PDA

View Full Version : The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Stillriledup
11-06-2014, 11:16 PM
Flip Flopped 2nd and 3rd. I dont see it.

cj
11-06-2014, 11:25 PM
Rather than start a new thread every time somebody feels they have been the victim of a grave injustice, we'll put them all in this thread for a while and see how it goes.

Stillriledup
11-06-2014, 11:27 PM
Thank you, good idea.

:ThmbUp:

The "complaint" was about the 10th race at Delta on Nov 6th. The 1 got outrun and the 2 got around him down the backstretch, the 1 got in tight and checked out of there and they blamed the 2 for the 1's poor ride and poor positioning.

I would post a video, but if you want to see the replay, try google. ;)

biggestal99
11-07-2014, 06:15 AM
I had 10 bucks on the nose of toast of new york at 18-1 in the pa contest (and a bigger bet in real life)

Rats.

Allan

outofthebox
11-07-2014, 06:28 AM
Flip Flopped 2nd and 3rd. I dont see it.This is the track i race at. I cringe every time i'm involved with an inquiry. There are a lot of squeeze jobs going on into the turn because of horses switching leads and dropping down naturally. It seems if a jockey is half in going into the turn and feels the outside pressure, he is going to grab and take hold. This is what seemed to happen here.

Stillriledup
11-07-2014, 01:55 PM
This is the track i race at. I cringe every time i'm involved with an inquiry. There are a lot of squeeze jobs going on into the turn because of horses switching leads and dropping down naturally. It seems if a jockey is half in going into the turn and feels the outside pressure, he is going to grab and take hold. This is what seemed to happen here.

Thanks, this is part for the course at this track and it happens at CT and Los Al at the 4.5 distance. If you're in that spot from your own doing, you might have to get out of there, this was a real nitpicky DQ and i felt this situation was just "part of the race" that stuff happens to horses like the 1 if you're in that position. Bad call, they blamed the 2 for the jock on the 1 being inside there, its not the 2s fault the guy is there.

Stillriledup
11-25-2014, 09:45 PM
I don't think any of it affected the outcome, if you want to put the 3 behind the 7, i can't say that was the worst DQ ever, but putting the 3 behind the 5 is horrendous.

The 5 was beaten, lugging in, was very hard to steer and was never finishing higher than 4th....so im not sure why he was placed up.

But, its West Virginia, anything can happen there.

Tall One
11-25-2014, 10:31 PM
SRU, didn't see the race myself, but in the 8th, my buddy has been on the phone jumping up and down about a non DQ and the :5: turning right out of the gate...said something about Bayern between slurs and is very upset about all of this.

My response? It's Mountaineer on a Tuesday, anything is possible.

Exotic1
11-25-2014, 10:33 PM
I don't think any of it affected the outcome, if you want to put the 3 behind the 7, i can't say that was the worst DQ ever, but putting the 3 behind the 5 is horrendous.

The 5 was beaten, lugging in, was very hard to steer and was never finishing higher than 4th....so im not sure why he was placed up.

But, its West Virginia, anything can happen there.

The #5 and #7 were running backwards. Insanity.

Stillriledup
11-25-2014, 10:36 PM
SRU, didn't see the race myself, but in the 8th, my buddy has been on the phone jumping up and down about a non DQ and the :5: turning right out of the gate...said something about Bayern between slurs and is very upset about all of this.

My response? It's Mountaineer on a Tuesday, anything is possible.

It looked like the 10 came in also, but the order of finish was 4-2, so im not sure what he was jumping around about, anyone who might have caused any problem was nowhere.

Stillriledup
11-25-2014, 10:39 PM
The #5 and #7 were running backwards. Insanity.

When i see this type of stuff, i think they're judging the races on a "foul is a foul" and affecting the outcome means nothing.

There was an objection in the 5th third against 2nd and this was a situation that didn't affect the outcome, but the 2nd place finisher did not maintain an exact straight line....but in the 7th, the judges required that the 3 maintain an exact straight line in a foul is a foul situation, so the judging didn't seem consistent in races that were an hour apart.

Not sure what to think about this, but between Mountain and CT, you never know what these judges are going to do.

Tall One
11-25-2014, 10:41 PM
It looked like the 10 came in also, but the order of finish was 4-2, so im not sure what he was jumping around about, anyone who might have caused any problem was nowhere.



Who knows what he saw..Im thinking the slurs have something to do with it.. :D

Stillriledup
11-25-2014, 10:46 PM
Who knows what he saw..Im thinking the slurs have something to do with it.. :D

He may have been jumping around because there WAS an inquiry to begin with. Since this was an at the start situation, and we know anything has been proven to go, why were they looking at it at all? Its not like they were ever going to make a DQ.

Of course, its West Virginia, the state where anything can happen, if a DQ can happen at the start one night and not happen the next, its this place.

castaway01
11-26-2014, 09:55 AM
He may have been jumping around because there WAS an inquiry to begin with. Since this was an at the start situation, and we know anything has been proven to go, why were they looking at it at all? Its not like they were ever going to make a DQ.

Of course, its West Virginia, the state where anything can happen, if a DQ can happen at the start one night and not happen the next, its this place.

What state was this in again? You haven't mentioned that yet. Can anything happen there?

cj
11-26-2014, 09:58 AM
I thought we had a thread for this! You can find threads from 20 years ago but not the DQ thread? Come on, man.

EDIT: Merged

Stillriledup
11-26-2014, 02:59 PM
I thought we had a thread for this! You can find threads from 20 years ago but not the DQ thread? Come on, man.

EDIT: Merged


Sorry. Forgot about this. Out of sight, out of mind. My bad.

thespaah
11-26-2014, 09:33 PM
This is the track i race at. I cringe every time i'm involved with an inquiry. There are a lot of squeeze jobs going on into the turn because of horses switching leads and dropping down naturally. It seems if a jockey is half in going into the turn and feels the outside pressure, he is going to grab and take hold. This is what seemed to happen here.
Is this due to inexperienced or "less skilled" riders? Or is it an issue of the jockeys "playing the game" of trying to get the attention of the Stewards with the idea of having the Stews give them a position?

thespaah
11-26-2014, 09:36 PM
Sorry. Forgot about this. Out of sight, out of mind. My bad.
Off to the Principal's office with you!!!!!!!
:lol:

Stillriledup
11-28-2014, 02:04 PM
Frivilous foul claim by E Vaz Race 4 Parx today. This is embarrassing, jocks should be fined for this type of stuff.

cj
11-28-2014, 02:05 PM
Frivilous foul claim by Frankie Pennington Race 4 Parx today. This is embarrassing, jocks should be fined for this type of stuff.

Ummm...they are.

Stillriledup
11-28-2014, 02:08 PM
Ummm...they are.

I was wrong about Pennington, it was Vaz who had the frivilous claim.

Stillriledup
12-02-2014, 05:28 PM
Bizarre DQ at Zia in Race 8 today (Dec 2), the horse who caused the interference was placed first and a horse who did nothing was placed out of the money?

cj
12-02-2014, 05:30 PM
Bizarre DQ at Zia in Race 8 today (Dec 2), the horse who caused the interference was placed first and a horse who did nothing was placed out of the money?

Something tells me there is more to it than this. I'll watch later.

Stillriledup
12-02-2014, 05:34 PM
Something tells me there is more to it than this. I'll watch later.

They seemed to dq the wrong horse, i didnt see where the winner did anything wrong, he never bumped anyone so its all greek to me.

cj
12-02-2014, 05:44 PM
They seemed to dq the wrong horse, i didnt see where the winner did anything wrong, he never bumped anyone so its all greek to me.

I would guess the reasoning was the 5 forced the 4 in at the start, which in turn caused the 1-2-3 to be stopped pretty hard. I'm not sure I agree, but I can see why it was called.

Stillriledup
12-02-2014, 05:47 PM
I would guess the reasoning was the 5 forced the 4 in at the start, which in turn caused the 1-2-3 to be stopped pretty hard. I'm not sure I agree, but I can see why it was called.

I didnt see where the 5 did anything wrong and even if you can make a case the 5 was at fault, the 4 was also at least partly at fault and needed to come down too. Not sure how anyone can look at that and say the 4 was blameless for his jock completely overreacting to something that didnt happen, i have a problem with that DQ. If you take down the 5, you gotta take the 4 with him.

cj
12-02-2014, 05:51 PM
I didnt see where the 5 did anything wrong and even if you can make a case the 5 was at fault, the 4 was also at least partly at fault and needed to come down too. Not sure how anyone can look at that and say the 4 was blameless for his jock completely overreacting to something that didnt happen, i have a problem with that DQ. If you take down the 5, you gotta take the 4 with him.

I tend to agree, I thought the 4 was at least as much to blame. I hate to say it, but I think the 1-5 odds had an impact.

Stillriledup
12-02-2014, 05:52 PM
I tend to agree, I thought the 4 was at least as much to blame. I hate to say it, but I think the 1-5 odds had an impact.

I was thinking that the track wouldnt want to have to pay out a minus show pool and the DQ of the 4 would be made, i saw the inquiry and just thought it was on the 4 and was shocked that it was on the 5.

Rough DQ if you had the winner, that's a hard way to not get paid.

Gapfire
12-02-2014, 06:17 PM
Just looked at the replay, and thought the 4 caused most of the problems, The 5 was coming over as well, but the 4 moved in, and caused the foul before the 5 came over.
Bad DQ, and the 1/5 shot gets rewarded for being the main culprit. :ThmbDown:

appistappis
12-02-2014, 08:45 PM
the objection was 1 on 5.

Stillriledup
12-02-2014, 08:48 PM
the objection was 1 on 5.

So the guy on the 1 objected against the wrong horse, its interesting how the jock on the 1 would have even seen if the 5 was at fault, the 4 was the one leaning into the trio of horses.

Gapfire
12-02-2014, 09:56 PM
the objection was 1 on 5.


Doesn't matter. Any review of the film would show that the 5 did not cause this. The stewards should have disallowed the objection.

cj
12-02-2014, 10:23 PM
Doesn't matter. Any review of the film would show that the 5 did not cause this. The stewards should have disallowed the objection.

Yes, but they still could DQ the 4 once they are looking.

Gapfire
12-03-2014, 12:14 AM
Yes, but they still could DQ the 4 once they are looking.

Yes, and I've had this happen to me on more than one occasion.

Stillriledup
12-03-2014, 02:03 AM
Yes, but they still could DQ the 4 once they are looking.

I bet people who had the 4 were thinking this exact thing.

Dark Horse
12-03-2014, 11:13 AM
A few weeks ago at Turf Paradise a horse absolutely blasts by Scott Stevens in mid stretch. It was as if he was standing still. But he didn't realize how fast the other horse was going (at first), so he did the standard acting job of being cut off, which looked more than a little ridiculous on his crawling donkey. The crazy thing? He still filed an objection.

Stillriledup
12-03-2014, 01:51 PM
A few weeks ago at Turf Paradise a horse absolutely blasts by Scott Stevens in mid stretch. It was as if he was standing still. But he didn't realize how fast the other horse was going (at first), so he did the standard acting job of being cut off, which looked more than a little ridiculous on his crawling donkey. The crazy thing? He still filed an objection.

I think i remember that race, the guy got beat a long way, wasn't cost a board spot either.

Stillriledup
12-05-2014, 04:03 PM
I didnt see why the 7 was dq'd in the 8th at AQU, anyone know why? I didnt see the head on. looked to me like the 12 lugged in and crashed the field, but what do i know.

cj
12-05-2014, 04:26 PM
I didnt see why the 7 was dq'd in the 8th at AQU, anyone know why? I didnt see the head on. looked to me like the 12 lugged in and crashed the field, but what do i know.

Lopez cause the trouble.

Stillriledup
12-05-2014, 04:50 PM
I didnt see why the 7 was dq'd in the 8th at AQU, anyone know why? I didnt see the head on. looked to me like the 12 lugged in and crashed the field, but what do i know.

The head on is available at 2:55 on the Calracing feed of the pan shot of the race. There's a head on shot available, but that's just a continuation of the inquiry and a view of the toteboard, you need to watch the pan to see the head on, they only show it once.

Alwaysonpoint36
12-05-2014, 05:06 PM
just awful, rip Quick Money....

Stillriledup
12-06-2014, 05:55 AM
Nov 1st in the 3rd race at Penn National, the winner was DQd for coming over at the start and squeezing a few horses. To me, this is something that i see happen a lot, and its part of the game and rarely does this move come down.

Tough DQ if you had the winner.

bello
12-06-2014, 08:20 PM
So they don't dq for out of the gate bumps.

Watch race 1 and race 3 tonight at Charles Town for the two most ridiculous dg's I have seen

Stillriledup
12-06-2014, 08:31 PM
So they don't dq for out of the gate bumps.

Watch race 1 and race 3 tonight at Charles Town for the two most ridiculous dg's I have seen

You mean there was a ridiculous DQ at The Chuck? Naw, can't be. :eek:

Stillriledup
12-06-2014, 08:40 PM
So they don't dq for out of the gate bumps.

Watch race 1 and race 3 tonight at Charles Town for the two most ridiculous dg's I have seen

Wow, Wow wow wow.

And, here's the funny thing....there's no inquiry for 5 mins after the start with the dopey announcer repeating over and over to "hold all tickets" when its obvious someone was in his ear, that's great transparency, know what's going on and refuse to say there's an inquiry just give the fans the wink wink, maybe they'll figure it out.

