The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[PaceAdvantage]

I think you ignored my reply too. All I'm talking about is whether or not there was some kind of bias towards sticking it to RRR for one reason or another. I agree that I haven't heard anything about racism and whn dubb mentioned it I was surprised because I hadn't heard that before.I would take a wild guess and say most people didn't view it as "sticking it" to RRR...although RRR doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to following the rules...

My guess is that most of the folks who harbor a conspiracy theory when it comes to the results of the Sanford think it had more to do with Pletcher favoritism rather than "sticking it to Rudy." But maybe it's a little bit of both...but they're not sticking it to Rudy because he's Mexican.

[Stillriledup]

I would take a wild guess and say most people didn't view it as "sticking it" to RRR...although RRR doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to following the rules...

My guess is that most of the folks who harbor a conspiracy theory when it comes to the results of the Sanford think it had more to do with Pletcher favoritism rather than "sticking it to Rudy." But maybe it's a little bit of both...but they're not sticking it to Rudy because he's Mexican.

I agree.

[Robert Fischer]

Can I get Shore Runner in the 7th??

[cutchemist42]

Mike Adams ‏@GateToWire 9m9 minutes ago
Hilarious. It's a DQ one day but not the next? I know. The best horse gets to foul whoever they want. Cmon they were the best horse

At work so cant watch, was it equal? Thats my bigger problem with the stewards is when very similar events get DQd or not.

[SuperPickle]

I'm sure reasonable people can find yesterday's DQ wrong but that doesn't make it a reasonable response. Reasonable people are very capable of being unreasonable. If someone thought yesterday was some injustice might I suggest the lottery.

In terms of Dubb's comments what I don't get is, the Mexican part aside because that's crazy town, what evidence does he or anyone have to cite that Pletcher is some favorite son? It's not like he hasn't had violations and suspensions. There's zero evidence to cite the rules are different for Pletcher. It's just a fun shot to take when you are the losing end.

Couple with that was one of the worst DQ's of the spring was of a Chad Brown horse it's hard to walk the dog on the "different rules for different trainers."

I've been involved in the sport for over 30 years. Never once have I thought the stewards favored a trainer over another in inquiries. And that's even including the times I've seen stewards blink the number of the horse owned the track they were sitting in. I've seen Charles Cella horses DQed at Oaklawn.

However I do think in inquiries and objections who the jockey is carries some weight. I think if Castellano or Johnny V. are in a spot against say Eric Cancel the stewards are much more likely to believe a guy with 30 years riding experience over a newer jockey. Part of objections are he said/she said. The camera never tells 100% of the story.

[alf1380]

I'm sure reasonable people can find yesterday's DQ wrong but that doesn't make it a reasonable response. Reasonable people are very capable of being unreasonable. If someone thought yesterday was some injustice might I suggest the lottery.

In terms of Dubb's comments what I don't get is, the Mexican part aside because that's crazy town, what evidence does he or anyone have to cite that Pletcher is some favorite son? It's not like he hasn't had violations and suspensions. There's zero evidence to cite the rules are different for Pletcher. It's just a fun shot to take when you are the losing end.

Couple with that was one of the worst DQ's of the spring was of a Chad Brown horse it's hard to walk the dog on the "different rules for different trainers."

I've been involved in the sport for over 30 years. Never once have I thought the stewards favored a trainer over another in inquiries. And that's even including the times I've seen stewards blink the number of the horse owned the track they were sitting in. I've seen Charles Cella horses DQed at Oaklawn.

However I do think in inquiries and objections who the jockey is carries some weight. I think if Castellano or Johnny V. are in a spot against say Eric Cancel the stewards are much more likely to believe a guy with 30 years riding experience over a newer jockey. Part of objections are he said/she said. The camera never tells 100% of the story.

Again..a qualifier..I now know that this DQ cost me a couple of Thousand dollars. So I think I have a little credibility here. It was the consummate DQ, and well deserved. DON'T FOUL!

What I take issue with is TVG's blatantly irresponsible cheerleading for taking down the 8, and the general push polling approach by many on track, on air, and those with a platform (looking at YOU DRF) that attempt to influence the outcome of the inquiry.

This happens all the time here in Gulfstream, and Todd Pletcher is infamous for throwing his weight around here. The two trainers ON TRACK, making a spectacle of the inquiry and demonstrably voicing their opinion is BS.

This is what lends to the "Let's make the 4/5 people happy" conspiracy theories.

[Stillriledup]

I'm sure reasonable people can find yesterday's DQ wrong but that doesn't make it a reasonable response. Reasonable people are very capable of being unreasonable. If someone thought yesterday was some injustice might I suggest the lottery.

In terms of Dubb's comments what I don't get is, the Mexican part aside because that's crazy town, what evidence does he or anyone have to cite that Pletcher is some favorite son? It's not like he hasn't had violations and suspensions. There's zero evidence to cite the rules are different for Pletcher. It's just a fun shot to take when you are the losing end.

Couple with that was one of the worst DQ's of the spring was of a Chad Brown horse it's hard to walk the dog on the "different rules for different trainers."

I've been involved in the sport for over 30 years. Never once have I thought the stewards favored a trainer over another in inquiries. And that's even including the times I've seen stewards blink the number of the horse owned the track they were sitting in. I've seen Charles Cella horses DQed at Oaklawn.

However I do think in inquiries and objections who the jockey is carries some weight. I think if Castellano or Johnny V. are in a spot against say Eric Cancel the stewards are much more likely to believe a guy with 30 years riding experience over a newer jockey. Part of objections are he said/she said. The camera never tells 100% of the story.

The evidence people are using are the DQs that favor him, what other evidence do you need? Wasn't there a big race in Florida where Pletcher got placed ahead of violette? The evidence is in the results, that's the only evidence you need. As far as the argument that its a small sample and could be coincidental, we all can believe what we want to believe.

As far as certain jocks with experience getting benefits of the doubt, this is one of the strong reasons for a DQless system, it takes out bias and human element out of the results. If these judges were actual court judges, woud they just be handing out death penalties or life in prison willy nilly and one day murder is the death penalty and the next day it's probation?

[SuperPickle]

The evidence people are using are the DQs that favor him, what other evidence do you need? Wasn't there a big race in Florida where Pletcher got placed ahead of violette? The evidence is in the results, that's the only evidence you need. As far as the argument that its a small sample and could be coincidental, we all can believe what we want to believe.

As far as certain jocks with experience getting benefits of the doubt, this is one of the strong reasons for a DQless system, it takes out bias and human element out of the results. If these judges were actual court judges, woud they just be handing out death penalties or life in prison willy nilly and one day murder is the death penalty and the next day it's probation?


That's some Oliver Stone level crazy right there. I feel like I'm in a scene from JFK. SRU confess if you are Donald Sutherland.

Have you considered dog racing as a hobby? Or maybe at SRU Downs we combine dog racing with horse racing and go jockey less with no stewards. No humans at all! Load them in gate and let them rip.

[cj]

I"m going to go out on a limb and guess this isn't SuperPickle's first rodeo at PA.

[SuperPickle]

I"m going to go out on a limb and guess this isn't SuperPickle's first rodeo at PA.

Unfortunately I got to say it is. I also just outed that fact because I just figured out how to hit the quote button after 30 posts. Yeah I'm a newbie. Sorry I wish I could say I'm a reincarnation of some former rascal.

Long time lurker, former front side employee, back stretch fan boy, press box hanger-outer in the mid-atlantic area.

Btw... I love your figures. I'm not the biggest fan of your page layout but the figures are very well done. Even people who don't use them should appreciate the fact you're bringing new technology and innovation to the game which makes people like drf, equibase, and Bris have to raise their game. Competition is good.

Anyone investing in the game deserves an award.

[cj]

Unfortunately I got to say it is. I also just outed that fact because I just figured out how to hit the quote button after 30 posts. Yeah I'm a newbie. Sorry I wish I could say I'm a reincarnation of some former rascal.

Long time lurker, former front side employee, back stretch fan boy, press box hanger-outer in the mid-atlantic area.

Btw... I love your figures. I'm not the biggest fan of your page layout but the figures are very well done. Even people who don't use them should appreciate the fact you're bringing new technology and innovation to the game which makes people like drf, equibase, and Bris have to raise their game. Competition is good.

Anyone investing in the game deserves an award.

Won't be the last time I'm wrong. Your posts are done well which is why you didn't seem like a newbie. Glad to have you around, and thanks for the compliments.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

That's some Oliver Stone level crazy right there. I feel like I'm in a scene from JFK. SRU confess if you are Donald Sutherland.

Have you considered dog racing as a hobby? Or maybe at SRU Downs we combine dog racing with horse racing and go jockey less with no stewards. No humans at all! Load them in gate and let them rip.

SRU is hardly Oliver Stone, and your posts continue to fail to provide any suggestions on how to improve the system. You're apparently quite content with the inconsistency in the current process. I doubt that everyone who had the :8: yesterday at the Spa felt it was an "easy" DQ, as it least two assumptions/conclusions had to be made:

- the interference occurred prior to the finish line
- the Pletcher horse would have finished ahead of the winner prior to the finish line

For the players who had the :8: it had to be an emotional killer, as the foul was not obvious watching the finish in real time. Granted, the replays appeared to indicate interference did happen prior to the finish, and one could make a case for it cost the horse the win, since it only lost by a nose. But the process is not consistent. If the horse loses by head, does the DQ occur? A neck? Where does the line get drawn?

[Stillriledup]

SRU is hardly Oliver Stone, and your posts continue to fail to provide any suggestions on how to improve the system. You're apparently quite content with the inconsistency in the current process. I doubt that everyone who had the :8: yesterday at the Spa felt it was an "easy" DQ, as it least two assumptions/conclusions had to be made:

- the interference occurred prior to the finish line
- the Pletcher horse would have finished ahead of the winner prior to the finish line

For the players who had the :8: it had to be an emotional killer, as the foul was not obvious watching the finish in real time. Granted, the replays appeared to indicate interference did happen prior to the finish, and one could make a case for it cost the horse the win, since it only lost by a nose. But the process is not consistent. If the horse loses by head, does the DQ occur? A neck? Where does the line get drawn?

There was a race at DMR last year that I started a thread about who was placed first on a bogus call, the horse had dead aim and could have went by but wasn't ever getting past, they used a nose to determine a DQ but not all noses are created equal, this guy lost by a nose or head but it might as well have been any margin you wanted, in fact the 'bothered horse' was in front with a few yards to go and the other horse came back.

[SuperPickle]

SRU is hardly Oliver Stone, and your posts continue to fail to provide any suggestions on how to improve the system. You're apparently quite content with the inconsistency in the current process. I doubt that everyone who had the :8: yesterday at the Spa felt it was an "easy" DQ, as it least two assumptions/conclusions had to be made:

- the interference occurred prior to the finish line
- the Pletcher horse would have finished ahead of the winner prior to the finish line

For the players who had the :8: it had to be an emotional killer, as the foul was not obvious watching the finish in real time. Granted, the replays appeared to indicate interference did happen prior to the finish, and one could make a case for it cost the horse the win, since it only lost by a nose. But the process is not consistent. If the horse loses by head, does the DQ occur? A neck? Where does the line get drawn?


I don't how to respond to this because stuff you wrote isn't accurate. The foul is clear in the pan and head-one whether you watch it the first time or the last time. The guys on TVG both caught it without a replay or the head-on. They had to run to a race at Del Mar and only showed it live and both said it was going to be a DQ. You see Curlina bobble a stride or two before the wire. You can also see the jockey lose balance. I'll grant you that sometimes there's contact and its tough to tell because the horse doesn't change stride and the jockey doesn't react. This is not that case. This is as cut and dry as it gets as indicated by the briefness of the inquiry. It was a quickie.

I think I've also been consistent in my approach to making the system better. You work within to improve. You don't blow it up. That will set you back.

These guys get more right than they get wrong but lately they've made some big mistakes. You give them better camera angles. Better quality video. Some of these decisions are still being made on tube tv's. You try and bring some technology into it. Graphics to show straight lines and where the wire is. Give them better tools and they'll make better decisions.

Also you need transparency. Live video and maybe audio of them making reviews from their box. Interviews with them after the race explaining what they did. Some tracks have already done that. And do what they do in SoCal and announce if its 2-1 or 3-0. I have hunch Saturday's race was not a 3-0.

The problem is like with everything in the sport tracks are now casinos. They don't want to invest in anything for racing. You think the stewards have the best tv's? You think they have the best replay equipment? Do you think they have the camera angles they want?

Here's another great example. The last ten years we've moved the rail on turf races. Some tracks move the turf rail into five different settings. Do you think the camera angles ever adjust with it?

So my solution is simple. Update the technology and add transparency to the current system and decisions will improve. Enable people to be better and do a better job and they generally will do it.

[thaskalos]

I don't how to respond to this because stuff you wrote isn't accurate. The foul is clear in the pan and head-one whether you watch it the first time or the last time. The guys on TVG both caught it without a replay or the head-on. They had to run to a race at Del Mar and only showed it live and both said it was going to be a DQ. You see Curlina bobble a stride or two before the wire. You can also see the jockey lose balance. I'll grant you that sometimes there's contact and its tough to tell because the horse doesn't change stride and the jockey doesn't react. This is not that case. This is as cut and dry as it gets as indicated by the briefness of the inquiry. It was a quickie.

I think I've also been consistent in my approach to making the system better. You work within to improve. You don't blow it up. That will set you back.

These guys get more right than they get wrong but lately they've made some big mistakes. You give them better camera angles. Better quality video. Some of these decisions are still being made on tube tv's. You try and bring some technology into it. Graphics to show straight lines and where the wire is. Give them better tools and they'll make better decisions.

Also you need transparency. Live video and maybe audio of them making reviews from their box. Interviews with them after the race explaining what they did. Some tracks have already done that. And do what they do in SoCal and announce if its 2-1 or 3-0. I have hunch Saturday's race was not a 3-0.

The problem is like with everything in the sport tracks are now casinos. They don't want to invest in anything for racing. You think the stewards have the best tv's? You think they have the best replay equipment? Do you think they have the camera angles they want?

Here's another great example. The last ten years we've moved the rail on turf races. Some tracks move the turf rail into five different settings. Do you think the camera angles ever adjust with it?

So my solution is simple. Update the technology and add transparency to the current system and decisions will improve. Enable people to be better and do a better job and they generally will do it.
While I echo Cj's sentiments about the quality of your posts here, I must disagree with your "solution" to this steward "inconsistency" problem. IMO...this maddening inconsistency that we see isn't something that can be fixed by modernizing the technology used in making these decisions. It isn't the bad camera angle that causes these blatant mistakes in judgement; the view that the cameras provide is sometimes crystal-clear. And yet, the stewards' decision still defies reason and all logical explanation.

When you say that "these guys get more right than they get wrong"...I wonder if you are serious, or just speaking in jest. There is so much riding on these decisions that "getting more right than wrong" is woefully inadequate. ALL the decisions should be following a consistent methodology...and inconsistency should not be tolerated in the least. The stewards haven't a single excuse for the incompetence that they've shown...and it's high time that they start facing some severe punishment for the ineptitude that they have displayed.

Leave the cameras where they are, and start getting rid of some stewards...I say.

[Stillriledup]

I don't how to respond to this because stuff you wrote isn't accurate. The foul is clear in the pan and head-one whether you watch it the first time or the last time. The guys on TVG both caught it without a replay or the head-on. They had to run to a race at Del Mar and only showed it live and both said it was going to be a DQ. You see Curlina bobble a stride or two before the wire. You can also see the jockey lose balance. I'll grant you that sometimes there's contact and its tough to tell because the horse doesn't change stride and the jockey doesn't react. This is not that case. This is as cut and dry as it gets as indicated by the briefness of the inquiry. It was a quickie.

I think I've also been consistent in my approach to making the system better. You work within to improve. You don't blow it up. That will set you back.

These guys get more right than they get wrong but lately they've made some big mistakes. You give them better camera angles. Better quality video. Some of these decisions are still being made on tube tv's. You try and bring some technology into it. Graphics to show straight lines and where the wire is. Give them better tools and they'll make better decisions.

Also you need transparency. Live video and maybe audio of them making reviews from their box. Interviews with them after the race explaining what they did. Some tracks have already done that. And do what they do in SoCal and announce if its 2-1 or 3-0. I have hunch Saturday's race was not a 3-0.

The problem is like with everything in the sport tracks are now casinos. They don't want to invest in anything for racing. You think the stewards have the best tv's? You think they have the best replay equipment? Do you think they have the camera angles they want?

Here's another great example. The last ten years we've moved the rail on turf races. Some tracks move the turf rail into five different settings. Do you think the camera angles ever adjust with it?

