DQ rule at MNR...3-30-15, 1st race

[Track Phantom]

In full disclosure, this DQ cost me a ton of money....but, two things:


Should the winner have been DQ'd?
If the winner was to be DQ'd, why behind the 6 and not the 5? According to the stewards, he impeded the 5, who hit the 6.
Not sure I understand why he was DQ'd under the 6.

[menifee]

In full disclosure, this DQ cost me a ton of money....but, two things:


Should the winner have been DQ'd?
If the winner was to be DQ'd, why behind the 6 and not the 5? According to the stewards, he impeded the 5, who hit the 6.
Not sure I understand why he was DQ'd under the 6.

No financial interest in this. Should have been dq'd. The 5 and the 6 were going into each other regardless, but the 4 really aggravated it by taking a right turn out of the gate. I do agree that the 4 should have been placed behind the 5 though.

[Stillriledup]

No financial interest in this. Should have been dq'd. The 5 and the 6 were going into each other regardless, but the 4 really aggravated it by taking a right turn out of the gate. I do agree that the 4 should have been placed behind the 5 though.

Why is there a dq for something that happened at the start? Should have been left alone....you know, unless you want to be consistent and dq every bump at the start....which would require almost 1 dq per race, rarely will all the horses break in a straight line.

[Track Phantom]

It is hard for my to objective as it was a painful DQ for me.

However, even though the 4 came in, he never touched the 5. It appeared the 5 shied from the 4 and bumped the 6. If the rule is that the action is enough to warrant the DQ, regardless of bumping, well OK.

But, it still doesn't make sense that the 4 was only moved behind the 6. The 4 could not have hindered the 6, at the start, without first hindering the 5.

What am I missing here?

(For those who didn't see it, the order of finish was 4/7/6. The #6 really shied from the action at the start, almost tossed the rider and bolted out to the outer rail. He regathered and came flying in for a good 3rd).

[menifee]

Why is there a dq for something that happened at the start? Should have been left alone....you know, unless you want to be consistent and dq every bump at the start....which would require almost 1 dq per race, rarely will all the horses break in a straight line.

Listen, I'm generally in your camp on dq's. I always want the result to stand. But the 6 was really hampered at the start. He actually made a nice run to get in the money. This wasn't just your standard bump, he was knocked really wide. Like I said before, the 5 and 6 were going to hit anyway, but the 4 really aggravated it by coming out so much. I think you can say that it cost the 6 a placing.

There was a dq later that evening that I thought was really questionable. Can't remember the race, but I think they disqualified the 4.

[Track Phantom]

I know it is a different track, but what is funny is the move by the 4 out of the gate was similar but much less severe than what Bayern did in the BC Classic.

The stewards in So. Cal. say the action out of the gate needs to be looked at less critically. So, if that race occurred in So. Cal. result would have stood based on how they view those things.

Race still bothers me. I had one of my biggest win bets on the #4. I normally don't bet 4-5 shots to win but it looked like there was no way that one wasn't going to beat that field. I was kinda right but had the #6 had a clean start, he may have run them all down.

Oh well, part of the game.

[menifee]

I know it is a different track, but what is funny is the move by the 4 out of the gate was similar but much less severe than what Bayern did in the BC Classic.

The stewards in So. Cal. say the action out of the gate needs to be looked at less critically. So, if that race occurred in So. Cal. result would have stood based on how they view those things.

Race still bothers me. I had one of my biggest win bets on the #4. I normally don't bet 4-5 shots to win but it looked like there was no way that one wasn't going to beat that field. I was kinda right but had the #6 had a clean start, he may have run them all down.

Oh well, part of the game.

Yeah it is part of the game. It stinks sometimes. Trust me, I've been there. One day I'm going to keep a record of whether inquiries have helped me or hurt me. I always think if you are a good handicapper, in the long run dq's will always hurt you, because I think the winner would have won anyway and if you are handicapping correctly you will more often than not be on those horses.

That being said, I stopped betting 4-5 shots a long time ago for this very reason. There's just to much risk to bet a horse at that price. Between dq, bad trip, jockey fall off, horse injury, horse not showing up, there's just not enough value to take less than even money in a race considering the risk. I've learned that the hard way over many years.

[Track Phantom]

Yeah it is part of the game. It stinks sometimes. Trust me, I've been there. One day I'm going to keep a record of whether inquiries have helped me or hurt me. I always think if you are a good handicapper, in the long run dq's will always hurt you, because I think the winner would have won anyway and if you are handicapping correctly you will more often than not be on those horses.

That being said, I stopped betting 4-5 shots a long time ago for this very reason. There's just to much risk to bet a horse at that price. Between dq, bad trip, jockey fall off, horse injury, horse not showing up, there's just not enough value to take less than even money in a race considering the risk. I've learned that the hard way over many years.

Certainly hard to argue and was thinking that very thing when the inquiry sign was blinking. I got greedy trying to siphon what I thought was easy money. Felt foolish afterwards.

[Stillriledup]

Yeah it is part of the game. It stinks sometimes. Trust me, I've been there. One day I'm going to keep a record of whether inquiries have helped me or hurt me. I always think if you are a good handicapper, in the long run dq's will always hurt you, because I think the winner would have won anyway and if you are handicapping correctly you will more often than not be on those horses.

That being said, I stopped betting 4-5 shots a long time ago for this very reason. There's just to much risk to bet a horse at that price. Between dq, bad trip, jockey fall off, horse injury, horse not showing up, there's just not enough value to take less than even money in a race considering the risk. I've learned that the hard way over many years.

This is what i say a lot that DQs hurt the better players, its not random. The more winners you pick, the more of your chances to be DQd go up.

I always say that if i handicap well and i'm on the right horse and my horse "Fires a big shot" im not going to just finish behind some other runner, if my pick fires, i win a large percentage of the time. If you're firing your biggest show and coming up short, you're handicapping is not that good. If i fire, i win....well, unless they just decide to not pay me.