What a bad bad place this is, anyone who bets CT gets what they deserve with this clown show.

EMD4ME
12-06-2014, 09:34 PM
Nov 1st in the 3rd race at Penn National, the winner was DQd for coming over at the start and squeezing a few horses. To me, this is something that i see happen a lot, and its part of the game and rarely does this move come down.

Tough DQ if you had the winner.

That was the race I posted about. Cost me A LOT! He did very little to nothing. Then a few minutes after, Bayern takes out a sledge hammer, bashes and crashes his opposition at the gate and gets left up.

Hate this game.... still bitter

Stillriledup
12-06-2014, 10:48 PM
That was the race I posted about. Cost me A LOT! He did very little to nothing. Then a few minutes after, Bayern takes out a sledge hammer, bashes and crashes his opposition at the gate and gets left up.

Hate this game.... still bitter

The inconsistency is maddening, almost all horseplayers bet more than one track, so if you do, and you are a good soldier and support the game thru the windows, you deserve better. There's no pain more intense than being on the wrong end of the judges on essentially the same exact thing at two different tracks.

Stillriledup
12-09-2014, 06:19 PM
Ridiculously shaky DQ at TuP in the last race of the 5.

Beyond words.

appistappis
12-09-2014, 09:02 PM
one of the guys at the o.t.b had the 1 all 5 in that last race at TP today.....I cannot believe they took the 5 down.

Stillriledup
12-09-2014, 09:19 PM
one of the guys at the o.t.b had the 1 all 5 in that last race at TP today.....I cannot believe they took the 5 down.

It was a bizarre takedown, i think 70-1 had a lot to do with it. They left the 1-1 shot who also came in and was just as guilty.

appistappis
12-09-2014, 11:49 PM
sru, thats exactly what we saw....my buddy had 1/all/4, when that 5 came down.

Stillriledup
12-12-2014, 05:37 PM
What it really comes down to in the inquiry game is whims. Yes, sometimes the judges are in a DQing type of mood, other times they are not. For example, today's 5th at Los Al. The 1 horse carries the 2 and another rival on turn 1, no inquiry there, than the 6 crashes the 4 in the lane and costs that horse a board spot, but no inquiry there either...just a quick official, no harms no fouls, no whims, no problem.

Stillriledup
12-12-2014, 09:09 PM
Nice LONG inquiry in the 7th at Penn National.

So, they run the race and its over for at least 5 minutes maybe more and they announce a jocks objection, which was random and frivilous against the winner and the runner up (why not just object against the entire field and see if the blind mice bite).

The horse who objected was objecting against horses who were nowhere near him, he stood up and checked up his horse for absolutely no reason, but here's the funny thing.....the judges looked at this 50 times. Yes, 50. When it was patently clear the jock was just scared of his own shadow and checked up his horse for no real reason, nobody who was objected against was even near the guy at the time.

Unbelievable.

Stillriledup
12-13-2014, 06:39 PM
I don't know if i agree with the DQ at Los Al in the 7th, but i benefitted with my 3 all 1 tri. They rarely, if ever, hand me money, but they did this time.

I guess if a jock falls off someone has to be DQd. is that how it works?

cj
12-13-2014, 07:04 PM
Should I change thread title to "SRU discusses every objection or inquiry ever" or leave as is?

Stillriledup
12-13-2014, 07:06 PM
Should I change thread title to "SRU discusses every objection or inquiry ever" or leave as is?

Why not discuss it if it needs discussing? If you think it was a legit DQ, why not say so. I'm not sure it was, but i didnt watch it really carefully.

cj
12-13-2014, 07:07 PM
Why not discuss it if it needs discussing? If you think it was a legit DQ, why not say so. I'm not sure it was, but i didnt watch it really carefully.

You didn't discuss anything, just threw in an "I cashed".

Dark Horse
12-13-2014, 07:09 PM
I don't know if i agree with the DQ at Los Al in the 7th, but i benefitted with my 3 all 1 tri. They rarely, if ever, hand me money, but they did this time.

I guess if a jock falls off someone has to be DQd. is that how it works?

I had the 8 to win and place. Can't believe they took him down for interference down the backstretch. The horse did nothing wrong. It was just a fluke having to do with the configuration of the track. I hope the 6 is ok.

Stillriledup
12-13-2014, 07:27 PM
You didn't discuss anything, just threw in an "I cashed".

I've been criticized for not ever admitting that a DQ benefits me, so i finally had one that did, i mentioned it for those who have said i only complain about DQ when they cost me money.

Stillriledup
12-13-2014, 07:28 PM
I had the 8 to win and place. Can't believe they took him down for interference down the backstretch. The horse did nothing wrong. It was just a fluke having to do with the configuration of the track. I hope the 6 is ok.

That was what i was thinking, it happened at the odd part of the track, yet that wasn't really taken into consideration.

Dark Horse
12-13-2014, 08:06 PM
That was what i was thinking, it happened at the odd part of the track, yet that wasn't really taken into consideration.

It was basically a L-shaped trap rather than a rail, and the 6 couldn't get away from it. The 8 did nothing wrong, and if there had been a rail, or a way to cordon off the pole, nothing would have happened. To punish the 8 for that is a joke.

Stillriledup
12-13-2014, 08:29 PM
It was basically a L-shaped trap rather than a rail, and the 6 couldn't get away from it. The 8 did nothing wrong, and if there had been a rail, or a way to cordon off the pole, nothing would have happened. To punish the 8 for that is a joke.

It looked like the 8 shifted in like 1 inch, but i would imagine that if you watch all the headons you will see plenty of horses shift in, also, another factor is that the 6 is a head case horse, that was also not something that was factored in apparently.

cj
12-18-2014, 09:34 PM
I had no stake in the outcome, but I think that was a terrible DQ in R7 at TP. the 4 was never going to be better than 3rd, and the 7 was always going to be the winner. Don't see any way that cost a placing.

Stillriledup
12-18-2014, 10:01 PM
I had no stake in the outcome, but I think that was a terrible DQ in R7 at TP. the 4 was never going to be better than 3rd, and the 7 was always going to be the winner. Don't see any way that cost a placing.

The 4 was never beating the 7, but she did have a theoretical chance to beat the 6 who was hitting the wall a bit. The 4 was green while going up and down and hanging on the wrong lead, the jock on the 4 obviously overreacted, it was highly unlikely the 4 was finishing anywhere but 3rd and the only reason she switched leads is because the jock grabbed her up.

Not a DQ i would have made.

arw629
12-19-2014, 12:05 AM
I had no stake in the outcome either but terrible decision imo. So much for protecting the bettors...

Lemon Drop Husker
12-19-2014, 08:27 AM
I had no stake in the outcome, but I think that was a terrible DQ in R7 at TP. the 4 was never going to be better than 3rd, and the 7 was always going to be the winner. Don't see any way that cost a placing.

I had the 21/1 :7: in the 7th at Turfway Park last night. Complete bush league. The :4: comes across 4 paths down the stretch and gets approved for a DQ on the :7:? I thought they were joking, yet they kept looking at it and looking at it for 15 minutes, and sure enough they DQ the :7: and place him 3rd.

There was no way the :4: was catching the :7:, and it was highly likely the :4: doesn't even get past the :6: in the final 50 yards of the race.

And of course all I have is a W/P wager on the :7: and get completely shut out of a 21/1 shot that wins by daylight. :mad:

At least I came back with the dominating gate to wire win by the :2: Fioretti in the 8th at 16/1 to get some consolation, but damn do I feel cheated.

PaceAdvantage
12-19-2014, 11:19 AM
Anyone know why this thread is a "sticky?"

I don't remember sticking this thread to the top... :lol:

cj
12-19-2014, 11:54 AM
Anyone know why this thread is a "sticky?"

I don't remember sticking this thread to the top... :lol:

Because SRU kept starting new ones after this one was posted. Apparently, the guy who can dig up threads from 1963 couldn't locate this one.

Trips
12-19-2014, 12:36 PM
Apparently, the guy who can dig up threads from 1963 couldn't locate this one.
Instant classic.......

Stillriledup
12-19-2014, 03:15 PM
Because SRU kept starting new ones after this one was posted. Apparently, the guy who can dig up threads from 1963 couldn't locate this one.

Sometimes a specific track and specific stewards need to have their very own thread, with all the trimmings. Lumping them all here defeats the purpose of "Calling out" decisions that their state government and federal law enforcement might want to know about. I'm pretty sure stewards can't just do what they want, and if they appear to be "doing what they want" i'm sure local law enforcement would want to know and its much easier to find with its own.......drumroll please....unique thread!

Hopefully this thread will gain some steam so law enforcement knows where to look....you know, in case they want to prosecute crooked stewards to the fullest extent of the law. I won't hold my breath however. ;)

cj
12-19-2014, 06:20 PM
Gotta believe going to be an inquiry in R1, lets see how they handle it tonight. Runner up looked to drift and impede the 3rd horse via the pan shot.

cj
12-19-2014, 06:39 PM
At least they are consistent, took the 5 down from 2nd to 3rd.

Stillriledup
12-30-2014, 04:01 PM
Anyone know why the 4 horse blinked at TuP for 80 minutes in Race 3? I didn't see anything at all that would indicate that the 4 might be at fault for anything. I know there was an objection, but it couldn't have been against the winner,

Right?

appistappis
12-31-2014, 01:30 AM
I was wondering about that also ,the 3 lodged two claims against the 4, one at the start and one in the stretch.

Stillriledup
12-31-2014, 01:52 AM
I was wondering about that also ,the 3 lodged two claims against the 4, one at the start and one in the stretch.

Incredibly frivolous, wasted everyone's time and money.

Stillriledup
12-31-2014, 04:04 AM
Anyone have a theory on why the winner in the 4th race at Laurel on Nov 1st was DQd?

Does Laurel and Maryland have a "foul is a foul" rule and interference gets disqualified whether its costs a horse a placing or not?

Billnewman
01-08-2015, 02:35 PM
Was that Dq some bull**** or am I being bias cause I bet the 8?

PICSIX
01-08-2015, 02:40 PM
BS call :mad: :mad: :mad:

PICSIX
01-08-2015, 02:49 PM
Cost me a nice little score :mad:

COMPLETED: 313de-7af6b
GP
#3
$1 Pick-3 3,WT,2,8,WT,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 none $18.00
$89.00
+ $71.00

cj
01-08-2015, 03:13 PM
That was really a bad call. There will be at least 10 incidents at the meet that will be worse and not result in a DQ.

classhandicapper
01-08-2015, 03:37 PM
First, it was automatically a BS call because the stewards aren't consistent. They've left up worse than that at THIS meet. If there was some level of consistency it would be less problematic.

I had #5 in the race. I would argue he wasn't actually "done" at the point in the race he steadied out. I thought Saez got a little uncomfortable between horses mid stretch as Royal Son came out a hair. Then he steadied out when bumped as Tradesman also started coming in. So I think the "incident" very likely cost him 4th purse money and maybe even more. The question is more whose fault the steady was. I don't see #8 at fault. It was more either #2 Royal Son for the slightest of drifts out and the bump or Saez himself for panicking out. On that, I lean towards the latter. Not sure I am seeing that objectively though because I had vertical exotics with the #5 also.

Robert Fischer
01-14-2015, 05:31 PM
Sure it's a recurring topic = should judgement come into play regarding DQs? or should horses automatically be taken down?

I can't keep my eyes open (sleepy)
AND am EXTREMELY BIASED (would have won more money with a 4-3 than a 4-10)

Gulfstream race 9 i had :4::3::10::1: exacta boxes

:3: Enters the stretch in the lead. :3: is lugging out under a right handed whip.

:4: is better so he fights and gets past the :3: en route to winning his race as the best horse.

When the lugging out :3: horse hits the good :4: horse , the :4: also contacts the mediocre :1: and maybe the :10: (i don't remember)

The strong :4: and the second best horse the :3: continue fighting on to prove they are the two best.

finishes :4: :3: :10: :1:

Then the judges place the :3: behind the slower :10: and :1: , rewarding two horses that seemed to be proven worse than the :3: because of the fouling by the :3:.

not the end of the world but annoying ($5.20 less per each dollar of exacta wager).

I'll have to review again when less sleepy and less biased/emotional.

Stillriledup
01-14-2015, 05:36 PM
Sure it's a recurring topic = should judgement come into play regarding DQs? or should horses automatically be taken down?

I can't keep my eyes open (sleepy)
AND am EXTREMELY BIASED (would have won more money with a 4-3 than a 4-10)

Gulfstream race 9 i had :4::3::10::1: exacta boxes

:3: Enters the stretch in the lead. :3: is lugging out under a right handed whip.

:4: is better so he fights and gets past the :3: en route to winning his race as the best horse.

When the lugging out :3: horse hits the good :4: horse , the :4: also contacts the mediocre :1: and maybe the :10: (i don't remember)

The strong :4: and the second best horse the :3: continue fighting on to prove they are the two best.

finishes :4: :3: :10: :1:

Then the judges place the :3: behind the slower :10: and :1: , rewarding two horses that seemed to be proven worse than the :3: because of the fouling of the :3:.

not the end of the world but annoying ($5.20 less per each dollar of exacta wager).

I'll have to review again when less sleepy and less biased/emotional.

I'd automatically leave horses up, you know, under the racing is a contact sport theory.

