The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[NY BRED]

Having difficulty reading all of these posts, somehow was just able to secure
a connection to the net.

My issues/points are as follows:

The KY Derby Stewards, have apparently never disqualified a horse in a derby
race for rough riding or claims of foul by a jockey and/or jockey(s).

In my career of watching races for the past 45 years, I have never
a DQ resulting from a jockey claim who finished third in a race, without the same objection from the jockey who finished second when all three horses
were close to each other at the point of the claim.


I would hope MR. West is reading these posts including Jason Servis.

This is one horrible error made by Churchill Downs that should be brought
into court;

An even better solution would be to review previous Derby races and how
such situations were handled on situations at all points of call, regardless
of the race classification.

I can't even begin to imagine the amount of dollars lost throughout the world
on this race in the vast array of pools; That said, stud values lost due not having the title of a Triple crown are significant losses to the breeder and
owner.

In a sport which gains new owners and breeders via the excitement
of owners and the public during a Triple Crown event, yesterday's debacle
may have lost potentially new investors for years to come.

[Jeff P]

Was a foul committed?

After watching slow motion close up video of the rear legs of #7 and the front legs of #1 occupying the same 15-18 inches of space for a half second or so I'd have to say yes. (And I have a hard time blaming the stewards for the action they took given the current rules.)

Was #7 the best horse?

After watching him separate from the others in the stretch I'd have to say yes (without question.)

Because of similar incidents in their major races (the 2011 Japan Cup for example) the other major racing jurisdictions in the world have moved on (Imo) to a more enlightened way of dealing with the problem.

Kentucky Derby disqualification can be catalyst for change: Kim Kelly:
https://www.scmp.com/sport/racing/article/3008934/kentucky-derby-disqualification-can-be-catalyst-change-kim-kelly

The USA is an outlier – the only major jurisdiction that still uses the ‘Category Two’ rules.

Imo, food for thought.


-jp

.

[SG4]

correction. it was #21 BODEXPRESS, NOT #2

"BODEXPRESS angled inward after breaking alertly, was forwardly placed three wide for six
furlongs, was forced to take up sharply between LONG RANGE TODDY and COUNTRY HOUSE near the five-sixteenths, and dropped back"

WORTH ANOTHER LOOK.


I gave this another look as you suggested, you've got to be kidding right? The #21 gets squeezed because Long Range Toddy came out due to the chain reaction caused by Maximum Security's foul. I honestly cannot see how this isn't 100% obvious and zero fault of Country House.

[SG4]

In my eyes Maximum Security was actually guilty of 3 separate instances of interference. The main one which did him in was obvious, but about 60 yards before that he actually came out a little which led to a smaller chain of bumping which is where Country House actually took the slight bump which I think Prat was initially referring to in his objection. Then in an over-correction to his major foul, he comes in several paths into an onrushing Code of Honor, clearly bumping him. Maximum Security was all over the place and certainly committed a foul, and as we saw in the fall meeting Churchill stewards seem to have taken a clear foul = DQ stance, and today is the first time they applied this to the Derby.


Now that being said, Maximum Security was the best horse & I hate to see the best horse not get paid. People are generally exonerating Saez for the trouble, but after the horse got out the first time I think he should've had a tighter rein on the inside to make sure that didn't happen again, and the way he came over on Code of Honor was super dangerous as well. I would've let the result stand & issued a suspension of several weeks to Saez, although that's probably a trade-off most jockeys would take.

[GMB@BP]

Was a foul committed?

After watching slow motion close up video of the rear legs of #7 and the front legs of #1 occupying the same 15-18 inches of space for a half second or so I'd have to say yes. (And I have a hard time blaming the stewards for the action they took given the current rules.)

Was #7 the best horse?

After watching him separate from the others in the stretch I'd have to say yes (without question.)

Because of similar incidents in their major races (the 2011 Japan Cup for example) the other major racing jurisdictions in the world have moved on (Imo) to a more enlightened way of dealing with the problem.

Kentucky Derby disqualification can be catalyst for change: Kim Kelly:
https://www.scmp.com/sport/racing/article/3008934/kentucky-derby-disqualification-can-be-catalyst-change-kim-kelly



Imo, food for thought.


-jp

.

with suspensions that last a few days or they get appealed in civil court I find there to be no deterrent for anyone to not commit fouls under that type of system in this country. The ends justify the means.

They just tried to use a suspension to curtail some rider in Florida, he threatened to sue so they cut it in half.

[formula_2002]

I gave this another look as you suggested, you've got to be kidding right? The #21 gets squeezed because Long Range Toddy came out due to the chain reaction caused by Maximum Security's foul. I honestly cannot see how this isn't 100% obvious and zero fault of Country House.

you have a point worth looking at, however I can not find a "head on" film clip of that moment.. I wish CD would make one available.

[Gander36]

I've heard nothing but generalized platitudes from those that think the ruling was wrong.

Contrarily, experts like Mike Battaglia (on the morning shows today) have explained in detail why the horse was disqualified, and why it was the right thing to do.

So I'm convinced - the disqualification was proper and justified, and a courageous ruling by the stewards given the circumstances...

[dilanesp]

I've heard nothing but generalized platitudes from those that think the ruling was wrong.

Contrarily, experts like Mike Battaglia (on the morning shows today) have explained in detail why the horse was disqualified, and why it was the right thing to do.

So I'm convinced - the disqualification was proper and justified, and courageously done by the stewards given the circumstances...

ABSOLUTELY. The stewards are heroes here.

[holdalltix]

Kindly be sure to check out the link provided in post #1752 by Jeff P. as it is very informative.
The US needs to adopt Category 1 DQ rules like most of the rest of the world.
I'm afraid the damage this correct DQ under Category 2 rules has had to the sport with regard to attracting new fans is severe.
Biggest race of the year and many new and casual players feel bewildered and cheated.

[thespaah]

If SRU was still on the board (he started this thread), you know he'd say "Pay The Winners!"

Because it's IMPOSSIBLE for humans to be consistent in judgmental calls, that element should be removed from the betting results. That way you'd only have to sweat the photos, and not have to worry about being robbed after the race.

Let the stewards monitor the drug tests and rule on interference later on, and have the purse money redistributed as necessary. Let the jockeys govern themselves - there would be an incentive to give days or ban to the crazy jocks, and keep it safe. I'm not sure what dilanesp is smoking, but to suggest Saez intentionally guided Maximum Security into other horses' paths is ridiculous. Racing is dangerous enough with risking a 40 MPH faceplant in the path of a half dozen horses with very sharp metal shoes. Any jockey making a habit of that would have a very short career.

Whether the track condition caused problems, horses getting tired caused problems, whether a chain reaction was started, whether the :1: would have finished better - it's ALL qualitative speculation. What we do know from the quantitative point of view is the :7: finished first, did it rather easily, and it was no mystery why many in the crowd were booing after the DQ was posted. That'll happen when you take down the chalk.

So another black eye for racing that could have been avoided with a simple rule change - pay the winners, or at least leave them up most of the time like they do overseas....

Here is the problem your theory would create.
in incidents where interference is rather obvious, "pay the winner" would result in lots of angry reactions.
Loo, rules must be enforced. Some one wins. Someone loses.

[thespaah]

Upon seeing the video provided by the NBC broadcast, I disagreed with the decision made by the Stewards.
After using the slo mo on my DVR ...I now believe the decision to DQ the :7: was correct. Case closed. It's done. Let us move on.

[Scanman]

Was a foul committed?

After watching slow motion close up video of the rear legs of #7 and the front legs of #1 occupying the same 15-18 inches of space for a half second or so I'd have to say yes. (And I have a hard time blaming the stewards for the action they took given the current rules.)

Was #7 the best horse?

After watching him separate from the others in the stretch I'd have to say yes (without question.)

Because of similar incidents in their major races (the 2011 Japan Cup for example) the other major racing jurisdictions in the world have moved on (Imo) to a more enlightened way of dealing with the problem.

Kentucky Derby disqualification can be catalyst for change: Kim Kelly:
https://www.scmp.com/sport/racing/article/3008934/kentucky-derby-disqualification-can-be-catalyst-change-kim-kelly



Imo, food for thought.


-jp

.Jeff P - Have a look a my post #1733 concerning foul or non-foul. That's how I would answer your question.

And yes, the sooner we apply Category 1 rules for DQs (like the rest of the world), the better racing will be in the US.

[Scanman]

I've heard nothing but generalized platitudes from those that think the ruling was wrong.

Contrarily, experts like Mike Battaglia (on the morning shows today) have explained in detail why the horse was disqualified, and why it was the right thing to do.

So I'm convinced - the disqualification was proper and justified, and a courageous ruling by the stewards given the circumstances...Gander - Have a look at my post #1713. If you feel the same way about the DQ, then peace.

[bob60566]

intresting development

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D56RzrxV4AEWqGa.jpg

[PuckLuck]

This was the worst decision in the history of horse racing and its not even close. Go ahead and watch the tape after I tell you what happened. The #7 maintained a perfect lane path coming around the turn. The #1 cuts in toward the rail CAUSING the #7 to clip its heels. Its at that point that the #7 moves out into the path of the other horses. Therefore its the #1 that caused the #7 to move from its path. Watch for yourself. I imagine that didn't feel so good for the #7 and he just wanted to get away from it. Go ahead and have someone step on the back of your heels and let me know how it feels.

Another dark day for racing - as if they need another one. All due to the incompetence of stewards. I suppose if you are being paid minimum wage you're going to get minimum wage quality work.

[PuckLuck]

I've heard nothing but generalized platitudes from those that think the ruling was wrong.

Contrarily, experts like Mike Battaglia (on the morning shows today) have explained in detail why the horse was disqualified, and why it was the right thing to do.

So I'm convinced - the disqualification was proper and justified, and a courageous ruling by the stewards given the circumstances...

Up to now. I just set the record straight.

[airford1]

This was the worst decision in the history of horse racing and its not even close. Go ahead and watch the tape after I tell you what happened. The #7 maintained a perfect lane path coming around the turn. The #1 cuts in toward the rail CAUSING the #7 to clip its heels. Its at that point that the #7 moves out into the path of the other horses. Therefore its the #1 that caused the #7 to move from its path. Watch for yourself. I imagine that didn't feel so good for the #7 and he just wanted to get away from it. Go ahead and have someone step on the back of your heels and let me know how it feels.

Another dark day for racing - as if they need another one. All due to the incompetence of stewards. I suppose if you are being paid minimum wage you're going to get minimum wage quality work.

Lens Crafter are open 7 days a week. You might try them and Latuda from your Dr.

[Jeff P]

A few minutes ago, 05-07-2019 Parx R8 --

The #5 comes in a bit on the turn and takes the path of the #4.

Unlike the KY Derby:


The stewards light the inquiry sign.

The incident results in actual clipping of heels (the #4 almost goes down.)

No change.

Methinks this game could use a little consistency among its stewards from one racing jurisdiction to the next.



-jp

.

[GMB@BP]

A few minutes ago, 05-07-2019 Parx R8 --

The #5 comes in a bit on the turn and takes the path of the #4.

Unlike the KY Derby:

The stewards light the inquiry sign.

The incident results in actual clipping of heels (the #4 almost goes down.)

No change.

Methinks this game could use a little consistency among stewards from one racing jurisdiction to the next.



-jp

.

It's why we have so much dangerous riding going on.

[Scanman]

Jason Servis' take - https://www.app.com/story/sports/horses/2019/05/08/servis-still-furious-maximum-security-dq-kentucky-derby/1139284001/ .

He mentions that Maximum Security experienced cuts on his hind two legs from the race (I hope he has pictures or a vet report). What's in question is whether the cuts are a result of contact made by War of Will when he attempted to go around him or were they a result of the subsequent contact when Maximum Security came out. It's seems like the racing world is split on this.

I sure wish that the meeting they are supposed to have tomorrow would be televised/streamed live for the rest of us to see.

[BlueChip@DRF]

Question:

If Maximum Security (or any other horse for that matter) seems to be running out of gas but stays in his lane, is he still responsible for those encroaching up behind him?

[dilanesp]

Question:

If Maximum Security (or any other horse for that matter) seems to be running out of gas but stays in his lane, is he still responsible for those encroaching up behind him?

As long as he stays in his lane he is fine. He can also change lanes if he is clear of other horses.

[BlueChip@DRF]

As long as he stays in his lane he is fine. He can also change lanes if he is clear of other horses.

But won't rider behind the gassed horse have a legit complaint that he was held up because the horse in front of him stopped?

[dilanesp]

But won't rider behind the gassed horse have a legit complaint that he was held up because the horse in front of him stopped?

Nope. Slowing down is not a foul.

Bear in mind, this isn't usually an issue because horses who truly stop and run out of gas rarely, if ever, get going again so they don't hit the board where a disqualification is possible.

[Jeff P]

It's kind of like driving on a freeway with multiple lanes of traffic moving in the same direction.

Suppose you are in the right-most lane and all six lanes are moving at a good clip. But then the car in front of you begins slowing down because the driver is tapping on the brakes for no apparent reason.

You have a split second to make a decision within the rules of the road:


You can make a bad decision, change lanes when there isn't room, and risk being at fault for causing an accident.

You can change lanes because there's plenty of room, and easily go around the guy who's breaking for no apparent reason.

Maybe the amount of room is questionable, and you decide to stay put. The driver in front of you slows down even more, and you end up getting stuck beind him, while car after car goes around the two of you.



Events similar to what I just described above happen on the racetrack every day. (The rules of the road are similar for both the freeway and the racetrack.)

As a rider:


You can tip out for room, ask for run, and pass horses that are moving slower than you - provided there's room.

But if there isn't room, or if you are too slow to react and take advantage of room before it disappears, or if you lack the skill to nudge your way out (and yes that's a skill in and of itself) then you are left with no choice but to tap on the brakes yourself, and end up getting stuck behind slower moving horse(s) while others go around you to compete for a top money placing.


Imo, if you are trip handicapping, the situation described above is worth paying attention to.



-jp

.

[PaceAdvantage]

Up to now. I just set the record straight.No you didn't. What you posted wasn't even true.

