh was later disciplined for the "race-riding" tactic.Maragh was on Isnt He Perfect and finished last anyway in that race

[ILovetheInner]

Bayern didn't exactly "coast to victory."
That was a tremendous battle down the stretch between three horses that were intent to win.
Bayern had to fight for every inch in that final stretch drive.
The gate incident is an unfortunate distraction from what turned out to be a great race.
Had the gate veering not occurred the outcome would have been the same, or perhaps Bayern might have won by as much as half a length.
Give it up gang.
It was a great race.

I agree with this partially in that Bayern ran a nice race and dug in hard. Toast of New York ran solidly too for that matter. However, the race took out two horses who were significant entries on most people's radars. Had they been scratched the morning of the race, it would have reflected on how much Bayern's win was valued just the same....lucky scratch of the other main speed or the race favorite. Nafzger was disgruntled that Unbridled paired the KYD and BCC Classic without much appreciation simply because of who did not show, versus the accomplishment itself. It happens. I don't think anyone is kidding themselves. The older division ended up weak, leaving three year olds as the class of the race, with the race favorite having a horrible trip. Regardless of the break controversy, history itself would dictate the win be viewed in some diminished capacity in these circumstances.

[aaron]

Depends. Migliore was totally within his expertise to say what he thinks the rule should be. And so is the former head of NYRA.

But if you want to know what California stewards actually DO in this situation, ask the horseplayers who see their rulings day in and day out.
Agree,it seems the horseplayers knew there would be no DQ. That said,it doesn't make it the right decision. As I have said before,just hope you are on the right side of the Stewards decisions. The same infraction could happen again and the horse could be taken down.

[classhandicapper]

Maybe this point of view is not "appropriate", but I think a big part of the controversy is that Shared Belief was the FAVORITE and Moreno was the other quality speed.

Had Bayern played bumper cars with Prayer for Relief and Majestic Harbor, many of the people now saying he should have been DQ'd would not have as strong a view. They would conclude that Bayern was the best horse and would have won anyway.

But a few seconds after it happened to Moreno and Shared Belief, every experienced handicapper in American knew that the race had changed dramatically and was probably wishing they could get a bet down on Bayern (or at least not toss him from their tickets).

Like I said, maybe looking at WHO was interfered with is not appropriate, but in a marginal decision it makes a huge difference to perceptions and the results.

[overthehill]

if you dont want stewards to make judgement calls. then why have stewards at all? u can have one minimum wage guy make all the calls, or have a computer do it.

I just think its absurd to have a situation where they give days to espinoza for something that is never considered a foul and for sure did not change the outcome of the race, and here most experienced guys are siding with the stewards because there is rarely a dq for what happens coming out of the gate. in my judgement it wasnt just that the horse made a left turn it was that he altered the outcome of the race and i didnt see any quick reaction of the jockey to pull on the horse and try to straighten him out either.