I don't know about you, but when i handicap, i don't normally make my betting decisions based on who might lug out and get disqualified. I don't ever recall passing on a horse because i was predicting he would win and get taken down.....i don't think bettors care much about that sort of stuff, they just want to be paid if they win.

One thing stewards are crappy at is not realizing that many times a bump or a brush will happen because the horse who is being bumped or brushed is not fast enough....in other words a typical example that happens all the time is this. 2 horses are coming after the leader at the top of the lane, one horse is 2 wide the other guy right on the hip of the horse in between that's 3 wide. They get to the lane and the 3 wide horse is faster than the 2 wide horse and runs past him....lugs in while running by, the jock on the "slower" horse gets bothered. That happens a LOT and its a situation that wouldn't have happened had the horse 2 wide been faster.....so, if there IS a DQ, its essentially rewarding a horse for being "not fast enough".

Robert Fischer
01-15-2015, 12:59 PM
Not a DQ but a tough way to lose several wagers... Lezcano jumps off the 2nd choice #2 in the 1st race @ gulfstream.

The explanation given on the broadcast was that the horse "ducked in causing him to be unseated".
Hard to see how much he was actually ducking in before Lezcano jumped off the horse. He certainly wasn't going down or anything, the horse was full of run.

Tough to criticize beyond saying it was unlucky, but it did not look good.

comet52
01-18-2015, 09:18 AM
I had the :2: in the 5th at Santa Anita yesterday and they dq'd him to 2nd after he bumped the :4: in the stretch a few times. I watched the head on and I could see why there was a case but at the same time I've seen similar stretch run bumping and pushing a lot of times and nothing was changed. It just seems like you're at the mercy of random steward opinions that vary wildly from track to track. Losing the money hurts too. :bang:

cj
01-18-2015, 01:21 PM
I had the :2: in the 5th at Santa Anita yesterday and they dq'd him to 2nd after he bumped the :4: in the stretch a few times. I watched the head on and I could see why there was a case but at the same time I've seen similar stretch run bumping and pushing a lot of times and nothing was changed. It just seems like you're at the mercy of random steward opinions that vary wildly from track to track. Losing the money hurts too. :bang:

I think that was an obvious a DQ as you will ever find. I mean, SRU didn't even post about it which kind of proves that.

Stillriledup
01-18-2015, 01:37 PM
I think that was an obvious a DQ as you will ever find. I mean, SRU didn't even post about it which kind of proves that.

I never saw the head on of this SA race, i was too busy watching a race at Gulfstream where there was no inquiry on the 1 horse (the wildcat red race) that cost the Zito horse (the 6) a board spot (or potential board spot)by herding him into the grandstand. ;)

Stillriledup
01-18-2015, 06:33 PM
If you ever want to make a big show bet, make sure its on Russell Baze at GG. He can crash into horses and they won't take him down. Good to know.

EMD4ME
01-18-2015, 10:18 PM
I'd automatically leave horses up, you know, under the racing is a contact sport theory.

I don't know about you, but when i handicap, i don't normally make my betting decisions based on who might lug out and get disqualified. I don't ever recall passing on a horse because i was predicting he would win and get taken down.....i don't think bettors care much about that sort of stuff, they just want to be paid if they win.

One thing stewards are crappy at is not realizing that many times a bump or a brush will happen because the horse who is being bumped or brushed is not fast enough....in other words a typical example that happens all the time is this. 2 horses are coming after the leader at the top of the lane, one horse is 2 wide the other guy right on the hip of the horse in between that's 3 wide. They get to the lane and the 3 wide horse is faster than the 2 wide horse and runs past him....lugs in while running by, the jock on the "slower" horse gets bothered. That happens a LOT and its a situation that wouldn't have happened had the horse 2 wide been faster.....so, if there IS a DQ, its essentially rewarding a horse for being "not fast enough".

THAT IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE...

I'll never forget being DQ'd for $20,000 because my horse was simply f'n better in that same example cited. The middle horse wasn't fast enough and bounced a tad like a ping pong ball in between the top 2 horses (3 wide winner and rail runner up). Claimed foul and F'd me for $20,000.

Stewards are mostly BRAIN DEAD. They have simple knowledge but most don't have a high racing IQ

EMD4ME
01-18-2015, 10:19 PM
I think that was an obvious a DQ as you will ever find. I mean, SRU didn't even post about it which kind of proves that.
I agree. That one was automatic. Herded and bumped out the runner up 3x.

EMD4ME
01-18-2015, 10:20 PM
If you ever want to make a big show bet, make sure its on Russell Baze at GG. He can crash into horses and they won't take him down. Good to know.


:jump: :jump: :jump: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hilarious. If that was a 25/1 ridden by Joe Blow winner, that would have been a 50-50 DQ but with Russell up at 2/5 AND with $100,000 or so to show, he stays up.

Stillriledup
01-19-2015, 01:30 AM
:jump: :jump: :jump: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hilarious. If that was a 25/1 ridden by Joe Blow winner, that would have been a 50-50 DQ but with Russell up at 2/5 AND with $100,000 or so to show, he stays up.

You're a 100% correct. If Russel was on the rail on the 2-5 and he was the guy who got checked back and the winner was a bomb with Joe Blow, it 100% comes down without question, especially after the hall of famer gets on the phone and pleads his case, after all, he's Russell Baze, why would they doubt him if he said the guy almost put him over the fence?

100 out of 100 Joe Blow riding for John Doe comes down for the same exact thing.

Stillriledup
01-23-2015, 05:13 PM
Nice leave up at Santa Anita in the 3rd. :rolleyes:

cj
01-24-2015, 08:04 PM
I'm not sure where I side on races like R9 at SA today. The winner (the 3) clearly fouled the 2, who was still trying but probably not going to be a factor late. He just bulled him out of the way so he had a rail run. The runner up was not affected, but it is fair that he gets beat by a rider that essentially cheated?

The guy (don't even know who it was) should definitely get days and a hefty fine, but is it fair to punish those that bet the runner up? Those that bet the winner? Tough call IMO.

Stillriledup
01-24-2015, 09:47 PM
I'm not sure where I side on races like R9 at SA today. The winner (the 3) clearly fouled the 2, who was still trying but probably not going to be a factor late. He just bulled him out of the way so he had a rail run. The runner up was not affected, but it is fair that he gets beat by a rider that essentially cheated?

The guy (don't even know who it was) should definitely get days and a hefty fine, but is it fair to punish those that bet the runner up? Those that bet the winner? Tough call IMO.

Couldn't agree more. I thought exactly the same thing. A DQ to out of the super would have been too harsh a punishment, especially for the innocent bettors. But, you can't ride like that, jocks do that all the time, they just take the hole if they think the horse they're passing is not keeping up.

This is a classic case of leave the result but suspend the jock.

cj
01-24-2015, 10:39 PM
Couldn't agree more. I thought exactly the same thing. A DQ to out of the super would have been too harsh a punishment, especially for the innocent bettors. But, you can't ride like that, jocks do that all the time, they just take the hole if they think the horse they're passing is not keeping up.

This is a classic case of leave the result but suspend the jock.

But is it fair to those that bet Boozer? The winner basically cheated to get an edge. If he doesn't cheat, those bettors cash.

Stillriledup
01-24-2015, 10:49 PM
But is it fair to those that bet Boozer? The winner basically cheated to get an edge. If he doesn't cheat, those bettors cash.

I think the problem is that if they could have placed the winner 2nd, they might have. As far as him not cheating and they cash, maybe if the winner waited a few tenths longer, he gets out clean and still wins...so, they don't win unless he just stands up on his horse and never gets thru. He might still have gotten thru had he waited a smidge longer.

You have a point though.

thespaah
01-24-2015, 11:07 PM
But is it fair to those that bet Boozer? The winner basically cheated to get an edge. If he doesn't cheat, those bettors cash.
I think the tougher choice is where to place the violator.
Is it fair to place that one behind the horse fouled even though the one fouled was not going to finish in the exotics?
So what do we do? Tradition and of course the rules have always followed the idea that the offending horse is placed behind the offended.
This is where subjective viewpoints on the part of the Stewards come into play. And as we have seen, this has been a major bone of contention here and on other threads. And I'm convinced in thousands of discussions going back to the beginning of the days of video replays.

thespaah
01-24-2015, 11:34 PM
I'm not sure where I side on races like R9 at SA today. The winner (the 3) clearly fouled the 2, who was still trying but probably not going to be a factor late. He just bulled him out of the way so he had a rail run. The runner up was not affected, but it is fair that he gets beat by a rider that essentially cheated?

The guy (don't even know who it was) should definitely get days and a hefty fine, but is it fair to punish those that bet the runner up? Those that bet the winner? Tough call IMO.
I looked at it several times. The Pan shot makes it look pretty bad. The head on not as bad. My problem is the contact could...could have caused heels to clip . THAT is where I go off the rails on this kind of race riding.
In this instance, if I were king of the racing rules for a day, I would not change the placings. However, Mr Baze would be getting a "you are hereby" letter from me to have a "Come to Jesus Meeting and don't forget your checkbook"....
I would let him know that while I somewhat admire his courage, that kind of thing will not be tolerated. That he could have caused a serious accident causing serious injury to himself, his mount and/or his fellow rider and or his mount. I would then inform Mr Baze that he owed me and the State of California One Thousand Dollars..
"See the clerk on your way out.".

banacek
01-25-2015, 10:51 AM
If there was any cheating going on Patriots Rule would have won instead of coming 3rd :)

That was a tough one to leave up, but it is nice to see the BC Derby winner running so well in California.

Stillriledup
01-25-2015, 03:21 PM
inquiry AND an objection at Aqu race 6? What'd i miss?

Al Gobbi
01-25-2015, 03:33 PM
I'm not sure where I side on races like R9 at SA today. The winner (the 3) clearly fouled the 2, who was still trying but probably not going to be a factor late. He just bulled him out of the way so he had a rail run. The runner up was not affected, but it is fair that he gets beat by a rider that essentially cheated?

The guy (don't even know who it was) should definitely get days and a hefty fine, but is it fair to punish those that bet the runner up? Those that bet the winner? Tough call IMO.


https://twitter.com/Scott_Hazelton/status/559441865590587393

been talked about on twitter for about the past 1/2 hour with a lot of opinions.

Valuist
01-25-2015, 04:25 PM
I'm a bit biased; I had a ticket on 55-1 shot Chiding. Really thought the 6 should've come down. Bulled his way through late. Don't get a chance to cash too many tickets on 50-1 shots. A 50-1 shot who's dam was a Grade 2 winner. Ironically 2 of the firsters in that race were out of dams who won the Chilukki Stakes at CD.

cj
01-25-2015, 07:35 PM
https://twitter.com/Scott_Hazelton/status/559441865590587393

been talked about on twitter for about the past 1/2 hour with a lot of opinions.

3 days for that? Wow, imagine Bejarano will have a few things to discuss with Baze.

thespaah
01-25-2015, 09:37 PM
3 days for that? Wow, imagine Bejarano will have a few things to discuss with Baze.
Julie Krone would have belted him in the mouth..... :lol:
No kidding I think she dropped Art Madrid with a one punch after a race at Meadowlands. could have been another rider. But I do remember her willingness to stand up for herself.
Anyway, I don't know if you read my earlier post where I laid out a scenario of me being the go to rules maker guy.....I thought Baze would be fined....I figured $1k...Three days on the pine?.....Damn....Oh well. He won't be doing the old bump and run anymore.

Stillriledup
01-26-2015, 02:21 AM
Julie Krone would have belted him in the mouth..... :lol:
No kidding I think she dropped Art Madrid with a one punch after a race at Meadowlands. could have been another rider. But I do remember her willingness to stand up for herself.
Anyway, I don't know if you read my earlier post where I laid out a scenario of me being the go to rules maker guy.....I thought Baze would be fined....I figured $1k...Three days on the pine?.....Damn....Oh well. He won't be doing the old bump and run anymore.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/07/sports/joe-bravo-leading-rider-at-the-meadowlands-is-about-to-hit-the-big-time.html

She smacked Joe Bravo. :D

thespaah
01-26-2015, 06:58 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/07/sports/joe-bravo-leading-rider-at-the-meadowlands-is-about-to-hit-the-big-time.html

She smacked Joe Bravo. :D
from encyclopedia.com
excerpt
As for Krone, her own idiosyncrasies, including a penchant for brawling and a conviction of marijuana possession, threatened to undercut her budding career. In one notable example, Krone angered another jockey, Miguel Rujano, who took his whip to Krone's face. She retaliated by delivering a roundhouse punch, which escalated into a shoving, chair-throwing melee. "Both were fined $100," noted People writer Jack Freidman, "but Krone had scored some points by giving the lie to that old canard that women aren't tough enough to ride with the men."

Stillriledup
01-27-2015, 04:34 PM
Fastest DQ in history in the 7th at LaD QH.

The 4 horse bumped a few horses in the stretch and the horse was essentially DQd in 2 minutes from the horses hitting the line. No long drawn out blinking or anything like that. Was it legit? Seems like it was but man, they weren't fooling around.

thespaah
01-27-2015, 09:30 PM
Fastest DQ in history in the 7th at LaD QH.

The 4 horse bumped a few horses in the stretch and the horse was essentially DQd in 2 minutes from the horses hitting the line. No long drawn out blinking or anything like that. Was it legit? Seems like it was but man, they weren't fooling around.
Perhaps that is the way to get it done.
Stewards: "we're making the call and we're not fooling about. Hit the button".