[PaceAdvantage]

Question:

If Maximum Security (or any other horse for that matter) seems to be running out of gas but stays in his lane, is he still responsible for those encroaching up behind him?MaxSec running out of gas? lulz

[bob60566]

Maximum Security jockey Saez suspended after Kentucky Derby
By Jonathan Lintner May 13, 2019 10:03am

https://www.horseracingnation.com/news/Maximum_Security_jockey_Saez_suspended_after_Kentu cky_Derby_123

[dilanesp]

Maximum Security jockey Saez suspended after Kentucky Derby
By Jonathan Lintner May 13, 2019 10:03am

https://www.horseracingnation.com/news/Maximum_Security_jockey_Saez_suspended_after_Kentu cky_Derby_123

This shows you they didn't buy his lawyers' attempts to blame War of Will AT ALL. That argument may have even gotten him a longer suspension.

[bob60566]

It all closes the point in the possible upcoming court case, If the horse was DQ Why was the jock not penalized.

[Tom]

He was - 15 days.
But, a horse may be DQ'd for reason that do not involve the rider- say, bolting out, savaging.

[FenceBored]

He was - 15 days.
But, a horse may be DQ'd for reason that do not involve the rider- say, bolting out, savaging.


Come on Tom, we can admit it now. Jorge Velasquez told Great Prospector to bite Golden Derby.

[FenceBored]

Lost in the post-Derby argument about DQs was Monmouth's 10th race from this past Saturday, the Serena's Song.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4EfRwCNakI


A foul occuring before the stretch resulting in the takedown of the winner in favor of somebody not fouled isn't fair. The official "winner" didn't earn it, didn't deserve the purse money.


It only cost her a couple of lengths. She had plenty of time to come back if she was good enough. Too many horses on the track at the same time.

[fastfasterfastest]

Can't believe the trainer of #2 claimed foul in the 1st at Pimlico. Seriously at least have a case to claim foul. Even the jock didn't claim foul. The 2 was the cause of any interference that did take place.

[Robert Fischer]

Can't believe the trainer of #2 claimed foul in the 1st at Pimlico. Seriously at least have a case to claim foul. Even the jock didn't claim foul. The 2 was the cause of any interference that did take place.

:ThmbUp:

That was a frivolous claim of foul. I didn't bother watching the replays, but iirc from the live shot, the jockey of the 2 may have also made an annoying, dramatic over-reaction as his empty horse appeared to mildly brush the winner.

[Fightingirish51195]

Wow! I just got put up in the 8th race at Delaware. I can’t believe it. Yes the :6: came in on the :4: but the :4: was never going to win!

I just got a gift. But to me this is awful

[airford1]

It's Karma is all. I'm such a wonderful person that the Stewards didn't take the #5 down from the 9th race at Belmont. I saw the race and had a sizable place bet on the 5 and just turned my P.C. off knowing there was no way I was going to cash the bet. Came home and found all this money in the account and choked on my Beer.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Ugh. While I'm generally in favor of "paying the winners" as SRU so elegantly put it, the SA stewards just teased me today in the last race. Had the :4: dog in the pick 3 who runs second at 40-1, and they IMMEDIATELY post the inquiry sign after the :5: wins. Replay seems to indicate the :5: came out on the :1: in the upper stretch (under left-handed urging), knocking him off-stride, and allowing the :4: to finish ahead of him.

I thought it was pretty clear cut, in spite of the :5: drawing off and looking much the best. After interference, it's only SPECULATION how the horses would have finished, as evidenced in the recent Derby DQ.

But the stewards felt that leaving the :5: up was the way to go, while I'm sure tomorrow or next week we'll see a similar circumstance where they WILL DQ the horse.

It's all so damn inconsistent.:pout:

[airford1]

Ugh. While I'm generally in favor of "paying the winners" as SRU so elegantly put it, the SA stewards just teased me today in the last race. Had the :4: dog in the pick 3 who runs second at 40-1, and they IMMEDIATELY post the inquiry sign after the :5: wins. Replay seems to indicate the :5: came out on the :1: in the upper stretch (under left-handed urging), knocking him off-stride, and allowing the :4: to finish ahead of him.

I thought it was pretty clear cut, in spite of the :5: drawing off and looking much the best. After interference, it's only SPECULATION how the horses would have finished, as evidenced in the recent Derby DQ.

But the stewards felt that leaving the :5: up was the way to go, while I'm sure tomorrow or next week we'll see a similar circumstance where they WILL DQ the horse.

It's all so damn inconsistent.:pout:

They have a lot of things to check, like the Jackpot Carryover.

[burnsy]

After what’s been going on . How does anyone defend that non call in the Woody Stephens yesterday? SMH then there are clowns saying don’t compare calls and move on. Yeah, that will fix everything. Give me a break. Shills

[cj]

After what’s been going . How does anyone defend that non call in the Woody Stephens yesterday? SMH

As I said in the other thread, we don't know what JRV told the stewards.

This is from the Steward's Rulings page at NYRA:

Race 8 - Stewards inquiry concerning an incident at the top of the stretch. The winner #8 Hog Creek Hustle (Corey Lanerie) came in approaching the 3/16 pole, while #2 Much Better (Mike Smith) came out some causing #9 Mind Control (John Velasquez) to steady. After reviewing the video and speaking to the riders involved it was the determination of the stewards that the incident did not alter the order of finish. Official order of finish 8.6.3.7

[fastfasterfastest]

Consistency is the biggest issue with these decisions. If the earlier incident on the Belmont card warranted a DQ, so did this IMO. It's a slippery slope for sure. The only thing I'd like to see the stewards ask a jock involved is "were you interfered with" that's it! Unfortunately, I think a lot of jocks are asked if it affected their chance of winning or finishing on the board. I wouldn't have a problem with the determining factor in a DQ being if the compromised horse was or wasn't going to contend regardless of the interference, but right now it seems stewards are all over the place with their decision process and it seems to change on a case by case basis.

[Sea Hero]

It depends on the connections of the horses involved. Money talks.

[rexjred]

6/17/2019 No stewards inquiry and no DQ on Race 5 at Parx btw the :6: barreling into the :5: at gate open. :5: had no chance after his lane was impeded by the :6: and 4


This non DQ call was pure criminal. taking place at Parx says it all

https://www.twinspires.com/bet/video/replay/2019-06-17/PRX/Thoroughbred/5?key=video-1560816935842

[HPFridays]

Woodbine Race 5

#4 Clairessence taken down for interference on the backstretch. Rarely, if ever, see a horse taken down for coming over on the backstretch and was surprised to even see an inquiry.

[Sea Hero]

Spice Road got DQ in the 3rd at Belmont. It cost me a bet, and I've seen worse happen without a DQ, but I can't really fault the stewards. I just wish they did it more consistently.

[Jeff P]

Saez again --

This time Saez was DQ'd in today's 7th race at Belmont.

In my opinion:

Saez's rides in both the KY Derby and today's 7th at Belmont were similar.

In both races, Saez's mount won on the front end and (in the end) by convincing margins.

In both races, once his mount started to drift, Saez made no effort to correct his mount until he had impeded another horse.



After watching the head on replay of today's race, it is my opinion:

Saez was fully aware his horse was difting in.

Saez intentionally waited before correcting his mount.

Saez did so as a form of race riding.

That type of riding has no place in horse racing.

Horse racing is a dangerous enough sport as it is.

It would be in the best interest of the sport if the stewards sent a message by handing down a lengthy suspension.

Otherwise, somebody is likely to get killed (or worse.)



-jp

.

[rastajenk]

It depends on the connections of the horses involved. Money talks.So, how does this work? Is an envelope full of cash delivered on the spot to the stewards' booth? Are the stews reluctant to take down a deep-pocketed owner or trainer for fear that a payment to higher ups might get them fired? Or is it simply taking down a small fish but not a big fish because of.....of what?

[fastfasterfastest]

How exactly was the :11: not DQ'd in the Queen's Plate? He totally eliminated the favorite out of the gate. I love how Jim Bannon seemed certain a DQ was coming and when it didn't happen Brian Williams kept on him about it.

[cj]

How exactly was the :11: not DQ'd in the Queen's Plate? He totally eliminated the favorite out of the gate. I love how Jim Bannon seemed certain a DQ was coming and when it didn't happen Brian Williams kept on him about it.

I don't think you want to set that precedent. It was immediately out of the gate and all the horse. We'd have way too many DQs if that was applied to all races.

[fastfasterfastest]

I don't think you want to set that precedent. It was immediately out of the gate and all the horse. We'd have way too many DQs if that was applied to all races.

I agree infractions right out of the gate are subjective but the rules are clear, if a horse impedes or hinders another horse, causing that horse a chance at a better finishing position or performance, the horse will be deemed to have committed a foul.

The official stewards report states - "#11 does bare in at the start but the #10 does not appear to be hindered by the actions of #11 as he is a step slow. No change to the order".

I guess two of the three stewards saw it different then most everyone else.

[Redhook206]

I agree infractions right out of the gate are subjective but the rules are clear, if a horse impedes or hinders another horse, causing that horse a chance at a better finishing position or performance, the horse will be deemed to have committed a foul.

The official stewards report states - "#11 does bare in at the start but the #10 does not appear to be hindered by the actions of #11 as he is a step slow. No change to the order".

I guess two of the three stewards saw it different then most everyone else.

Check out the DQ in Woodbine6 on June 30.

[fastfasterfastest]

Check out the DQ in Woodbine6 on June 30.

To me todays incident is more speculative if any interference actually occurred. Whereas yesterday there was no doubt the 10 was wiped out at the start. The jock today nearly falling off made it look much worse than it actually probably was. Unusual also for an incident like that on the backside to lead to a DQ. Looked to me like the 6 did what any horse does that goes for the lead. No obvious aggressive changing of lanes. Odd couple rulings to say the least.

[ubercapper]

The footnote in the chart for Skywire reads "Skywire was shut off by Tone Broke and bumped into Suitedconnected at the start...."


The stewards apparently came to a different conclusion. I'll leave it at that.

[cj]

I agree infractions right out of the gate are subjective but the rules are clear, if a horse impedes or hinders another horse, causing that horse a chance at a better finishing position or performance, the horse will be deemed to have committed a foul.

The official stewards report states - "#11 does bare in at the start but the #10 does not appear to be hindered by the actions of #11 as he is a step slow. No change to the order".

I guess two of the three stewards saw it different then most everyone else.

Sure, I'm just saying that is almost never applied for incidents right out of the gate. As somebody that watches as many head ons of the start as anyone not named Andy Serling, the number of DQs if this type of start was deemed an offense would be mind boggling.

[Redhook206]

To me todays incident is more speculative if any interference actually occurred. Whereas yesterday there was no doubt the 10 was wiped out at the start. The jock today nearly falling off made it look much worse than it actually probably was. Unusual also for an incident like that on the backside to lead to a DQ. Looked to me like the 6 did what any horse does that goes for the lead. No obvious aggressive changing of lanes. Odd couple rulings to say the least.

Well said, totally agree.

[Ocala Mike]

9th race at Parx today was an incomprehensible NO DQ for me. The :2: drifted out the length of the stretch under left-hand whipping, first shutting off one horse who altered course to the inside, then brushing the :7: not once, not twice, but a third time past the wire for good measure. The stewards called it an "as is."

[Redhook206]

https://youtu.be/qEzw-CYBTuk

[Robert Fischer]

Seemed obvious that the :1: interfered with the :5: during the stretch run.

Ortiz was aboard the heavy favorite Guarana :1:.
The rail has seemed to be 'tiring' and Guarana was evening out just a bit in the stretch, so Ortiz tried to do the thing where you 'whip righty, but swing the horse out at the same time, and Guarana stayed pretty straight, so he went the left hand whip and Guarana responded a bit too much, 'shied out' into the path of the :5:.

For some reason, the Stewards did not appear to announce an Inquiry - TBH I don't have that info.

Castellano apparently didn't object? - TBH I don't have that info.


Finally there was an 'Owner's Objection'? alleging interference in the stretch.


Sure you can say "Ohh the :5: was never catching the :1:"
I don't know how you can precisely calculate a horse shying out in front of a horse. I don't care about 'intent' in these calls, so my following point is not one of intent as a factor of a call per se, but the obvious intent is also a sign that 'a race was on'.

To disclose, I bet the entire little Twinspires account bankroll on :1: Guarana to win. I could the feel the 'pressure' of the :1: evening while the :5: was finishing willingly, and I saw the obvious herd/shied...

[fastfasterfastest]

I didn't see any need for a change. I only watched the inquiry replay twice and determined no significant, if any, interference took place. Of course this is only my opinion.

[Afleet]

How did the :3: Grecian Fire not come down in race 7@DMR. He knocked 2-3 horses out of the race. Definitely didn't keep a straight path and impeded at least 2 other horses.

[Afleet]

How did the :3: Grecian Fire not come down in race 7@DMR. He knocked 2-3 horses out of the race. Definitely didn't keep a straight path and impeded at least 2 other horses.

They blamed the :6: for causing the :3: to blow the turn. I just don't see it.

[Tor Ekman]

I agree. Odd, watching live I thought the :3: had to check up but the replay clearly showed it was its own doing blowing the turn . . . not complaining because I had the :3: to complete the pick-3 but have to agree that it's hard to understand how it got a pass on that one. Having said all that, great ride by Mike Smith getting a grip on it and then firing to win going away

[Afleet]

I agree. Odd, watching live I thought the :3: had to check up but the replay clearly showed it was its own doing blowing the turn . . . not complaining because I had the :3: to complete the pick-3 but have to agree that it's hard to understand how it got a pass on that one. Having said all that, great ride by Mike Smith getting a grip on it and then firing to win going away

:3: was the best horse though

[GMB@BP]

How did the :3: Grecian Fire not come down in race 7@DMR. He knocked 2-3 horses out of the race. Definitely didn't keep a straight path and impeded at least 2 other horses.

agree, but the way they call things if that 4 horses did not finish better they were not going to make a change.

should have come down.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

agree, but the way they call things if that 4 horses did not finish better they were not going to make a change.

should have come down.


Take the :3: down and a 25/1 shot wins the race.



I'm not arguing in any way. Just find it interesting a bomb was actually 2nd and would have been massive on P3456 tickets to end the card.

[GMB@BP]

Take the :3: down and a 25/1 shot wins the race.



I'm not arguing in any way. Just find it interesting a bomb was actually 2nd and would have been massive on P3456 tickets to end the card.