So my solution is simple. Update the technology and add transparency to the current system and decisions will improve. Enable people to be better and do a better job and they generally will do it.

Welcome to the board, I enjoy your write ups.

You make some good points about the need for updated technology, but since there's crappy technology and no real direct head ons at numerous tracks, shouldn't the judges know this and err on the side of leaving horses up? Seems like they are 'erring' on the side of more DQs and I'm pretty sure that serious horseplayers don't stay up till the wee hours of the morning handicapping so that some 70 year old political appointee can be making a decision on whether or not he gets paid.

All the pay the winners aside stuff, I've preached over and over again here to just STOP disqualifying horses, it's not hard to pay the winners in almost all cases but the most extreme. I feel that judges want to 'judge things' and if you leave the results alone it almost feels like you aren't 'doing your job'.

[SuperPickle]

While I echo Cj's sentiments about the quality of your posts here, I must disagree with your "solution" to this steward "inconsistency" problem. IMO...this maddening inconsistency that we see isn't something that can be fixed by modernizing the technology used in making these decisions. It isn't the bad camera angle that causes these blatant mistakes in judgement; the view that the cameras provide is sometimes crystal-clear. And yet, the stewards' decision still defies reason and all logical explanation.

When you say that "these guys get more right than they get wrong"...I wonder if you are serious, or just speaking in jest. There is so much riding on these decisions that "getting more right than wrong" is woefully inadequate. ALL the decisions should be following a consistent methodology...and inconsistency should not be tolerated in the least. The stewards haven't a single excuse for the incompetence that they've shown...and it's high time that they start facing some severe punishment for the ineptitude that they have displayed.

Leave the cameras where they are, and start getting rid of some stewards...I say.


I really believe that and I'll cite this as the example...

They got the toughest call in the world's biggest race right. The bayern call was tough as they come. There were some angles where it looked awful and when you combined that with the fact it looked like he took out the race favorite it would be a DQ in some places. Those guys took a TON of crap for not DQing him. They were called wimps by people on this board and people in the industry. They were wimps, they were crooked, they were favoring Baffert, etc.

THEN the blimp shot came out. Now most people agree he should have not have been DQed. One good camera angle took all that away.

So let me ask you something. What if we saw that angle during the inquiry?

Wouldn't we have avoided most of the Bayern drama?

Those guys got it right without that shot. You have to tip your cap. And they got it right because as Vic pointed out they're trained to get it right. They don't always see what we see.

You give people training and tools to make decisions and they generally deliver. You guys forget they only enforce the rules, commissions write them. Between outdated video, outdated technology and poorly written rules these guys are bringing a knife to a gun fight.

They're simply not this massive problem.

[thaskalos]

I really believe that and I'll cite this as the example...

They got the toughest call in the world's biggest race right. The bayern call was tough as they come. There were some angles where it looked awful and when you combined that with the fact it looked like he took out the race favorite it would be a DQ in some places. Those guys took a TON of crap for not DQing him. They were called wimps by people on this board and people in the industry. They were wimps, they were crooked, they were favoring Baffert, etc.

THEN the blimp shot came out. Now most people agree he should have not have been DQed. One good camera angle took all that away.

So let me ask you something. What if we saw that angle during the inquiry?

Wouldn't we have avoided most of the Bayern drama?

Those guys got it right without that shot. You have to tip your cap. And they got it right because as Vic pointed out they're trained to get it right. They don't always see what we see.

You give people training and tools to make decisions and they generally deliver. You guys forget they only enforce the rules, commissions write them. Between outdated video, outdated technology and poorly written rules these guys are bringing a knife to a gun fight.

They're simply not this massive problem.
Yes...Vic has repeatedly stated that the stewards are "trained to get it right". But this further complicates things when they get it so blatantly wrong. And then we have that recent scandal involving the infamous Patin brothers in Louisiana...who were able to stiff three horses in a 6-horse race, in the most obvious manner...without arousing the suspicion of these "highly-trained" stewards.

We can't applaud them for getting the Bayern call right...without taking them to task when they mess up. If they are indeed "highly-trained"...then they should prove it more regularly.

[LottaKash]

I suggest that every track should have their own Blimp.... :jump:

[cj]

I don't how to respond to this because stuff you wrote isn't accurate. The foul is clear in the pan and head-one whether you watch it the first time or the last time. The guys on TVG both caught it without a replay or the head-on. They had to run to a race at Del Mar and only showed it live and both said it was going to be a DQ. You see Curlina bobble a stride or two before the wire. You can also see the jockey lose balance. I'll grant you that sometimes there's contact and its tough to tell because the horse doesn't change stride and the jockey doesn't react. This is not that case. This is as cut and dry as it gets as indicated by the briefness of the inquiry. It was a quickie.

I think I've also been consistent in my approach to making the system better. You work within to improve. You don't blow it up. That will set you back.

These guys get more right than they get wrong but lately they've made some big mistakes. You give them better camera angles. Better quality video. Some of these decisions are still being made on tube tv's. You try and bring some technology into it. Graphics to show straight lines and where the wire is. Give them better tools and they'll make better decisions.

Also you need transparency. Live video and maybe audio of them making reviews from their box. Interviews with them after the race explaining what they did. Some tracks have already done that. And do what they do in SoCal and announce if its 2-1 or 3-0. I have hunch Saturday's race was not a 3-0.

The problem is like with everything in the sport tracks are now casinos. They don't want to invest in anything for racing. You think the stewards have the best tv's? You think they have the best replay equipment? Do you think they have the camera angles they want?

Here's another great example. The last ten years we've moved the rail on turf races. Some tracks move the turf rail into five different settings. Do you think the camera angles ever adjust with it?

So my solution is simple. Update the technology and add transparency to the current system and decisions will improve. Enable people to be better and do a better job and they generally will do it.

Here is what I'll say about the DQ in the CCA Oaks. Was it the right call in isolation. Absolutely. But, that same infraction has often been left as is on the very same circuit. In fact, there are similar cases of herding and worse that aren't even looked at by the stewards. It isn't the specific calls that draw the ire of bettors, it is the inconsistency.

[Spiderman]

Last month, Royal Ascot was the first to cover it's races overhead:

The remote-controlled drone camera will provide 360 degree shots of the pageantry and pomp of the Royal Ascot crowd and cover live racing action from never-before-seen angles.

Channel 4 Racing's director Denise Large said: "We have 44 cameras to capture all the action on and off the track at the Royal Meeting.

"I’m delighted that our coverage for the first time will feature the ground breaking aerial Batcam drone - it will be a first for racing when we feature this as part of our live coverage at the royal meeting on Channel 4."

Note- The Aerial Batman Drone is capable of flying at a maximum speed of approximately 35-40mph, the same speed as the thoroughbred.

That is good to know. Perhaps they can tie-in the blimp, a la Goodyear, for advertising promotion and revenue.

Additional technology to complement the aerial view will be needed. More important, people who can analyze the information should be in place of stewards who are political appointees. The University of Phoenix (maybe, another university) has a program for the racing industry. A person aiming to analyze races, without fault, should have a minor degree in racing and a major in visual data analysis. Certification would require that a minimum of 500 races which involved an inquiry/objection be viewed, studied and aspirant for position, tested in essay format.

[SuperPickle]

Yes...Vic has repeatedly stated that the stewards are "trained to get it right". But this further complicates things when they get it so blatantly wrong. And then we have that recent scandal involving the infamous Patin brothers in Louisiana...who were able to stiff three horses in a 6-horse race, in the most obvious manner...without arousing the suspicion of these "highly-trained" stewards.

We can't applaud them for getting the Bayern call right...without taking them to task when they mess up. If they are indeed "highly-trained"...then they should prove it more regularly.

So I'm really trying not to come across as an a-hole on here but a lot of the people on this thread don't really understand what it is stewards do, the process behind their decisions and what the limitations are of what they can do.

You bring in the situation Patins in Louisiana. I'm not sure what you think the stewards could have done. They're not empowered to change the order of finish after that happened nor declare the race a no-contestant. Rules vary state-to-state but even if there was a rumor they were fixing a race the stewards might even be powerless to prevent it. You guys you see stewards as some type of powerful Supreme Court like body. In reality they're closer to local police or even mall cops in some states.

Racing commissions which are generally run by states dictate what the rules and penalties are. They decide what a foul is and what a proper punishment is for that foul. The also oversee who gets licensed.

In the case of an inquiry stewards are forced to apply the rules dictated by the racing commission and use their judgement if their was a foul within those rules. They just don't get to make it up. There's processes and rules.

On punishment their hands are kind of tied. If a jockey commits a foul there's punishment decided by the racing commission of usually 3-10 days depending on the state and infraction. Last year when Junior Alvarado dumped Raj in the Jockey Club Gold they tried to give him 15 days because Raj was out for months and even that got knocked down on appeal. That's why when SRU says if he owned a track he'd give out big suspensions that's not reality. The reality is the state decides suspension lengths so no he wouldn't. He doesn't want his own track. He wants his own state.

If a jockey does something horrendous like pull a horse, or murder a horse or show up high as a kite in most places the most stewards can do is suspend him pending a hearing by the racing commission. Racing commissions do things like suspend Dutrow for a decade. Stewards do things like fining people for having dogs on the backstretch and the never ending parade of trying to help trainers get paid by owners and vendors paid by trainers.

Vic came on here and tried to explain all this and walk you guys through the process and explain what exactly a Steward does, how they are trained and what they are looking for and looking at. You guys promptly ran him out of town by making him the scapegoat for every bad DQ since Dancers Image and debated whether the earth is flat till he was ready to blow his brains out. And its a shame because you lost out on learning something.

To sum it up Vic's great race caller, a great agent, a great track executive and above a horse player and fan. Do you think when he went in the stewards booth his IQ dropped 50 points and he became the village idiot? Or do you think his hands were kind of bound by rules, technology, process and procedures?

[Dark Horse]

Using the sample in this thread, let's see how realistic the claim is that stewards don't know the odds and therefore couldn't favor the favorite.


Discussed on 12/2/14.
Zia, R8. http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=ZIA&raceDate=12/02/2014&cy=USA&rn=8

Horse DQ-ed: 6-1. New winner: 1-5.



Discussed on 12/9/14
TuP, R8, http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=TUP&raceDate=12/09/2014&cy=USA&rn=8

Horse DQ-ed from the place: 74-1.... Out of the money because of DQ.


Discussed on 12/13/14
Los Al. R7, http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=LRC&raceDate=12/13/2014&cy=USA&rn=7

Horse DQ-ed from place: 6-1. New place horse: 2-1


Updated through page 4. More later.

[EMD4ME]

Using the sample in this thread, let's see how realistic the claim is that stewards don't know the odds and therefore couldn't favor the favorite.


Discussed on 12/2/14.
Zia, R8. http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=ZIA&raceDate=12/02/2014&cy=USA&rn=8

Horse DQ-ed: 6-1. New winner: 1-5.



Discussed on 12/9/14
TuP, R8, http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=TUP&raceDate=12/09/2014&cy=USA&rn=8

Horse DQ-ed from the place: 74-1.... Out of the money because of DQ.


Discussed on 12/13/14
Los Al. R7, http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=LRC&raceDate=12/13/2014&cy=USA&rn=7

Horse DQ-ed from place: 6-1. New place horse: 2-1


Updated through page 4. More later.

Don't forget the 2 decisions that made me blow a gasket at Belmont this spring ( I posted them here, I believe side by side with 2 links). Same exact and I mean EXACT infractions, 1 DQ'd the other stays up. Both decisions benefitting the chalk.

I am not a conspiracy guy. Believe it or not but this makes me wonder if they truly are chalk eating bettors.

Jocks are caught many times wagering through agents. Am I supposed to beieve there isn't a steward out there that has not wagered on a race?

Of course there are and they should be treated like Pete Rose.

But there is no one to police them and see if they are wagering.

The Rosario DQ still has me fuming and I didn't even have a wager. Everyone with 1 functioning eye can see that Irad caused the infraction, yet Rosario was DQ'd.

Chalk was put up on that DQ as well.

[Dark Horse]

I'll just go page by page, but slowly, because I have other stuff to do. lol

My reason is to prove or disprove, through a neutral sample, the hypothesis that stewards are as square as they come. They may not even realize that the chalk is coming out of their ears. Similar to Jon White, who until recently was both a linesmaker and prerace analyst at SA. Thankfully, he's only the first now.

But I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong by the sample. We'll see...

[Dark Horse]

Using the sample in this thread, let's see how realistic the claim is that stewards don't know the odds and therefore couldn't favor the favorite.


Discussed on 12/2/14.
Zia, R8. http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=ZIA&raceDate=12/02/2014&cy=USA&rn=8

Horse DQ-ed: 6-1. New winner: 1-5.



Discussed on 12/9/14
TuP, R8, http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=TUP&raceDate=12/09/2014&cy=USA&rn=8

Horse DQ-ed from the place: 74-1.... Out of the money because of DQ.


Discussed on 12/13/14
Los Al. R7, http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=LRC&raceDate=12/13/2014&cy=USA&rn=7

Horse DQ-ed from place: 6-1. New place horse: 2-1


Updated through page 4. More later.


Discussed on 12/18/14:
TP, R7, http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=TP&raceDate=12/18/2014&cy=USA&rn=7

Horse DQ-ed from win: 21-1. New winner: 4-1.


Discussed on 12/19/14:
TP, R1, http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=TP&raceDate=12/19/2014&cy=USA&rn=1

Horse DQ-ed from place: 5-2. New place horse: 5-1


Discussed on 1/8/15:
GP, R4, http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=GP&raceDate=01/08/2015&cy=USA&rn=4

Horse DQ-ed from win: 4-1. New winner: 1-2


Updated through 1/8/15 on page 6.

[Dark Horse]

Still very early, but 5 out of 6 (83%) in support of the chalk notion. For Vic's sake I hope it comes down to below 60%. Still biased, but at least not blatantly so.


My thinking is that in any non-unanimous decision, with a 1-1 score and the pressure all on one steward, that pressure will likely make him cave to public opinion. It's a lot easier to piss of a few people on a 20-1 horse than a crowd of people on a 1/2 horse. The human element...


Suggestions to sidestep the human element:

1) stewards should be in separate rooms, and be unaware of the opinions of the other stewards, nor be allowed to discuss the race with anyone.
2) only unanimous decisions can change the outcome. Any 2-1 count is as good as asking the guy next to you what he thinks.
3) the stewards have to represent a fair range of opinions. They can't all think the same way. Three squares is not going to work.
4) checks and balances. Following each decision, each steward has to file a report to a separate commission to explain his decision.

Of course most questionable decisions have a lower chance of being unanimous. It would help if the DQ record for each race would include if the decision was unanimous or not. Once this is included, and a clear relationship can be shown to chalk, it will be easy to demonstrate the weakness of the 2-1 decisions. Not horses, but 2-1 decisions should be tossed out. As imperfect as the present model is, I can live with 3-0 decisions.

[thaskalos]

So I'm really trying not to come across as an a-hole on here but a lot of the people on this thread don't really understand what it is stewards do, the process behind their decisions and what the limitations are of what they can do.

Vic came on here and tried to explain all this and walk you guys through the process and explain what exactly a Steward does, how they are trained and what they are looking for and looking at. You guys promptly ran him out of town by making him the scapegoat for every bad DQ since Dancers Image and debated whether the earth is flat till he was ready to blow his brains out. And its a shame because you lost out on learning something.

To sum it up Vic's great race caller, a great agent, a great track executive and above a horse player and fan. Do you think when he went in the stewards booth his IQ dropped 50 points and he became the village idiot? Or do you think his hands were kind of bound by rules, technology, process and procedures?

No one ran Vic out of town. I don't know if you've been paying much attention to what goes on around here, but Vic likes to dish it out from time to time...so, he should be prepared to TAKE it from time to time too. It works BOTH ways. We are not much into idol worship around here...so Vic's accomplishments in the game do not necessarily entitle him to preferential treatment.

And, YES...I do know what the steward's job entails. And even if I didn't...it's unlikely that I would come to you for an explanation.

[Stillriledup]

So I'm really trying not to come across as an a-hole on here but a lot of the people on this thread don't really understand what it is stewards do, the process behind their decisions and what the limitations are of what they can do.

You bring in the situation Patins in Louisiana. I'm not sure what you think the stewards could have done. They're not empowered to change the order of finish after that happened nor declare the race a no-contestant. Rules vary state-to-state but even if there was a rumor they were fixing a race the stewards might even be powerless to prevent it. You guys you see stewards as some type of powerful Supreme Court like body. In reality they're closer to local police or even mall cops in some states.

Racing commissions which are generally run by states dictate what the rules and penalties are. They decide what a foul is and what a proper punishment is for that foul. The also oversee who gets licensed.