Stillriledup
01-27-2015, 10:44 PM
Perhaps that is the way to get it done.
Stewards: "we're making the call and we're not fooling about. Hit the button".

It was incredible because usually when they take someone down, they drag it out to make it seem like they're really struggling with the decision. These guys watched the replay one time and were like "hes down" and took the number down before the horses probably even got back to be unsaddled. Well, maybe not that quick, but its the quickest i've ever seen by far.

wisconsin
01-28-2015, 04:00 PM
Tampa Bay Downs Race 7

The :3: drifts out 2 paths to get right next to the :2: and then the slightest dink by the :2: into the :3: , who was going to go right on by. Sorry, this is pure bullshit.

Stillriledup
01-28-2015, 04:08 PM
Tampa Bay Downs Race 7

The :3: drifts out 2 paths to get right next to the :2: and then the slightest dink by the :2: into the :3: , who was going to go right on by. Sorry, this is pure bullshit.

Wow, that's horrendous. Simon and Paulie thought it was a bad/terrible call too.

Stillriledup
01-31-2015, 01:58 PM
No DQ at Parx of the 3rd place finisher in the 4th race. I was thinking that horse was coming down, he drifted into the 7 costing him 3rd place. Anyone think this was a good "leave up"?

Stillriledup
02-01-2015, 04:01 PM
Embarrassing DQ at GG in the 4th. The 1 got hit from behind into the first turn by an incident caused by the 3 horse and the 4 horse, his rear end got hit first and because his front body shifted out, he was blamed.

Really bad.

Stillriledup
02-01-2015, 04:20 PM
If you ever want to make a big show bet, make sure its on Russell Baze at GG. He can crash into horses and they won't take him down. Good to know.

Again, today, Race 4 at GG, Russell causes a chain reaction and someone else gets blamed and DQd. :D

Good to know.

appistappis
02-04-2015, 08:48 PM
today, race 8 mah valley.....I like 4 and 8, bet the 8 to win, he photo's the 4 and survives an inquiry....saw the photo and it looked dead heat. No complaint in this no complaint thread. ;)

kmac1470
02-07-2015, 06:48 PM
I will go out on a limb and predict that Diamond Bachelor will be coming down from 2nd in the San Marcos.

horses4courses
02-07-2015, 06:50 PM
I will go out on a limb and predict that Diamond Bachelor will be coming down from 2nd in the San Marcos.

If he does come down, it has to be from 2nd to 4th.

kmac1470
02-07-2015, 06:53 PM
2nd placed 4th.

Pedroza probably wishes he hadn't gone left handed when he did.

Stillriledup
02-07-2015, 07:32 PM
I will go out on a limb and predict that Diamond Bachelor will be coming down from 2nd in the San Marcos.

Easy DQ, correct call. (and yes, i got placed up for some money there :D )

kmac1470
02-07-2015, 08:59 PM
Hey what about SRU rules????

Do the honorable thing and donate it to the Retired Announcers of Thoroughbred's And Standardbred's Society (Rat's Ass)

Stillriledup
02-07-2015, 09:04 PM
Hey what about SRU rules????

Do the honorable thing and donate it to the Retired Announcers of Thoroughbred's And Standardbred's Society (Rat's Ass)

If that was SRU downs, there would be a certain protocol for DQs and whatnut. But, since tracks take horses down on occasion, i was commenting on the current state of DQs in the game which is that the happen sometimes. I dont have a problem with this DQ, it was hard to make a case to leave up the 6.

thespaah
02-07-2015, 10:47 PM
Hey what about SRU rules????

Do the honorable thing and donate it to the Retired Announcers of Thoroughbred's And Standardbred's Society (Rat's Ass)
:lol:

Stillriledup
02-07-2015, 11:18 PM
:lol:
:lol:

i just "got it". Wow, that's a POY nominee right there, great stuff!

Stillriledup
02-10-2015, 05:14 PM
Interesting inquiry at TuP....60-1 wins by a nose, 1-5 shot finishes 2nd. a little bumping in the lane....its still blinking

Stillriledup
02-13-2015, 05:12 AM
Seems like a bogus DQ on "Old Salt" from Jan 11 at Turfway (Race 1).

Bit of a drift but nothing major and the Saltmeister was strong to the wire he was just accelerating late, the 2pf wasn't ever going to beat him. bad call there, too ticky tack for me, didn't affect the outcome.

thespaah
02-14-2015, 03:41 PM
SA 1st today...Rider of :2: Objects...On backstretch shortly after the start, Head on says he tried to go through a hole that just wasn't large enough...Stews left the result as is...
Good non call.

Stillriledup
02-14-2015, 05:35 PM
LOL at FG Race 7, the 4 crashes into the 5 and beats her by a nose and there's no change because it "didnt affect the outcome"

Incredible.

Valuist
02-16-2015, 08:35 AM
I thought the stewards made the wrong call in the GP finale on Sunday. I don't think Ward's other runner ever was bumped and he had room to duck to inside turning for home. As for the additional bearing out, the 11 was pretty well clear. IMO no change would've been right call.

1st time lasix
02-17-2015, 10:14 AM
I thought the stewards made the wrong call in the GP finale on Sunday. I don't think Ward's other runner ever was bumped and he had room to duck to inside turning for home. As for the additional bearing out, the 11 was pretty well clear. IMO no change would've been right call. ******* Back to back Steward takedowns at Gulfstream --Sunday and Monday. I agree with you that Sunday's finale was a weak DQ. Every player at my simulcast table said it should remain up "as is." Took another one in similiar fashion on Monday...it cost me the late pick six, pk five and pk four. %#%&# Just another reminder: There are a thousand ways to lose at this game...only one way to win!

cj
02-17-2015, 10:59 AM
The two calls I saw made yesterday were good IMO, takedown at GP and the leave up in R5 at SA, which was similar to the Bayern incident.

thespaah
02-17-2015, 03:52 PM
LOL at FG Race 7, the 4 crashes into the 5 and beats her by a nose and there's no change because it "didnt affect the outcome"

Incredible.
Did the 5 lose action? Did the 5 lose ground as a result of the contact?
Define "crash"....Cuz if my car "crashes" into yours, we're filling out a police report.

tholl
02-21-2015, 02:47 PM
2-21, Gulfstream race 4. The non DQ of House Rules?

cj
02-21-2015, 02:52 PM
2-21, Gulfstream race 4. The non DQ of House Rules?


I think it would have been a DQ if the 5 doesn't get second, but since she did, good call.

Stillriledup
02-21-2015, 03:48 PM
2-21, Gulfstream race 4. The non DQ of House Rules?

Not sure why there was even an inquiry once they 5 was up for 2nd. Not sure why the guy objected either, don't these jocks know that if it doesn't affect the outcome they're not getting placed up there?

Stillriledup
02-21-2015, 03:49 PM
Did the 5 lose action? Did the 5 lose ground as a result of the contact?
Define "crash"....Cuz if my car "crashes" into yours, we're filling out a police report.

Seemed like there was pretty significant contact between horses who were noses apart at the wire.

Tara73
02-21-2015, 08:32 PM
On Fountain of Youth day, in the last race how can you not DQ the winner. One look at the head on and it's an obvious call

menifee
02-21-2015, 08:49 PM
On Fountain of Youth day, in the last race how can you not DQ the winner. One look at the head on and it's an obvious call


This is what drives me nuts about the game. In the Fountain of Youth, they dq Upstart. I disagreed with that call, but can see how you can go either way. However, if you are going to remain consistent, you need to dq the winner in the last. They were very similar incidents. This is what drives bettors and fans nuts.

Stillriledup
02-23-2015, 03:13 PM
What's with this bogus inquiry at Parx in the 7th, they needed to look at this 15 times? When stewards do this they show you they have no clue. This stuff is "Chilling".

Stillriledup
02-23-2015, 03:38 PM
Wow here we go again at Parx, bogus inquiry, taking forever to make the race official.

Chilling.

FlintAtTheFetlock
02-25-2015, 01:22 PM
GS R1 could not believe they took down my :2:

I chuckled at the inquiry as horse had cleared field and other horse was not in top 5. The entire race was a cluster with horses bouncing off each other but my :2: nearly wires the field and gets tossed?

Can someone tell me what my eyes failed to see

dansan
03-01-2015, 10:55 AM
The 4th santa Anita the 8 should of been taken down no ifs ands or buts what a joke and not because I had the 3 horse at 20-1 :lol:

cnollfan
03-02-2015, 03:22 PM
8th at Mountaineer on Sunday 3/1/15. From the pan shot it looks like the 3/5 favorite takes away the path on the rail of the 23-1 challenger. Objection not allowed. The head-on was not quite as conclusive as to how much room there was on the rail to begin with. Thoughts?

Stillriledup
03-02-2015, 04:31 PM
8th at Mountaineer on Sunday 3/1/15. From the pan shot it looks like the 3/5 favorite takes away the path on the rail of the 23-1 challenger. Objection not allowed. The head-on was not quite as conclusive as to how much room there was on the rail to begin with. Thoughts?

I think the 3-5 won by a pole, the 2 wasn't ever beating that horse i'm pretty sure...and the contact wasn't severe enough to warrant a change, it didnt cost the 2 a placing......but it is mountaineer, so they're liable to do anything. When you blink there, at CT or Delta, you have to hold your breath no matter how minor the infraction and "Cost a placing" doesn't matter at these places, they DQ on a whim (and then the next day a similar incident will happen and they leave it alone).

SG4
03-06-2015, 03:18 PM
So based on several of the DQ's this meet, it seems like Gulfstream is pretty much going with the "a foul is a foul" method of disqualifications, as opposed to the language we've seen from such places as Santa Anita where stewards admit to a foul but feel it didn't change order placement. Can't believe the DQ of the horse from 2nd to last today in GP's 3rd race. There was some interference, but it seemed slight & usually things earlier in the race are given some leeway. Nowhere did I think this was 5+ lengths worth of trouble created (the distance back to 3rd), and certainly not enough to be put dead last. Furthermore I could see if it was a rider's fault & they wanted to send a message, but the horse ducked out for whatever reason & he was corrected quickly. Either way it seems like the GP stewards are involved with more disagreeable calls then any other major circuit from what I've seen.

Stillriledup
03-06-2015, 04:19 PM
So based on several of the DQ's this meet, it seems like Gulfstream is pretty much going with the "a foul is a foul" method of disqualifications, as opposed to the language we've seen from such places as Santa Anita where stewards admit to a foul but feel it didn't change order placement. Can't believe the DQ of the horse from 2nd to last today in GP's 3rd race. There was some interference, but it seemed slight & usually things earlier in the race are given some leeway. Nowhere did I think this was 5+ lengths worth of trouble created (the distance back to 3rd), and certainly not enough to be put dead last. Furthermore I could see if it was a rider's fault & they wanted to send a message, but the horse ducked out for whatever reason & he was corrected quickly. Either way it seems like the GP stewards are involved with more disagreeable calls then any other major circuit from what I've seen.

You (they) can create much less controversy by just paying the winners. They have established that the standard for a DQ is very weak, that they can DQ anything at a moments notice on a whim, is that what we want? A track that can just decide to not pay you because you didnt' maintain an exact straight line in a sport where maintaining an exact straight line is unreasonable?

SG4
03-06-2015, 08:18 PM
Good article with some more detailed discussion about the steward's process posted on drf.com this afternoon:

http://www.drf.com/news/stewards%E2%80%99-decisions-highlight-need-consistency-explanation

Also, why does it seem whenever I try to find the head-on replay of a controversial call, this video is unavailable? Do other people find this as well? As if people weren't suspect enough of the calls already. I e-mailed some tracks for information on this (as I was advised to do by the replay providers) & was met with complete silence.

Stillriledup
03-06-2015, 10:30 PM
Good article with some more detailed discussion about the steward's process posted on drf.com this afternoon:

http://www.drf.com/news/stewards%E2%80%99-decisions-highlight-need-consistency-explanation

Also, why does it seem whenever I try to find the head-on replay of a controversial call, this video is unavailable? Do other people find this as well? As if people weren't suspect enough of the calls already. I e-mailed some tracks for information on this (as I was advised to do by the replay providers) & was met with complete silence.

They don't need explanations if they just pay winners and make the race official. Its not rocket science, but they're making it out to be, they're making it much harder than it needs to be.

Judges think they're doing the right thing by policing the races with a "high standard" but a lot of the DQs that they're making are just DQs that happen within the normal course of a horse race. Its hard enough to win once, but when you have to essentially win twice in order to cash the ticket, that's a lot to have to worry about.

Redhook206
03-19-2015, 03:48 PM
I had the #2 singled in a pick4. The #9 clearly drifts out three lanes in the stretch to move my #2 way out. I don't even get an objection from Saez. Unreal!!

Redhook206
03-21-2015, 03:32 PM
The :4: (favorite) never comes out of the gate. Never even moves. Inquiry sign is up for about 30 seconds. Inquiry sign comes down. No change. No explanation!!

Parx is suck a dump!

Stillriledup
03-21-2015, 03:45 PM
The :4: (favorite) never comes out of the gate. Never even moves. Inquiry sign is up for about 30 seconds. Inquiry sign comes down. No change. No explanation!!

Parx is suck a dump!