I decided at the last second to not throw an action bet on the 5, so a DQ would have made me sick for being so lazy.

[fastfasterfastest]

Came out on the right end of the inquiry/objection in the 1st at the Spa but wouldn't have been at all surprised had they reversed the top 2. Good start to the day :headbanger:

[dilanesp]

How did the :3: Grecian Fire not come down in race 7@DMR. He knocked 2-3 horses out of the race. Definitely didn't keep a straight path and impeded at least 2 other horses.

I just got a chance to review this one, and I agree. He made the old "Maximum Security" move. :)

[Sea Hero]

The stewards got one right at Del Mar race 7. #9 Square Deal just about knocked #10 Pas Di Panique over in the stretch. What was confusing is why it took them so long to make up their minds. I realize it's a stakes race, and the horse was probably going to win anyway, but it was still a flagrant foul, and I've seen the SoCal stewards take down many other horses for the same thing.

It's a complaint because it cost me a much better exacta, but I can't fault the stewards for their decision

[jay68802]

6th race at Monmouth today. How many times does the :1: have to bump the 3 in the stretch to get taken down. I counted 5 times and no DQ.

[SharpCat]

6th race at Monmouth today. How many times does the :1: have to bump the 3 in the stretch to get taken down. I counted 5 times and no DQ.


I watched the replay several times and it appears that they traded bumps a couple times.


The bigger issue is the bad camera angle and that was with the rail being out 24ft. The angle get's worse the closer the rail get's to zero. I mean WTF it's 2019 and you can't get a camera dead on?????

[hopbet]

Should CRYSTALLE have been take down? IMO it looked like this horse was going by , the TWO horses ridden by the ORTIZ brothers bumped each other.

[ReplayRandall]

Should CRYSTALLE have been take down? IMO it looked like this horse was going by , the TWO horses ridden by the ORTIZ brothers bumped each other.
For those that had that 41-1 bomb, that DQ must have really stung...My condolences..:(

[cj]

For those that had that 41-1 bomb, that DQ must have really stung...My condolences..:(

Stewards are falling for flopping way too often like NBA refs, and that was a flop. I've never been DQed on a horse that long in odds, but if I were and particularly in a case like this where the horse was much the best, I'd probably want to quit the game or take a long break. That has to be heartbreaking.

I've long been in support of DQs being for purse money only, not betting. Give riders real suspensions and fines but leave the betting alone. Maybe in egregious cases of 1 versus 2 and switching the top 2 you could DQ, but otherwise leave it alone.

[hopbet]

I had no skin or WAGER. I was watching the race on my HOME computer. The OBJ sign was ON. The OBJ was both from the SECOND and THIRD place horses against the winner. Maybe , I'm completely wrong here , the incident does NOT pass IMO a clear DQ.

[dilanesp]

The stewards got one right at Del Mar race 7. #9 Square Deal just about knocked #10 Pas Di Panique over in the stretch. What was confusing is why it took them so long to make up their minds. I realize it's a stakes race, and the horse was probably going to win anyway, but it was still a flagrant foul, and I've seen the SoCal stewards take down many other horses for the same thing.

It's a complaint because it cost me a much better exacta, but I can't fault the stewards for their decision

This was a good call. Two DQ's that day, and they were both correct.

[dilanesp]

Stewards are falling for flopping way too often like NBA refs, and that was a flop. I've never been DQed on a horse that long in odds, but if I were and particularly in a case like this where the horse was much the best, I'd probably want to quit the game or take a long break. That has to be heartbreaking.

I've long been in support of DQs being for purse money only, not betting. Give riders real suspensions and fines but leave the betting alone. Maybe in egregious cases of 1 versus 2 and switching the top 2 you could DQ, but otherwise leave it alone.

This is the sort of thing where the state regulated nature of horse racing really has a lot of bite.

No state will ever do this because the entire purpose of the state's regulatory scheme is to prevent insiders from manipulating the betting pools. (Not that they succeed in preventing this, but it is certainly the purpose.) And allowing the insiders to cash their tickets despite a DQ just creates an incentive that a state can't tolerate.

In any event, I actually think the states are right. If they did purse money-only DQ's, horseplayers would simply start complaining in the opposite direction-- how come the owners get to collect when my horse gets fouled but I get screwed?

It sucks when horses come down, and you may not like stewards' decisions very much, but it's still the best possible system.

[cj]

It sucks when horses come down, and you may not like stewards' decisions very much, but it's still the best possible system.

I don't think that is true at all, and I'm certainly far from alone. Even if you don't go so far as DQs for purse money only, most would argue that rules used overseas are better. They aren't perfect either, but probably better.

[Afleet]

For those that had that 41-1 bomb, that DQ must have really stung...My condolences..:(

I know people who lost tens of thousands on this DQ. Not sure why the jockey just didnt hit him left handed and it would have never happened. Original result should have stood

[jimmyb]

Today's first race at GP. Winner #7 in deep stretch clearly come out of his path and impedes the path of the hard charging 5 who finished 3rd..


Jockey of the 5 claims foul. Stewards disallow... I had the 2nd place finisher at 11-1

[dilanesp]

For people who think (a la the Kentucky Derby) that jockey's claims of foul never result in DQ's, we had one in the 7th race at Del Mar on Wednesday. Jamming Eddy came down on Asaro's claim of foul. "Objection" was posted, not "Inquiry". Took down a favorite in favor of a longshot, too.

[surfdog89]

At Del Mar........wild riding......and officials have DQ'ED horses that I think should not have been DQED.........it's has been taking way too long .........

[GMB@BP]

At Del Mar........wild riding......and officials have DQ'ED horses that I think should not have been DQED.........it's has been taking way too long .........

Yea, there is no doubt that they are trying to tell some of these riders to calm the heck down on the riding tactics.

[cj]

Stewards at Saratoga don't even look at the 8th stretch run today? (8-30) Winner body checked the horse to his outside and wiped out the competition.

[aaron]

Stewards at Saratoga don't even look at the 8th stretch run today? (8-30) Winner body checked the horse to his outside and wiped out the competition.

That was amazing. I was watching the race and not all that interested and I saw it. Sometimes you have to wonder if the stewards even watch races.

[cj]

Declaring Pink Lloyd a non-starter in R3 today was ridiculous. Horse caused his own trouble. He also gained no advantage so there was no reason to DQ or to SCR.

[Sea Hero]

I had no bet on the 1st race at GP. I was watching it to see if the bias was still there from yesterday.

I'm posting because this is a sore point with me, and it happens all the time at Gulfstream. In the race, #7 Stingslikeabee veered into #6 Bad Boy E. J. in the stretch. No question about it, he plowed into the horse. The horse and/or jockey need to be dealt with for that.

The problem is that at the time #7 collided with #6, the horse was already brushing by to an easy win. He was already a half-length ahead and moving much better, and without contact, it would have won by a widening margin. #6 still got second, so he wasn't cost a placing, and he wouldn't have beaten the winner with a clean race.

So of course the stewards disqualified #6. If it was the jockey's fault, set him down. If it was the horse's fault, make it satisfy the judges that it is better-mannered. In no case should it be disqualified. Even California understands this logic. Why can't Florida get it?

[jameegray1]

I had no bet on the 1st race at GP. I was watching it to see if the bias was still there from yesterday.

I'm posting because this is a sore point with me, and it happens all the time at Gulfstream. In the race, #7 Stingslikeabee veered into #6 Bad Boy E. J. in the stretch. No question about it, he plowed into the horse. The horse and/or jockey need to be dealt with for that.

The problem is that at the time #7 collided with #6, the horse was already brushing by to an easy win. He was already a half-length ahead and moving much better, and without contact, it would have won by a widening margin. #6 still got second, so he wasn't cost a placing, and he wouldn't have beaten the winner with a clean race.

So of course the stewards disqualified #6. If it was the jockey's fault, set him down. If it was the horse's fault, make it satisfy the judges that it is better-mannered. In no case should it be disqualified. Even California understands this logic. Why can't Florida get it?

Agreed. By the rules 7 should have stood.

[jameegray1]

By the rules of the game how does the 4 not get chucked in the 9th at Monmouth today? Impeded the 3 in the stretch and cost him 2nd place.

[dilanesp]

Last Friday's non-DQ in the first race at Santa Anita was a little surprising to me. The :5: came down the inside and lost a head-bob to the tiring :2: . The head-on showed the :2: bumped the :5: pretty hard when the :5: started moving down the rail.

Usually California stewards will DQ based on something like this.

[Immortal6]

Not a DQ.... buuuut

How do they not call this finish a dead heat? Seriously, tell me which horse won. The :11: was 20-1 and the :9: the 3-5 favorite. Stewards took about 30 seconds to give it to the :9: such a joke. I had the ex, tri regardless but it likely cost me $400 from not having the :11: declared at least a partial winner in a dead heat.

9th at Indiana grand.

[dilanesp]

Not a DQ.... buuuut

How do they not call this finish a dead heat? Seriously, tell me which horse won. The :11: was 20-1 and the :9: the 3-5 favorite. Stewards took about 30 seconds to give it to the :9: such a joke. I had the ex, tri regardless but it likely cost me $400 from not having the :11: declared at least a partial winner in a dead heat.

9th at Indiana grand.

I think you have a case. That looks like a DH to me.

[cj]

You really can't use these pictures posted on the internet by tracks as evidence one way or another. The quality just isn't there. The real photo is better I would have to think.

[sammy the sage]

You really can't use these pictures posted on the internet by tracks as evidence one way or another. The quality just isn't there. The real photo is better I would have to think.

The so-called "REAL" photo is often NEVER seen by the public...:pout:

[king kong]

They could apply and work for the NFL!:headbanger:

[Immortal6]

You really can't use these pictures posted on the internet by tracks as evidence one way or another. The quality just isn't there. The real photo is better I would have to think.

So post the hi-res photos on the track websites/twitter feed. Just goes back to the lack of transparency that is plaguing the industry.

Social media department could take this race and post a replay of the thrilling stretch drive and post the hi-res photo of the finish. “Look at our sport and the kinds of finishes that happen. If you think football is a game of inches, think again.”

Instead it’s “hey here’s a grainy photo that we took 30 seconds to look at before declaring the odds on favorite the winner.”

[cj]

So post the hi-res photos on the track websites/twitter feed. Just goes back to the lack of transparency that is plaguing the industry.

Social media department could take this race and post a replay of the thrilling stretch drive and post the hi-res photo of the finish. “Look at our sport and the kinds of finishes that happen. If you think football is a game of inches, think again.”

Instead it’s “hey here’s a grainy photo that we took 30 seconds to look at before declaring the odds on favorite the winner.”

I'm just telling what happens, not defending how it is done. I believe on the track feeds they do show the real photo. Why it isn't posted on the internet I don't know.

[AltonKelsey]

I think you have a case. That looks like a DH to me.




quick look at it, the line is drawn too thick.



probably with a fine line the 9 is a clearer winner

[AltonKelsey]

The so-called "REAL" photo is often NEVER seen by the public...:pout:




Hope this doesn't keep you up at night

[Kenman58]

Long time Lurker, first time poster here...

Anyways, did anyone see race #6 at Remington Park On Wednesday, 10/16?

How in the WORLD did they DQ the #7 horse? Granted, it helped me out on my Pick 4 ticket, but I'm still in shock.. He completely clears the #2 horse, who checked up for no apparent reason.. It's by far the worst call I've ever seen in racing.. Anyone have any insight as to what I'm missing here?

https://www.remingtonpark.com/replays/

[cj]

Long time Lurker, first time poster here...

Anyways, did anyone see race #6 at Remington Park On Wednesday, 10/16?

How in the WORLD did they DQ the #7 horse? Granted, it helped me out on my Pick 4 ticket, but I'm still in shock.. He completely clears the #2 horse, who checked up for no apparent reason.. It's by far the worst call I've ever seen in racing.. Anyone have any insight as to what I'm missing here?

https://www.remingtonpark.com/replays/

He came in pretty abruptly on the backstretch causing the 2 to bang into the 1, who actually hit the rail. This is why he wasn't just place behind the 2, but was placed last behind the 1. You can sort of see it in the attached image, but the replay is pretty clear.

[jameegray1]

Race 7 at Turf Paradise. Why no objection from 7 against 1?

[dilanesp]

Pretty darned surprised they left the :6: up in the 2nd at DMR yesterday.

He won the race by a whisker and came out and bumped the :3: , who finished second, hard in the stretch.

Under the rules here in California, that's supposed to be an automatic DQ. Indeed, I saw the bump when I watched the race at full speed.

[jameegray1]

Tampa Bay race 3. How... what... why... where...?

[Onion Monster]

Breen asked for a stewards inquiry in the MuchoMachoMan and was deservedly rebuffed for an incident at the top of the stretch. But the foul came at the wire when Chance It herded As Seen on Tv for a photo win. Apparently the stewards didn't even look at the stretch finish. Odd.

[Mdnspecialist]

Santa Anita race 6...They disqualify the 4 storming lady..ok..he did bump the 7...But the 7 bumped the horse on his outside before that..why not DQ the 7...What the heck?

[MONEY]

Santa Anita race 6...They disqualify the 4 storming lady..ok..he did bump the 7...But the 7 bumped the horse on his outside before that..why not DQ the 7...What the heck?

I had bet $2.00 to win on the 7, 8 & 10. I watched the race on Amwager and when the #4 won I threw my ticket into the loser pile and turned off Amwager.

Had I not seen you post I might have never dug my ticket out.
The #8 was placed 1st and paid $95.00.

Thanks for posting.:jump:

[ubercapper]

Santa Anita race 6...They disqualify the 4 storming lady..ok..he did bump the 7...But the 7 bumped the horse on his outside before that..why not DQ the 7...What the heck?

I thought both the 4 and 7 went for the same hole and although the 4 did bump the 7, Rosario (on the 7) either overreacted or, knowing he had horse, shifted out to the other side of the horse in front of him, then finished well for third.

The stewards ruled the 7 was cost a better placing. I had bet the 4 so can't be totally objective.



Under Category 1 rules, by which the stewards would have had to determine if there was a foul (which they did determine in this case), then if not for the foul would the 7 have finished in front of the 4 (instead of did the foul cost the 7 at better placing), I don't think the 4 would've been taken down.