In the case of an inquiry stewards are forced to apply the rules dictated by the racing commission and use their judgement if their was a foul within those rules. They just don't get to make it up. There's processes and rules.

On punishment their hands are kind of tied. If a jockey commits a foul there's punishment decided by the racing commission of usually 3-10 days depending on the state and infraction. Last year when Junior Alvarado dumped Raj in the Jockey Club Gold they tried to give him 15 days because Raj was out for months and even that got knocked down on appeal. That's why when SRU says if he owned a track he'd give out big suspensions that's not reality. The reality is the state decides suspension lengths so no he wouldn't. He doesn't want his own track. He wants his own state.

If a jockey does something horrendous like pull a horse, or murder a horse or show up high as a kite in most places the most stewards can do is suspend him pending a hearing by the racing commission. Racing commissions do things like suspend Dutrow for a decade. Stewards do things like fining people for having dogs on the backstretch and the never ending parade of trying to help trainers get paid by owners and vendors paid by trainers.

Vic came on here and tried to explain all this and walk you guys through the process and explain what exactly a Steward does, how they are trained and what they are looking for and looking at. You guys promptly ran him out of town by making him the scapegoat for every bad DQ since Dancers Image and debated whether the earth is flat till he was ready to blow his brains out. And its a shame because you lost out on learning something.

To sum it up Vic's great race caller, a great agent, a great track executive and above a horse player and fan. Do you think when he went in the stewards booth his IQ dropped 50 points and he became the village idiot? Or do you think his hands were kind of bound by rules, technology, process and procedures?

Great passion and write up, appreciate the effort, let me address a few things from your post.

1) The Patins. What some were suggesting is that this has been going on for a while, this isn't the first time they have pulled shenanigans, we know about buzzers back 15 years ago, they probably got more brazen because 'nobody was watching' and nobody really was because if the trainer of one of the stiffed horses didn't throw a fit or bettors didnt call or e mail the track (don't know if this happened but it might have) do you think these judges of their own with 0 prompting from outside forces came down on these guys? I'm going to say probably not.

If these judges were watching races carefully and studying them like serious bettors do and had some balls they might have gotten rid of these bad apples long ago, but it seems that they weren't really paying much attention.

As far as my track ownership goes, if there was a DQless rule there of course the state would have to be on board and increased punishments would be discussed before anything like that was implemented.

Onto Vic.

If Vic became a scapegoat that was on him, we were just arguing our points and he was the only one who was on the other side so it SEEMED like he was being ganged up on, but if you want to try and argue a side that very few if any agree with, tht stuff might not happen.

[castaway01]

I'll just go page by page, but slowly, because I have other stuff to do. lol

My reason is to prove or disprove, through a neutral sample, the hypothesis that stewards are as square as they come. They may not even realize that the chalk is coming out of their ears. Similar to Jon White, who until recently was both a linesmaker and prerace analyst at SA. Thankfully, he's only the first now.

But I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong by the sample. We'll see...

Disqualifications that people complained about on a message board are hardly a "neutral sample"...but let the clown show continue.

[cj]

You bring in the situation Patins in Louisiana. I'm not sure what you think the stewards could have done. They're not empowered to change the order of finish after that happened nor declare the race a no-contestant. Rules vary state-to-state but even if there was a rumor they were fixing a race the stewards might even be powerless to prevent it. You guys you see stewards as some type of powerful Supreme Court like body. In reality they're closer to local police or even mall cops in some states.



The stewards could have posted the inquiry and declared the race null and void, or done the same for any of the horses. They did nothing. If they aren't going to act in the most blatant case of a race fix known to man, when are they going to act?

I'm not going to compare what happens at a bush track (how can it not be called that now) like Evangeline to the top circuits. I think just as riders and trainers are better on top circuits, so are stewards and racing officials. If this type of thing happened in New York or Southern California, I think action would have been taken immediately. Maybe that is wishful thinking on my part.

[Stillriledup]

The stewards could have posted the inquiry and declared the race null and void, or done the same for any of the horses. They did nothing. If they aren't going to act in the most blatant case of a race fix known to man, when are they going to act?

I'm not going to compare what happens at a bush track (how can it not be called that now) like Evangeline to the top circuits. I think just as riders and trainers are better on top circuits, so are stewards and racing officials. If this type of thing happened in New York or Southern California, I think action would have been taken immediately. Maybe that is wishful thinking on my part.

Good point that should have been a no contest.

[EMD4ME]

If this was any other sport, the 3 blind mice at EVD would have been interviewed all over Sportscenter and alike shows.

Have they said a peep? Did I miss it? Why is it ok that they haven't?

[Stillriledup]

If this was any other sport, the 3 blind mice at EVD would have been interviewed all over Sportscenter and alike shows.

Have they said a peep? Did I miss it? Why is it ok that they haven't?
5uGF6641cv8

[EMD4ME]

SRU,

We get that and 'You're crazy, your just a horseplayer, you have no idea what your looking at'....etc.

EMD4ME

[Stillriledup]

SRU,

We get that and 'You're crazy, your just a horseplayer, you have no idea what your looking at'....etc.

EMD4ME

Exactly. I'm not 'trained' to watch video, maybe someday I can be as observant as a steward. :jump:

[EMD4ME]

I personally would love to be taught how to watch races. :rolleyes:

I'll say this before I make my next comment:

I hear people say "I've been driving for 40 years". DOESN'T MAKE YOU GOOD AT IT.

"I've been practicing". Doesn't mean you'll get better because practice does not make perfect, PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT.

So, my comment is the following: In the last 8 years, I have probably watched 8320 hours of tape (416 weeks times a CONSERVATIVE average of 20 hours a week).

That doesn't count, the infinite number of hours watching live racing.

That doesn't count the countless hours watching replays on the replay centers at NYRA back in the day. That doesn't count the countless hours watching race replays that I taped on a VCR off of sportschannel back in the day.

Not to sound like a jerk but not only do I watch a lot of tape, I blanken do it real well.

I do not classify myself as a pace handicapper, a trip handicapper, a number handicapper etc. I involve ALL aspects of work into my game.

However, I will say, my trip handicapping is my favorite. I will pull up a tape to see how well a horse changed leads in races where the horse DUMPED the jock. I will watch a head on replay of a horse who ran 30 lenghts behind the field (the entire way) to see if the horse was climbing, being ridden or in the Patin's cases, not ridden :lol: .

I would love to spend 5 minutes at that Steward School. But I probably would need 5 years....


Not because I learn at a slow pace but because I think the IDIOTIC STUPID OBTUSE MORONS in those positions would need 5 years to learn 1 thing from me.

And I say that as humbly as I can.

Now, off topic a bit. I agreed with both decisions this weekend (Rudy Saturday and Coralina Sunday). So, great job with those 2 decisions Stewards, sincerely. Now, STAY CONSISTENT.

SRU, I know you hate DQ's so sorry to throw 2 points in this long response but I couldn't contain myself.

[Dark Horse]

Disqualifications that people complained about on a message board are hardly a "neutral sample"...but let the clown show continue.

Of course they are for this purpose, which you would know if you would take the trouble to read before deciding how you would respond.

People can complain as much about favorites being DQ-ed as about longshots. There is no bias in the manner this sample was taken.

You are invited to add a bigger, more neutral sample. Go ahead. Find all the DQ races for the past year, and I'll slowly catalog them here one by one.

[Stillriledup]

25,000 views, closing in on 40 pages of debate and suggestions and guess what? Not a single thing will be done about inconsistent rulings or nitpick rulings or getting head on cameras to work with and so on and so forth. According to the industry nothing is broken. You'll just keep taking it in the shorts as these 70 year old political appointees play god with your cash. If I asked you to name the judges at all the tracks could you name even ONE? Other than Scott Chaney who is on tvg once in a blue moon i can't tell you one name of any judge at any track and yet, these are the people, unchecked and unrated, tossing around your cash on whatever whim strikes their fancy on that particular morning.

[SuperPickle]

Of course they are for this purpose, which you would know if you would take the trouble to read before deciding how you would respond.

People can complain as much about favorites being DQ-ed as about longshots. There is no bias in the manner this sample was taken.

You are invited to add a bigger, more neutral sample. Go ahead. Find all the DQ races for the past year, and I'll slowly catalog them here one by one.

I don't think its as biased as it out of context. So you when take into account favorites win from 25% to 35% of races depending on circuit which means in some places they probably come in top two up to 40-50%. (I'm far from a math expert.)

This mean mathematically most of the time a price horse wins the second place horse is going be one of the top two betting choices. Again I'm not a math expert I would guess the amount of times one of the two betting choices finishes second behind a longer shot is probably greater than 50% at some tracks.

So taking this into account its not that your data is "biased" it just doesn't reflect the outcome you're saying which is prices get DQed at a higher rate when a favorite runs second because you're not taking into account that the top two betting choices run second very often. In layman terms it runs longshot/top two favorites more than top two favorites/longshot. It's not a 50/50 split.

It's not biased its just meaningless. You're just posting random DQ's out of context.

[Stillriledup]

I don't think its as biased as it out of context. So you when take into account favorites win from 25% to 35% of races depending on circuit which means in some places they probably come in top two up to 40-50%. (I'm far from a math expert.)

This mean mathematically most of the time a price horse wins the second place horse is going be one of the top two betting choices. Again I'm not a math expert I would guess the amount of times one of the two betting choices finishes second behind a longer shot is probably greater than 50% at some tracks.

So taking this into account its not that your data is "biased" it just doesn't reflect the outcome you're saying which is prices get DQed at a higher rate when a favorite runs second because you're not taking into account that the top two betting choices run second very often. In layman terms it runs longshot/top two favorites more than top two favorites/longshot. It's not a 50/50 split.

It's not biased its just meaningless. You're just posting random DQ's out of context.

There seems to be some evidence that a longshot will be disqualified in favor of a short priced runner more times than the other way around. DH and a few others in here are saying the decisions are biased, you're saying that the politically appointed 70 year olds are somehow 100 pct free of even the slightest subscincious bias doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Are they openly biased? Probably not, but to say there is zero bias towards odds and knowing the humans involved (many on a personal level) isn't something I'm willing to purchase into at the moment.

[SuperPickle]

There seems to be some evidence that a longshot will be disqualified in favor of a short priced runner more times than the other way around.

No, no actually there doesn't seem to be. "Evidence" isn't random race results.

That's my point

[Stillriledup]

No, no actually there doesn't seem to be. "Evidence" isn't random race results.

That's my point

But here's the thing, if someone is making the statement that there's a bias in favor of shorter priced runners it's up to you to prove that wrong with decades of data that shows the person making the statement isn't correct. That's how it works. If i said the sky is blue and you thought that was wrong you have to prove me wrong, I don't have to prove anything because if you don't agree with me it's up to you to show me I'm wrong. If you can't, than ill assume I'm right.

[SuperPickle]

But here's the thing, if someone is making the statement that there's a bias in favor of shorter priced runners it's up to you to prove that wrong with decades of data that shows the person making the statement isn't correct. That's how it works. If i said the sky is blue and you thought that was wrong you have to prove me wrong, I don't have to prove anything because if you don't agree with me it's up to you to show me I'm wrong. If you can't, than ill assume I'm right.

Um, no. The default/baseline position is data is unbiased and random. That finishes are random and don't happen for any particular rhyme or reason. You're screaming biased but have no evidence of a bias.

If you think there's data that debunks this you present it.

There's no data that reflects horses that are longer odds are taken down more than favorites.

To acquire this data you'd need a baseline of how many inquiries there are in which the stewards are reviewing the winning position (not total inquires that number is meaningless.) You'd then have run the odds of each horse in first and second place against the data. Then you'd need take that data and compare it against a control group of how often races finish which horse in similar odds.

In other words its a LOT of work.

Simply posting a couple of results that support your argument and slapping on a tinfoil hat doesn't prove anything.

Or to put it another way. Often times the simplest solution (random stuff happens) is the right one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

[Stillriledup]

Um, no. The default/baseline position is data is unbiased and random. That finishes are random and don't happen for any particular rhyme or reason. You're screaming biased but have no evidence of a bias.

If you think there's data that debunks this you present it.

There's no data that reflects horses that are longer odds are taken down more than favorites.

To acquire this data you'd need a baseline of how many inquiries there are in which the stewards are reviewing the winning position (not total inquires that number is meaningless.) You'd then have run the odds of each horse in first and second place against the data. Then you'd need take that data and compare it against a control group of how often races finish which horse in similar odds.

In other words its a LOT of work.

Simply posting a couple of results that support your argument and slapping on a tinfoil hat doesn't prove anything.

Or to put it another way. Often times the simplest solution (random stuff happens) is the right one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

A persons statement is his data. That's his truth. If you don't agree, prove him wrong.

[cj]

If you accept that as a group the heavier bet horses are more talented, it is common sense to accept the same group is more likely to be elevated in a DQ. If I get really bored I'll run a query on this later, but I doubt I'll ever be that bored.

[Dark Horse]

So taking this into account its not that your data is "biased" it just doesn't reflect the outcome you're saying which is prices get DQed at a higher rate when a favorite runs second because you're not taking into account that the top two betting choices run second very often. In layman terms it runs longshot/top two favorites more than top two favorites/longshot. It's not a 50/50 split.

It's not biased its just meaningless. You're just posting random DQ's out of context.

Your logic being that because the top two choices run second often, therefore it is meaningless that longshots are DQ-ed in favor of favorites???

I'm posting DQ's out of a random selection. That doesn't make the DQ's meaningless. If a pattern shows up, read into it or discard it as you see fit. All the same to me. If there is a clear pattern I'm sure that there will be people who don't want to know about it. Already that seems to be the case, so let me put your mind at ease. A sample of six races, the ones I looked at so far, is indeed meaningless.

[Stillriledup]

Your logic being that because the top two choices run second often, therefore it is meaningless that longshots are DQ-ed in favor of favorites???

I'm posting DQ's out of a random selection. That doesn't make the DQ's meaningless. If a pattern shows up, read into it or discard it as you see fit. All the same to me.

He wants you to do the work so he can be convinced :D

[Stillriledup]

If American Pharoah wins his next race and there's a borderline brush w the 2nd place finisher (trained by someone who has a bad reputation) and its one of these inquires that's hard to call, is it equally likely that AP is disqualified as it would be if the roles were reversed?

[Dark Horse]

He wants you to do the work so he can be convinced :D

If others are interested, we can keep track of all DQ's for the main tracks. It's not that much work. Just post the DQ, the race #, and the odds of the DQ-ed horse as well as of the horse that takes his place.

If we do this per track, or state, the critics can no longer confuse the issue by suggesting that the sample is not neutral.

This is not a random effort, by the way. If players can prove that stewards aren't nearly as neutral as the industry wants us to believe that could, possibly, lead to change. It's up to us, the players. If we don't look out for our interests, nobody will.

[thaskalos]

If others are interested, we can keep track of all DQ's for the main tracks. It's not that much work. Just post the DQ, the race #, and the odds of the DQ-ed horse as well as of the horse that takes his place.

If we do this per track, or state, the critics can no longer confuse the issue by suggesting that the sample is not neutral.

This is not a random effort, by the way. If players can prove that stewards aren't nearly as neutral as the industry wants us to believe that could, possibly, lead to change. It's up to us, the players. If we don't look out for our interests, nobody will.
If we the players cared to look out for our interest...then the game would be completely different than it is right now. There have been injustices of all types committed against the players...from unjust disqualifications, to stiffing horses, to past-posting incidents, to ringers being entered in races, to takeout rates being raised to ludicrous levels. The horseplayers bitch and squeal for a little while...but they continue to support this game, as if the injustices never occurred.

Boycott a racetrack for a month just to prove that you are a force to be reckoned with, and THEN see if the game's attitude towards the player doesn't improve in a big way. Because as it stands right now, you can collect all the corroborating evidence that you want in order to prove your point. All that the industry leaders will do if they even bother to see it, is wipe their asses with it.

[EMD4ME]

If American Pharoah wins his next race and there's a borderline brush w the 2nd place finisher (trained by someone who has a bad reputation) and its one of these inquires that's hard to call, is it equally likely that AP is disqualified as it would be if the roles were reversed?

Don't think you'll get an answer to this one, at least cleanly. It puts the theory to the test and they won't admit that the chalk gets the benefit.

[thespaah]

But here's the thing, if someone is making the statement that there's a bias in favor of shorter priced runners it's up to you to prove that wrong with decades of data that shows the person making the statement isn't correct. That's how it works. If i said the sky is blue and you thought that was wrong you have to prove me wrong, I don't have to prove anything because if you don't agree with me it's up to you to show me I'm wrong. If you can't, than ill assume I'm right.
Ok...I have a question....How does one prove a negative?
Look, you have a perception. That is you believe or have a viewpoint that it is more likely for a longer priced horse to be disqualified than one on which there are shorter odds.
Leave it at that.
Now, if you can present statistical evidence supporting your perception, bravo.
Until you or anyone else does, your view remains just that. Your view.