If a horse doesn't come out on her own, they don't refund...only refunds if there's a gate malfunction or a starter makes a mistake....they don't refund horses who are just bad actors.

Redhook206
03-21-2015, 03:58 PM
Thanks Still. I was expecting some sort of explanation from Keith Jones. Nothing.

TucsonGreyhound
04-02-2015, 07:08 PM
GG Race #7 they just took down the :5: costing me a better Pick3.

Anyone else think that was a frivolous DQ?

Stillriledup
04-13-2015, 03:26 AM
GG Race #7 they just took down the :5: costing me a better Pick3.

Anyone else think that was a frivolous DQ?

March 22 Race 6 DQ at GG was borderline criminal so yeah, i can believe anything at Ron Hansen's old stomping grounds.

comet52
04-18-2015, 04:31 PM
I can't fathom the dq in the 7th a Keeneland that just took place. A very long wait for the decision and then a head on shot that showed the :2: basically just moving out from the rail and finding an opening in a way that I've seen 10,000 horses do in 10,000 races without any dq. I don't get it. All I get is I had the 2 for $25.60 and an exacta for $121.60 and got screwed. :( :( :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Stillriledup
04-18-2015, 04:36 PM
I can't fathom the dq in the 7th a Keeneland that just took place. A very long wait for the decision and then a head on shot that showed the :2: basically just moving out from the rail and finding an opening in a way that I've seen 10,000 horses do in 10,000 races without any dq. I don't get it. All I get is I had the 2 and exact for $121.60 and got screwed. :( :( :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Hoover just said on TVG that he had never seen a horse "get their picture taken" and then get taken down.

Simon said "ive seen worse than this so i'd be shocked if they made a change"

Color Simon Shocked.

Saratoga_Mike
04-18-2015, 04:38 PM
Horrible DQ unless the whip struck the 4

Grits
04-18-2015, 04:41 PM
Pretty bad...wow.

Stillriledup
04-18-2015, 05:01 PM
Wasn't the 2 second in Race 8?

wisconsin
04-18-2015, 09:43 PM
I can't fathom the dq in the 7th a Keeneland that just took place. A very long wait for the decision and then a head on shot that showed the :2: basically just moving out from the rail and finding an opening in a way that I've seen 10,000 horses do in 10,000 races without any dq. I don't get it. All I get is I had the 2 for $25.60 and an exacta for $121.60 and got screwed. :( :( :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Cost me a ton of dough. All I can say is wow :bang:

cj
04-18-2015, 10:01 PM
I thought that was a bad DQ at Keeneland today.

Stillriledup
04-18-2015, 10:28 PM
I thought that was a bad DQ at Keeneland today.

The DQ in the 8th made the DQ in the 7th look legit.

ReplayRandall
04-18-2015, 11:16 PM
The Steward's Report from Keeneland:

April 18, 2015

Race 7

An objection was lodged by the rider of sixth place #4 “Entwistle” (Paco Lopez) alleging interference by the rider of the winner #2 “Lookaroundcorners” (Luis Saez) near the 1/16 pole. After reviewing the films and interviewing the riders the stewards determined that the #2 came out abruptly from the rail, first interfering with #6 “Key to the Bridge” (Rafael Hernandez) and also causing #4 to check sharply. For the interference with both horses, #2 was disqualified from first and placed tenth, behind #6.

Official order of finish: 10-8-5-12



Race 8

A Stewards’ Inquiry was posted and in addition an objection was lodged by the rider of third place #7 “Spinning Wheel” (Julien Leparoux) alleging interference by the rider of second place #2 “Mayla” (Robby Albarado) nearing the 1/16 pole. After reviewing the films and interviewing the riders, the stewards determined that #2 came out sharply brushing #7 and causing her to alter course. The interference was confirmed and #2 was disqualified from second and placed third.

Official order of finish: 9-7-2-3

Lemon Drop Husker
04-18-2015, 11:28 PM
I can't fathom the dq in the 7th a Keeneland that just took place. A very long wait for the decision and then a head on shot that showed the :2: basically just moving out from the rail and finding an opening in a way that I've seen 10,000 horses do in 10,000 races without any dq. I don't get it. All I get is I had the 2 for $25.60 and an exacta for $121.60 and got screwed. :( :( :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

It was a shit DQ. And I had the 10 that benefited my wallet.

The 4 was going nowhere, and the 2 had to get out in order to pass tiring horses.

Sure, he came over 3 or 4 lanes, but it was a turf race when the real racing was to be done. If you ain't moving forward, step aside.

Not only did the :2: get taken down after a spectacular 1st out effort, but placed 10th.

10th. Out of the money, and zero to the connections.

1st to 10th. Awful decision.

ultracapper
04-19-2015, 12:07 AM
Good article with some more detailed discussion about the steward's process posted on drf.com this afternoon:

http://www.drf.com/news/stewards%E2%80%99-decisions-highlight-need-consistency-explanation

Also, why does it seem whenever I try to find the head-on replay of a controversial call, this video is unavailable? Do other people find this as well? As if people weren't suspect enough of the calls already. I e-mailed some tracks for information on this (as I was advised to do by the replay providers) & was met with complete silence.

Calracing.com won't provide head on replays of races with controversial home stretch steward decisions. As if that's the only reason we want the replay. Maybe we'd like to be able to see the replay to handicap other races. No, these laimo stewards cover their asses, and they just look more inept by not disclosing what they viewed to make their decision. 99 times out of 100 I want the replay for something else. I already know the stewards suck. I don't need any more proof.

Stillriledup
04-19-2015, 12:09 AM
Calracing.com won't provide head on replays of races with controversial home stretch steward decisions. As if that's the only reason we want the replay. Maybe we'd like to be able to see the replay to handicap other races. No, these laimo stewards cover their asses, and they just look more inept by not disclosing what they viewed to make their decision. 99 times out of 100 I want the replay for something else. I already know the stewards suck. I don't need any more proof.

Do they suck, or are really smart but crooked? If i was a crook, i'd want you to view me as incompetent instead of dishonest.

ultracapper
04-19-2015, 12:10 AM
I'm not that jaded yet.

Stillriledup
04-19-2015, 12:14 AM
It was a shit DQ. And I had the 10 that benefited my wallet.

The 4 was going nowhere, and the 2 had to get out in order to pass tiring horses.

Sure, he came over 3 or 4 lanes, but it was a turf race when the real racing was to be done. If you ain't moving forward, step aside.

Not only did the :2: get taken down after a spectacular 1st out effort, but placed 10th.

10th. Out of the money, and zero to the connections.

1st to 10th. Awful decision.

When people alter what happens on the track, its an awful decision unless the DQ is something they had no choice to do. Most of these calls are just altering results for ticky tack stuff that's just "part of the game". These horses don't run in a vacuum, there's contact and its part of the natural course of the sport, yet, these races are judged as if sometimes you can do whatever you want and there's no DQ and other times, if you don't maintain an exact straight line, they steal your money and give it to someone else.

When "judges" are hired to "judge stuff" they invariably "over judge" in order to justify why they're there in the first place. I mean, if you're being paid to 'do something' its human nature to want to actually "perform a service" but if there was only 1 DQ a month or every few months like there should probably be, these people would feel "less important".

Lemon Drop Husker
04-19-2015, 12:29 AM
When people alter what happens on the track, its an awful decision unless the DQ is something they had no choice to do. Most of these calls are just altering results for ticky tack stuff that's just "part of the game". These horses don't run in a vacuum, there's contact and its part of the natural course of the sport, yet, these races are judged as if sometimes you can do whatever you want and there's no DQ and other times, if you don't maintain an exact straight line, they steal your money and give it to someone else.

When "judges" are hired to "judge stuff" they invariably "over judge" in order to justify why they're there in the first place. I mean, if you're being paid to 'do something' its human nature to want to actually "perform a service" but if there was only 1 DQ a month or every few months like there should probably be, these people would feel "less important".

Well., they were consistent at Keeneland today. The next race they DQ'd another horse.

Basically the statement has been made. You change more than a lane, and you'll be DQ'd at Keeneland.

Personally, I like it.

Sends a message to the jockeys that they want "clean" racing, and that nothing short of that will be tolerated.

Stillriledup
04-19-2015, 02:56 AM
Well., they were consistent at Keeneland today. The next race they DQ'd another horse.

Basically the statement has been made. You change more than a lane, and you'll be DQ'd at Keeneland.

Personally, I like it.

Sends a message to the jockeys that they want "clean" racing, and that nothing short of that will be tolerated.

I can appreciate the consistency, but i'm more for paying the bettors and handling the "administrative stuff" behind scenes. If a normal suspension for an infraction is "3 days" than they can give the jock 3 days and leave the results official, jocks don't care about the pari mutuels, they just care about their own pocket (as they should). A 3 day suspension is just as effective whether you leave the Pari Mutuels alone or not.

The first DQ wasn't the worst DQ i've ever seen even though i would have left it up, the second DQ was atrocious and embarrassing.

overthehill
04-19-2015, 03:14 AM
I'm with you I had the winner and had him going in live pick 3s and pick 4s. This move happens all the time in Maiden turf races, I dont think ive ever seen a DQ for this in 40 years. This is a situation where the best horse clearly won. and they took him down. Some body told me that he thought the rider had struck one of the other horses with the whip but that was not reflected in either the chart or steward comments. It particularly galling when suddenly the stewards take umbrage at jockey doing what they alway done in these kinds of races . Ive a good mind to boycott keeneland for the rest of the meet.

overthehill
04-19-2015, 03:22 AM
what you are saying makes no sense. horses in the stretch frequently move several paths and shutting off paths for horses trying to get through on the rail and they almost never get taken down for it. On top of that stewards have always treated maiden races differently than other races because of the inexperience of the horses. This DQ was ridiculous. The fact that it took them so long to make the decision tells you how borderline a call it was.

comet52
04-19-2015, 11:46 AM
I've taken dq's and bad beats over the years and just moved on to the next play, but I can't remember ever feeling so robbed. I couldn't bet the rest of the day and I'm still steamed. Only good thing is hearing that others feel it was a lousy call too.

wisconsin
04-19-2015, 02:16 PM
I've taken dq's and bad beats over the years and just moved on to the next play, but I can't remember ever feeling so robbed. I couldn't bet the rest of the day and I'm still steamed. Only good thing is hearing that others feel it was a lousy call too.

Big money I'll never see. It was so marginal they didn't even bother posting the inquiry sign.

Stillriledup
05-02-2015, 05:20 PM
There was a DQ at Churchill in the Finnegans Wake Race?

Seemed like the 9 was beaten and checked up with a few strides left, did that interference affect the outcome? Was this a legit DQ? Hard to say when its hard to see these races, they make you work for sure to see them.

nijinski
05-03-2015, 03:26 AM
There was a DQ at Churchill in the Finnegans Wake Race?

Seemed like the 9 was beaten and checked up with a few strides left, did that interference affect the outcome? Was this a legit DQ? Hard to say when its hard to see these races, they make you work for sure to see them.

It looks like the jock continued the left hand whipping instead of trying
to straighten the horse out .
Not fair to the connections and bettors I guess but this is not an apprentice
and should know better , it's reckless .

Stillriledup
05-03-2015, 03:48 AM
It looks like the jock continued the left hand whipping instead of trying
to straighten the horse out .
Not fair to the connections and bettors I guess but this is not an apprentice
and should know better , it's reckless .

But why punish the bettors if this didnt affect the outcome?

nijinski
05-03-2015, 04:41 AM
But why punish the bettors if this didnt affect the outcome?

I understand that and I don't like to see the bettors lose out .

I wish I had a better answer but I think it's the only way to stop a jock.
Let them get replaced by the connections for careless riding . I don't
know that a fine and or a few days helps .
It was the same thing with the" Upstart DQ ,the left hand whipping
while the horse drifted out . It's an accident about to happen in full
view of the onlookers . Both DQ'd horses appearing better than the
horses they affected . I think the decisions were based on non
attempts to straighten out their horses while drifting into other's paths ,
keep on whipping and your coming down !

no breathalyzer
05-08-2015, 05:46 PM
BS dq last race BEL. .. 4 horse didn't cause that mess it was the 9horse that was out of control.. so not only i'm thinking i getting put up for win. i take a 5pt gate smash and only get show $$$ :bang:

Stillriledup
05-10-2015, 09:12 PM
No DQ at Mtn in the 5th? Seemed like bumping at the wire.

Stillriledup
05-13-2015, 03:31 PM
Objection at Belmont in Race 5? Why? Was the 2 cost a board spot? Didnt seem like it, but what do i know.

cj
05-13-2015, 03:48 PM
I thought that should have been a DQ, it was dangerous, the jockey on the winner looked back and whipped right handed. It may have cost the 2 the win in my opinion.

stringmail
05-13-2015, 05:31 PM
I agree. When I saw the race down the stretch unfold, I said to myself that I cannot believe that this 2 is going to win this race. I had no interest in the outcome other than frustration that I didn't use the 2 and when I saw the replay I surprised he didn't come down based on the actions of Ortiz.

stringmail
05-18-2015, 06:35 PM
As a follow up on this, I just noticed that Irad set to begin serving 7 day suspension for the ride that did not result in a DQ as the stewards stated that the "incident did not alter the final placement". He waived appeal to get reduction from 10 days to 7 days as i guess he knew he was naughty.

If I had played the 2nd place finisher, this would just be rubbing salt in the wound.