[fastfasterfastest]

In the 3rd at Gulfstream Irad just showed how to do just enough intentional drafting to affect a close finish, yet not enough to warrant a DQ.

[Afleet]

In the 3rd at Gulfstream Irad just showed how to do just enough intentional drafting to affect a close finish, yet not enough to warrant a DQ.

knocked the other horse sideways in the stretch; horrible call

[trifecta]

knocked the other horse sideways in the stretch; horrible call

And Jose learned his lesson well from his brother when in today's 3rd at GP he herded, banged, and drifted into the 6 horse down the entire stretch, but of course no dq. The stewards refuse to disqualify these two. One of these days one of them (especially Irad) is going to cause some serious injuries out there. What will the stewards say then?

[Sea Hero]

knocked the other horse sideways in the stretch; horrible call

It seems like a jockey has to take out a gun and fire it at a competitor before the stewards will call in inquiry.


In the 3rd today, #4 Samoa came out three times into #6 Keilani. The first time, just before entering the stretch, the horse almost knocked down the other, the second time was a mild swerve, and the last time at the 1/8th pole, the horse completely cut off the other. No inquiry. Of course, the jockey claimed foul, and after about 5 minutes of review, where 30 seconds would have been enough, they finally did disqualify the winner. The point is: what if the jockey and/or trainer never claimed foul? The stewards are supposed to be the first in line here, and two of the three infractions were blatant enough to at least call for a review.

[Robert Fischer]

when the winner fouls a horse that doesn't finish 2nd, flip a coin or roll some dice...

if it's not the winner fouling the place horse, these guys get 'brain freeze'

[wisconsin]

when the winner fouls a horse that doesn't finish 2nd, flip a coin or roll some dice...

if it's not the winner fouling the place horse, these guys get 'brain freeze'

Sam Houston Race 8? I agree and I would have benefited...:bang:

[Robert Fischer]

Sam Houston Race 8? I agree and I would have benefited...:bang:

maybe so

and now in r9 the :7: just broke through the gate... had him singled on some tix

[Afleet]

Didnt agree w/the:6:being DQ at OP just now. The big chalk was fading. race 8

[wisconsin]

Didnt agree w/the:6:being DQ at OP just now. The big chalk was fading. race 8


Tough one, best horse, but....

You could argue the :5: was going to be in the top 4, the :10: loped into 4th when the :5: clearly lost all momentum.

[rexjred]

4/4/2020

LOS AL Race 4 The :8: horse being DQed. One of the worst bush-league calls I've seen by stewards in race history. The jockey and horse did nothing wrong. There was other motives behind this DQ


In the 4th race, the stewards disqualified #8, Biddy Duke, from 1st and placed her 5th for shifting out around the turn and taking #5 Perfect Promise wide. As a result, #7 Outlaw clipped heels with Perfect Promise costing #7 the opportunity of a better placing. #8 Biddy Duke was placed behind Outlaw in the order of finish by the stewards.

[cj]

4/4/2020

LOS AL Race 4 The :8: horse being DQed. One of the worst bush-league calls I've seen by stewards in race history. The jockey and horse did nothing wrong. There was other motives behind this DQ


In the 4th race, the stewards disqualified #8, Biddy Duke, from 1st and placed her 5th for shifting out around the turn and taking #5 Perfect Promise wide. As a result, #7 Outlaw clipped heels with Perfect Promise costing #7 the opportunity of a better placing. #8 Biddy Duke was placed behind Outlaw in the order of finish by the stewards.

I saw a lot of rumbling about this DQ. I was expecting to see something egregious when watching the replay. In my opinion, this DQ was 100% warranted. The 8 horse came out about 4 paths into the 5, setting off a chain reaction that caused the 7 to almost go down and lose all chance.

[shout1966]

Will Rogers down race :6: coming down the stretch :3: comes out and makes the :5: move over deeper in the stretch the :3: comes over again this time clearly bumping the :5:. Claim of foul and Stewards Inquiry they leave it as is. Unreal.

[wisconsin]

Will Rogers down race :6: coming down the stretch :3: comes out and makes the :5: move over deeper in the stretch the :3: comes over again this time clearly bumping the :5:. Claim of foul and Stewards Inquiry they leave it as is. Unreal.

Tough one to accept.

[cj]

I have no idea how anyone could reconcile a DQ in race 8 at Gulfstream today after an as is just one race earlier.

[jameegray1]

Interested in people's views on the 7th at Delaware today.

The winner :10: was objected against twice after leaving a trail of stricken horses in it's wake. The 2nd :12: was also objected against in a separate stretch incident.

Stewards dismissed all three objections but decided to DQ the 3rd placed :11: horse despite no objection, after he drifted half way across the :2: in the stretch.

Fun times!

[jameegray1]

Interested in people's views on the 7th at Delaware today.

The winner :10: was objected against twice after leaving a trail of stricken horses in it's wake. The 2nd :12: was also objected against in a separate stretch incident.

Stewards dismissed all three objections but decided to DQ the 3rd placed :11: horse despite no objection, after he drifted half way across the :2: in the stretch.

Fun times!

Full race here for those interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIOD-dJ3JYc

[wisconsin]

Interested in people's views on the 7th at Delaware today.

The winner :10: was objected against twice after leaving a trail of stricken horses in it's wake. The 2nd :12: was also objected against in a separate stretch incident.

Stewards dismissed all three objections but decided to DQ the 3rd placed :11: horse despite no objection, after he drifted half way across the :2: in the stretch.

Fun times!


So much to digest here. I'll tell you what I saw, with NO skin in the race, as neutral as it gets.

:10: was hindered when the :6: tried to get out on the first turn. Down the backstretch, the :6: was never comfortable and was mostly looking to and lugging towards it's right. Around the 2nd turn, the :6: was still never settled, and the :10: was clearly in the 2 path. :6: was again moving the the right including the illusional point where he pulled up sharply. Not the fault of the :10: who maintained a consistent path. The :10: was later forced into the :8: by the :11:, who was properly disqualified.

:12: came over on the :2: and should have been disqualified.

:11: caused the trouble involving the :8: and also came out and sandwiched the :2: in conjunction with the :12:

I would have placed the :12: behind :2:, and the :11: behind the :8:

[metro]

Didn't see a thread for the scratch or non scratch based on the start of a race so this post wound up here.

Yesterday's 9th at Del Mar - 3 horse, Blameitonthelaw gets left at the gate, about 5 lengths, at the wire horse runs 3rd beaten 4 1/2 lengths. Stewards Inquiry and video show the head of the 3 turned to it's inside at a complete 45 degree angle as the gates open. Looked obvious that the assistant starter still had a hold of the rein.

Results stand, bettors fleeced.

[shout1966]

Parx 4th July 13 2020.


Another mystery dq of a runaway winner. anyone see this today. Did i miss something?




:4::3:

[jay68802]

Parx 4th July 13 2020.


Another mystery dq of a runaway winner. anyone see this today. Did i miss something?




:4::3:

About 100 yards out of the gate, the :4: causes the :3: to check hard.

[shout1966]

About 100 yards out of the gate, the :4: causes the :3: to check hard.






Thanks if you watch the replay on TVG and read equibase charts no mention of why he was taken down. I have seen alot worst left unchanged thats for sure. They even had the horse in the winners circle. Also the 4 imo was clear of the 3 and the inexperienced jockey on the 3 panicked and took up.

[jameegray1]

Thanks if you watch the replay on TVG and read equibase charts no mention of why he was taken down. I have seen alot worst left unchanged thats for sure. They even had the horse in the winners circle. Also the 4 imo was clear of the 3 and the inexperienced jockey on the 3 panicked and took up.

I wasn't expecting the objection to be allowed as the :3: was easily beaten by the :4:. I don't see how they can claim that the interference cost the :3: any places.

[jay68802]

I wasn't expecting the objection to be allowed as the :3: was easily beaten by the :4:. I don't see how they can claim that the interference cost the :3: any places.

Cost him some lengths, but, I think that how many lengths it cost him was not worth the DQ.

[the little guy]

Seems to me from the head-on that the grey horse herded the 4 and caused him to come in slightly which resulted in the minor steady of the 3.

It was a horrendous call even if you don't take that into account, and bettors once again took the brunt of it, but to me there were more than mitigating circumstances regardless. I don't get up in arms about takedowns too often but this one was utterly ridiculous.

[the little guy]

I just watched it again. There is no question the grey horse caused the entire chain reaction. Can't wait until they suspend the rider of the 4. You know that's coming.

[cj]

I just watched it again. There is no question the grey horse caused the entire chain reaction. Can't wait until they suspend the rider of the 4. You know that's coming.

This was a really, really bad DQ. I feel for anyone that bet the 4 and anyone that bet the 3 should play the lottery tomorrow.

[Robert Fischer]

:3: Price Talk


mixed emotions here.

3 was inside horses (namely the 7) , 6 and 10 were carrying the lead into the stretch)

Unless Jose Lezcano just pulled off the greatest act of 'playing possum' that I've ever seen, and completely fooled my eyes, the :7: wasn't doing anything.

The :6: :10: were hanging up front, begging for the finish line.


Some combination of Manny Franco either being extremely reckless, or the :3: Price Talk being uncontrollable led to significant foul of the :7:.

The :3: went on to win easily. The :7: although knocked off his lead continued on about the same trajectory as he seemed to be headed along.


Ultimately, I'd prefer to see a horse and rider who are pocketed up have to deal with the traffic, and either slip out w/out fouling, or come up the rail inside of rivals. (or simply take the loss, because he had too much traffic to overcome)

However, it's an inconsistent thing with the stewards. Often riders of horses who are favorites, or clearly much the best are given a free pass to bull into rivals to fight through traffic.

Manny Franco isn't necessarily one of the ones who does this often, but it was his turn today. He happened to get called for it.

Tough luck for Manny, as it was a change in the common-accepted-practices. Also tough for bettors who played a slightly overlayed Klaravich contender due to the 'B'-barn designation.

Still, I feel it's technically the correct ruling, and would be nice to see it consistently upheld, and established as the new common accepted practice.

[jameegray1]

Delaware R4 today. In a freaky coincidence, almost identical to last week's race with the 4 pushing the 6 out wide around the final bend and then absurdly running on to win. Last time the FPTP kept the race. What will the stewards do this time...

[jameegray1]

Delaware R4 today. In a freaky coincidence, almost identical to last week's race with the 4 pushing the 6 out wide around the final bend and then absurdly running on to win. Last time the FPTP kept the race. What will the stewards do this time...

Well, that makes no sense. This week the FPTP gets DQ'd. I felt that last week's was worse! Looking forward to comparing the replays later...

[BIG49010]

Well, that makes no sense. This week the FPTP gets DQ'd. I felt that last week's was worse! Looking forward to comparing the replays later...




Crazy finish and no way should they have taken this poor horse down!

[Robert Fischer]

Well, that makes no sense. This week the FPTP gets DQ'd. I felt that last week's was worse! Looking forward to comparing the replays later...

if wagering customers could see the technology and process in what goes into consistent standards of these rulings, I think there'd be far less complaints about DQs

https://i.imgur.com/KCiZ1YT.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/HPH49GN.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/abC3Dbn.jpg

[Robert Fischer]

They took the :1: IMPRIMIS down in the 7th at Saratoga today??


That was criminally incompetent.


The laws of physics defy that :4: re-rallying, after he had hung.


Horrible, disgraceful call.


I'm sorry that the :4: got in tight in a losing effort. It was totally the fault of the clear winner. That doesn't make it grounds for a DQ.

Such a disgrace, and unfortunate blemish of maybe the nation's top meet, on one of there biggest days. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

[rrpic6]

They took the :1: IMPRIMIS down in the 7th at Saratoga today??


That was criminally incompetent.


The laws of physics defy that :4: re-rallying, after he had hung.


Horrible, disgraceful call.


I'm sorry that the :4: got in tight in a losing effort. It was totally the fault of the clear winner. That doesn't make it grounds for a DQ.

Such a disgrace, and unfortunate blemish of maybe the nation's top meet, on one of there biggest days. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown:




I hit the Cross Country Daily Double DQ. Minutes after :1:Imprimis got DQ'd, :4:Moonlit Mission in the 9th Race at T-Down cruises to win by 5 lengths. Also gets DQ'd. At least this pads my percentage of getting taken down in my career.


RR

[SharpCat]

They took the :1: IMPRIMIS down in the 7th at Saratoga today??


That was criminally incompetent.


The laws of physics defy that :4: re-rallying, after he had hung.


Horrible, disgraceful call.


I'm sorry that the :4: got in tight in a losing effort. It was totally the fault of the clear winner. That doesn't make it grounds for a DQ.

Such a disgrace, and unfortunate blemish of maybe the nation's top meet, on one of there biggest days. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

It was race 8 mate. I thought they made the correct call. Grounds for the DQ was that it cost the 4 a chance of a better placing.

[Robert Fischer]

I think some people actually believe that when a horse wins clear of a hanging rival, while putting that rival in tight, that the clear winner is 'supposed to come down'....


"he cost a placing amongst one of the runner-ups" :bang::bang::bang:



everyone has bad beats. Part of this game(, along with a lot of unpleasant stuff). Have to brush it off and keep fighting. The animosity and bitterness right now is at a level as to lose interest in the card, and the game. I'll probably check back at some point to see who won the Test and Travers, and I'll probably be back for Saratoga, and the Derby, but this is frustrating.

[GMB@BP]

I see people saying the bettors are being penalized for the actions of certain riders.....dont have a lot of sympathy. Riders fouling other horses has to be penalized and clearly as we have seen suspensions (taken during lessor race dates) and fines (for big time riders who make millions) dont do much to dissuade the actions.

[groupie doll]

The best horse in the race got DQed. That's about all i can say objectively since I had a WP bet on the horse that inherited the win. This is only the second time can recall being on the winning end of one of these types of DQs, and the other time oddly enough was also at the Spa.

[metro]

Thought Irad Ortiz was indifferent once he got passed in the lane, knew he wasn't going to win, didn't even file an objection.

If he hadn't taken that extra second or two to regain his mount, not look around to see if he was clear, and just finish the race, like he's done thousands of times, he gets 2nd and the winner doesn't come down.