[thespaah]

A persons statement is his data. That's his truth. If you don't agree, prove him wrong.
No...His 'statement' is his opinion.....facts that support that statement are 'data'...
"his truth"....An opinion.

[thespaah]

There have been three DQ's at The Spa in the first 5 programs.
Two have resulted in a lower odds horse being placed ahead. The other in the reverse.
In the first one the odds on the DQ'ed horse were tenths to one higher than the offended runner.
Hardly a reasonable sampling, but a sampling nonetheless.

[Stillriledup]

Ok...I have a question....How does one prove a negative?
Look, you have a perception. That is you believe or have a viewpoint that it is more likely for a longer priced horse to be disqualified than one on which there are shorter odds.
Leave it at that.
Now, if you can present statistical evidence supporting your perception, bravo.
Until you or anyone else does, your view remains just that. Your view.

There are plenty of people on here that can call BS but if they want to, they can do the legwork, why should someone have to cater to the whims of every Tom, Dick and Harry? If those guys want proof the original post is wrong, dig up the proof.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

If we the players cared to look out for our interest...then the game would be completely different than it is right now. There have been injustices of all types committed against the players...from unjust disqualifications, to stiffing horses, to past-posting incidents, to ringers being entered in races, to takeout rates being raised to ludicrous levels. The horseplayers bitch and squeal for a little while...but they continue to support this game, as if the injustices never occurred.

Boycott a racetrack for a month just to prove that you are a force to be reckoned with, and THEN see if the game's attitude towards the player doesn't improve in a big way. Because as it stands right now, you can collect all the corroborating evidence that you want in order to prove your point. All that the industry leaders will do if they even bother to see it, is wipe their asses with it.

This is the crux of the matter. As players, we do not have stick to hit the tracks with to improve things. A track could have a half a dozen bogus DQs, three ringers, 35% takeout, and two dozen stiff jobs in a week and still stay in business. Only accusing track management of bias against gays or shooting a pet lion would achieve significant results in the event of a boycott.

Five racing days into the Spa's meet, and 8 inquires and 3 DQs. Lots of comments in the charts about bumping and brushing in which no inquiry occurs or objection is lodged. Now I've been betting races from Australia for close to 17-18 years now, and I can count on ONE HAND the number of inquiries/protests I've seen involving my horses. I think I've been DQ'ed once, and put up on a DQ once. In the last year and half of Hong Kong racing, I can count on two fingers the number of inquiries I've seen, whether on my horse or not. One was for a horse rearing at the start.

Let 'em ride, pay the winners.

[cj]

All races since 2009.

Horses DQed from 1st: 2498
Average Odds: 6.02

Horses elevated to 1st: 2498
Average Odds: 7.06

[Stillriledup]

All races since 2009.

Horses DQed from 1st: 2498
Average Odds: 6.02

Horses elevated to 1st: 2498
Average Odds: 7.06

But wouldn't that always be true since shorter priced horses finish ahead of longer prices horses way more often?

I think it would be telling to see the races just where the longer priced horse beat the shorter priced one.

[cj]

But wouldn't that always be true since shorter priced horses finish ahead of longer prices horses way more often?

I think it would be telling to see the races just where the longer priced horse beat the shorter priced one.

Well, there is nothing to indicate in the data when there was an objection/inquiry but no change, short of parsing comments. No way I'm going to do that. Anyone has any other suggestions to query I'll be happy to give it a try.

[castaway01]

Well, there is nothing to indicate in the data when there was an objection/inquiry but no change, short of parsing comments. No way I'm going to do that. Anyone has any other suggestions to query I'll be happy to give it a try.

The three possible scenarios are (1) higher-priced horses are DQed in favor of lower-priced ones because CONSPIRACY, and your stats definitely prove that wrong, (2) lower-priced horses are in front of higher-priced horses more often and therefore more likely to be DQed because of that, and that doesn't appear to be true from your stats, (3) higher-priced horses need to foul lower-priced horses to beat them, and if anything that's what your stats show. I'd say 7-1 to 6-1 is too close to even prove that. They mainly show that odds don't matter in disqualifications. Thanks for taking the time to run the queries.

[Stillriledup]

Even if you have a TON of data that shows shorter priced horses dont necessarily get any benefits, it only takes ONE TIME in all those thousands of races for an odds bias to take place. The judges essentially have to go 'undefeated" to prove theres no odds bias. If 99.99999999 percent of the races prove no odds bias but one time there IS an odds bias, that means the odds bias proponents are proven right. No odds bias means 0 times was a lower odds horse given a benefit in an inquiry, whether it was the longer price being disqualified or the favorite benefitting from no bias.

What might be a good query would be to see how many times Pletcher, Baffert and pick out 3 other bigwig trainers and see how their inquiry rates compare to Rudy Rod and 4 other trainers who arent really loved for one reason or another. Can we get a query on specific trainers?

Pletcher would be a great example because hes almost always the shorter priced runner in any inquiry.

[cj]

The three possible scenarios are (1) higher-priced horses are DQed in favor of lower-priced ones because CONSPIRACY, and your stats definitely prove that wrong, (2) lower-priced horses are in front of higher-priced horses more often and therefore more likely to be DQed because of that, and that doesn't appear to be true from your stats, (3) higher-priced horses need to foul lower-priced horses to beat them, and if anything that's what your stats show. I'd say 7-1 to 6-1 is too close to even prove that. They mainly show that odds don't matter in disqualifications. Thanks for taking the time to run the queries.

Here is the last one I'm doing, should be enough to answer most of anyone's questions. I weeded out some races with multiples DQs, dead heats, etc.

Races with DQ from win: 2256

Races lower odds horse finished first and DQed - 1138
Races higher odds horse finished first and DQed - 1118

[cj]

Even if you have a TON of data that shows shorter priced horses dont necessarily get any benefits, it only takes ONE TIME in all those thousands of races for an odds bias to take place. The judges essentially have to go 'undefeated" to prove theres no odds bias. If 99.99999999 percent of the races prove no odds bias but one time there IS an odds bias, that means the odds bias proponents are proven right. No odds bias means 0 times was a lower odds horse given a benefit in an inquiry, whether it was the longer price being disqualified or the favorite benefitting from no bias.

What might be a good query would be to see how many times Pletcher, Baffert and pick out 3 other bigwig trainers and see how their inquiry rates compare to Rudy Rod and 4 other trainers who arent really loved for one reason or another. Can we get a query on specific trainers?

Pletcher would be a great example because hes almost always the shorter priced runner in any inquiry.

This is ridiculous.

[Poindexter]

The problem with a query, is that probably 60 % or higher are fairly clear cut. It is the minority of them that can go either way that matter. If it is a close call and a 14-1 wins and a 2-1 is 2nd, there is a lot better chance that the 14-1 is coming down than if that is reversed. Also is has nothing to do with stewards betting or anything like that it has to do with the fact that if you pull down a 14-1, 1 in 20 fans are upset while 1 in 3 are thrilled. I you pull down a 2-1 shot, 1 in 3 fans are upset. If it is borderline, there will be a tendency to keep the public happy and keep down the controversy. If you are looking to query to find some tendencies, I would focus on how many times a horse over 10-1 is put up while a horse that is 4-1 or less is taken down and vice versa.

[cj]

The problem with a query, is that probably 60 % or higher are fairly clear cut. It is the minority of them that can go either way that matter. If it is a close call and a 14-1 wins and a 2-1 is 2nd, there is a lot better chance that the 14-1 is coming down than if that is reversed. Also is has nothing to do with stewards betting or anything like that it has to do with the fact that if you pull down a 14-1, 1 in 20 fans are upset while 1 in 3 are thrilled. I you pull down a 2-1 shot, 1 in 3 fans are upset. If it is borderline, there will be a tendency to keep the public happy and keep down the controversy. If you are looking to query to find some tendencies, I would focus on how many times a horse over 10-1 is put up while a horse that is 4-1 or less is taken down and vice versa.

That is a big number of races in my query and the higher odds horses were put up more often than the lower odds horses. What I posted directly contradicts what you are saying above.

[Poindexter]

That is a big number of races in my query and the higher odds horses were put up more often than the lower odds horses. What I posted directly contradicts what you are saying above.

Maybe, maybe not. I would query how many races are won by a 4-1 or less with a 2nd place finisher being 10-1 plus and query how many races are vice versa.
So lets say there is a 4-1 ratio of the first set of races to the 2nd set of races, Because of that there needs to be about a 4-1 ratio of takedowns of the longer priced horses. If is is only a 3-2 ratio then it would support my viewpoint, not contradict it.

[cj]

Maybe, maybe not. I would query how many races are won by a 4-1 or less with a 2nd place finisher being 10-1 plus and query how many races are vice versa.
So lets say there is a 4-1 ratio of the first set of races to the 2nd set of races, Because of that there needs to be about a 4-1 ratio of takedowns of the longer priced horses. If is is only a 3-2 ratio then it would support my viewpoint, not contradict it.


I just did higher price / lower price. I could add a spread between them as you suggest, but I've done enough already. I have enough experience with queries to know the chances what I posted would change much with a new parameter (bigger gap between odds) are very low.

There is no field in any database that addresses inquiries / objections that did not result in a change. Sometimes that info finds the text notes, sometimes not. It would be a nightmare trying to parse that information accurately.

[thespaah]

Sar 9th.......Another extra look by the Stewards.....Looks like the :4: comes out twice.

[cj]

Here we go again...clear herding, who knows what the stewards will do...LOL, DQ.

[thespaah]

THe Stews pulled down the first place horse and placed it second for interference in the stretch.
corrected order
:2:
:4:
:7:
:8:
I think it was a good call.
The first contact was not tremendous. The second contact was the rider's fault for failing to keep his mount on a reasonably straight course.
At that point, the Stewards had no choice but to pull down the :4:

[cj]

I think they set a precedent in the Sanford, now they are stuck with it.

[thespaah]

All races since 2009.

Horses DQed from 1st: 2498
Average Odds: 6.02

Horses elevated to 1st: 2498
Average Odds: 7.06
And there ya have it. That pretty much blows up SRU's conspiracy theory

[thespaah]

But wouldn't that always be true since shorter priced horses finish ahead of longer prices horses way more often?

I think it would be telling to see the races just where the longer priced horse beat the shorter priced one.
That wan't part of the discussion.
Clearly, your premise was that higher priced entries are deferred to lower priced ones.

[cj]

That wan't part of the discussion.
Clearly, your premise was that higher priced entries are deferred to lower priced ones.

I cleared that one up too in the next query.

[thespaah]

Even if you have a TON of data that shows shorter priced horses dont necessarily get any benefits, it only takes ONE TIME in all those thousands of races for an odds bias to take place. The judges essentially have to go 'undefeated" to prove theres no odds bias. If 99.99999999 percent of the races prove no odds bias but one time there IS an odds bias, that means the odds bias proponents are proven right. No odds bias means 0 times was a lower odds horse given a benefit in an inquiry, whether it was the longer price being disqualified or the favorite benefitting from no bias.

What might be a good query would be to see how many times Pletcher, Baffert and pick out 3 other bigwig trainers and see how their inquiry rates compare to Rudy Rod and 4 other trainers who arent really loved for one reason or another. Can we get a query on specific trainers?

Pletcher would be a great example because hes almost always the shorter priced runner in any inquiry.
Bias....That is a deliberate. In other words you are perceiving that in placing horses, Stewards have a bias toward increasing the positions of horses based on tote odds. CJ's stats say otherwise.
At this point, I think you are getting close to black helicopter territory. You may want to let this one go....

[Stillriledup]

That wan't part of the discussion.
Clearly, your premise was that higher priced entries are deferred to lower priced ones.

It's intertwined in the discussion because if they show bias towards certain humans why would they be unbiased with betting odds? It's one in the same. Bias is bias, either they have it or they don't.

[Stillriledup]

Bias....That is a deliberate. In other words you are perceiving that in placing horses, Stewards have a bias toward increasing the positions of horses based on tote odds. CJ's stats say otherwise.
At this point, I think you are getting close to black helicopter territory. You may want to let this one go....

His stats don't factor in that there are more situations where the shorter priced runner is the physical winner so just by definition there will be more DQs of shorter priced runners.

[cj]

His stats don't factor in that there are more situations where the shorter priced runner is the physical winner so just by definition there will be more DQs of shorter priced runners.

That wasn't the case in my sample. In races with an actual DQ, the higher odds finished 1st only slightly less than the lower odds horse, basically 50/50.

[Stillriledup]

That wasn't the case in my sample. In races with an actual DQ, the higher odds finished 1st only slightly less than the lower odds horse, basically 50/50.

In the 2498 races you ran, how many more times did the shorter priced runner win, do you have that number?

[cj]

In the 2498 races you ran, how many more times did the shorter priced runner win, do you have that number?

It was 4000+ as I said. I gave you all that is possible for races with a DQ. For like the 1000th time, there is no info for races with an objection/inquiry but no DQ. It doesn't exist. So speculate all you want about those, I'll stick to data that can be used.

[Stillriledup]

It was 4000+ as I said. I gave you all that is possible for races with a DQ. For like the 1000th time, there is no info for races with an objection/inquiry but no DQ. It doesn't exist. So speculate all you want about those, I'll stick to data that can be used.

That's not what I'm asking, I'm not talking about races w no DQ, just wanted to know out of the races you ran how many times did the shorter price win.

[cj]

That's not what I'm asking, I'm not talking about races w no DQ, just wanted to know out of the races you ran how many times did the shorter price win.

Since every race I posted is one with the winner DQed, it would be the exact numbers I posted originally. My goodness, am I on Candid Camera - Laptop Edition?

[thespaah]

Since every race I posted is one with the winner DQed, it would be the exact numbers I posted originally. My goodness, am I on Candid Camera - Laptop Edition?
SRU is picking clean the bones on this one.
Oh well. At least it's a lively discussion.

[Stillriledup]

Since every race I posted is one with the winner DQed, it would be the exact numbers I posted originally. My goodness, am I on Candid Camera - Laptop Edition?

:D

Good one.

Ill stop, i dont know how to explain my point so ill let it go.

[EMD4ME]

https://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/videos/race-replay/BED/2015/20150626/1/pan/

https://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/videos/race-replay/BED/2015/20150625/2/pan/

Anyone care to tell me where the consistency in these 2 DQ's/Non DQ's is?

They were 1 day apart, involved the same jockey.

I'm willing to learn. Can someone kindly show me how these 2 situations WERE different and 1 warranted a DQ and the other did not?[/QUOTE]

Don't know if this allowed (TO QUOTE MYSELF) but I am reposting a question that no one answered a few weeks back.

Here are the 2 races recently at Belmont that had me fuming. Same infraction. BOTH RULED TO THE CHALKS FAVOR.

No offense but I don't care what some stat says. An intelligent human's stomach is better than any stat. Can someone, I ask again, please explain to me how 1 CHALK was put up and 1 was NOT DQ'd for the exact same infraction????

Can someone explain to me how the same JOCK was involved in both occurences BUT 1 was taken down and 1 was left up????

I'll say it clearly so no one misunderstands.

The STEWARDS ARE either:

1) Betting chalk and taking advantage of an objection/inquiry

Or

2) Completely INCOMPETENT

Either way, it's wrong.

[thespaah]

:D

Good one.

Ill stop, i dont know how to explain my point so ill let it go.
:)

[EMD4ME]

:D

Good one.

Ill stop, i dont know how to explain my point so ill let it go.

I think was SRU is trying to ask is:

How many times did the chalk win, an inquiry was performed and the chalk stayed up?

Am I right SRU?

[overthehill]

I would be much more interested in seeing the mode than the average in this case.

[cj]

I think was SRU is trying to ask is:

How many times did the chalk win, an inquiry was performed and the chalk stayed up?

Am I right SRU?

He specifically said that isn't what he was asking. That data isn't available as I've said.

[cj]

I would be much more interested in seeing the mode than the average in this case.


You mean the median? There was very little difference. Don't see how the mode could help but if you explain I can try.

[overthehill]

take a look at the 5th at GP today . horse leading from the rail is leading by less than a length. the horse behind him is trying to gain ground and the the rail horse veers out gradually about 8 paths from mid stretch to the finish. the stewards rule it didnt effect the outcome of the race. really? a couple of year ago in new york, my horse was DQued for bumping a horse in mid stretch then after straightening out not only holding the other one safe but puling away at the end. Seems to me if you are not taking a horse down for veering out 8 paths from mid stretch to finish when not clear when are you going to take a horse down. At other tracks they are suddenly taking horses down for shutting off a hole on the turn. when one horse happens to be slightly faster to it. I would be much happier with no DQs for betting purposes since the inconsistency is just brutal.