Stillriledup
05-25-2015, 04:13 PM
Pretty soft DQ at SA in Race 2.

Also, how does the 7 not get placed behind the 3 when the 3 was the horse she brushed into? I don't get that.

Stillriledup
06-08-2015, 02:32 AM
I guess cyrus alexander just stumbled on his own? No inquiry so he just lost his footing on his own? Thanks

EMD4ME
06-08-2015, 02:34 AM
I guess cyrus alexander just stumbled on his own? No inquiry so he just lost his footing on his own? Thanks

What race? where?

Stillriledup
06-08-2015, 04:41 AM
What race? where?
SA june 7 race 3

thespaah
06-11-2015, 03:43 PM
Race 5 Bel...
They pulled down the winner..
Now I'm a pretty observant guy...The head on looks like the Stews made the right call.
The rear view from the cam at the top of the stretch is the one which gives me pause. It appears as though the :4: does come out. At the second instance of contact the :8: looks like it's bearing in..
I saw this because I'm using the mowing pattern in the turf as a guide.
Yes the :4: does bear out again just before the wire but the :8: is also bearing in but not as dramatically was the :4:
I would have left it alone. I also would have admonished BOTH riders that if they had switched whip to the other hand, they would have had a better chance of not making contact

Stillriledup
06-11-2015, 08:07 PM
Race 5 Bel...
They pulled down the winner..
Now I'm a pretty observant guy...The head on looks like the Stews made the right call.
The rear view from the cam at the top of the stretch is the one which gives me pause. It appears as though the :4: does come out. At the second instance of contact the :8: looks like it's bearing in..
I saw this because I'm using the mowing pattern in the turf as a guide.
Yes the :4: does bear out again just before the wire but the :8: is also bearing in but not as dramatically was the :4:
I would have left it alone. I also would have admonished BOTH riders that if they had switched whip to the other hand, they would have had a better chance of not making contact

What else could you expect from the "heroes" at NYRA ;)

thespaah
06-11-2015, 08:34 PM
What else could you expect from the "heroes" at NYRA ;)
Did you view the replay?....
Please do...I'd like to read your view
https://www.nyra.com/belmont/videos/race-replay/BED/2015/20150611/5/pan/

Stillriledup
06-25-2015, 02:01 PM
That looked like a horrendous dq at bel race 2.

Thoughts?

MONEY
06-25-2015, 02:05 PM
That looked like a horrendous dq at bel race 2.

Thoughts?
All I can say is that I lost on the non DQ in the 1st, then again on the DQ in the 2nd. I'm taking the rest of the day off.

PhantomOnTour
06-25-2015, 02:45 PM
That looked like a horrendous dq at bel race 2.

Thoughts?
The #8 did come out twice and it looked like the #2 was getting to them

I agree with the DQ

Stillriledup
06-25-2015, 03:32 PM
The #8 did come out twice and it looked like the #2 was getting to them

I agree with the DQ

The 2 lugged in and caused his own problem the 2nd time. The first drift was inconsequential, was just 'part of the game' and didnt appear to cost the favorite a board spot. If the chalk doesn't drift in a few lanes during the 2nd incident, he might have been 2nd, he cost himself by not staying straight

Kash$
06-25-2015, 03:53 PM
#1 was first to drift

Stillriledup
06-25-2015, 05:04 PM
Interesting non inquiry in race 2 at Pleasanton. The 3 came out at the top of the lane taking the path of the 1 away and forcing him to the 1 path, than in deep stretch he drifted in and shut off the 1 and cost him a board spot, the 1 was going right by w a clear lane. Not even an objection or anything.

EMD4ME
06-26-2015, 07:03 AM
The 2 lugged in and caused his own problem the 2nd time. The first drift was inconsequential, was just 'part of the game' and didnt appear to cost the favorite a board spot. If the chalk doesn't drift in a few lanes during the 2nd incident, he might have been 2nd, he cost himself by not staying straight

I agree that he caused his own problem. 1) for being a hanging loser 2) he did drift in a bit.

I think the stewards just stuck it to Irad because he is a bit dirty. Not straightening horses out at the gate, herding a lot, etc....

EMD4ME
06-26-2015, 03:06 PM
I agree that he caused his own problem. 1) for being a hanging loser 2) he did drift in a bit.

I think the stewards just stuck it to Irad because he is a bit dirty. Not straightening horses out at the gate, herding a lot, etc....


As I wait for the Stewards to decide on race 1 today, IT'S so obvious how dirty IRAD is. Every f'n race he's herding and herding and herding.

Take the punk down. Every day if you have to.

He's so overrated. He doesn't even know how to herd and not get caught.

EMD4ME
06-26-2015, 03:12 PM
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW HE DID THE SAME EXACT THING YESTERDAY AND GOT DQ'D and today he stays up???????????????????????????????????

Not only is that a terrible call, a DQ for the second straight day for the exact same infraction would've set the tone for IRAD. Stop doing what you're doing.

By leaving him up, his behavior will only continue.

Disgusting inconsistency.

Were these the same stewards who were working yesterday?

Are they chalkplayers??? Is that why 1 chalk got moved up and 1 chalk stayed up FOR THE EXACT SAME INFRACTION????????

Can someone teach these stewards how to bet bombs so they can at least be biased in my favor :lol: ?

Dark Horse
06-26-2015, 03:27 PM
Cost me the exacta. That's why.

I don't 'win' stewards inquiries.

Period.

Stillriledup
06-26-2015, 03:56 PM
You dont ever want a dq in the first today, you just want the winners paid. You want them paid yesterday and you want them paid today.

Never cheer for a borderline or shady dq so you can benefit in the short term because if they make a frivilous call today to benefit you, they are sure to make one in the near future to hurt you.

Pay the winners.

EMD4ME
06-26-2015, 03:58 PM
Cost me the exacta. That's why.

I don't 'win' stewards inquiries.

Period.

I'm not an irrational guy. That was AN EXACT replay of his foul yesterday. He came out on a horse that was on his plank trying to rally. He came out twice yesterday. He came out twice today. He mightve cost a horse a placing yesterday. He mightve cost the 2 a placing today. The 2 actually went back to his wrong lead when he was cut off by Iherd Ortiz. The 2 rallied and missed 3rd today (I actually think the 2 was going to win today if not cut off initially and the 2nd herd definitely finished him off).

They were IDENTICAL situations. How THE F does he not come down?

This is where I wish there were actually reporters covering racing. Not these supposed reporters but real beat reporters who could ask detailed questions to make a name for themselves. How could a steward look at both replays (the DQ of IHERD ORTIZ in race 2 yesterday and the Staying of IHERD ORTIZ today in race 1) and say they were different??????

EMD4ME
06-26-2015, 04:01 PM
You dont ever want a dq in the first today, you just want the winners paid. You want them paid yesterday and you want them paid today.

Never cheer for a borderline or shady dq so you can benefit in the short term because if they make a frivilous call today to benefit you, they are sure to make one in the near future to hurt you.

Pay the winners.

1) The exact same thing happened yesterday and there was a DQ.

2) To me, this one was BLACK AND WHITE. The 2 had momentum, IHERD moved early and the 2 was patient behind him. IMHO the 2 was about to get by with a burst and win when IHERD ORTIZ cut him off not once but twice.

3) I do want DQs when the order finish is impacted.

4) I do understand your logic but to me a second DQ of the same Jock for the same incident would set the tone for him: STOP herding so bad Iherd Ortiz.

Stillriledup
06-26-2015, 04:08 PM
1) The exact same thing happened yesterday and there was a DQ.

2) To me, this one was BLACK AND WHITE. The 2 had momentum, IHERD moved early and the 2 was patient behind him. IMHO the 2 was about to get by with a burst and win when IHERD ORTIZ cut him off not once but twice.

3) I do want DQs when the order finish is impacted.

4) I do understand your logic but to me a second DQ of the same Jock for the same incident would set the tone for him: STOP herding so bad Iherd Ortiz.

Just in general you want to root for no DQs.

DQs never benefit winning horseplayers. The less meddling the judges do, the better.

EMD4ME
06-26-2015, 04:14 PM
Just in general you want to root for no DQs.

DQs never benefit winning horseplayers. The less meddling the judges do, the better.

I (loosely) generally agree, especially if it's in doubt if the order of finish was impacted.

Today, to me, the 2 was screwed from a possible win, a more than likely second or third.

To top it off, 25 hours and 20 minutes before, THEY put up the inquiry and took him down FOR THE EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT
EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT SAME SITUATION

There's only 1 conclusion that makes any logical sense:

The stewards are chalk eating BETTING weasels.

Pensacola Pete
06-26-2015, 04:24 PM
We get it. You're not happy with the stewards.

Tor Ekman
06-26-2015, 04:25 PM
2) To me, this one was BLACK AND WHITE. The 2 had momentum, IHERD moved early and the 2 was patient behind him. IMHO the 2 was about to get by with a burst and win when IHERD ORTIZ cut him off not once but twice.


I'm with ya. I had the 2 to win, he was full of run until he got cut off, definitely liked his chances to win before he got cut off, and still might've got up to place but for second incident

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 04:26 PM
I (loosely) generally agree, especially if it's in doubt if the order of finish was impacted.

Today, to me, the 2 was screwed from a possible win, a more than likely second or third.

To top it off, 25 hours and 20 minutes before, THEY put up the inquiry and took him down FOR THE EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT
EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT EXACT SAME SITUATION
There's only 1 conclusion that makes any logical sense:

The stewards are chalk eating BETTING weasels.

I empathize. My biggest complaint is their decisions are too subjective and the allowing of herding. Herding is dangerous to the jocks and the animals.

When Renee Douglas, before his injury, rode at A.P. he used he horses like guided missiles and created many potential dangerous situations.

EMD4ME
06-26-2015, 04:46 PM
We get it. You're not happy with the stewards.

Who said that ? :liar: :lol: :lol:

EMD4ME
06-26-2015, 04:53 PM
I empathize. My biggest complaint is their decisions are too subjective and the allowing of herding. Herding is dangerous to the jocks and the animals.

When Renee Douglas, before his injury, rode at A.P. he used he horses like guided missiles and created many potential dangerous situations.

I still think Iherd ended Ramon's career...

He's nothing but a punk.

Thinks he's a premier jockey when in reality he's a Ramon Wannabe. Iherd thinks the best thing to do is rate every horse down (because it was perceived that Ramon rated every horse down). Kid can't realize that Ramon had awesome hands and was able to make specific decisions for every race individually based upon bias, # of speeds in race, competition, if then scenarios and was a full fledged genius on the track. Ramon broke to the lead and then rated quite often. This kid just chokes all the time regardless of scenario. He quite often herds bad OUT OF THE GATE and obviously does so in the lane every chance he gets.

EMD4ME
06-26-2015, 04:55 PM
I'm with ya. I had the 2 to win, he was full of run until he got cut off, definitely liked his chances to win before he got cut off, and still might've got up to place but for second incident

Repulsive.

Why put the inquiry up and make an insanely stupid decision after verifying that he in fact did impede and totally take the chances away of a surging horse?

Stillriledup
06-26-2015, 05:15 PM
I still think Iherd ended Ramon's career...

He's nothing but a punk.

Thinks he's a premier jockey when in reality he's a Ramon Wannabe. Iherd thinks the best thing to do is rate every horse down (because it was perceived that Ramon rated every horse down). Kid can't realize that Ramon had awesome hands and was able to make specific decisions for every race individually based upon bias, # of speeds in race, competition, if then scenarios and was a full fledged genius on the track. Ramon broke to the lead and then rated quite often. This kid just chokes all the time regardless of scenario. He quite often herds bad OUT OF THE GATE and obviously does so in the lane every chance he gets.

Not to mention that him and his sidekicks all ride in ozone park ny during the cold months instead of riding in so fla. I find that fascinating.

EMD4ME
06-26-2015, 05:45 PM
Not to mention that him and his sidekicks all ride in ozone park ny during the cold months instead of riding in so fla. I find that fascinating.

I plead the 5th...............................

I will just say this...Those 3 are extremely bad for the game.

Stillriledup
06-26-2015, 05:48 PM
I plead the 5th...............................

I will just say this...Those 3 are extremely bad for the game.

What, you mean the weather is better in ny than fla during the winter lol

Stay on 5th ave. ;)

Dark Horse
06-26-2015, 07:41 PM
Incredible. Another big exacta down the drain because of the stewards. R2 at SA. Again favoring the big favorite who is now placed second instead of third (or fourth, they haven't even shown the photo). Another total judgement call by those morons.

How can totally mediocre a-holes steal so easily from people with far greater expertise?

v j stauffer
06-26-2015, 10:47 PM
Incredible. Another big exacta down the drain because of the stewards. R2 at SA. Again favoring the big favorite who is now placed second instead of third (or fourth, they haven't even shown the photo). Another total judgement call by those morons.

How can totally mediocre a-holes steal so easily from people with far greater expertise?

I think you might be confused. The 5 who finished 2nd bothered the 4 who finished 3rd. There were no other horses involved. The 5 was dq'ed and placed 3rd. Whoever was the big favorite is irrelevant to the stewards.

Dark Horse
06-26-2015, 11:35 PM
I think you might be confused. The 5 who finished 2nd bothered the 4 who finished 3rd. There were no other horses involved. The 5 was dq'ed and placed 3rd. Whoever was the big favorite is irrelevant to the stewards.