[Robert Fischer]

Is it really the rule, that if a horse wins clear by 2.25 L and an incident occurs that doesn't affect the contention of the win, but may well have affected they order of the underneath placings, -that the winner is meant to come down?



It's possible that I didn't understand the rule and how it is meant to be interpreted.


Imprimis did as much as possible to make a case that he had proved best, winning uncontested by 2.25L
The incident had zero chance of affecting the 'win' placing


so, we have the stewards deciding what is more important;
clear winner? or - The order-of-finish of the runner-ups


In situations like this, I've always placed a significantly higher value on the 'win' placing, than the bottom of the ex/tri/ or super. It's a race, not a parade. The owners are racing to win the race. The win pool, the multi-race tickets, even the way most ex/tri/sprs are bet place a significantly higher value on the 'win' placing.

I've read a bunch of people seemingly mindlessly 'repeating how they've heard the rules' "it cost a horse a placing, he's gotta come down...", or seemingly misusing the word "consistency"...




-but, like I said, I could have the wrong understanding of the rule's intent.

Yes, placing more importance on the exact order of runner-ups, rather than on a winner, from an incident that had zero chance of affecting the 'win' placing, seems incredibly nonsensical,

- that doesn't mean it really isn't the intended interpretation of the rule, and that I just wasn't aware of it.

Whether I agree with rule interpretations is meaningless.

If that is the real intended interpretation, I'm surprised and disappointed, but wrong. The world is not going to adapt to you. Nobody cares. Work harder.:ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[GMB@BP]

The bottom line on all the recent DQ's recently may just be the Stewards have been told to clean up some of the riding tactics. Fines and suspensions have not worked so DQ's certainly will get the attention of both the barn, owner and rider.

We have been lucky that no horse in a big race has been fouled and gone down but the riding tactics in my book have made that a distinct possibility.

[RunForTheRoses]

I was doing non-horse race stuff yesterday but I did play the late P5 Saratoga. Didn't watch the 7th but had the winner. 8th I did watch on my cellphone and saw the 1 pull away at end and win easy so thought this looks good. When I looked to see the 9th checked the 8th and alas no 1 as winner.

Briefly watched replay on njbets/tvg minimized screen. Looked like 4 came out and then 1 really came over. I guess it cost 4 a placing. But you really don't know, the bumping could have riled the horse up. Brother vs brother. In a way the horse inside the 4 was also interfered with and 1 should have been placed behind that one. 1 was definitely best, would have hit a small paying pick 5 which would have been nice.

[Robert Fischer]

9th Race Saratoga (yesterday) 8/13/2020
6 Newly Minted was on her way to winning when she fouled 1 Ratajkowski.

It 'cost a placing' for the 1 Ratajkowski, who finished 5th, instead of 2nd or 3rd ...

Stewards made the correct call this time, and left the winner up.

This standard however is the opposite of what the stewards used to disqualify Imprimis (last Saturday) on 8/8/2020.



"Cost a placing" should be a disciplinary (days, fine, a stern talking to...) thing, if a clear winner commits the infraction.

If an infraction occurs earlier in the race, when the win has not been decided = that should be a disqualification. Treat early fouls as regular fouls. = They may have affected the Winning placing, or the order of underneath placings. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

The Winning Placing has a greater significance.

It's a race, not a parade :rant:

[dilanesp]

I have always liked the "cost a placing" rule, for basically the same reason I like the exclusionary rule in 4th Amendment cases. I think a rule that says a horse can foul minor placing horses on its way to victory and the obly punishment is one of those phony jockey suspensiona would under-deter such conduct. By costing the owner money, the foul can get the jockey fired, which creates real deterrence.

[jay68802]

Pretty simple solution. The DQ's are for the owners and connections, and they should be. As far as the bettors are concerned, these are the ones that are harmed. In races where there is a DQ, the race should be treated as a dead heat. Leave the bettors out of decisions for other people.

[dilanesp]

Pretty simple solution. The DQ's are for the owners and connections, and they should be. As far as the bettors are concerned, these are the ones that are harmed. In races where there is a DQ, the race should be treated as a dead heat. Leave the bettors out of decisions for other people.

There's a couple of reasons racing doesn't do this.

First, a lot of horsemen bet as well. So a rule that DQ's are only for purse money can create incentives for betting coups. Indeed, there probably ARE betting coups associated with some of the doping scandals we have heard about (where the lag in the testing means horses can only ever be DQ'd for purse money and not betting money), and drug-related betting coups have been described in handicapping books dating back at least to the 1970's.

Second, at least some of the time, moving up the losing horse provides some level of recompense to the bettors of that horse. For instance, if the 5th place horse who is fouled by the winner gets moved up to 4th, at least those bettors who used that horse in the superfecta might end up cashing a ticket. If the 4th place horse is moved up to 3rd, people who bet that horse across the board might get something back.

I know it sucks when you pick the best horse and don't get paid. But that is built into the sport anyway, and really, every horseplayer knows there are actually all sorts of reasons they can be right in their opinion and not get paid. The horse gets a slow start. A dumb, impatient jockey moves a closer too early into a hot pace and gets cooked, or manages to take the horse who breaks from post position 1 wide on both turns. A horse takes a bad step.

A stewards decision is simply one of a thousand reasons why you might not get paid when you were right about the race. But if we didn't do it this way, we'd have a less honest game, which would be worse for horseplayers in the long term.

[Jeff P]

Published: November 2018
TIF Reports: Changing the Rules:
https://racingthinktank.com/reports/tif-reports-changing-rules

History is littered with the cries of athletes, fans, reporters and bettors who feel a sport’s officials made a “bad call.” But whether it is real or perceived, inconsistent officiating can be maddening and has the potential to erode confidence and impact future participation.

Horse racing is no different. The virulence of opinions regarding inconsistency in the officiating of racing, not just from Saratoga’s summer meet, but across the entire North American racing landscape for a considerable period, has prompted the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation to pursue the topic.

There is an alternative to the inconsistency, and with it comes far fewer inquiries, far fewer demotions. What racing would get is greater consistency, clarity and a betting sport where the participants – be them jockeys, trainers, owners or bettors – understand what fouls warrant demotion.

The philosophy applied in North America is identified by the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA) as Category 2.

Currently, only two major racing jurisdictions in the world adjudicate races using Category 2: the United States of America and Canada.

As this paper reveals, the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation recommends that North American racing jurisdictions move away from Category 2 and adopt a Category 1 interference philosophy.


Imo, the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation makes a compelling case for moving away from Category 2 and adopting a Category 1 interference philosophy.


-jp

.

[dilanesp]

Published: November 2018
TIF Reports: Changing the Rules:
https://racingthinktank.com/reports/tif-reports-changing-rules




Imo, the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation makes a compelling case for moving away from Category 2 and adopting a Category 1 interference philosophy.


-jp

.

That looks to me like the classic gambler's fallacy. Thinking about cashing a ticket in the short term and not about what might be better in the long run.

[Jeff P]

Something tells me the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation isn't advocating a shift towards Category 1 Interference Rules because of "gambler's fallacy" and "cashing a ticket in the short term."

About the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation:
https://racingthinktank.com/about

TIF Board of Directors

DONNA BARTON BROTHERS

Donna Barton Brothers is the Chief Operating Officer of Starlight and Star Ladies Racing. Brothers was the second leading female jockey in America by career earnings when she retired at the end of a 12-year career in 1998 following 1,130 wins.

Donna is most recognizable for her coverage of horse racing on NBC Sports but her involvement in horse racing has been a lifelong passion. She’s covered horse racing for NBC Sports since 2000, covering multiple Triple Crown races and Breeders’ Cup Championships, even Show Jumping, Bull Riding and other horse sports. Brothers is also an author and wrote Inside Track: Insider’s Guide to Horse Racing— a book intended to bridge the gap between the novice horse racing fan and the, at times, complicated sport of horse racing.

Craig Bernick

Craig Bernick is President and Chief Executive Officer of Glen Hill Farm, a breeding and racing operation based in Ocala, Florida, as well as a managing partner in Elevage Bloodstock, which invests in stallion shares and broodmares. A former Breeders Cup Director, Bernick launched the Wagering Committee and was co-chairman of the Racing and Nominations Committee.

In addition to supporting many thoroughbred charities, Bernick is an officer of the Lavin Family Foundation, which supports education, after-school and health programs in the Chicago area. Before entering the thoroughbred business, Bernick was a business development and marketing executive at The Alberto-Culver Company. Bernick recently founded the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation.

Catherine Donovan

Catherine Donovan is a retired NY attorney who has been involved in thoroughbred breeding and racing for over 20 years. Catherine moved to NY from Sydney, Australia with her husband Gavin Murphy in 1992 to pursue her legal career and was a partner in Akin Gump’s NY hedge fund practice. Catherine then worked for nearly a decade leading knowledge management initiatives - projects that utilize technology to facilitate knowledge sharing.

In addition to her legal career, Catherine has been actively involved in many aspects of thoroughbred breeding, sales and racing in the US and her native Australia through her involvement with SF Bloodstock globally and Newgate Farm and Amarina Farm in Australia. Catherine also serves on the board of Pro Bono Net, a national non-profit that develops technology to expand the scope of legal services to the poor and underserved in the US.

Marshall Gramm

Marshall Gramm is a professor at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee and serves as Chair of the college’s department of economics. He is the co-founder (with partner Clay Sanders) of Ten Strike Racing, a racing syndicate responsible for more than 1,300 starts with over 300 wins and earnings in excess of $8.6 million (as of May 2019). An avid horseplayer, Gramm has enjoyed success in some of the leading handicapping tournaments in America, finishing fifth at the 2018 Breeders’ Cup Betting Challenge and ninth at the 2019 National Horseplayers’ Championship.
Lesley Howard

Bluegrass native Lesley Howard has nearly 20 years of experience in the Thoroughbred industry. With a degree in Accounting from the University of Kentucky, Lesley practiced as a Certified Public Accountant with Dean Dorton & Ford for six years before accepting the position of Chief Financial Officer for Stonestreet Farm in 2005. As one of the original team members, Lesley plays an integral role in the organization best known for racing Curlin and Rachel Alexandra and was named Chief Executive Officer of the operation in 2016, the position she holds today.

In addition to professional accounting organizations, Lesley is on the board of directors of the Gluck Equine Research Center and is Treasurer of the Thoroughbred Charities of America. A member of TOBA, Gunns Chapel United Methodist Church and the Thoroughbred Club of America she is an avid supporter of Bluegrass Farms Charities and New Vocations, a racehorse retraining program.

Corey Johnsen

Corey Johnsen is the President of CJ Thoroughbreds and the former President and part-owner of Kentucky Downs, which offers the largest daily purse structure in North America at its all-turf boutique meet in September. Kentucky Downs also offers pari-mutuel wagering on historical horse racing (HHR), the innovative gaming product which will produce approximately $30 million in 2019 for purses and Kentucky Thoroughbred Development Fund monies in Kentucky. Johnsen was the Chairman of the Kentucky Equine Education Project from 2011 – 2018, when that industry horse organization was a driving force behind the development of HHR.

An active owner and breeder, Johnsen’s CJ Thoroughbreds has campaigned a number of stakes winners. As the first employee hired at Lone Star Park in 1994, Johnsen became the President and part-owner of the new Texas track, which hosted the 2004 Breeders’ Cup. Having also worked at Arlington Park, Louisiana Downs, Remington Park and Turf Paradise, Johnsen was the President of Thoroughbred Racing Associations – a prominent industry organization representing more than 40 North American racetracks – from 2005 to 2007.

MICHAEL LEVY

Michael T. Levy is the founder and President of Muirfield Insurance LLC. Mr. Levy and his wife Meg own and operate Bluewater Farm and Bluewater Sales.

Michael has served on a variety of industry boards throughout his career, including the Thoroughbred Owners' and Breeders' Association, Breeders' Cup Limited and the American Graded Stakes Committee. He is currently a member of the Board of Directors for Limestone Bank.

Paul Matties

Paul Matties, Jr. is an Eclipse Award winning handicapper, who has been a professional gambler for over 25 years. He's won major handicapping contests from coast to coast, with his biggest win coming in the 2016 National Handicapping Contest (NHC17). He has engineered numerous significant winning pick six tickets at every major circuit in North America and Hong Kong.

Paul was an original member of the Beyer Associates, which produces speed figures for the Daily Racing Form, as well as a chartman and columnist for the Racing Times in the 1990s. In 2006, he co-founded, NHPlay, Inc, a horse player services and development company that works with all the major ADW's in the United States. He is also a licensed owner. Along with his brother, Duke, Paul manages the stakes winning Matties Racing Stable, LLC, which has won more than 600 races at over 30 tracks in the US and Canada

Justin Nicholson

Since being introduced to racing at a young age by his father, Justin Nicholson has been involved in the sport in many capacities. He is the majority owner and manager of a private racing and breeding operation called AJ Suited Racing Stable, which formed in 2008. He launched a public ownership syndicate called Ninety North Racing Stable in 2011 with the goal of bringing new owners into the game at a more modest price point. Ninety North ran through 2017, but was wound down as Nicholson took on a new venture, launching Equestricon, the first horse racing convention, fan festival, and trade show along with two partners. At present, Nicholson owns a barn at Fair Hill Training Center and has interests in approximately 20 horses. He also serves on the board of NTRA Horse PAC.

Nicholson resides in Pennsylvania with his wife, Kathryn Sharp, and though racing is his passion, he also works in his family’s real estate investment and management business.
Tom Reynolds

Tom Reynolds has over 30 years of Consumer Products Sales and Marketing experience and avid passion for the sport of Horse Racing. During his long career with the Quaker Oats Company and PepsiCo he worked on such iconic brands as Gatorade, Pepsi, and Frito-Lay to name a few. Most recently he led the USA FoodserviceTeam at PepsiCo that covered schools, vending businesses and sports venues which included racetracks.

His love of racing is long and is varied; Tom has “played the races“ for decades and over the past 5-10 years, entered in numerous handicapping tournaments while most recently he has become a horse owner via Eclipse Thoroughbred Partners.

Gary Stevens

Gary Stevens is a Hall of Fame Jockey and has been an actor and sports analyst. He became a professional jockey in 1979 and rode his first of three Kentucky Derby winners in 1988. He has also won the Preakness and Belmont three times each, as well as 10 Breeders Cup races. He entered the United States Racing Hall of Fame in 1997.