[overthehill]

you are right cj i mean the median. surprised that there is very lil difference. as i would have thought the median for both might be in the 2-3 range.

[cj]

you are right cj i mean the median. surprised that there is very lil difference. as i would have thought the median for both might be in the 2-3 range.


I meant the relationship between the two, not the actual numbers.

[Dark Horse]

If we the players cared to look out for our interest...then the game would be completely different than it is right now. There have been injustices of all types committed against the players...from unjust disqualifications, to stiffing horses, to past-posting incidents, to ringers being entered in races, to takeout rates being raised to ludicrous levels. The horseplayers bitch and squeal for a little while...but they continue to support this game, as if the injustices never occurred.

Boycott a racetrack for a month just to prove that you are a force to be reckoned with, and THEN see if the game's attitude towards the player doesn't improve in a big way. Because as it stands right now, you can collect all the corroborating evidence that you want in order to prove your point. All that the industry leaders will do if they even bother to see it, is wipe their asses with it.

My problem is with the existing model of three stewards. And particularly with non-unanimous 2-1 decisions. This thread is full of questionable decisions. That's a good starting point, because of the stronger likelihood of 2-1 decisions, but it's certainly not perfect.

As to your assurance that nothing will change. I prefer to try rather than assume. This forum is read by many in the horse racing industry. So why should it be assumed that nothing will change when an important aspect of the game is brought to public attention in a manner that reflects negatively on the industry? Example. There was repeated criticism on this forum about Jon White, who's fine linesmaking skill aren't matched by his prerace analytical ability. Maybe it was already in the cards that he would be replaced, maybe not...

If we, the players, can convince the industry of a fundamental error in 2-1 decisions, while leaving the 3-0 decisions alone, that's a big step in the right direction. And we should probably approach the problem on a track-by-track basis, because one track could lean one way and the second track another way, producing a perfectly even, but meaningless sample for the country.

If I had the data I could run it through the computer, but it would definitely have to include 3-0 and 2-1 descriptions, and be in a track-by-track format. It should then be possible to quickly demonstrate any preference that sets the 3-0 and 2-1 decisions apart. Once 'negative' tracks are isolated, it would be in their best interest to fix the problem, simply because of public awareness.

[Dark Horse]

Why are 2-1 decisions wrong?

Because in horse racing, unlike in other sports where referees are present, the player is part of the game. Think about that.

Once a player has bet his opinion for a race, and the race goes to inquiry, why should each individual player not have the fourth seat in the stewards room? Read the complaints in this thread. Every player expressed frustration that his voice goes unheard. It doesn't have to be that way...

In case of a 3-0 decision there is nothing to add. Even if the decision goes against us, it's one against three and the stewards get our respect. How different it is for 2-1 decisions. Now, if each of us had a voice in the room, it's not 3 against 1, but 1 versus 1. Why should it be assumed that one steward knows better than one player? Why not admit to a stalemate?

A suggestion. In case of a non-unanimous decision, why not adjust the payout scale to that of a dead heat?

[castaway01]

Why are 2-1 decisions wrong?

Because in horse racing, unlike in other sports where referees are present, the player is part of the game. Think about that.

Once a player has bet his opinion for a race, and the race goes to inquiry, why should each individual player not have the fourth seat in the stewards room? Read the complaints in this thread. Every player expressed frustration that his voice goes unheard. It doesn't have to be that way...

In case of a 3-0 decision there is nothing to add. Even if the decision goes against us, it's one against three and the stewards get our respect. How different it is for 2-1 decisions. Now, if each of us had a voice in the room, it's not 3 against 1, but 1 versus 1. Why should it be assumed that one steward knows better than one player? Why not admit to a stalemate?

A suggestion. In case of a non-unanimous decision, why not adjust the payout scale to that of a dead heat?

Claiming the stewards are biased but then saying that the people who bet on a horse would NOT be biased about the race is so illogical that it's hard to even comprehend.

[NY BRED]

MICHAEL DUBB HAS LASHED OUT AGAINST THE STEWARDS FOR
THE DQ OF MAGNA LIGHT IN THE SANFORD.

AS A HIGHLY REGARDED OWNER AND MEMBER OF THE NYRA BOARD,
IT IS IRONIC AND/OR STARTLING THAT MR.DUBB IS CLAIMING
MAGNA LIGHT WAS DISQUALIFIED DUE TO RUDY BEING MEXICAN :eek:

ARE YOU READIUNG THIS DONALD?

:bang: :bang:

[thaskalos]

Why are 2-1 decisions wrong?

Because in horse racing, unlike in other sports where referees are present, the player is part of the game. Think about that.

Once a player has bet his opinion for a race, and the race goes to inquiry, why should each individual player not have the fourth seat in the stewards room? Read the complaints in this thread. Every player expressed frustration that his voice goes unheard. It doesn't have to be that way...

In case of a 3-0 decision there is nothing to add. Even if the decision goes against us, it's one against three and the stewards get our respect. How different it is for 2-1 decisions. Now, if each of us had a voice in the room, it's not 3 against 1, but 1 versus 1. Why should it be assumed that one steward knows better than one player? Why not admit to a stalemate?

A suggestion. In case of a non-unanimous decision, why not adjust the payout scale to that of a dead heat?

The non-unanimous decision is indeed a curious phenomenon...and it definitely should be looked into by those in positions of authority. There is nothing wrong with disqualifying a horse for an obvious infraction...but a 2-1 vote means that the infraction WASN'T obvious. IMO...the disqualifications should be reserved for only the obvious fouls.

My suggestion is to DQ the horse when the stewards' vote is 3-0...but let the result stand and just penalize the jockey when the vote is 2-1. If the foul isn't obvious enough to warrant a 3-0 stewards vote...then give the bettors a break, for heaven's sake. Haven't they suffered enough?

[Dark Horse]

Yes, letting the result stand is the other option for 2-1 decisions. But if they can't do that, they always have the dead heat payout option, already build into the system.

[Dark Horse]

Claiming the stewards are biased but then saying that the people who bet on a horse would NOT be biased about the race is so illogical that it's hard to even comprehend.



Where did I say that the people betting on a horse would not be biased? As suggested to you earlier, you may want to read first before answering to what you thought you read.

Also, I offered to run the data -if someone one such data - through my computer to determine if there is a bias, specifically between a 3-0 and 2-1 sample. Again, lost on you.

You seem to be one of these sorry old folk looking to nitpick ideas of others without ever adding a single constructive thought. Good luck with that.

[Robert Fischer]

(if stewards are consistent) Looks like :5: should come down and be placed 3rd for interfering with :8:'s chances of running 2nd.

:3::8::5:

:5: Global Strike was much the best in winning.

[Robert Fischer]

(if stewards are consistent) Looks like :5: should come down and be placed 3rd for interfering with :8:'s chances of running 2nd.

:3::8::5:

:5: Global Strike was much the best in winning.


Indeed, they actually did act in a consistent manner.
3-8-5

[Stillriledup]

Indeed, they actually did act in a consistent manner.
3-8-5

Consistently taking it in the shorts is more like it.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

(if stewards are consistent) Looks like :5: should come down and be placed 3rd for interfering with :8:'s chances of running 2nd.

:3::8::5:

:5: Global Strike was much the best in winning.

Had my money on the :3: , so I get the benefit of the horse who WAS MUCH THE BEST getting taken down.

Looked to me like the winner drifted in a bit, and perhaps did cost the :8: a placing, but a more consistent and fair approach would be to leave the :5: up and ding the jock for a few days for careless riding.

For anyone with serious dough on the :5: , that's gotta drive ya crazy.....

[Robert Fischer]

Had my money on the :3: , so I get the benefit of the horse who WAS MUCH THE BEST getting taken down.

Looked to me like the winner drifted in a bit, and perhaps did cost the :8: a placing, but a more consistent and fair approach would be to leave the :5: up and ding the jock for a few days for careless riding.

For anyone with serious dough on the :5: , that's gotta drive ya crazy.....

Very true.
The problem is that your :3: came up and got 2nd,so the :8: had a legitimate gripe that he may have held the place had the :5: not swerved over.

If your 3 hangs and gets 3rd, it's an easy decision - Leave it go...

Pretty much impossible to get it right from all angles in that situation.

[Stillriledup]

Very true.
The problem is that your :3: came up and got 2nd,so the :8: had a legitimate gripe that he may have held the place had the :5: not swerved over.

If your 3 hangs and gets 3rd, it's an easy decision - Leave it go...

Pretty much impossible to get it right from all angles in that situation.

If a track announced that they're going to pay the winners no matter what, would you prefer that or do you like the system now?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Very true.
The problem is that your :3: came up and got 2nd,so the :8: had a legitimate gripe that he may have held the place had the :5: not swerved over.

If your 3 hangs and gets 3rd, it's an easy decision - Leave it go...

Pretty much impossible to get it right from all angles in that situation.

Well, poor Neumeier just got fleeced out of six bills, and I bet that's a whole lot more dough relative to him as a player than the purse difference between second and third for the connections of the :8: at the Spa.

I'd be pretty gun shy to put any serious money down at SAR these days.

As a side note, I must be in good with the racing gods today, as my :4: dog just withstood a inquiry at Ellis when he came out a smidge on the :7: in the last race. Fortunately, he won by 2.5 so it "didn't affect the outcome", yet another qualitative aspect for the stewards to consider....

[Neumeier]

Well, poor Neumeier just got fleeced out of six bills, and I bet that's a whole lot more dough relative to him as a player than the purse difference between second and third for the connections of the :8: at the Spa.

I'd be pretty gun shy to put any serious money down at SAR these days.

As a side note, I must be in good with the racing gods today, as my :4: dog just withstood a inquiry at Ellis when he came out a smidge on the :7: in the last race. Fortunately, he won by 2.5 so it "didn't affect the outcome", yet another qualitative aspect for the stewards to consider....

I know people exaggerate and make things sound worse than they are, but I swear I've been on the wrong end of at least 6 DQs in a row- not gonna cry, I'll getem tomorrow

[EMD4ME]

I know people exaggerate and make things sound worse than they are, but I swear I've been on the wrong end of at least 6 DQs in a row- not gonna cry, I'll getem tomorrow


I would not blame the stewards, it's ALL on the jock. As he was getting by, he whipped right handed (which opens the door to lugging in). Horse went back to the wrong lead and voila, a cut off ensues.

No pro does that. As you blow by, YOU ALWAYS WHIP LEFT HANDED TO BE PROACTIVE OF NOT HAVING THAT HAPPEN.

[Robert Fischer]

If a track announced that they're going to pay the winners no matter what, would you prefer that or do you like the system now?

I don't know.
I have not tried to figure it out.

I guess, hypothetically speaking, they could do something in these situations such as treat 2nd and 3rd as a 'dead heat' and leave the winner up. I don't know how well that would work in reality. I haven't thought about it much and it may be a perfectly awful idea.

You can't just leave it :5::3::8:. That completely screws the 8 and all the players who keyed the 8.

The current system is simple and it discourages jockeys from fouling in the stretch.

[EMD4ME]

I don't know.
I have not tried to figure it out.

I guess, hypothetically speaking, they could do something in these situations such as treat 2nd and 3rd as a 'dead heat' and leave the winner up. I don't know how well that would work in reality. I haven't thought about it much and it may be a perfectly awful idea.

You can't just leave it :5::3::8:. That completely screws the 8 and all the players who keyed the 8.

The current system is simple and it discourages jockeys from fouling in the stretch.

I'll say this. I'm against the DEAD HEAT idea as I see Stewards just saying let's make it a dead heat as that's the easy compromise.

That would destroy me as a PICK 6, PICK 5, PICK 4 player as PICK players know, there's nothing worse than a dead heat in the picks. Hit a 30/1, he dead heats with the chalk, guess what, your 30/1 is now 3/5.

I bitch when it's necessary, everyone on here knows I don't hold back.

I'll say this:

I have ZERO problem with every single inquiry this meet. I have agreed with EVERY decision. Stewards are doing a fantastic job so far in a relatively small sample.

As long as you have competent Stewards with MATCHING competent decisions, the system is fine. It's when they do what they normally do, that makes the system broken.

Who knows maybe they are policing for real since it's the SPA. All I care about is their consistency and their abaility to "get it". So far, they have in every Inquiry at the SPA, in my humble opinion.

[ronsmac]

Horses seem to run erratically more often than not . Most Dq's are too harsh in my opinion. I have a buddy who loves Dq's, so I know he's having a good time with Saratoga.

[Stillriledup]

I don't know.
I have not tried to figure it out.

I guess, hypothetically speaking, they could do something in these situations such as treat 2nd and 3rd as a 'dead heat' and leave the winner up. I don't know how well that would work in reality. I haven't thought about it much and it may be a perfectly awful idea.

You can't just leave it :5::3::8:. That completely screws the 8 and all the players who keyed the 8.

The current system is simple and it discourages jockeys from fouling in the stretch.

It only screws them under the current system. If they know going in there are no DQs, they won't feel jobbed as they're betting the race knowing they might get bumped w no action taken. My advice is to find a way to bet on horses who don't get bumped, many inquires stem from horses being too slow to keep up.

[EMD4ME]

It only screws them under the current system. If they know going in there are no DQs, they won't feel jobbed as they're betting the race knowing they might get bumped w no action taken. My advice is to find a way to bet on horses who don't get bumped, many inquires stem from horses being too slow to keep up.

I agree that a lot of DQ's do stem from horses who are too slow to keep up and CANT keep a spot, get checked and claim foul.

I will add, that most inquiries are from jocks who cross a line AND/OR are incompetent many times.

People scream how great certain jocks are these days. If the rider of the 5 at the SPA was really good, why didn't he whip left handed (no one was to his right, a tiring horse was to his left) as he was going by the 8?

Because he's not that good of a rider.

As inconsistent as the Stewards are, the jocks are ten times more inconsistent.

Maybe we'll see this ride on trips and traps and Richie will say how Javier is a class act for admitting his mistake of whipping right handed as he blew by :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Neumeier]

Wow!

This is when I believe in a higher power. I didn't cry too bad about my loss.

I had $36 to win on the 4 and wheeled the double at Del Mar. I crumbled up my ticket and the bartender had to dig it out of the trash when my 4 got put up!

[Tor Ekman]

Since many if not most of these fouls are the result of misguided use of the whip, has any circuit ever experimented with races ridden by jockeys without riding crops? I believe Calracing has limits on the # and frequency of strikes but has anyone experimented with doing away with it altogether? Sorry if this is a stupid question?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I hate to say it but probably the best change they could make these days is just to DQ for riding infractions and ditch this cost so and so a placing being the standard. I got dinged a few days ago with a DQ at Hastings on a horse that could have run around the track five more times and not been caught by the horse the jock senselessly ran right over letting his horse lug in under a gratuitous right handed stick. Never once did I even consider being mad at the stews even though I couldn't envision a scenario where this horse gets beat. It was all on the idiot jock. I'll take more DQs if it means these guys start thinking less about whether or not the horse they are needlessly fouling are a threat to them or not and start figuring out how to ride without needlessly fouling them. As bad as some of these calls are, the rides are twenty times as bad and the riders need to start to taking the brunt of the gripe for them instead of the stews if you want to give them (stews) less latitude to play visionary and err on the side of what might have happened instead of what did happen. I've never been sure if I thought this way, but more and more it seems like the only way to get some of these lame brained rides that cause bad calls in the first place under control to some degree.

[Stillriledup]

Jocks don't lose money on DQs they just lose money they would have made. If a bettors entire life savings is 10,000 (for example) and he bets 100 to win and gets DQd he loses 100 off his life savings and it goes to 9900. If a jocks life savings is 10,000 and he wins and gets DQd, his savings still stays at 10,000 it doesn't go down.

Maybe instead of 3 days suspension, they should be fined. I don't know if that would fix the carelessness or not, but it couldn't hurt.

[overthehill]

it just seems a bit ironic to me that had the #8 held the place spot, he probably would not have been put up as the #5 was clearly best and had gone right by which makes even wonder if the rider on the #8 had to check , or just as maybe his best hope of winning the race. but because he lost the place, the stewards took action and dqued the much the best winner.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Jocks don't lose money on DQs they just lose money they would have made. ...

Most riders that have any concept of winning races can tell you to the penny what every pot is worth to them and have already appended it to their calculation of the weekly check when they cross the wire in front. Whatever your logic is here that seems to imply that DQ's don't matter to riders because they already have money or whatever is way out there in the bleachers.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

As inconsistent as the Stewards are, the jocks are ten times more inconsistent.

Honest question EMD4ME.

Is there a "name" jockey or two that you actually respect?