The 6 finished 2nd, and was placed third. At least that was shown on the screen after the photo. (as well as on equibase: http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=SA&raceDate=06/26/2015&cy=USA&rn=2) I know because I was disappointed that the better paying 5 hadn't finished second.

Vic, as mentioned many times I respect you greatly you as race caller. But I have lost all respect for stewards. Today was the final drop, after seeing two juicy exactas go down the drain at Belmont and Santa Anita. They're welcome to earn the respect back. How hard could it truly be to have consistent rules consistently applied?! How much work would that truly take? A lot less than the work good handicappers put in, I would be willing to bet.

Dark Horse
06-27-2015, 12:01 AM
As to favorites, I haven't researched them in this context. My comment was in the context of that of an earlier poster after the Belmont race.

I would admit to be at least somewhat surprised if, over a large sample, it turned out that steward inquiries didn't favor the chalk over longshots. But it's just a guess, at this point. It would actually be a way to measure neutrality. Huh...

Man, I was angry at those three stooges. Steam blown off. Tomorrow is another day. Just remember. Stewards never pay for their mistakes. Bettors pay for their own mistakes, as well as those of the stewards.

Stillriledup
06-27-2015, 12:53 AM
As to favorites, I haven't researched them in this context. My comment was in the context of that of an earlier poster after the Belmont race.

I would admit to be at least somewhat surprised if, over a large sample, it turned out that steward inquiries didn't favor the chalk over longshots. But it's just a guess, at this point. It would actually be a way to measure neutrality. Huh...

Man, I was angry at those three stooges. Steam blown off. Tomorrow is another day. Just remember. Stewards never pay for their mistakes. Bettors pay for their own mistakes, as well as those of the stewards.

Good points.

To add to Vic's point about the no fave/LS bias in judging I think it's a factor in this way. it's similar to star players in the NBA getting a call that a low rung player may not get. Great players make more baskets than bad players so if a great players arm is grazed and the shot misses by a millimeter, aren't you as the ref thinking 'that shot goes in if there's no graze on the arm because this is a great player who makes a lot of shots'?

It's a factor.

Now, the judges arent going to place up a shorter price specifically because it has more money on it, but isn't it responsible to at least consider that in the long run, the very shortest priced horses almost always hit the board and if an interference takes place preventing that 2-5 from finishing 3rd, isn't this a factor in a situation that is a 'fifty fifty call'?

A great example of what I'm trying to say was at Belmont the other day, the heavy fave got placed from 3rd to 2nd, and if you handicapped that race or knew the horse was a standout according to the odds, would you be neglect in your duties if you didnt factor in the standout nature of the horse and that the bump might have been severe because how else would a horse bet that heavily be out if the money?

Dark Horse
06-27-2015, 01:49 AM
I'd like to know from Vic if he did think, as I did, that the 5 came in second. If so, then the DQ would only have moved up the favorite to 3rd.
This was just a crazy scenario, of a blanket finish for second as well as a steward inquiry.

As to your point, is there any question that a 10/1 longshot will get less attention from the stewards if he's bumped in the stretch than a 2/1 favorite? Those forgotten longshots, and there are many, wouldn't even enter the research sample of DQ-ed horses.

The arbitrary nature of DQ's is not acceptable, to me, in the modern age. How hard could it be to write a program to mathematically establish speed, power of impact/bump, and so on, with precise calculation of the amount of hindrance and effect on the final result. There is nothing in there that can't be measured scientifically and entered into a program.

Stillriledup
06-27-2015, 02:29 AM
DH the cost a placing rule is generally this. If there was a zero pct chance the horse was cost a placing its left alone. If theres a ONE percent shot or higher, they can make a dq.

Remember that the Official wording isnt is 'cost a placing' its 'cost the OPPORTUNITY at a better placing'

v j stauffer
06-27-2015, 04:15 AM
I'd like to know from Vic if he did think, as I did, that the 5 came in second. If so, then the DQ would only have moved up the favorite to 3rd.
This was just a crazy scenario, of a blanket finish for second as well as a steward inquiry.

As to your point, is there any question that a 10/1 longshot will get less attention from the stewards if he's bumped in the stretch than a 2/1 favorite? Those forgotten longshots, and there are many, wouldn't even enter the research sample of DQ-ed horses.

The arbitrary nature of DQ's is not acceptable, to me, in the modern age. How hard could it be to write a program to mathematically establish speed, power of impact/bump, and so on, with precise calculation of the amount of hindrance and effect on the final result. There is nothing in there that can't be measured scientifically and entered into a program.

# 5 finished 2nd. The heavy favorite #4 finished 3rd. # 5 was disqualified from 2nd and placed 3rd for bumping #4 costing him an opportunity at a better placing.

As for the odds. I can tell you from experience in most cases the stewards have no idea what odds each horse is. They are horses, numbers and jockeys. Nothing else. On the times they are aware of the odds which happens sometimes. 4/5, 5-2, 5-1, 50-1 is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Many will not buy that. I promise you it is true.

v j stauffer
06-27-2015, 04:16 AM
DH the cost a placing rule is generally this. If there was a zero pct chance the horse was cost a placing its left alone. If theres a ONE percent shot or higher, they can make a dq.

Remember that the Official wording isnt is 'cost a placing' its 'cost the OPPORTUNITY at a better placing'

HOGWASH

v j stauffer
06-27-2015, 04:19 AM
Good points.

To add to Vic's point about the no fave/LS bias in judging I think it's a factor in this way. it's similar to star players in the NBA getting a call that a low rung player may not get. Great players make more baskets than bad players so if a great players arm is grazed and the shot misses by a millimeter, aren't you as the ref thinking 'that shot goes in if there's no graze on the arm because this is a great player who makes a lot of shots'?

It's a factor.

Now, the judges arent going to place up a shorter price specifically because it has more money on it, but isn't it responsible to at least consider that in the long run, the very shortest priced horses almost always hit the board and if an interference takes place preventing that 2-5 from finishing 3rd, isn't this a factor in a situation that is a 'fifty fifty call'?

A great example of what I'm trying to say was at Belmont the other day, the heavy fave got placed from 3rd to 2nd, and if you handicapped that race or knew the horse was a standout according to the odds, would you be neglect in your duties if you didnt factor in the standout nature of the horse and that the bump might have been severe because how else would a horse bet that heavily be out if the money?

50/50 doesn't exist. Stewards are paid to make a decision. The public is wrong about heavily bet horses most of the time. It has ZERO to do with film analysis.

Stillriledup
06-27-2015, 05:33 AM
50/50 doesn't exist. Stewards are paid to make a decision. The public is wrong about heavily bet horses most of the time. It has ZERO to do with film analysis.

You misunderstood what i meant by 50/50. I meant that the decision wasnt obvious either way, you could make an equal case to dq and an equal case to stay up.

Hoofless_Wonder
06-27-2015, 06:00 AM
...The arbitrary nature of DQ's is not acceptable, to me, in the modern age. How hard could it be to write a program to mathematically establish speed, power of impact/bump, and so on, with precise calculation of the amount of hindrance and effect on the final result. There is nothing in there that can't be measured scientifically and entered into a program.

I don't believe this would be as trivial as you make it sound, and it wouldn't be cheap to implement. You'd need to use something like Trakus, and ensure the transmitters were mounted on the horse/rider/saddle very consistently, and even then horses vary in size which would start to introduce errors in the measurements. And how would you account for the "gradual drift" of 1/3 of a path over 50 yards versus the more obvious hard bump at the 1/8 pole?

A better solution is to "pay the winners", and let the arbitrary nature of the process play out in post race decisions, much the way a horse is DQ'ed from purse money today for a positive drug test.

Hoofless_Wonder
06-27-2015, 06:12 AM
...As for the odds. I can tell you from experience in most cases the stewards have no idea what odds each horse is. They are horses, numbers and jockeys. Nothing else. On the times they are aware of the odds which happens sometimes. 4/5, 5-2, 5-1, 50-1 is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Many will not buy that. I promise you it is true.

Put me in the group that does not buy it. While I would not question your integrity, or even that of most stewards, I do not share in your assurances and your promise that it's all on the up-and-up, every track, every race. How soon we forget the bogus DQ last year that kept the GP Jackpot growing? How many examples of similar inquiries for a G1 race versus a $3K claimer where the outcome is different do we have to see to know there are inconsistencies? There's no reason to think that the horse's odds or connections don't also come into play, especially with the tote board right there in front of them.

Even in the "ideal" world where the stewards are infallible and trustworthy, it's the appearance of inconsistency that hurts the reputation of the sport - and the unwillingness to change doesn't help.

When watching foreign races, especially in Australia and Hong Kong, I see far fewer objections and what appears to be a more consistent, open and thorough process for the reviews and decisions. It's far superior to what goes on in North America. And guess where I bet the majority of my races?

EMD4ME
06-27-2015, 12:09 PM
# 5 finished 2nd. The heavy favorite #4 finished 3rd. # 5 was disqualified from 2nd and placed 3rd for bumping #4 costing him an opportunity at a better placing.

As for the odds. I can tell you from experience in most cases the stewards have no idea what odds each horse is. They are horses, numbers and jockeys. Nothing else. On the times they are aware of the odds which happens sometimes. 4/5, 5-2, 5-1, 50-1 is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Many will not buy that. I promise you it is true.

Vic, did you watch this race?

The unofficial placings were:

2
6
4
5

The 6 was DQ'd for his 'interference' with the 4.

Results became:
2
4
6
5

The 5 was never in the same zip code as the 4. (in terms of possible violations to the 4)

The poster was also asking you if you thought the 5 actually finished 2nd in the running of the race.

Finally, please add me to the list of people who absolutely believe the stewards know the odds of the horses and the connections involved. It's impossible NOT to know.

Dark Horse
06-27-2015, 12:52 PM
I don't believe this would be as trivial as you make it sound, and it wouldn't be cheap to implement. You'd need to use something like Trakus, and ensure the transmitters were mounted on the horse/rider/saddle very consistently, and even then horses vary in size which would start to introduce errors in the measurements. And how would you account for the "gradual drift" of 1/3 of a path over 50 yards versus the more obvious hard bump at the 1/8 pole?

A better solution is to "pay the winners", and let the arbitrary nature of the process play out in post race decisions, much the way a horse is DQ'ed from purse money today for a positive drug test.

It would be a project, for sure. But it's doable with modern technology. Once all the measurements are in you could compare the influence of interference over a large number of races. Then you could set a median value. Below it there would no interference. This would solve half the problem, that of stewards arbitrarily picking horses to look at (yesterday we had a blanket finish for second, which is not going to happen without bumping in most cases, and sure enough the stewards pick the favorite to evaluate).

The second half of the problem would, admittedly, be more difficult to solve: in case of interference above the median, how much interference exactly was caused? It would require a serious study, but it can be done, and eventually you would have a program that would be infinitely more reliable than the three stooges. Plus it could be used at all tracks, so you would have build in consistency.

The point is that the technology is there. Did you see the America's Cup. Sailing. All the measurements that were relevant were easily available, and put on the screen. Wind speed and direction, water flow strength and direction across the bay, the other boat's influence on the wind, etc. It changed a boring sailing race into something far more exciting. Larry Ellison from Oracle had much to do with this vast improvement, so if horse racing were interested (a big if), he would be the guy to talk to about the technology. It needs to be done, but horse racing always seems to drag its feet, and that's why the sport has fallen behind so far, where other sports eagerly embrace such opportunities.

Dark Horse
06-27-2015, 01:07 PM
Santa Anita creates its own poor image, by the way. I know of no other track that will give the results of a photo, without simultaneously showing the photo. They didn't show the photo. Maybe they did much later, but not when everybody was on the edge of their seat waiting for the outcome. And we're supposed to accept that this is all honest? Why? Because Wall Street is honest?

If Vic was one of the stewards, -sorry Vic, I have no idea if you were, but it's not impossible - , and he comes back saying that the 5 was second, that would just be the icing on the cake. Because the 5 was nowhere near the alleged interference to the 4.

Stillriledup
06-27-2015, 02:00 PM
I don't believe this would be as trivial as you make it sound, and it wouldn't be cheap to implement. You'd need to use something like Trakus, and ensure the transmitters were mounted on the horse/rider/saddle very consistently, and even then horses vary in size which would start to introduce errors in the measurements. And how would you account for the "gradual drift" of 1/3 of a path over 50 yards versus the more obvious hard bump at the 1/8 pole?

A better solution is to "pay the winners", and let the arbitrary nature of the process play out in post race decisions, much the way a horse is DQ'ed from purse money today for a positive drug test.

I think the idea that people who would oppose this pay the winners theory is that they think jocks would ride in a different way if they knew they wouldn't be disqualified for betting purposes. My response to that would be that there's never really been any proof that horsemen do anything they wouldn't normally do because of the gamblers. Jocks are worried about their own pockets, they're not going to care about anything other than not getting days or getting fined.

Do you know how much less stressful every customers life would be if you knew that no matter what happened you were getting paid if you won.

Pay the winners.

Stillriledup
06-27-2015, 02:07 PM
Vic, did you watch this race?

The unofficial placings were:

2
6
4
5

The 6 was DQ'd for his 'interference' with the 4.

Results became:
2
4
6
5

The 5 was never in the same zip code as the 4. (in terms of possible violations to the 4)

The poster was also asking you if you thought the 5 actually finished 2nd in the running of the race.