Stevens has won numerous awards and prizes in the horse racing industry, including the George Woolf Memorial Jockey Award in 1996. He is also a former Eclipse Award winner for Outstanding Jockey. In addition to the United States, Stevens has ridden successfully in Hong Kong and England.

He had an acting role in the 2003 film Seabiscuit. After his second temporary retirement from riding in 2005, he worked for TVG and then HRTV and NBC Sports as a horse racing analyst for seven years, had a brief stint as a trainer, and had a few other acting roles, notably in the TV series Luck.

Stevens has returned to broadcasting since his official retirement in 2018.

Jack Wolf

Jack and Laurie Wolf founded Starlight Stables in 2000 when they purchased six yearlings at the Fasig-Tipton Kentucky July sale. Among the group was a bay colt by Harlan who developed into multiple Grade 1 winner Harlan’s Holiday and launched Starlight into racing’s upper echelon. A native of Louisville, Kentucky, Jack worked as a professor and hedge fund manager with Columbus Partners in Atlanta before retiring to concentrate on racing.

Jack’s passion for horse racing and high regard for the horse led him, in 2011, to orchestrate the launch of the Thoroughbred Aftercare Alliance (TAA), the industry's first broad-based initiative dedicated to helping retired Thoroughbreds. He still serves on their Board of Directors. He is also a past Board member of the Thoroughbred Charities of America (TCA) and the Race For Education. For his contributions to horse racing Wolf was honored with the Warner L. Jones Horseman of the Year Award in 2013.

TIF Executive Director

Patrick Cummings

A former executive with the Hong Kong Jockey Club and racing technology and data provider Trakus, Pat has been involved in racing for the last two decades in a variety of media and communications roles. He joined TIF as Executive Director following a three-year stint leading the HKJC’s racing public affairs division and has a wealth of international racing experience.

Cummings, originally from Philadelphia, earned his MBA from Baylor University in 2011 and his undergraduate degree at Dickinson College in 2002. He also covered Dubai racing for a number of outlets for nearly a decade. Cummings has enjoyed the thrill of horse ownership through several syndicates and is a current member of Kentucky-based Brilliant Racing and South Africa’s Onamission Syndicate.

Imo, they actually ARE advocating what might be better in the long run.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Accidentally hit the submit button, played a race, came back to this thread and ran out of edit time before I could get all of the names bolded.

Let's try this again...

About the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation:
https://racingthinktank.com/about

TIF Board of Directors

DONNA BARTON BROTHERS

Donna Barton Brothers is the Chief Operating Officer of Starlight and Star Ladies Racing. Brothers was the second leading female jockey in America by career earnings when she retired at the end of a 12-year career in 1998 following 1,130 wins.

Donna is most recognizable for her coverage of horse racing on NBC Sports but her involvement in horse racing has been a lifelong passion. She’s covered horse racing for NBC Sports since 2000, covering multiple Triple Crown races and Breeders’ Cup Championships, even Show Jumping, Bull Riding and other horse sports. Brothers is also an author and wrote Inside Track: Insider’s Guide to Horse Racing— a book intended to bridge the gap between the novice horse racing fan and the, at times, complicated sport of horse racing.

CRAIG BERNICK

Craig Bernick is President and Chief Executive Officer of Glen Hill Farm, a breeding and racing operation based in Ocala, Florida, as well as a managing partner in Elevage Bloodstock, which invests in stallion shares and broodmares. A former Breeders Cup Director, Bernick launched the Wagering Committee and was co-chairman of the Racing and Nominations Committee.

In addition to supporting many thoroughbred charities, Bernick is an officer of the Lavin Family Foundation, which supports education, after-school and health programs in the Chicago area. Before entering the thoroughbred business, Bernick was a business development and marketing executive at The Alberto-Culver Company. Bernick recently founded the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation.

CATHERINE DONOVAN

Catherine Donovan is a retired NY attorney who has been involved in thoroughbred breeding and racing for over 20 years. Catherine moved to NY from Sydney, Australia with her husband Gavin Murphy in 1992 to pursue her legal career and was a partner in Akin Gump’s NY hedge fund practice. Catherine then worked for nearly a decade leading knowledge management initiatives - projects that utilize technology to facilitate knowledge sharing.

In addition to her legal career, Catherine has been actively involved in many aspects of thoroughbred breeding, sales and racing in the US and her native Australia through her involvement with SF Bloodstock globally and Newgate Farm and Amarina Farm in Australia. Catherine also serves on the board of Pro Bono Net, a national non-profit that develops technology to expand the scope of legal services to the poor and underserved in the US.

MARSHALL GRAMM

Marshall Gramm is a professor at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee and serves as Chair of the college’s department of economics. He is the co-founder (with partner Clay Sanders) of Ten Strike Racing, a racing syndicate responsible for more than 1,300 starts with over 300 wins and earnings in excess of $8.6 million (as of May 2019). An avid horseplayer, Gramm has enjoyed success in some of the leading handicapping tournaments in America, finishing fifth at the 2018 Breeders’ Cup Betting Challenge and ninth at the 2019 National Horseplayers’ Championship.

LESLEY HOWARD

Bluegrass native Lesley Howard has nearly 20 years of experience in the Thoroughbred industry. With a degree in Accounting from the University of Kentucky, Lesley practiced as a Certified Public Accountant with Dean Dorton & Ford for six years before accepting the position of Chief Financial Officer for Stonestreet Farm in 2005. As one of the original team members, Lesley plays an integral role in the organization best known for racing Curlin and Rachel Alexandra and was named Chief Executive Officer of the operation in 2016, the position she holds today.

In addition to professional accounting organizations, Lesley is on the board of directors of the Gluck Equine Research Center and is Treasurer of the Thoroughbred Charities of America. A member of TOBA, Gunns Chapel United Methodist Church and the Thoroughbred Club of America she is an avid supporter of Bluegrass Farms Charities and New Vocations, a racehorse retraining program.

COREY JOHNSEN

Corey Johnsen is the President of CJ Thoroughbreds and the former President and part-owner of Kentucky Downs, which offers the largest daily purse structure in North America at its all-turf boutique meet in September. Kentucky Downs also offers pari-mutuel wagering on historical horse racing (HHR), the innovative gaming product which will produce approximately $30 million in 2019 for purses and Kentucky Thoroughbred Development Fund monies in Kentucky. Johnsen was the Chairman of the Kentucky Equine Education Project from 2011 – 2018, when that industry horse organization was a driving force behind the development of HHR.

An active owner and breeder, Johnsen’s CJ Thoroughbreds has campaigned a number of stakes winners. As the first employee hired at Lone Star Park in 1994, Johnsen became the President and part-owner of the new Texas track, which hosted the 2004 Breeders’ Cup. Having also worked at Arlington Park, Louisiana Downs, Remington Park and Turf Paradise, Johnsen was the President of Thoroughbred Racing Associations – a prominent industry organization representing more than 40 North American racetracks – from 2005 to 2007.

MICHAEL LEVY

Michael T. Levy is the founder and President of Muirfield Insurance LLC. Mr. Levy and his wife Meg own and operate Bluewater Farm and Bluewater Sales.

Michael has served on a variety of industry boards throughout his career, including the Thoroughbred Owners' and Breeders' Association, Breeders' Cup Limited and the American Graded Stakes Committee. He is currently a member of the Board of Directors for Limestone Bank.

PAUL MATTIES

Paul Matties, Jr. is an Eclipse Award winning handicapper, who has been a professional gambler for over 25 years. He's won major handicapping contests from coast to coast, with his biggest win coming in the 2016 National Handicapping Contest (NHC17). He has engineered numerous significant winning pick six tickets at every major circuit in North America and Hong Kong.

Paul was an original member of the Beyer Associates, which produces speed figures for the Daily Racing Form, as well as a chartman and columnist for the Racing Times in the 1990s. In 2006, he co-founded, NHPlay, Inc, a horse player services and development company that works with all the major ADW's in the United States. He is also a licensed owner. Along with his brother, Duke, Paul manages the stakes winning Matties Racing Stable, LLC, which has won more than 600 races at over 30 tracks in the US and Canada

JUSTIN NICHOLSON

Since being introduced to racing at a young age by his father, Justin Nicholson has been involved in the sport in many capacities. He is the majority owner and manager of a private racing and breeding operation called AJ Suited Racing Stable, which formed in 2008. He launched a public ownership syndicate called Ninety North Racing Stable in 2011 with the goal of bringing new owners into the game at a more modest price point. Ninety North ran through 2017, but was wound down as Nicholson took on a new venture, launching Equestricon, the first horse racing convention, fan festival, and trade show along with two partners. At present, Nicholson owns a barn at Fair Hill Training Center and has interests in approximately 20 horses. He also serves on the board of NTRA Horse PAC.

Nicholson resides in Pennsylvania with his wife, Kathryn Sharp, and though racing is his passion, he also works in his family’s real estate investment and management business.

TOM REYNOLDS

Tom Reynolds has over 30 years of Consumer Products Sales and Marketing experience and avid passion for the sport of Horse Racing. During his long career with the Quaker Oats Company and PepsiCo he worked on such iconic brands as Gatorade, Pepsi, and Frito-Lay to name a few. Most recently he led the USA FoodserviceTeam at PepsiCo that covered schools, vending businesses and sports venues which included racetracks.

His love of racing is long and is varied; Tom has “played the races“ for decades and over the past 5-10 years, entered in numerous handicapping tournaments while most recently he has become a horse owner via Eclipse Thoroughbred Partners.

GARY STEVENS

Gary Stevens is a Hall of Fame Jockey and has been an actor and sports analyst. He became a professional jockey in 1979 and rode his first of three Kentucky Derby winners in 1988. He has also won the Preakness and Belmont three times each, as well as 10 Breeders Cup races. He entered the United States Racing Hall of Fame in 1997.

Stevens has won numerous awards and prizes in the horse racing industry, including the George Woolf Memorial Jockey Award in 1996. He is also a former Eclipse Award winner for Outstanding Jockey. In addition to the United States, Stevens has ridden successfully in Hong Kong and England.

He had an acting role in the 2003 film Seabiscuit. After his second temporary retirement from riding in 2005, he worked for TVG and then HRTV and NBC Sports as a horse racing analyst for seven years, had a brief stint as a trainer, and had a few other acting roles, notably in the TV series Luck.

Stevens has returned to broadcasting since his official retirement in 2018.

JACK WOLF

Jack and Laurie Wolf founded Starlight Stables in 2000 when they purchased six yearlings at the Fasig-Tipton Kentucky July sale. Among the group was a bay colt by Harlan who developed into multiple Grade 1 winner Harlan’s Holiday and launched Starlight into racing’s upper echelon. A native of Louisville, Kentucky, Jack worked as a professor and hedge fund manager with Columbus Partners in Atlanta before retiring to concentrate on racing.

Jack’s passion for horse racing and high regard for the horse led him, in 2011, to orchestrate the launch of the Thoroughbred Aftercare Alliance (TAA), the industry's first broad-based initiative dedicated to helping retired Thoroughbreds. He still serves on their Board of Directors. He is also a past Board member of the Thoroughbred Charities of America (TCA) and the Race For Education. For his contributions to horse racing Wolf was honored with the Warner L. Jones Horseman of the Year Award in 2013.


TIF Executive Director

PATRICK CUMMINGS

A former executive with the Hong Kong Jockey Club and racing technology and data provider Trakus, Pat has been involved in racing for the last two decades in a variety of media and communications roles. He joined TIF as Executive Director following a three-year stint leading the HKJC’s racing public affairs division and has a wealth of international racing experience.

Cummings, originally from Philadelphia, earned his MBA from Baylor University in 2011 and his undergraduate degree at Dickinson College in 2002. He also covered Dubai racing for a number of outlets for nearly a decade. Cummings has enjoyed the thrill of horse ownership through several syndicates and is a current member of Kentucky-based Brilliant Racing and South Africa’s Onamission Syndicate.



That looks to me like the classic gambler's fallacy. Thinking about cashing a ticket in the short term and not about what might be better in the long run.

If the article (https://racingthinktank.com/reports/tif-reports-changing-rules) had been written by a lowly horseplayer such as myself... Sure. You might have a point.

But something tells me the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation isn't advocating a shift towards Category 1 Interference Rules because of "gambler's fallacy" and "cashing a ticket in the short term."

-jp

.

[BIG49010]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tbc01JZzYk


They don't post the head on photo on Youtube but the 7 never leaves the starting gate as the favorite, and if you see head on it appears the gate handler has a hold of him? Trainer wins with other 1/2 of entry also.





The Seven never leaves the gate during the race, but no refund no change?

[SharpCat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tbc01JZzYk


They don't post the head on photo on Youtube but the 7 never leaves the starting gate as the favorite, and if you see head on it appears the gate handler has a hold of him? Trainer wins with other 1/2 of entry also.





The Seven never leaves the gate during the race, but no refund no change?

I watched the head on and unfortunate for those who had money on the #7. He turned his head left a split second before the gate opens. Unfortunate as I said but his own doing and money will not be refunded for that.

[GMB@BP]

The complete best horse just got DQ'd at Santa Anita.

Never mind he intentionally switch multiple paths and took out several riders...just give the rider days. Thats fair. :rolleyes:

[cj]

The complete best horse just got DQ'd at Santa Anita.

Never mind he intentionally switch multiple paths and took out several riders...just give the rider days. Thats fair. :rolleyes:

That is why I can't get completely behind category 1 in the US.

[picojim]

The complete best horse just got DQ'd at Santa Anita.

Never mind he intentionally switch multiple paths and took out several riders...just give the rider days. Thats fair. :rolleyes:

what race/track?

[GMB@BP]

what race/track?

I meant Del Mar, it was like race 7 or 8.

[picojim]

I meant Del Mar, it was like race 7 or 8.

race 5?

[GMB@BP]

race 5?

correct, race 5

https://www.drf.com/race-results/tracks/DMR/country/USA/date/08-29-2020

Le Tub

[ronsmac]

They're disqualifying horses left and right at Del Mar for minor infractions. Although it didn't change the outcome for bettors, the 2 was disqualified for coming in inches going into the turn in the 6th today. They're horses, not trains on a track and not going to run perfectly straight.