[Stillriledup]

Most riders that have any concept of winning races can tell you to the penny what every pot is worth to them and have already appended it to their calculation of the weekly check when they cross the wire in front. Whatever your logic is here that seems to imply that DQ's don't matter to riders because they already have money or whatever is way out there in the bleachers.

If a bettor loses he loses cash he already had if a jock loses a purse he doesn't also lose money he already had. The jock isn't risking hundreds or thousands to ride, he doesn't Have to pay money out of his own pocket to secure the mount, a bettor has to fish cash out of his pocket to bet, jocks get a "free roll" essentially.

[NorCalGreg]

Since many if not most of these fouls are the result of misguided use of the whip, has any circuit ever experimented with races ridden by jockeys without riding crops? I believe Calracing has limits on the # and frequency of strikes but has anyone experimented with doing away with it altogether? Sorry if this is a stupid question?

Of course it's a valid question, Tor. Think the UK might have banned the use over there, surprised uber-lib Cali hasn't proposed the ban altogether, instead of the "3-whip & see" rule. We do have a rule against calling a "whip", a "whip" now--so that's a big help. You must refer to it as a "riding crop". So says the Honorable Bo Derek. Yes, THAT Bo Derek-1st Vice Chair. Chairman PeeWee Herman, Presiding Vice- California Horse Racing Board.

[burnsy]

If a bettor loses he loses cash he already had if a jock loses a purse he doesn't also lose money he already had. The jock isn't risking hundreds or thousands to ride, he doesn't Have to pay money out of his own pocket to secure the mount, a bettor has to fish cash out of his pocket to bet, jocks get a "free roll" essentially.


Tell that to one like Manuel Franco while two horses are running over him. Yeah. they are not risking money, which they are, that's how that get paid, they are also risking life and limb so us fat asses can bet on them and cheer. If its such a "free roll" put your tickets down and take a mount. :) As for them being inconsistent, its a professional sport, with professional competition.....batters never strike out? QB's never throw int's and runners never fumble...there's no such thing as an error in baseball? People write, talk and bitch about it....usually have no shot at actually doing it....that's why they can just talk about it. People watch too much "First Take" on ESPN. Everyone is a Stephen A (A for ASS) or Skip Bayless (Payless) for crying out loud, its not as easy as it looks, the only reason it looks easy is because these people are good......sometimes shit happens when other people that are just as good are gunning for you in competition....that's kind of how it works..... :bang:

These stewards should also consider this when they make these rinky, dinky calls....if the ride was dangerous, I would understand.....but these people are trying to win, not every "jostle" is grounds for DQ.

[EMD4ME]

Honest question EMD4ME.

Is there a "name" jockey or two that you actually respect?

Ramon Dominguez and to a certain extent, Jerry Bailey.

The current crop are ALL flawed and are ALL terribly inconsistent.

I wish there was one I could hang my hat on, I really do :(

[johnhannibalsmith]

If a bettor loses he loses cash he already had if a jock loses a purse he doesn't also lose money he already had. The jock isn't risking hundreds or thousands to ride, he doesn't Have to pay money out of his own pocket to secure the mount, a bettor has to fish cash out of his pocket to bet, jocks get a "free roll" essentially.

Okay. Pass the LSD.

[ronsmac]

I just watched the dq at Saratoga yesterday. That was absolutely disgraceful, how does anyone bet that place after that?

[Stillriledup]

Okay. Pass the LSD.

Ill take that as an 'you're right SRU, as usual'.

Thanks for the compliments. :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

[/B]

Tell that to one like Manuel Franco while two horses are running over him. Yeah. they are not risking money, which they are, that's how that get paid, they are also risking life and limb so us fat asses can bet on them and cheer. If its such a "free roll" put your tickets down and take a mount. :) As for them being inconsistent, its a professional sport, with professional competition.....batters never strike out? QB's never throw int's and runners never fumble...there's no such thing as an error in baseball? People write, talk and bitch about it....usually have no shot at actually doing it....that's why they can just talk about it. People watch too much "First Take" on ESPN. Everyone is a Stephen A (A for ASS) or Skip Bayless (Payless) for crying out loud, its not as easy as it looks, the only reason it looks easy is because these people are good......sometimes shit happens when other people that are just as good are gunning for you in competition....that's kind of how it works..... :bang:

These stewards should also consider this when they make these rinky, dinky calls....if the ride was dangerous, I would understand.....but these people are trying to win, not every "jostle" is grounds for DQ.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. My point was that jocks don't have to spend cash to secure a mount, they don't have to pay to ride. I never said it wasn't dangerous.

[ReplayRandall]

Ramon Dominguez and to a certain extent, Jerry Bailey.

The current crop are ALL flawed and are ALL terribly inconsistent.

I wish there was one I could hang my hat on, I really do :(

IMO, there are two jocks, when healthy, who are both consistent and give honest courageous rides, frequently offering surprising value:

Rajiv Maragh

Junior Alvarado

[cj]

Of course I bet the fouled horse that finished third today so a DQ won't help...geez.

[Aerocraft67]

Is this where I complain about my :3: + :4: exacta box in SAR 2 today, where the legit :4: DQ from 1st to 3rd restored the rightful place spot of the :3: , but put :1: in the winners circle, ruining the true exacta that would have granted me my 16/1 proposition?

[Stillriledup]

Is this where I complain about my :3: + :4: exacta box in SAR 2 today, where the legit :4: DQ from 1st to 3rd restored the rightful place spot of the :3: , but put :1: in the winners circle, ruining the true exacta that would have granted me my 16/1 proposition?

Yes this is where you 'air your gripes'. Sorry about the theft that was perpetrated on you.

[aaron]

Did anyone see the 9th at Finger Lakes yesterday. I thought it should have been a obvious DQ,but the number stayed. I made a small bet in between the Saratoga races and thought I was going to be rewarded. Since,I am a firm believer that you never know with stewards,I am not shocked it stayed. Just interested in whay others thought who saw the replay. Thanks

[no breathalyzer]

Disgraceful take down at Saratoga in the 6th race.. makes me sick.. would like to like what others like . i will admit i might be biased just slightly here... but it seems they just were itching to change the results in this one... 2 was clear of the 3!.. it didn't cost him shit in placings either :mad:

[dragon49]

#2 Juba was DQd from 2nd to 3rd from a stewards objection for interfering with Sassicaia in the stretch. The replay purported to show the incident that got the result changed where Juba ran right through Sassicaia, cutting him off, but a few seconds earlier in he stretch, the same thing happened, but Sassicaia recovered and caught up, which prompted the second incident—so in my opinion, either of the cut offs should have been enough to cause the DQ.

[dragon49]

Disgraceful take down at Saratoga in the 6th race.. makes me sick.. would like to like what others like . i will admit i might be biased just slightly here... but it seems they just were itching to change the results in this one... 2 was clear of the 3!.. it didn't cost him shit in placings either :mad:

Sorry if you lost money in the race. I didn't have any wagers on this one. It did look to me like the 2 clearly cut off the 3. Even if he was clear of the 3 by then, if he ran a straight line, it would have given the 3 a chance to come back, but when he took his lane (2x) it did not.

[Stillriledup]

This nyra is a rough place, so many DQs here makes you wonder if its all worth it. I know personally DQs get me older and make my stress levels go up, I've been taken down for massive amounts of money at least twice in career but never been put up for anything close, I'm about a small house in Toledo Ohio behind.

[freehouse2002]

Just had one at DMR race 2. Had a few bucks on the :1: at 28-1. maldonado comes up the rail without sufficient clearance and they dq the :1: to 2nd. Horrible.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

This nyra is a rough place, so many DQs here makes you wonder if its all worth it. I know personally DQs get me older and make my stress levels go up, I've been taken down for massive amounts of money at least twice in career but never been put up for anything close, I'm about a small house in Toledo Ohio behind.

I've never suffered a big loss or hit a big windfall via DQ, but I agree that NYRA is getting to be a bit much. I had to suffer through the inquiry in the 7th today at the Spa, before they left the :5: Recepta stay up - and since the horse was much the best, it would have been a puker to let Junior get away with that acting job.....

[Stillriledup]

I've never suffered a big loss or hit a big windfall via DQ, but I agree that NYRA is getting to be a bit much. I had to suffer through the inquiry in the 7th today at the Spa, before they left the :5: Recepta stay up - and since the horse was much the best, it would have been a puker to let Junior get away with that acting job.....

He's acting because he knows they take down a ton of horses for the smallest things, why not try and steal one.

[gemcity39]

I agree and again NO consistency:mad: at all

[KingChas]

Lot of DQ's at the Spa this year and the Jocks are on to it.

Risky move by JA almost cost Mott a 2nd place finish.

This move by Jr. was the equivillant of a basketball flop in my opinion. :ThmbDown:

[EMD4ME]

I think the Stewards at the SPA have BEEN CONSISTENT and GREAT. Have not disagreed with a single decision.

Time to give credit and not blast them every time. This has been the best meet that I ever remember from a consistency stand point.

[EMD4ME]

UNTIL NOW.

How does the 1 not come down????

Cut off the horse who's blowing by you on the inside for the last 40 yards of the race and stay up. Hold on by a CHEATING NECK, with the dirtiest rider on the circuit.

That was STUPID.

[thaskalos]

UNTIL NOW.

How does the 1 not come down????

Cut off the horse who's blowing by you on the inside for the last 40 yards of the race and stay up. Hold on by a CHEATING NECK, with the dirtiest rider on the circuit.

That was STUPID.
See what happens when you praise the enemy?

[no breathalyzer]

JUST SAYING... how do you not take down the 1 horse in the 5th race at SAR.
:bang: :bang: :bang:
great ride by Decarlo gets punished and put to waste.. i got that jinky luck rite now i guess

[EMD4ME]

See what happens when you praise the enemy?

You are right. I was trying to be fair and giving credit where credit is due. Don't know what I was thinking, being fair. I should've known their stupidity and assinine nature would come out eventually.

[no breathalyzer]

maybe they didn't appreciate his tweet for yesterday :lol:

[no breathalyzer]

so reading thru peoples opinion on this race .. i came across had the 8 been edged out for 2nd then the 1 horse should have been dq'd...

WHAT??? so with this logic if you get fouled you are better to just stop ridding then i guess :confused:

[Stillriledup]

UNTIL NOW.

How does the 1 not come down????

Cut off the horse who's blowing by you on the inside for the last 40 yards of the race and stay up. Hold on by a CHEATING NECK, with the dirtiest rider on the circuit.

That was STUPID.

Those judges are clowns, you need to apologize to the racing gods for ever complimenting them. :D

[EMD4ME]

Those judges are clowns, you need to apologize to the racing gods for ever complimenting them. :D

It's my fault for, despite calling like it is, giving them too much credit.

Please racing gods forgive me for my stupidity! I need racing luck not racing doom.

[EMD4ME]

See what happens when you praise the enemy?

You're right, I am sorry.

[mikesal57]

Race 9 Monday Mountaineer ...

I had the #4 , my mouth was watering waiting for the DQ..

I cant believe it... :bang:

Watch the beginning of the race head on...


I'm going to find a gun and shoot myself...

[Track Collector]

The #8, who was the winner of the race, comes out of the gate, veers to the right bumping the #9, and knocks that one's jockey off the horse.

How can that not be a DQ?

[EMD4ME]

I thinks it legal to pull a lasso rope out, reel in your foe (jock) AS long as its done at the start :lol: :bang:

[no breathalyzer]

The worst stewards in racing reside at the Mountain

[EMD4ME]

The worst stewards in racing reside at the Mountain

I dont know. Maybe a multiple steward Dead Heat with a dozen steward teams involved.

[NorCalGreg]

The #8, who was the winner of the race, comes out of the gate, veers to the right bumping the #9, and knocks that one's jockey off the horse.

How can that not be a DQ?

LOL We were watching that on the "Mountain" thread....when the numbers stopped flashing, and nothing changed, and it just said "OFFICIAL" we we like ---what the hell? It just so happened EMD's sometimes arch-enemy had the :8: and even he was sorta stunned. That was unreal.

[EMD4ME]

I'll never forget their DQ from a few weeks back. Believe it was a 4 horse in the finale. Horse was straight as an arrow down the lane and got DQ'd erroneously.

[mikesal57]

The worst stewards in racing reside at the Mountain


maybe it was the last of the moonshine when they reviewed it from lying on the floor.. :confused:


"Who,what ,where,when,why was that right turn?"

[Stillriledup]

The worst stewards in racing reside in WV
FTFY

go back to feb 25, 2014 and watch the headon of the 5th race at Charlesclown, the 2 gets taken down from 3rd, The 3 caused his own problems by missing the kick and yet he was rewarded on an impossibly bad DQ, this type of stuff happens in dozens of races in America on a DAILY basis and you don't see DQs, well except when I need the money they seek me out and I'm the guy who's on the back of the 1 in 1000 'gate infraction' that gets taken down.

[EMD4ME]

Absolutely REPULSIVE BS DQ at Pres Isle just now. Race 4. Jockey of winner was so sure they weren't coming down that he got up on horse after 5 minutes of looking at it, took his pic and the camera crew put up graphics of the winner.

Then, they incredulously took the horse down.

I watched this live and in replay, a complete JOKE. The winner closed by the speed horse, was home free and the runner up gave a THEATRICAL check.


Stewards must have spent 60 hours in the dummy class as it showed here.

Didn't effect the outcome of the race 1 IOTA.

I HATE larceny, I HATE stupidity and I HATE stewards again because in this case they EITHER BET ON the horse they put up OR they're completely and CERTIFIABLY STUPID.

[ReplayRandall]

Absolutely REPULSIVE BS DQ at Pres Isle just now. Race 4. Jockey of winner was so sure they weren't coming down that he got up on horse after 5 minutes of looking at it, took his pic and the camera crew put up graphics of the winner.

Then, they incredulously took the horse down.

I watched this live and in replay, a complete JOKE. The winner closed by the speed horse, was home free and the runner up gave a THEATRICAL check.


Stewards must have spent 60 hours in the dummy class as it showed here.

Didn't effect the outcome of the race 1 IOTA.

I HATE larceny, I HATE stupidity and I HATE stewards again because in this case they EITHER BET ON the horse they put up OR they're completely and CERTIFIABLY STUPID.

Just spoke with Chris at Stewards Office at PI, began to calmly summarize what I saw in Race #4, was promptly hung-up on.......866-374-3386 and ask for Steward's Offfice, nice gal answered the phone and said they've been inundated with calls.

[EMD4ME]

Just spoke with Chris at Stewards Office at PI, began to calmly summarize what I saw in Race #4, was promptly hung-up on.......866-374-3386 and ask for Steward's Offfice, nice gal answered the phone and said they've been inundated with calls.

These are the responses I LOVE. I will call 86 times between now and 8 pm

THANK YOU REPLAYRANDALL

[EMD4ME]

Called. No answer. Got their voice mail. Left a polite message :rolleyes:

Calling again

[cj]

...and said they've been inundated with calls.

I don't doubt she said it, but I do doubt they've been inundated with calls. Please? PID? If a tree falls...

[EMD4ME]

I don't doubt she said it, but I do doubt they've been inundated with calls. Please? PID? If a tree falls...

I would think so but they didn't answer my 5 dials.

[thaskalos]

I would think so but they didn't answer my 5 dials.
They probably got you on "ignore".

[Robert Fischer]

Absolutely REPULSIVE BS DQ at Pres Isle just now. Race 4. Jockey of winner was so sure they weren't coming down that he got up on horse after 5 minutes of looking at it, took his pic and the camera crew put up graphics of the winner.

Then, they incredulously took the horse down.

I watched this live and in replay, a complete JOKE. The winner closed by the speed horse, was home free and the runner up gave a THEATRICAL check.


Stewards must have spent 60 hours in the dummy class as it showed here.

Didn't effect the outcome of the race 1 IOTA.

I HATE larceny, I HATE stupidity and I HATE stewards again because in this case they EITHER BET ON the horse they put up OR they're completely and CERTIFIABLY STUPID.

That was a bad one.

Whether the check was acting or not,:2: doesn't beat the :6: at that point without rocket boosters. The race was over when the alleged check happened.
:2: held a clear second and was not cost a placing either.

Call was inconsistent with the standard for disqualifications.

[EMD4ME]

They probably got you on "ignore".

I would do the same thing if I were them.

If I were a crook or completely stupid, the LAST person I would want to speak to is ME.

I can be professionally annoying to no END.

[Stillriledup]

Just spoke with Chris at Stewards Office at PI, began to calmly summarize what I saw in Race #4, was promptly hung-up on.......866-374-3386 and ask for Steward's Offfice, nice gal answered the phone and said they've been inundated with calls.

Ill call tomorrow when they're not on high alert.