Finally, please add me to the list of people who absolutely believe the stewards know the odds of the horses and the connections involved. It's impossible NOT to know.

Of course they know the odds and the ramifications. Vic's trying to tell us that an 8k claimer, who is 50-1 would be judged exactly the same as zenyatta at 1-9 in a grade 1 race if similar 'infractions' took place. If bayern was trained by Rick dutrow and owned by ieah do you think he stays up in the classic last year? It's possible, but if you bet bayern weren't you super glad that Teflon bob was the trainer? Of course you were.

EMD4ME
06-27-2015, 02:09 PM
Of course they know the odds and the ramifications. Vic's trying to tell us that an 8k claimer, who is 50-1 would be judged exactly the same as zenyatta at 1-9 in a grade 1 race if similar 'infractions' took place. If bayern was trained by Rick dutrow and owned by ieah do you think he stays up in the classic last year? It's possible, but if you bet bayern weren't you super glad that Teflon bob? Of course you were.

Absolutely right. If that's Dutrow, GOODBYE. They find a way to place him last.

v j stauffer
06-29-2015, 12:04 AM
Vic, did you watch this race?

The unofficial placings were:

2
6
4
5

The 6 was DQ'd for his 'interference' with the 4.

Results became:
2
4
6
5

The 5 was never in the same zip code as the 4. (in terms of possible violations to the 4)

The poster was also asking you if you thought the 5 actually finished 2nd in the running of the race.

Finally, please add me to the list of people who absolutely believe the stewards know the odds of the horses and the connections involved. It's impossible NOT to know.

I did watch the race. You're correct I have the incorrect numbers. That's why stewards have each other and the placing judges to triple check the numbers. Sorry.

v j stauffer
06-29-2015, 12:08 AM
Absolutely right. If that's Dutrow, GOODBYE. They find a way to place him last.

An 8k claimer WOULD be judged the same as Zenyatta at 1/9. Furthermore who the trainer of Bayern was or is would NEVER factor into the decision.

The very concept of the responsibility one takes when they become a steward would not allow for such a thing.

EMD4ME
06-29-2015, 12:57 AM
I did watch the race. You're correct I have the incorrect numbers. That's why stewards have each other and the placing judges to triple check the numbers. Sorry.

It wasn't my pleasure to point out the mistake Vic :(

It happens to all of us.

EMD4ME
06-29-2015, 01:00 AM
An 8k claimer WOULD be judged the same as Zenyatta at 1/9. Furthermore who the trainer of Bayern was or is would NEVER factor into the decision.

The very concept of the responsibility one takes when they become a steward would not allow for such a thing.

I'm sorry but there is no way I will believe, after watching stewards do a terrible job in most jurisdictions, that any steward actually takes their "responsibility" seriously AND does a great job at it.

I also would bet my last penny that all Stewards are human and can be swayed even ever so little by a 1/9 being involved, by having to decide over a $5MM race or by the connections involved.

Are you telling me they ignore the toteboard as they watch a race? That they have no idea this upcoming race is worth $5MM? That they have no idea that's is Zenyatta out there in this race?

I was born during the day but not yesterday.

Sorry, just my humble opinion.

Stillriledup
06-29-2015, 06:20 AM
I'm sorry but there is no way I will believe, after watching stewards do a terrible job in most jurisdictions, that any steward actually takes their "responsibility" seriously AND does a great job at it.

I also would bet my last penny that all Stewards are human and can be swayed even ever so little by a 1/9 being involved, by having to decide over a $5MM race or by the connections involved.

Are you telling me they ignore the toteboard as they watch a race? That they have no idea this upcoming race is worth $5MM? That they have no idea that's is Zenyatta out there in this race?

I was born during the day but not yesterday.

Sorry, just my humble opinion.

Of course your thoughts here are true, the born last nights are the only ones who disagree with you.

Dark Horse
06-29-2015, 08:22 AM
I don't doubt that Vic is honest, but it only takes one compromised steward on every panel of three. Human beings are extremely flawed, and it doesn't matter if they've taken vows. If one of the three judges is dishonest, he'll often be the swing vote.

Do stewards discuss the race among themselves? Ideally, in an objective model the stewards wouldn't talk to each other. Because that comes with the power to convince others, which is an ability that has nothing to do with racing. In an objective model the stewards would be in separate rooms, pushing a yes/no button on both questions: 1) inquiry or not, and 2) decision. Only in case of a majority would there be an inquiry (a single steward could not start the process). And only in the case of a unanimous decision could the race outcome be altered (a single steward no longer is a swing vote).

I would suggest that much of the inconsistency that bothers so many horse players could be avoided with the removal of 1-2 and 2-1 decisions; two consistent judges and one inconsistent one is all it takes to produce a different outcome for the same situation; so the inconsistent one is 'rewarded' (!).

Also, the stewards would not know how the others voted (in non 3-0 decisions), and would not be allowed to discuss that afterwards. If they know each other well, that could undermine objectivity right from the start, because they would already know how others would vote.

Dark Horse
06-29-2015, 08:56 AM
Adding.

From a numerical perspective I would think a jury of five preferable, and a requirement of 80% agreement (4 out of 5). That would allow for one extreme opinion to be ignored. The stewards would still not talk to each other, and the requirement for an inquiry would be 60% (3 out of 5).

As a player I would have no problem with an 80% decision, of five stewards, who were in separate rooms and not allowed to communicate with each other. But the current model is a disaster, because it often leaves the decision power in the hands of one, thereby rewarding, rather than sidestepping, inconsistency and extreme opinions.

Dark Horse
06-29-2015, 09:21 AM
I did watch the race. You're correct I have the incorrect numbers. That's why stewards have each other and the placing judges to triple check the numbers. Sorry.

You're a race caller. (You almost had me in tears when Paynter crossed the wire upon his return from the dead). I don't know how you guys remember all the horse names, at instant recall ability during the race, but there is no question that your short term memory must be far above the norm. And so, I would assume, is your ability to see who crosses the line first.

You had the #5 in second place. So did I. And so did, I believe, SRU. In some places that would be unanimous.

v j stauffer
06-29-2015, 01:51 PM
You're a race caller. (You almost had me in tears when Paynter crossed the wire upon his return from the dead). I don't know how you guys remember all the horse names, at instant recall ability during the race, but there is no question that your short term memory must be far above the norm. And so, I would assume, is your ability to see who crosses the line first.

You had the #5 in second place. So did I. And so did, I believe, SRU. In some places that would be unanimous.

I didn't HAVE anything. I just mixed up the numbers for the purpose of responding on this forum. There's ZERO chance of that happening had I been in the stand because of the checks and balances I previously spoke of. You've had an under current in this thread questioning the photo finish itself. If that's your problem you're pissing up a rope. The photo finish infallible.

cj
06-29-2015, 02:06 PM
An 8k claimer WOULD be judged the same as Zenyatta at 1/9. Furthermore who the trainer of Bayern was or is would NEVER factor into the decision.

The very concept of the responsibility one takes when they become a steward would not allow for such a thing.

I'm sure this is the theory and what is taught, but in reality, this is not what happens. Those of us following the game for a long time know better.

Stillriledup
06-29-2015, 02:59 PM
I don't doubt that Vic is honest, but it only takes one compromised steward on every panel of three. Human beings are extremely flawed, and it doesn't matter if they've taken vows. If one of the three judges is dishonest, he'll often be the swing vote.

Do stewards discuss the race among themselves? Ideally, in an objective model the stewards wouldn't talk to each other. Because that comes with the power to convince others, which is an ability that has nothing to do with racing. In an objective model the stewards would be in separate rooms, pushing a yes/no button on both questions: 1) inquiry or not, and 2) decision. Only in case of a majority would there be an inquiry (a single steward could not start the process). And only in the case of a unanimous decision could the race outcome be altered (a single steward no longer is a swing vote).

I would suggest that much of the inconsistency that bothers so many horse players could be avoided with the removal of 1-2 and 2-1 decisions; two consistent judges and one inconsistent one is all it takes to produce a different outcome for the same situation; so the inconsistent one is 'rewarded' (!).

Also, the stewards would not know how the others voted (in non 3-0 decisions), and would not be allowed to discuss that afterwards. If they know each other well, that could undermine objectivity right from the start, because they would already know how others would vote.

And, it doesn't even have to be dishonesty, it just can be human nature to be swayed. I agree with your judges in separate areas theory, what if one judge thinks !this should be no DQ' and another judge during discussion Says something that the first judge never thought about, it's possible to change your mind.

Also, why Do we need judges on site who have formed relationships (for good or bad) making the decisions? Why not have a national 'power room' like they do in the NHL that watch replays and make decisions? Seems like that would eliminate the need for stewards at every track, an inquiry is automatically looked at in the "war room" and a quick decision is made, no interviewing jocks either, if you can't make a DQ off video, you leave the result alone and pay the winners.

v j stauffer
06-29-2015, 03:18 PM
I'm sure this is the theory and what is taught, but in reality, this is not what happens. Those of us following the game for a long time know better.

I can only speak for myself and my observations.

I've been close to it all for 35 years. As both an announcer and steward.

I have worked with hundreds of stewards.

Not once. Not ever. Have I encountered one that I felt even had a tinge of being unethical.

I have worked with stewards that were totally unqualified or really lazy. Both can obviously result in poor and or inconsistent decisions.

Speaking specifically for the body of California stewards. I strongly believe as a group they are BY FAR the best I've ever had the pleasure of working with and for.

Dedicated, passionate, professional, ethical, unbiased, open minded. If you ever sat in on a California Stewards Committee meeting, especially now with the current CHRB leadership, Winner and Baedeker, you'd immediately know how fortunate we are to have these people regulating California racing.

cj
06-29-2015, 03:54 PM
I can only speak for myself and my observations.

I've been close to it all for 35 years. As both an announcer and steward.

I have worked with hundreds of stewards.

Not once. Not ever. Have I encountered one that I felt even had a tinge of being unethical.

I have worked with stewards that were totally unqualified or really lazy. Both can obviously result in poor and or inconsistent decisions.

Speaking specifically for the body of California stewards. I strongly believe as a group they are BY FAR the best I've ever had the pleasure of working with and for.

Dedicated, passionate, professional, ethical, unbiased, open minded. If you ever sat in on a California Stewards Committee meeting, especially now with the current CHRB leadership, Winner and Baedeker, you'd immediately know how fortunate we are to have these people regulating California racing.

I wasn't for one second saying anyone was unethical. I'm saying they are human. Most of us are influenced by things and we don't even know it. I doubt any steward anywhere is any different. Such is life...

Dark Horse
06-29-2015, 04:17 PM
I didn't HAVE anything. I just mixed up the numbers for the purpose of responding on this forum. There's ZERO chance of that happening had I been in the stand because of the checks and balances I previously spoke of. You've had an under current in this thread questioning the photo finish itself. If that's your problem you're pissing up a rope. The photo finish infallible.

The point is that there were three people who thought they were sure of what they saw. (you now say you mixed up the numbers, and we can all do that, but I would just observe that if anybody is not going to mix up numbers it's a race caller).

If the photo proved us wrong, then the same could easily be true for steward inquiries. They are too subjective.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Once there is an inquiry, stewards are placed in a position where they have to make a decision, one way or another. In such cases, in general (beyond the field of horse racing), people often forget the no-decision option. In other words, if there's a 1-1 split, the one with the greatest doubt about the situation should be free to abstain. Instead he becomes the decisive swing vote. Are 1-1 decisions allowed, and, if not, why not?

Wouldn't it be better to set a standard of unanimous 3-0 decisions, or, better, increase the number to five stewards and set the bar at 4-1? All the clouds and fog of 2-1 (or 3-2) decisions would be off the table.



I have worked with stewards that were totally unqualified or really lazy. Both can obviously result in poor and or inconsistent decisions.

Thank you. So now a good handicapper, who could never get away with a similar lack of dedication, is left to essentially a coin flip. It screams unfairness.

Speaking specifically for the body of California stewards. I strongly believe as a group they are BY FAR the best I've ever had the pleasure of working with and for.

Most of the time things are fine. But on some days it seems to rain stewards inquiries, as if they're suddenly rededicated to their art, and don't care one iota if it puts every handicapper on edge. It's not only the stewards decisions about the race outcome. The decision to go to inquiry mode is equally important, if not more so, and at Santa Anita it is far from consistent.

Dark Horse
06-29-2015, 04:27 PM
Also, why Do we need judges on site who have formed relationships (for good or bad) making the decisions? Why not have a national 'power room' like they do in the NHL that watch replays and make decisions? Seems like that would eliminate the need for stewards at every track, an inquiry is automatically looked at in the "war room" and a quick decision is made, no interviewing jocks either, if you can't make a DQ off video, you leave the result alone and pay the winners.

Absolutely. A national room with highly trained professionals. Aside from nationwide consistency, it would also allow for a greater number of opinions, and a better percentual chance at the right decision.

And no more talking to jockeys either. What is that about? Riders pleading their cases? lol

Dark Horse
06-29-2015, 04:48 PM
One last note. The integrity of the judges is important, of course, but not the most important. For neutrality a ref can't be too far off the median. Especially not in racing, where you're dealing with the same refs at the same track day after day. Compare to NFL. I forgot the guy's name, but him and his crew would call pass interference far more often than others. I hated to see him on the field. Did he have integrity? Absolutely. But he was bad for the game just the same. Because his opinion was too far removed from the widely accepted standard.