[SG4]

They're disqualifying horses left and right at Del Mar for minor infractions. Although it didn't change the outcome for bettors, the 2 was disqualified for coming in inches going into the turn in the 6th today. They're horses, not trains on a track and not going to run perfectly straight.


This won't get the online outrage it deserves because it was a DQ that had zero affect on bettors & purse payout, but this sets a really dangerous precedent if the stewards are making DQ's like this. In watching all the replay angles it appears impossible to conclude the 2 was at fault. Was he possibly at fault? Absolutely, but there doesn't appear to be actual evidence of this from the video the stewards are reviewing. Unless the jock got on the phone & was like yeah I certainly came in a path, there should've been no way this order was changed. Since the DQ in the Best Pal stakes a few weeks ago it has become nerve-wracking having a winning bet at Del Mar this meet until it's posted as official.

[ronsmac]

This won't get the online outrage it deserves because it was a DQ that had zero affect on bettors & purse payout, but this sets a really dangerous precedent if the stewards are making DQ's like this. In watching all the replay angles it appears impossible to conclude the 2 was at fault. Was he possibly at fault? Absolutely, but there doesn't appear to be actual evidence of this from the video the stewards are reviewing. Unless the jock got on the phone & was like yeah I certainly came in a path, there should've been no way this order was changed. Since the DQ in the Best Pal stakes a few weeks ago it has become nerve-wracking having a winning bet at Del Mar this meet until it's posted as official.
Another questionable Dq at Del Mar, Race 4 today. It didn't change anything as far as the bettors are concerned but the stewards are way too nit picky

[Afleet]

KY Downs last race today. How did the :11: not foul the :8:?

[Prytanis]

That’s one of the worst calls I have ever seen

[tbwinner]

KY Downs last race today. How did the :11: not foul the :8:?

How can you even tell from those lousy camera angles

[Afleet]

How can you even tell from those lousy camera angles

seemed clear on the head-on replay-:11: took the :8:'s path, forcing him to check sharply.

[Boomer]

Since I had the :2:-:11: exacta box I new I was dead meat as the :8: was checked hard. And yes, the :11: ran into him.



The judges had to feel the :2: forced the :11: into the :8:. The :2: did come in and Graham on the :11: did get intimidated and ran into the :8:. They looked a LOOOONG time as they knew they needed to take one of these horses down, but not both.



It would have been nice to see the "swimming lane" image that they have been using on the Saratoga Racing show, but without that it was a guessing game.

[Robert Fischer]

KY Downs last race today. How did the :11: not foul the :8:?

After she had passed a point in the race where it was impossible for her to lose, the much-the-best winner :2: Blame Debbie fouled the :11:.

Stewards ruled the 2 was at fault for the 11's actions.

I'm just not sure why the 2 wasn't left up on top.

[Boomer]

After she had passed a point in the race where it was impossible for her to lose, the much-the-best winner :2: Blame Debbie fouled the :11:.

Stewards ruled the 2 was at fault for the 11's actions.

I'm just not sure why the 2 wasn't left up on top.


Correct :2: was a definite winner either way but if he caused the :11: to keep the :8: a better placing ( second) he needs to come down below the :8:

[Jeff P]

Closing Night 11-10-2020 Grants Pass --

R5 -- The rider of #5 claimed foul against the eventual winner #8 for interference entering the far turn.

Imo, the video showed the #8 about three paths outward from the #5 going around the turn. Tip of the cap to Jason Beem for using the phrase "The video showed no interference at all" while explaining the stewards decision.

Looking at the video afterward got me to wondering:

Is there a rule against making a frivolous objection?


-jp

.

[cj]

Closing Night 11-10-2020 Grants Pass --

R5 -- The rider of #5 claimed foul against the eventual winner #8 for interference entering the far turn.

Imo, the video showed the #8 about three paths outward from the #5 going around the turn. Tip of the cap to Jason Beem for using the phrase "The video showed no interference at all" while explaining the stewards decision.

Looking at the video afterward got me to wondering:

Is there a rule against making a frivolous objection?


-jp

.

I know there has been in the past, don't see why it would have gone away. Used to see the fines printed in rulings.

[dilanesp]

I know there has been in the past, don't see why it would have gone away. Used to see the fines printed in rulings.

Yeah. I used to love to read the rulings! "Trainer Joe Smith has been fined $50 for violating stable area parking regulations."

[Jeff P]

11-18-2020 Parx R2

The stewards conducted an inquiry looking at the start of #1 WON THE CASE who reared at the start, bobbled coming out of the gate, and unseated the rider in the process.

Fyi, what I am about to post isn't about the stewards decision.

Imo, all the stall doors opened at the same time. The asst starter didn't have the horse under restraint. Imo, the horse received a fair start.

This is more about incidentals... unexpected sights/sounds/scents, etc. that can spook a horse anywhere/any time.

The head on replay of the start shows something unusual.

A split second before the gates spring open:

An outrider mounted on a horse behind the gate, and facing away from the gate, makes a sudden waving motion - extending his or her right arm right outward and upward.

Horses can become spooked for any number number of reasons.

Anyone out there besides me think there's a chance the horse (#1 WON THE CASE) could have been startled by unexpected movement in its peripheral vision - and reacted by rearing?


-jp

.

[shout1966]

any thoughts on the no change by the stewards involving the 2nd and 3rd place horses . I did not have any of the horses involved. IMO clear interference by the 2nd place horse and should have been placed 3rd


:1::10: were involved btw.

[Robert Fischer]

any thoughts on the no change by the stewards involving the 2nd and 3rd place horses . I did not have any of the horses involved. IMO clear interference by the 2nd place horse and should have been placed 3rd


:1::10: were involved btw.

For me - it's an "I don't know".

You could be right.


both runners-up made late changes to their paths/direction
it's commonly accepted for tiring leader to be allowed to drift a bit to 'meet' the challenge of the outside bid


but had the :1: stayed in a straight path on the rail, the :10: had momentum to split for 2nd. :ThmbUp:

[cj]

I thought as is was fine. Would help if there was a better angle for the head on but since there isn't, don't think there was enough there to DQ.

[Boomer]

12-30 Tampa Bay Race 9


:10: was still being held by the starter when the gate opened. They viewed it 10 times and no refunds. Yes justice is blind!

[cj]

12-30 Tampa Bay Race 9


:10: was still being held by the starter when the gate opened. They viewed it 10 times and no refunds. Yes justice is blind!

Tried to watch the head on replay but it doesn't show much as it starts just as the horses are leaving the gate. The pan has a split screen, but the Tampa logo is over the 10 horse LOL.

[jameegray1]

Delta Downs R4 the winner :7: is DQd.

Views please?

[razor68]

I have never seen a more ridicilous dq in my life and ive seen many bad ones. that has to be investigated. i called they would not put me through the stewards. that is excatly why racing is suffering. need a central commity to handle all claims of fouls so its fair. that was insane. the 5 started to lose its foot and caused a chain reation. the 7 was out wide and minutely came in. less than 99% of horses that are wide that come in to straighten. That was awful.

[jay68802]

:7: came in hard on the :6:, forcing the :6: into the :8:, causing the :8: to fall, and drop the jockey. The :7:, IMO, should have been DQ'ed entirely, but was left up for 2nd.

[affirmedny]

:7: came in hard on the :6:, forcing the :6: into the :8:, causing the :8: to fall, and drop the jockey. The :7:, IMO, should have been DQ'ed entirely, but was left up for 2nd.

5 came out into the 6 pushing him into the 7 THEN the 7 reacted by coming in on the 6 IMO bad call.

[razor68]

This Jay guy is def in with the judges or has to change his contacts.. thats awful man. to promote bs like that. Did you watch the race. The 5 broke down which caused a chain reaction. the 7 minded its business on outside. 99% they dont even consider what that 7 did anything. please.

[PaceAdvantage]

This Jay guy is def in with the judges or has to change his contacts.. thats awful man. to promote bs like that. Did you watch the race. The 5 broke down which caused a chain reaction. the 7 minded its business on outside. 99% they dont even consider what that 7 did anything. please.huh? "in with the judges?"

wut?

come again?

[jay68802]

huh? "in with the judges?"

wut?

come again?

You remember, when I first tried to join this forum? The screen name I wanted was JayInWithTheJudges68802, but it was to long.:bang:


Razor, I gave my opinion, that is how I saw the race.

[razor68]

You remember, when I first tried to join this forum? The screen name I wanted was JayInWithTheJudges68802, but it was to long.:bang:


Razor, I gave my opinion, that is how I saw the race.

Check out Delta race 9. Heavy fav the 10 comes in and hits the 1. No claim of foul callled against the 10.

[razor68]

We wanna talk about chain reaction. than 1 hits 5 after bump from 10... :bang:

[jay68802]

Check out Delta race 9. Heavy fav the 10 comes in and hits the 1. No claim of foul callled against the 10.

I know, I bet the :10: heavy.

[razor68]

The issue is i can show you 1000 races with non dq far far worse than that race in delta race 4 if there was anything at all. That's not consistency. That's just bs.

[jay68802]

The issue is i can show you 1000 races with non dq far far worse than that race in delta race 4 if there was anything at all. That's not consistency. That's just bs.

And I can show you 1000 different opinions on those races. Does not matter in the long run. The decisions are done. Agree or disagree. Should those decisions be from a central body? It could be done. You might get a more consistent ruling then. Until then, we get what we get.

[razor68]

And I can show you 1000 different opinions on those races. Does not matter in the long run. The decisions are done. Agree or disagree. Should those decisions be from a central body? It could be done. You might get a more consistent ruling then. Until then, we get what we get.

"We get what we get"

the exact logic as to why things can continue to be wrong.. im done conversing if that is your logic buddy. We have different ways of thinking. Sheep vs non sheep. Im glad you made a lot of money on the 10. congrats.

[razor68]

huh? "in with the judges?"

wut?

come again?

Are you the controller of thought and information. Is this like twitter and facebook? Will i get banned for giving an opinion that is not groovy with what you want.

[razor68]

And I can show you 1000 different opinions on those races. Does not matter in the long run. The decisions are done. Agree or disagree. Should those decisions be from a central body? It could be done. You might get a more consistent ruling then. Until then, we get what we get.

If you can find another sport were there are a few dudes that dictate the race without any rationale or strict guideline id like to know. The fixed bs of horse racing and people choose to tolerate it. And than they have the guts to complain about lack of handle when they have things like that.

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you the controller of thought and information. Is this like twitter and facebook? Will i get banned for giving an opinion that is not groovy with what you want.No. But if you keep acting like an asshole, you'll definitely get banned...just like before...

[razor68]

No. But if you keep acting like an asshole, you'll definitely get banned...just like before...

So just so everyone knows because i have copied your post. We are banning people and declaring them an asshole for not going along with the way you want them to. Is this a forum for free speech or one that you get banned for saying something against the all mighty Pace advantage bot that is very tough and mighty behind a computer.

Must be nice to be able to ban someone. Does it make you feel empowered.

[razor68]

No. But if you keep acting like an asshole, you'll definitely get banned...just like before...

Maybe one day I can have 70,000 posts on here and be able to threaten someone who I disagree with that I will ban them. One can only hope... :)

[PaceAdvantage]

Whatever Mr. Sep 2020. :pound:

You're so SERIOUS!

I love it.

[comet52]

If you can find another sport were there are a few dudes that dictate the race without any rationale or strict guideline id like to know.

I've been watching crooked crap in that sport for 50 years, its called NFL referees, lol.

[dilanesp]

I'm pretty surprised by the DQ of the :8: in the 4th at SA yesterday, January 8. It was a squeeze play at the start. The :8: clearly initiated it, but (1) it was at the start of a 2 turn race (remember Bayern in the BC Classic?) and (2) there were several horses involved in the squeeze, including the :5: as well. It was clearly unfortunate for the :6: , but this sort of thing is racing luck to me.

[dilanesp]

Another DQ at the start, this time in the 9th at Santa Anita yesterday. (I bet the DQ'd horse, but only to win.) The :4: was DQ'd for apparently causing a chain reaction that caused the :6: to lose the rider. I couldn't see it. It looked like pretty minor bumping, but I realize Rosario did fall off the :6: . A foul that displaces a rider at the start can lead to a DQ, but I couldn't see the causation the stewards did here.

[Jeff P]

Earlier today, Sat Mar 27 2021 at Turfway Park in R3, the rider of #3 lodged an objection against the runaway winner #10 WOKE UP TO ACES for alleged interference going into the first turn.

Imo, the stewards made the correct call: "No change."

I can't help but notice there have been several of these over the current meet - where crowding takes place as the horses enter the first turn for races run at the One Mile Distance at Turfway Park.

Imo, the crowding isn't being caused by riders who suddenly decide to cut over.

Imo, the Turfway course layout at the One Mile Distance is to blame.

Imo, the starting gate is too close to the first turn, and creates a situation where the horses don't have enough time to sort themselves out on a Tapeta surface. The crowding is a direct result of this.

Fyi, the runup in the Equibase Chart Data for today's Turfway R3 is listed at 45 feet.

Imo, a longer runup would likely reduce the incidence rate for the crowding that keeps happening as the horses enter the first turn of the One Mile Distance at Turfway Park.



-jp

.

[cj]

Earlier today, Sat Mar 27 2021 at Turfway Park in R3, the rider of #3 lodged an objection against the runaway winner #10 WOKE UP TO ACES for alleged interference going into the first turn.

Imo, the stewards made the correct call: "No change."

I can't help but notice there have been several of these over the current meet - where crowding takes place as the horses enter the first turn for races run at the One Mile Distance at Turfway Park.

Imo, the crowding isn't being caused by riders who suddenly decide to cut over.

Imo, the Turfway course layout at the One Mile Distance is to blame.

Imo, the starting gate is too close to the first turn, and creates a situation where the horses don't have enough time to sort themselves out on a Tapeta surface. The crowding is a direct result of this.

Fyi, the runup in the Equibase Chart Data for today's Turfway R3 is listed at 45 feet.

Imo, a longer runup would likely reduce the incidence rate for the crowding that keeps happening as the horses enter the first turn of the One Mile Distance at Turfway Park.



-jp

.