Maybe Pa is a foul is a foul state, what else coułd it be?

[EMD4ME]

Ill call tomorrow when they're not on high alert.

Maybe Pa is a foul is a foul state, what else coułd it be?

Don't make me answer that again :bang: :bang: :bang: :lol:

[Stillriledup]

Don't make me answer that again :bang: :bang: :bang: :lol:

report them to the FBI for tampering with a sporting contest. :D

[EMD4ME]

report them to the FBI for tampering with a sporting contest. :D

I was thinking that. And a bogus call to them stating that Murray Rojas' lover is a steward at Presque Isle Downs. :lol:

[Stillriledup]

I was thinking that. And a bogus call to them stating that Murray Rojas' lover is a steward at Presque Isle Downs. :lol:

This tyPe of stewarding is a cancer on the game, just pay the friggin winner instead of inserting the 'hand of god' into other peoples pockets.

What a joke.

[Pensacola Pete]

These are the responses I LOVE. I will call 86 times between now and 8 pm

THANK YOU REPLAYRANDALL

Do you suppose that's a bit immature of you?

[Stillriledup]

Do you suppose that's a bit immature of you?

I agree, only calling 86 times is immature, calling at Least 100 would be better. ;)

[thaskalos]

I would do the same thing if I were them.

If I were a crook or completely stupid, the LAST person I would want to speak to is ME.

I can be professionally annoying to no END.

This gives me an idea:

Save the stewards' phone number...and the next time there is an inquiry there, call them while the inquiry is still in progress.

THAT'S how you get things done.

[EMD4ME]

This gives me an idea:

Save the stewards' phone number...and the next time there is an inquiry there, call them while the inquiry is still in progress.

THAT'S how you get things done.

I've done that already in the past. I have no shame in admitting it: when I was much younger I called the stewards and lied about who I was. Got me.no where . They still suck.

I Dont know what I was thinking, complimenting them last week.

[Stillriledup]

The guy on the winner in the 4th at togajust crashed out at the top of the lane, I guess that's ok?

[no breathalyzer]

The guy on the winner in the 4th at togajust crashed out at the top of the lane, I guess that's ok?

:lol: not really. if they messed with that one it was gonna be long vacation time for me :)

[Stillriledup]

:lol: not really. if they messed with that one it was gonna be long vacation time for me :)

But they dq anything that moves at this place, why would that all of a sudden not result in a dq like all the others? The head on shot looks like nothing happened but the normal pan shot the guy crashes into 2 horses, it was pretty hard contact. In my world it stays up just like most of the shaky dqs this meet, but for their 'standard' that any little incident is a dq, why would this be different from the rest?

[EMD4ME]

Do you suppose that's a bit immature of you?

As a guy who is always serious (work like and home)AND who has been F'd with by stewards for real money, not hundreds of dollars but tens of thousands, I think my 86 calls would've been just the minimum....

[SuperPickle]

But they dq anything that moves at this place, why would that all of a sudden not result in a dq like all the others? The head on shot looks like nothing happened but the normal pan shot the guy crashes into 2 horses, it was pretty hard contact. In my world it stays up just like most of the shaky dqs this meet, but for their 'standard' that any little incident is a dq, why would this be different from the rest?

Because the 8 was 27-1 and out of horse. Franco was trying to pin Lezcano on the rail and didn't have any horse.

It looks bad on one shot and like nothing on the other.

Also it was a trainers objection so they weren't touching it on principle.

[EMD4ME]

*work LIFE home

[EMD4ME]

I agree, only calling 86 times is immature, calling at Least 100 would be better. ;)

For their TORTURE I should have called 10,000 times between now and next week.

Even after that, they would still be ahead of me in terms of who annoyed who more.

[Stillriledup]

Because the 8 was 27-1 and out of horse. Franco was trying to pin Lezcano on the rail and didn't have any horse.

It looks bad on one shot and like nothing on the other.

Also it was a trainers objection so they weren't touching it on principle.

So you can bump a horse if he's 27-1? We have had Vic and others come in here and say price doesn't matter.

[SuperPickle]

So you can bump a horse if he's 27-1? We have had Vic and others come in here and say price doesn't matter.

Price doesn't matter. The horse was 27-1 and out of gas. If he had gas he keeps the hole closed. He's 27-1 to because he can't keep up with these horse.

Love how you complain when the stewards get it totally right. Franco had no horse. He was race riding Lezcano. Lezcano rode him back.

You saw good race riding. Franco tired to pin him and Lezcano muscled him. You saw good stewarding. They saw what I wrote.

[Stillriledup]

Price doesn't matter. The horse was 27-1 and out of gas. If he had gas he keeps the hole closed. He's 27-1 to because he can't keep up with these horse.

Love how you complain when the stewards get it totally right. Franco had no horse. He was race riding Lezcano. Lezcano rode him back.

You saw good race riding. Franco tired to pin him and Lezcano muscled him. You saw good stewarding. They saw what I wrote.

I agree that the right call with real stewards was no change, but this is Saratoga the home of the phantom DQ and the posterior clown stewards, so I was just shocked there was no change as there's usually a change, warranted or not.

[SuperPickle]

I agree that the right call with real stewards was no change, but this is Saratoga the home of the phantom DQ and the posterior clown stewards, so I was just shocked there was no change as there's usually a change, warranted or not.

Here's the other part of it Vic has brought up. Contact always look worse on the turn than a straight way because horses are off balance.

What you saw was nothing. They didn't even light the inquiry light.

[Stillriledup]

Here's the other part of it Vic has brought up. Contact always look worse on the turn than a straight way because horses are off balance.

What you saw was nothing. They didn't even light the inquiry light.

Them not lighting the light isnt exactly a ringing endorsement of correctness.

There was no room and the guy made some, it is what it is.

[EMD4ME]

I know, I know, I know....

What am I doing betting Emerald will be the question...


I bet $200 to win on the 1 in race 3. He wires at 12/1. I walk away humbly celebrating, come back to a jockey's objection.

I saw the quote unquote incident live but said to myself they'll never take a horse down for that.

5 minutes after the race, jockey's objection. No inquiry.

Watch my pin head come off, talk to the stewards. 2 minutes jumps back on horse with ecstatic high 5's, takes his picture, celebrates with the whole crowd (of 10 people lol).

2 minutes later, he comes down.

I don't know what's more infuriating. Being taken down for such a ticky tack foul OR the series of watching the pinhead get back on the horse, take a picture, hug the world as if the race is official and then be taken down 2 minutes later for a bullcrap DQ.

Before you ask, it's Longacres Weekend and I wanted to see how the track is playing. Found a horse I had on my horse to watch list (if he's loose) and he was today. I bet $200 and they snatch $2600 from my hands. I thought it was worth breaking the boycott, boy did they teach me.......

[SuperPickle]

I know, I know, I know....

What am I doing betting Emerald will be the question...


I bet $200 to win on the 1 in race 3. He wires at 12/1. I walk away humbly celebrating, come back to a jockey's objection.

I saw the quote unquote incident live but said to myself they'll never take a horse down for that.

5 minutes after the race, jockey's objection. No inquiry.

Watch my pin head come off, talk to the stewards. 2 minutes jumps back on horse with ecstatic high 5's, takes his picture, celebrates with the whole crowd (of 10 people lol).

2 minutes later, he comes down.

I don't know what's more infuriating. Being taken down for such a ticky tack foul OR the series of watching the pinhead get back on the horse, take a picture, hug the world as if the race is official and then be taken down 2 minutes later for a bullcrap DQ.

Before you ask, it's Longacres Weekend and I wanted to see how the track is playing. Found a horse I had on my horse to watch list (if he's loose) and he was today. I bet $200 and they snatch $2600 from my hands. I thought it was worth breaking the boycott, boy did they teach me.......


Yeah I don't know how I feel about that one. It's relatively light contact into the stretch. The other side of the coin is the margin is a neck and the fouled horse ran a closing second.

I would have left it but I get the DQ.

I doubt they flip it if the fouled horse isn't a closing second by a neck.

The 50/50 calls are the toughest. In Louisiana this stays. At Saratoga or Del Mar it's a DQ.

[EMD4ME]

Yeah I don't know how I feel about that one. It's relatively light contact into the stretch. The other side of the coin is the margin is a neck and the fouled horse ran a closing second.

I would have left it but I get the DQ.

I doubt they flip it if the fouled horse isn't a closing second by a neck.

The 50/50 calls are the toughest. In Louisiana this stays. At Saratoga or Del Mar it's a DQ.

This only hurts as 2 weeks ago I wrote to the Washington State Racing Commission about a blatant foul (6 strides of a horse knocking out 2 horses) and they left him up. In that same race, the 1/2 chalk was "ridden" to lose. Disgusting race.

This was one of my few plays there since and to be DQ'd like that......it's as if they knew where the $200 win bet on the price horse came from and said HERE.....

[EMD4ME]

And OF COURSE, my pick 5 ticket of 1/1356/1478/8/3589 came in....

$7,000 PLUS for .50

DQ'd out of that as well....

[thespaah]

Ruh roh.....
SAR 8th......8/15...
Paco Lopez on the :8: is claiming foul on the second place runner :6:. The Stewards are also taking a look....
The :6: does come out and impede the :8: causing the rider to take up and lose a placing...However, the :6: was going by and the :8: had no chance of finishing ahead of the :6:
Hold all tickies

[thespaah]

Well well well. They pulled down the :6: and placed it 5th.....BTW the :6: was the betting favorite.....

[Rookies]

Well well well. They pulled down the :6: and placed it 5th.....BTW the :6: was the betting favorite.....

That's ok. I really didn't need that $3Ex of Kieran on top @8-1. :bang: :mad:

[EMD4ME]

Rudy claiming foul in race 3 today...How ironic and smart. His horse was not impeded BUT the winner drifted wide at the 1/16, similar to why he was taken down himself opening week.

If they don't take the winner down, helps with their appeal and descrimination accusation.

If they take him down, they get a stakes share.

They didn't take her down.....More ammo for him.

[Kash$]

Rudy claiming foul in race 3 today...How ironic and smart. His horse was not impeded BUT the winner drifted wide at the 1/16, similar to why he was taken down himself opening week.

If they don't take the winner down, helps with their appeal and descrimination accusation.

If they take him down, they get a stakes share.

They didn't take her down.....More ammo for him.

Amazing...official

[moneyandland]

Rudy claiming foul in race 3 today...How ironic and smart. His horse was not impeded BUT the winner drifted wide at the 1/16, similar to why he was taken down himself opening week.

If they don't take the winner down, helps with their appeal and descrimination accusation.

If they take him down, they get a stakes share.

They didn't take her down.....More ammo for him.


HUGE difference between the two races.

Opening week, Rudy's horse ducks out 5 paths and corrects back 7 paths while possibly impeding the 3rd place finishers chances of 2nd...

Todays Race Rudys horse is lugging in at the moment he comes to the winner who happens to drift 1/2 a path and then proceeds to draw away by 3 lengths... 1.) Rudy's horse was shifting in as much as the winner was moving out. 2.) Clearly had no effect on the race outcome

[EMD4ME]

HUGE difference between the two races.

Opening week, Rudy's horse ducks out 5 paths and corrects back 7 paths while possibly impeding the 3rd place finishers chances of 2nd...

Todays Race Rudys horse is lugging in at the moment he comes to the winner who happens to drift 1/2 a path and then proceeds to draw away by 3 lengths... 1.) Rudy's horse was shifting in as much as the winner was moving out. 2.) Clearly had no effect on the race outcome


I'm not saying they're the same situation, don't get me wrong. Just saying Rudy was smart to make that a trainer's objection for a somewhat similar case.

That's all. Like the move by Rudy. Wonder if his atty advised that.

[NY BRED]

POSITION LOCATION: SARATOGA

(ONE OF THE) CASE(S) IN POINT : TODAY'S THRD RACE AT THE SPA.

ANYONE CARE TO DEBATE iRAD DID NOT APPEAR TO JAB JOEL
JOEL ROSARIO WITH HIS ELBOWAND CAUSE# 6 TO CHECK?

THAT SAID, EXPLAIN HOW THE #5 GETS DQ'D?

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

[v j stauffer]

POSITION LOCATION: SARATOGA

(ONE OF THE) CASE(S) IN POINT : TODAY'S THRD RACE AT THE SPA.

ANYONE CARE TO DEBATE iRAD DID NOT APPEAR TO JAB JOEL
JOEL ROSARIO WITH HIS ELBOWAND CAUSE# 6 TO CHECK?

THAT SAID, EXPLAIN HOW THE #5 GETS DQ'D?

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Please post as many views as possible of the race in question.

[SG4]

This was a really tricky decision. I felt that the 6 had to come down for the interference at the top of the stretch where she came out & hindered the group of horses to her outside, but it appears that the bumping around the 150 yard mark was what they were looking at & ultimately took her down for. In this situation the 6 starts to bear out again but doesn't make any contact with the 3, the 3 bears out (I think half on her own accord, half in reaction to the 6 starting to come out again) & in turn takes away the lane of one of the outside horses, forcing them to check.

I feel like I saw something similar several years back on the west coast where a horse was bearing out & in my eyes caused a chain reaction from the jocks reacting, but because there was no contact that horse stayed up & the one behind it doing the actual bumping was taken down, remember this ticked me off greatly cause it appeared the real cause wasn't addressed in the decision.

Either way I couldn't believe the inquiry in this race didn't even consider the winner at fault apparently, and that doesn't sit greatly with me since it was the Ortiz brothers 1-2 so I feel like Irad was hesitant to lay blame against his brother.

[Stillriledup]

This was a really tricky decision. I felt that the 6 had to come down for the interference at the top of the stretch where she came out & hindered the group of horses to her outside, but it appears that the bumping around the 150 yard mark was what they were looking at & ultimately took her down for. In this situation the 6 starts to bear out again but doesn't make any contact with the 3, the 3 bears out (I think half on her own accord, half in reaction to the 6 starting to come out again) & in turn takes away the lane of one of the outside horses, forcing them to check.

I feel like I saw something similar several years back on the west coast where a horse was bearing out & in my eyes caused a chain reaction from the jocks reacting, but because there was no contact that horse stayed up & the one behind it doing the actual bumping was taken down, remember this ticked me off greatly cause it appeared the real cause wasn't addressed in the decision.

Either way I couldn't believe the inquiry in this race didn't even consider the winner at fault apparently, and that doesn't sit greatly with me since it was the Ortiz brothers 1-2 so I feel like Irad was hesitant to lay blame against his brother.

Esteemed PA poster EDM4Coupons loves races with both Ortiz's in the same race because those guys are so competitive with each other that you know what you're getting, a truly run and aggressively run race. Such credits to the game those two youts, integrity beyond reproach, their presence in almost every nyra race makes the game as fun as it was when we were young.

[EMD4ME]

Esteemed PA poster EDM4Coupons loves races with both Ortiz's in the same race because those guys are so competitive with each other that you know what you're getting, a truly run and aggressively run race. Such credits to the game those two youts, integrity beyond reproach, their presence in almost every nyra race makes the game as fun as it was when we were young.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

AND MANY MORE :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[EMD4ME]

POSITION LOCATION: SARATOGA

(ONE OF THE) CASE(S) IN POINT : TODAY'S THRD RACE AT THE SPA.

ANYONE CARE TO DEBATE iRAD DID NOT APPEAR TO JAB JOEL
JOEL ROSARIO WITH HIS ELBOWAND CAUSE# 6 TO CHECK?

THAT SAID, EXPLAIN HOW THE #5 GETS DQ'D?

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:


3rd race? Did you mean another race? Like the 5th?

I'll say this. I LOVE THE FACT THAT ROSARIO AND IHERD have an on track thing going on. It looks plausible to me that Iherd took advantage of being forced out a bit (at the point of being crowded as a victim of the inside horses coming out) to elbow Rosario twice. Can it be seen clearly? NOPE. Not with 1960 video replay quality that I'm staring at.

It is SO nice to have HD Live but SO annoying that I'm looking at 1960 replay quality in replays.

Finally, didn't a jock throw some punches while riding a horse at PARX a little while back? Food for thought for Joel I hope :eek:

[EMD4ME]

Please post as many views as possible of the race in question.

Vic,

Not sure if you use Calracing but the horse's name is "My Sweet Girl" if you do.

Today's 5th at the SPA.

EMD4ME

[cj]

Please post as many views as possible of the race in question.

You ask this a lot, but it really isn't that easy to do. There are sites where you can watch, but they require a log in.

calracing is one, ADWs are another, and a lot of tracks offer replays right on their sites. But, you can't link directly to them. I'm sure you can find them if you really want to see them.

[NY BRED]

FUN TO WATCH?
good story is both horse(s) and jockeys escaped injury.
Allowing a Jockey escape days only encourages him or other Jockeys
to duplicate such maneuvers.