Long run ups suck, just make it 1m 70 yards.

[Jeff P]

1m 70 yards works for me. :)


-jp

.

[shout1966]

another screw job by the stewards. I will say I had a small wager on the :6:who was DQed from 1st to 3rd. I saw no contact whatsoever. An the crazy part they placed him 3rd. Again probably looking thru a bias here but try to stay fair. I saw no contact that i could see in replay. As i type this i am waiting for a explanation by the track.


Thoughts

[Robert Fischer]

another screw job by the stewards. I will say I had a small wager on the :6:who was DQed from 1st to 3rd. I saw no contact whatsoever. An the crazy part they placed him 3rd. Again probably looking thru a bias here but try to stay fair. I saw no contact that i could see in replay. As i type this i am waiting for a explanation by the track.


Thoughts



BS take down of :6: at Parx r10

:6: herded :10: at the top of the stretch and won.

They take 10 min to decide and show 50 replays...

OK GREAT. Let's enforce herding. I want to see Ortiz etc... taken down every time they do that.

We finally established a 'keep your path' Precedent for Consistent Stewardship!

BREAKING: From now on, herding is 'NOT' allowed anymore. They're gonna take down favorites from super trainers and super owners when their jock herds several times in the race. Facemasks cover your mouth and nose please.

Parx is of the finest quality racing

[shout1966]

[QUOTE=Robert Fischer;2711643]BS take down of :6: at Parx r10

:6: herded :10: at the top of the stretch and won.

They take 10 min to decide and show 50 replays...

OK GREAT. Let's enforce herding. I want to see Ortiz etc... taken down every time they do that.

We finally established a 'keep your path' Precedent for Consistent Stewardship!

BREAKING: From now on, herding is 'NOT' allowed anymore. They're gonna take down favorites from super trainers and super owners when their jock herds several times in the race. Facemasks cover your mouth and nose please.

Parx is of the finest quality racing[/QUOTE






Just watched the " stewards explanation video" and it confirmed my thoughts above. He should not have been taken down also why 3rd did they see something at the start that they didnt mention.

[shout1966]

There was a Stewards' Inquiry into the start and stretch run, along with a Jockey Objection by the rider of SHERO against the winner, after videoreview, SQUAN'S KINGDOM was disqualified and placed third for bothering rivals in the stretch.






Straight from the full chart of why he was taken down. Should be a investigation into that track.



Further more I lost the last race at parx so I would have won nothing I am still as pissed as I was after the DQ.

[Robert Fischer]

Just watched the " stewards explanation video" and it confirmed my thoughts above. He should not have been taken down also why 3rd did they see something at the start that they didnt mention.[/QUOTE]

6 certainly fouled or 'herded' the 10

Problem is that there is no 'common accepted practice', where the jocks can adapt and always ride a certain way.

how does the steward(s) 'feel' today? Who was involved? Jock? Trainer? Owner? Favorite? Turf? Stakes? Cheap clm?

The down to 3rd was just random decision, based on the :5: nearly bobbing in a photo for 2nd w/ :10: ...

then, you can laugh at if the :5: had lucked into 2nd in the photo..., the stewards would be in a stupor of brainfreeze.... 3rd vs 1st??:D

And they take 10+ min or whatever to decide as a cherry on top.


Fair call in a vacuum, it's just that 'Racing' has to be consistent

[shout1966]

Just watched the " stewards explanation video" and it confirmed my thoughts above. He should not have been taken down also why 3rd did they see something at the start that they didnt mention.

6 certainly fouled or 'herded' the 10

Problem is that there is no 'common accepted practice', where the jocks can adapt and always ride a certain way.

how does the steward(s) 'feel' today? Who was involved? Jock? Trainer? Owner? Favorite? Turf? Stakes? Cheap clm?

The down to 3rd was just random decision, based on the :5: nearly bobbing in a photo for 2nd w/ :10: ...

then, you can laugh at if the :5: had lucked into 2nd in the photo..., the stewards would be in a stupor of brainfreeze.... 3rd vs 1st??:D

And they take 10+ min or whatever to decide as a cherry on top.


Fair call in a vacuum, it's just that 'Racing' has to be consistent[/QUOTE]




He made not one bit of contact with the 10 so i will disagree with you that he fouled the 10.


Is herding a foul ? if so when

Javier Castellano herds about 6 times a day at nyra.He has been the leading rider in the country at one point.

[Robert Fischer]

He made not one bit of contact with the 10 so i will disagree with you that he fouled the 10.


Is herding a foul ? if so when

Javier Castellano herds about 6 times a day at nyra.He has been the leading rider in the country at one point.

Irad Ortiz is so good that he can 'herd' while using the opposite stick/reigns.
Can't even go into stuff like uncoupled entries bumping at the break or setting 'screens'...

Is herding a foul?

It's supposed to be.

However, the enforcement is inconsistent, and in many cases, 'herding' is accepted as a common practice.

[DeoVolente]

Only at Parx would that horse be taken down. No contact and no explaination.

[cj]

Gulfstream DQ in the 9th on 4-16. Hard to really argue with the call because they don't have a head on. It looks bad but who really knows? Horse racing technology stinks (still).

[Afleet]

very strange situation-never seen this before. The unofficial 2nd and 3rd place horses dead heated. The unofficial winner 7 drifted out and was DQ'd which was correct. All top 4 finishers claimed foul w/a stewards inquiry. How did the #3 not foul the #9? This cost me thousands of dollars. #9 One more Chapter went off at 35-1

$2 Mutuel Prices:
3 -AMERICAN FLEET 3.00 3.60 2.60
9 -ONE MORE CHAPTER 24.60 18.00 9.60
7 -OMATI 2.80

$1 EXACTA 3-9 PAID $29.30 $1 EXACTA 9-3 PAID $87.80 $1 SUPERFECTA
3-9-7-2 PAID $608.20 $1 SUPERFECTA 9-3-7-2 PAID $1,872.00 $1
SUPER HIGH FIVE NO WINNING TICKETS, CARRYOVER $1,645.00 $1
TRIFECTA 3-9-7 PAID $104.20 $1 TRIFECTA 9-3-7 PAID $255.10
American Fleet > B. c, (Feb), byTiznow - Magic Vixen , by Tapit . Trainer Ness Jamie. B red byG ary &

[jameegray1]

:7: barged the :3: causing a chain reaction into the :9: and :2:. Looks like :7: was judged to have been the sole cause of the interference. If :2: had also objected against :7: he too might have been promoted a position, but he did seem the least affected.

[SG4]

:7: barged the :3: causing a chain reaction into the :9: and :2:. Looks like :7: was judged to have been the sole cause of the interference. If :2: had also objected against :7: he too might have been promoted a position, but he did seem the least affected.


Very surprised the 2 wasn't moved up as well, as the 2 did indeed claim an objection & he was certainly fouled. If the 7 was judged to have started a full chain reaction then he should've come down for all. Without interference it looked to me like the 2,3 & 9 all had a legit chance to win

[jameegray1]

Very surprised the 2 wasn't moved up as well, as the 2 did indeed claim an objection & he was certainly fouled. If the 7 was judged to have started a full chain reaction then he should've come down for all. Without interference it looked to me like the 2,3 & 9 all had a legit chance to win

According to the result chart :2: only objected against the 2nd and 3rd place finisher.

[SG4]

According to the result chart :2: only objected against the 2nd and 3rd place finisher.


Thanks for clarifying, just watching the feed I saw the 2 showed an objection lodged. Either way I think the stewards dropped the ball here a little bit.

[thaskalos]

I have seen horses get disqualified for a lot less than what the :1: did while turning for home in today's 1st race at Parx. :eek:

[jameegray1]

I have seen horses get disqualified for a lot less than what the :1: did while turning for home in today's 1st race at Parx. :eek:

I assume thoughts were the :6: was going backwards anyway and interference unlikely to have affected the final positions so no objection.

[TMQ]

Prairie Meadows race #5 today...... The :6: wins the race by about 8 lengths but made contact on the turn with the :1. Who finished 5th. They DQ the :6. All the way to 6th place and end up making my $5 :6:/:3: exact all but worthless. Cost me $1000 easily.

[ReplayRandall]

Prairie Meadows race #5 today...... The :6: wins the race by about 8 lengths but made contact on the turn with the :1. Who finished 5th. They DQ the :6. All the way to 6th place and end up making my $5 :6:/:3: exact all but worthless. Cost me $1000 easily.In early home-stretch, the :6: really whacks the hindquarters of the :1: sideways into the rail....Bad luck as the :6: got walloped at the break, was dead last by plenty, and comes flying to win by daylight...One to watch, but so will everyone else....Sorry.

https://www.prairiemeadows.com/racing/race-replays

[hopbet]

Let me be the first . IMO , the four horse should have come down.

[dilanesp]

I had the :5: here in the 9th at Del Mar. I'm hoping....

EDIT: Yes!!!!!

[rastajenk]

I agree with Christina (that's the TVG person, isn't it?): Six got hosed.

[dilanesp]

I agree with Christina (that's the TVG person, isn't it?): Six got hosed.

The California stewards will always DQ in that situation. 3 noses on the wire, which means even the slightest foul might have cost a placing.

[Andy Asaro]

A hole opened up for the 5 and he began to go through, then the 6 came out and on top of that Rispoli was whipping left handed. Not a tough call IMO

[v j stauffer]

A hole opened up for the 5 and he began to go through, then the 6 came out and on top of that Rispoli was whipping left handed. Not a tough call IMO

Correct. A very easy decision.

[thespaah]

August 16th Colonial Race 2
replay link here
https://rosiesgaming.com/race-replays/
Go to Aug 16th Race 2
Here is the link to the equibase charts for the day.
https://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/CNL081621USA.pdf
Incident occurs near the 3/8ths pole.
Stews claim the :7: comes over on the :3: which causes the rider of the :2: to pull up his horse after appearing to clip heels with the :3:
The Stewards elected to disqualify the :7: and place the horse 7th behind the 6th place finishing :2:
Unless I missed something, I'm not seeing it the way the Stewards saw it.
Comments?..

[dilanesp]

For some reason I am betting a lot of horses who get fouled lately. I had the :4: Tony Ann in the 5th at Del Mar. She got mugged.

EDIT: after seeing the head-on it's not as bad as I thought.

[Ahorsewithnoname]

Race 8 Indiana Grand 09/08
# :2: Rider obejection against the :4: for first.
No change... Are you kidding me?

[jameegray1]

R8 at Golden Gate 12th Sept. :4: DQ'd for that against the :6:! Really?

https://youtu.be/mkTko27rc9A?t=78

[ReplayRandall]

R8 at Golden Gate 12th Sept. :4: DQ'd for that against the :6:! Really?

https://youtu.be/mkTko27rc9A?t=78https://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/GG091221USA8.pdf

The Stewards ruled in a unanimous decision.....

[Elkchester Road]

R8 at Golden Gate 12th Sept. :4: DQ'd for that against the :6:! Really?

https://youtu.be/mkTko27rc9A?t=78

jameegray1...what a joke this DQ was.

I don't see how people could ever be comfortable betting serious money at some of these tracks. Especially knowing that next week the very same thing will happen in a race...and there won't even be an Inquiry.

People who bet serious money don't flinch at being stabbed at the wire...don't get flustered at takedowns. But when they feel like they aren't getting a fair shake...it won't take long for them to find another game to bet their serious money on.

That DQ was bullshit.

[Robert Fischer]

https://twitter.com/jason_kassa/status/1462503421962039299

https://twitter.com/1GR8FULGUY/status/1462505529507467268

[Robert Fischer]

https://twitter.com/Smarty3385/status/1462507836613828608

[Jeff P]

I don't have a dog in this fight (didn't bet the race) but if I had to hazard a guess:

1. The nose of the #11 horse appears to be a tiny fraction closer to the vertical line in the posted image than the nose of the #5 horse.

2. In every single case where I have asked for an explanation in the past: The image used by the placing judges has turned out to be significantly clearer/has a higher resolution than the photo finish image made available by the track over the web.



-jp

.

[cj]

I don't have a dog in this fight (didn't bet the race) but if I had to hazard a guess:

1. The nose of the #11 horse appears to be a tiny fraction closer to the vertical line in the posted image than the nose of the #5 horse.

2. In every single case where I have asked for an explanation in the past: The image used by the placing judges has turned out to be significantly clearer/has a higher resolution than the photo finish image made available by the track over the web.



-jp

.

The image on the NYRA site is pretty conclusive. As someone hypothesized on Twitter, maybe someone tried to enhance the finish line for viewing purposes and inadvertently made it look like a dead heat? The line on the NYRA site is white, the one shown after the replay is black.

https://twitter.com/TimeformUSfigs/status/1462516432445579267

[the little guy]

Wait, people on Twitter were wrong? Can't be!

[cj]

Wait, people on Twitter were wrong? Can't be!

Of course not surprising, but posting that photo after the replay should probably be cause for a new policy. I knew it was probably a bogus complaint because one of the things in horse racing I have faith in is the photo system, but it looks bad and even Maggie commented.

[foregoforever]

Of course not surprising, but posting that photo after the replay should probably be cause for a new policy. I knew it was probably a bogus complaint because one of the things in horse racing I have faith in is the photo system, but it looks bad and even Maggie commented.

Whenever these things happen, I wish they'd post a second image, in full resolution, of just that sliver of interest (the noses and the reference line).

Not only would it end the debate, it'd also show us what the photo judge has to work with, and how much clearer it is than the compressed jpeg images.

[jameegray1]

Delta Downs R6 double DQ of 1st :6: and 2nd :7:. Thought it was particularly harsh on the 1st place :6: who certainly wouldn't have been DQ'd without the :7: moving over in the stretch. Worth a look at the head-on replay if you have access to it.

[Jeff P]

Agree.

The head on replay shown afterwards had the outside horse #6 and the #1 in close proximity to each other coming out of the turn and pretty much the entire length of the stretch.

Didn't look to me like the rider of #6 did anything wrong.

It wasn't until the rider of #7 decided to angle out that the #1 got squeezed.

Imo --

DQ #7... Justified.

DQ #6... Terrible call.


-jp

.

[dilanesp]

Yesterday's 3rd at Santa Anita (Keystone Field pushing Builder into the rail) looked like a clear DQ to me.