Overall issue is the fact of the stewards actually encouraging this insanity.

:mad:

:ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

[Stillriledup]

No takedown in the 7th at Ferndale? And they take down the girl jock a few races earlier (out of 4th) for something 1/10th as bad?

[v j stauffer]

You ask this a lot, but it really isn't that easy to do. There are sites where you can watch, but they require a log in.

calracing is one, ADWs are another, and a lot of tracks offer replays right on their sites. But, you can't link directly to them. I'm sure you can find them if you really want to see them.

You're 100% correct and I do have Calracing. Guess I don't really want to see them.

[cj]

You're 100% correct and I do have Calracing. Guess I don't really want to see them.

No worries, just wanted to point out for all that most would post links if it were easy to post them. It isn't in this case.

[Stillriledup]

No inquiry in the 8th on the 2 against the 5 in late stretch?

Oh that's right, I needed the 4 to be 4th, so all was ok there.

[EMD4ME]

RACE 6, DQ'd THE WRONG HORSE.

6 caused the damage.

8 was tiring in lane, not cost a placing.

479 were not cost a placing.

Regardless, the 6 should have been DQ'd, NOT THE 1.

INSANE LARCENY BY STEWARDS OR COMPLETE STUPIDITY

[Stillriledup]

RACE 6, DQ'd THE WRONG HORSE.

6 caused the damage.

8 was tiring in lane, not cost a placing.

479 were not cost a placing.

Regardless, the 6 should have been DQ'd, NOT THE 1.

INSANE LARCENY BY STEWARDS OR COMPLETE STUPIDITY

What track?

[EMD4ME]

What track?

SPA.

3/4 of AQU was revolting during the review saying the 3 BLIND MENTAL MIDGETS are looking at the wrong horse.

It's amazing that they'll do to cash a bet AND/OR to get Todd the Trainer's title.

[Redhook206]

Worst DQ I've ever seen!

[Redhook206]

Stewards cost me $2757 Pick3 with that brutal DQ!! Unreal!

[Redhook206]

Race Decisions - September 5, 2015

Race 6

Stewards inquiry and jockeys objection from Angel Arroyo the rider of # 8 Furyofthenorsemen against the # 1 Tale of Life ( Irad Ortiz Jr.).Approaching the 1/6th pole the # 1 while running up on the # 6 Designed for War (Javier Castellano) in tight quarters shifts out sharply forcing the # 1 into the # 8 who makes contact with the # 9 Enjoy the Show (John Velazquez). After reviewing the video and speaking to all the riders involved the # 1 is disqualified from first and placed fourth behind the #8. The new order of finish is 6-3-8-1.

§ 4035.2. Foul riding penalized.

[Stillriledup]

Race Decisions - September 5, 2015

Race 6

Stewards inquiry and jockeys objection from Angel Arroyo the rider of # 8 Furyofthenorsemen against the # 1 Tale of Life ( Irad Ortiz Jr.).Approaching the 1/6th pole the # 1 while running up on the # 6 Designed for War (Javier Castellano) in tight quarters shifts out sharply forcing the # 1 into the # 8 who makes contact with the # 9 Enjoy the Show (John Velazquez). After reviewing the video and speaking to all the riders involved the # 1 is disqualified from first and placed fourth behind the #8. The new order of finish is 6-3-8-1.

§ 4035.2. Foul riding penalized.

It's important to speak to the riders because the video isn't enough. If you can't DQ off video, you leave the result alone and pay the winners.

[NorCalGreg]

It's important to speak to the riders because the video isn't enough. If you can't DQ off video, you leave the result alone and pay the winners.

Is this a riddle? Why, in the world would you even need to speak to the riders, you just stated if you can't DQ off video, leave it alone.

[cj]

RACE 6, DQ'd THE WRONG HORSE.

6 caused the damage.

8 was tiring in lane, not cost a placing.

479 were not cost a placing.

Regardless, the 6 should have been DQ'd, NOT THE 1.

INSANE LARCENY BY STEWARDS OR COMPLETE STUPIDITY

I thought it was going to be a DQ of the 1 first time I saw it. I would have left as is, but I don't think it was nearly a bad a call as you are making it out. The 6 drifted maybe half a path when clear, Irad went for a hole that closed and then proceeded to take out the 8 making his own hole.

[cj]

It's important to speak to the riders because the video isn't enough. If you can't DQ off video, you leave the result alone and pay the winners.

Is this a riddle? Why, in the world would you even need to speak to the riders, you just stated if you can't DQ off video, leave it alone.

He's being sarcastic.

[tophatmert]

I thought it was going to be a DQ of the 1 first time I saw it. I would have left as is, but I don't think it was nearly a bad a call as you are making it out. The 6 drifted maybe half a path when clear, Irad went for a hole that closed and then proceeded to take out the 8 making his own hole.

I agree. If you don't want to have to bang your way through -be more aggressive early. I think making these types of calls can lead to more aggressive early rides. If you have plenty of horse and choose not to use it until the last 100 yards you will not be allowed to make your own hole to run through.

[EMD4ME]

I thought it was going to be a DQ of the 1 first time I saw it. I would have left as is, but I don't think it was nearly a bad a call as you are making it out. The 6 drifted maybe half a path when clear, Irad went for a hole that closed and then proceeded to take out the 8 making his own hole.

CJ,

He drifted a half a path? Isn't that cause for DQ???? Especially if he's drifting a half a path into a horse surging by, who because of his drift a half a path back outward, caused a domino effect of bumps?

Irad went for a hole that closed? That would mean he went for a hole that OPENED......Think about that please.

We all know I can't stand Irad but he got screwed there. They DQ'd the victim and rewarded the guilty.

[Redhook206]

Race Decisions - September 5, 2015

Race 6

Stewards inquiry and jockeys objection from Angel Arroyo the rider of # 8 Furyofthenorsemen against the # 1 Tale of Life ( Irad Ortiz Jr.).Approaching the 1/6th pole the # 1 while running up on the # 6 Designed for War (Javier Castellano) in tight quarters shifts out sharply forcing the # 1 into the # 8 who makes contact with the # 9 Enjoy the Show (John Velazquez). After reviewing the video and speaking to all the riders involved the # 1 is disqualified from first and placed fourth behind the #8. The new order of finish is 6-3-8-1.

§ 4035.2. Foul riding penalized.


The Stewards even admit in writeup that "the :6: shifts out sharply forcing the :1: into the :8: "

Shifts out sharply is way more pronounced than drifted half a path.

Should Irad objected against the :6: ?

[cj]

The Stewards even admit in writeup that "the :6: shifts out sharply forcing the :1: into the :8: "

Shifts out sharply is way more pronounced than drifted half a path.

Should Irad objected against the :6: ?

They aren't saying the 6 shifts out sharply. They are talking about the 1.

[cj]

CJ,

He drifted a half a path? Isn't that cause for DQ???? Especially if he's drifting a half a path into a horse surging by, who because of his drift a half a path back outward, caused a domino effect of bumps?

Irad went for a hole that closed? That would mean he went for a hole that OPENED......Think about that please.

We all know I can't stand Irad but he got screwed there. They DQ'd the victim and rewarded the guilty.

No way I want horses getting DQed for that drift. He didn't drift into him, he drifted into the path, i.e. he was clear. I don't mind a little race riding. You don't want to get jammed up, ride more aggressively. Actor Irad got pissed and decided to just make a hole because he figured just steadying behind wouldn't get him put up.

[pandy]

I didn't like the dq. When another horse initiates first contact it's a difficult call and my take on dq's is that it has to be so obvious that you can make a decision after watching the two angles once. Once I see the judges watching the replays over and over and over, you know the horse should stay up and they've got a very good chance of making the wrong call. If the 6 doesn't come out and bump the 1, does the 1 veer to his right? That's the problem. The bumping was too ambiguous.

[Stillriledup]

I didn't like the dq. When another horse initiates first contact it's a difficult call and my take on dq's is that it has to be so obvious that you can make a decision after watching the two angles once. Once I see the judges watching the replays over and over and over, you know the horse should stay up and they've got a very good chance of making the wrong call. If the 6 doesn't come out and bump the 1, does the 1 veer to his right? That's the problem. The bumping was too ambiguous.

If you have to keep looking and looking, just make it official, pay the winners and move on.

Seems that the judging at the Spa this year is being done so someone (or more than 1) in that booth can justify that they are 'doing their jobs' if you make no change, you're leaving something as is, if you make a change you are 'fixing' something and thus, your being employed as a 'fixer' and that seems more important than someone who sits idly by watching the wheels go round and round.

I don't like this aggressive approach of ticky tack lets not pay the winners stuff, because at the end of the day, none of this 'tight' judging has made jocks ride any differently, it just lets the bettors, the ones supporting the game, take it in the shorts.

[tophatmert]

I didn't like the dq. When another horse initiates first contact it's a difficult call and my take on dq's is that it has to be so obvious that you can make a decision after watching the two angles once. Once I see the judges watching the replays over and over and over, you know the horse should stay up and they've got a very good chance of making the wrong call. If the 6 doesn't come out and bump the 1, does the 1 veer to his right? That's the problem. The bumping was too ambiguous.

Did the 6 make contact with the 1 ?

[cj]

Did the 6 make contact with the 1 ?

I don't think he did if memory servers.

[pandy]

Did the 6 make contact with the 1 ?


You're right, the 6 came over on the 1 but probably didn't make contact. But this whole "he was just race riding" theory is actually being taken the wrong way in many instances. According to the rules the rider is supposed to maintain a straight path. The 6 came over on the 1 and then the 1 moved over. If the 6 doesn't come over, does the 1 drift in? This is why it's too ambiguous and the 1 should not have been dq'd. The 6 started the progression.

[SG4]

For the pay the winners side, you'll probably want to put this race on loop on your desktop so you can have a smile on your face all day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1pSuM8SSR0

No wonder Jamie Spencer thought his ride was a thing of beauty in the Beverly D when results like this are left up in Europe. I don't think this is acceptable at all, especially as it's hard to argue that the best horse absolutely won this race the way the 3rd place finisher was knocked off stride.


Furthermore, there was a G1 DQ earlier on the card & the most interesting part of this is this clip I saw of a video (which I can only guess was live & broadcast as such) where the jockeys sit with the stewards & argue their case while watching the replays. Why can't we have this in America on every decision?? Time to remove the curtain on the secrecy, especially when this helps add a compelling factor to the inquiry process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diny3MgdMHY

[Stillriledup]

For the pay the winners side, you'll probably want to put this race on loop on your desktop so you can have a smile on your face all day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1pSuM8SSR0

No wonder Jamie Spencer thought his ride was a thing of beauty in the Beverly D when results like this are left up in Europe. I don't think this is acceptable at all, especially as it's hard to argue that the best horse absolutely won this race the way the 3rd place finisher was knocked off stride.


Furthermore, there was a G1 DQ earlier on the card & the most interesting part of this is this clip I saw of a video (which I can only guess was live & broadcast as such) where the jockeys sit with the stewards & argue their case while watching the replays. Why can't we have this in America on every decision?? Time to remove the curtain on the secrecy, especially when this helps add a compelling factor to the inquiry process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diny3MgdMHY

How about just paying the winners like sports books do when you win a sports bet?

When the game is officially over, they don't 'review' the game to see if they want to go back in time and not pay off the winner, when the buzzer sounds and your team is ahead, you get paid.

I know it's a novel concept.

[no breathalyzer]

How about just paying the winners like sports books do when you win a sports bet?

When the game is officially over, they don't 'review' the game to see if they want to go back in time and not pay off the winner, when the buzzer sounds and your team is ahead, you get paid.

I know it's a novel concept.

If only it were that simple... you know it can't be done like that for many reasons

[Stillriledup]

If only it were that simple... you know it can't be done like that for many reasons

There's no reason other than their desire to not make fines and suspensions for careless riding a lot more extreme as well as lifetime bans for jocks crashing on purpose to alter the results.

[castaway01]

Yeah, no penalties have ever decided a game in other sports. Before you say "Yeah but they don't go back after they're over and make the call", no they stop the game while it's taking place.

But same BS, different day from the usual suspects here.

[Stillriledup]

Yeah, no penalties have ever decided a game in other sports. Before you say "Yeah but they don't go back after they're over and make the call", no they stop the game while it's taking place.

But same BS, different day from the usual suspects here.

The official penalty isn't "loss of game" though. If a team has a big enough lead, a penalty won't ever be the difference, a horse could win by a large margin and yet, the penalty could still be loss of game.

If a team loses due to a penalty, it only happens rarely and they're not technically losing because the official description of the penalty states that committing this specific infraction is loss of game, in racing, a 'penalty' is 'loss of game' 100 pct of the time. If you get penalized in racing, no matter how severe the infraction is, the punishment is that you lose the 'game' no matter how slight.

Could you imagine an nfl ref coming out on the first play from scrimmage and saying "offsides defense number 73, that infraction will result in loss of GAME"

This happens in racing. Loss of game no matter how slight.

But you knew that already.

[cj]

For the pay the winners side, you'll probably want to put this race on loop on your desktop so you can have a smile on your face all day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1pSuM8SSR0

No wonder Jamie Spencer thought his ride was a thing of beauty in the Beverly D when results like this are left up in Europe. I don't think this is acceptable at all, especially as it's hard to argue that the best horse absolutely won this race the way the 3rd place finisher was knocked off stride.


Furthermore, there was a G1 DQ earlier on the card & the most interesting part of this is this clip I saw of a video (which I can only guess was live & broadcast as such) where the jockeys sit with the stewards & argue their case while watching the replays. Why can't we have this in America on every decision?? Time to remove the curtain on the secrecy, especially when this helps add a compelling factor to the inquiry process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diny3MgdMHY

I have no idea how this could stand in any jurisdiction. Must be anything goes.

[Stillriledup]

I have no idea how this could stand in any jurisdiction. Must be anything goes.

They respect the punter and want to pay them for picking winners. America is 'soft' in that regard.

[taxicab]

For the pay the winners side, you'll probably want to put this race on loop on your desktop so you can have a smile on your face all day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1pSuM8SSR0



This has to be one of the worst non-calls you will ever see.
I would really question the Stewards competence and or integrity for botching this one up. :ThmbDown:

[Stillriledup]

This has to be one of the worst non-calls you will ever see.
I would really question the Stewards competence and or integrity for botching this one up. :ThmbDown:

You only should question integrity if this isnt how they normally call them. If they have this funny habit of paying the winners (i know, imagine that) than theres nothing inconsistent about how they call. If they DQ horses like they do in America where they pick and choose which ticky tack fouls they want to call one day but leave alone the next, than you have a situation where you can question the motives.

[taxicab]

You only should question integrity if this isnt how they normally call them. If they have this funny habit of paying the winners (i know, imagine that) than theres nothing inconsistent about how they call. If they DQ horses like they do in America where they pick and choose which ticky tack fouls they want to call one day but leave alone the next, than you have a situation where you can question the motives.

Make no mistake about it,you really ask for the abuse you receive on this board with your clownish remarks.
Don't give me your Smart aleck sarcastic "they have this funny habit of paying the winners(I know,imagine that)" line of BS.
Do you think everybody on this board you play fastidious troll with doesn't see exactly what you're doing ?
Look Einstein, it's as obvious as the bridge you live under that Dettori's horse cost the third place finisher the victory by poleaxing him as he was about to go by.
There was ZERO excuse for the stewards to not place the winner behind the third place finisher.
I would ask you if you even know how to watch a horse race properly,but what's the use......you have a contrarian agenda towards logic that you practice on this board daily.

[open_question]

This has to be one of the worst non-calls you will ever see.
I would really question the Stewards competence and or integrity for botching this one up. :ThmbDown:

Yes. An absurd result in the Irish Champion Stakes.

Simple Verse's DQ earlier on the card, in the Doncaster St Leger, illustrates the incongruity of the stewards' decision in this contest.

[thespaah]

How about just paying the winners like sports books do when you win a sports bet?

When the game is officially over, they don't 'review' the game to see if they want to go back in time and not pay off the winner, when the buzzer sounds and your team is ahead, you get paid.

I know it's a novel concept.
During play of a game, the game can be stopped and a ruling issued before play continues. In horse racing, this is not possible.
Furthermore, those who have bets on the fouled horse, do they not have a legitimate beef when their horse is denied a position based on the rule breaching actions of another horse?
Have you never had your horse fouled or impeded and thought that you were the victim of a bad non call?
It cuts both ways.
I would rather see a rules violation punished and a good faith effort to rectify that breach with a proper placing of the finishers.
Loo, I've been pulled down more than I've been pulled forward. I have also seen where my horse has been impeded and no call was made to adjust the order of finish....In other words, IMO they 'missed' it