The Grade 3 Sanford Stakes at the Spa

[Bob S.]

In this article are past performance and pedigree write ups on Cocked And Loaded, He's Comin In Hot, and Paynes Prairie. There is a good amount of front end speed, so the pace may be troublesome for He's Comin In Hot. Paynes Prairie has shown that he can duel with the pace and carry on...he's a gritty performer who may be there at the end. Cocked And Loaded sits a nice trip behind the speed, and appears to have a ton of talent as well. I'm also giving Twirling Cinnamon a chance here for the hot Freshman Sire Twirling Candy, after what I saw in his maiden win. He can come from off the pace as well and win.

http://regalbloodlines.com/2015/07/13/2-year-old-juvenile-males-whove-made-a-favorable-impression-so-far-this-summer/

[Kash$]

Twirling Cannon 10/1 im all in

[carnivalday]

Paynes Prairie will scratch.

[Ocala Mike]

My horse, PAYNES PRAIRIE, scratched. Will give the Live Oak horse on the rail a look. :1: W/P.

[BlueChip@DRF]

He’s Comin In Hot

I like the name.

[Robert Fischer]

:6: good speed , controlling speed?? :ThmbUp:
:11: some pace will only help this one. If speed is staggering he'll be swaggering(ok that was bad)
:10: Percolator is the real deal. Under the radar. Best value of contenders.
:8: low price on a classy horse who has had such good trips, he's yet to show if he's the real deal. Another who figures to capitalize if race falls apart.

[PaceAdvantage]

I agree...best value appears to be the :10:, followed closely by the :4:

Fairly wide-open race.

My picks in order of win prob along with value line:

:6: 4/1
:10: 9/2
:9: 6/1
:4: 7/1

[taxicab]

I'm going to the :9: Twirling Cinnamon.
Track profile suits this guy.

[Tom]

:8: :7: :6:

:11: might get it done if he get a clean trip.

[Robert Fischer]

*:11: reminds me of Circular Quay for some reason

[Robert Fischer]

I agree...best value appears to be the :10:, followed closely by the :4:

Fairly wide-open race.

My picks in order of win prob along with value line:

:6: 4/1
:10: 9/2
:9: 6/1
:4: 7/1

:4: looks like a champ on the track. guess we'll see if he runs to his looks on a fast track.

:6::11::4::8::10:

[PaceAdvantage]

I agree...best value appears to be the :10:, followed closely by the :4:

Fairly wide-open race.

My picks in order of win prob along with value line:

:6: 4/1
:10: 9/2
:9: 6/1
:4: 7/1That was easy...except for that right turn late...lol...bet the :10: & :4:

[Robert Fischer]

if that stands it's big numbers

[Tom]

Nice little dance step in the stretch.....cha cha cha.

[PaceAdvantage]

Has was all over the track, but well clear...nobody behind him missed a beat

[PaceAdvantage]

There isn't even an inquiry...yet...relax... :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh wait...now there is an inquiry and an objection...

How is the :10: claiming foul? The jock didn't even react when the :4: crossed in front of him...and neither did the horse as far as I can tell based on one replay's worth of viewing on my part

[cj]

There isn't even an inquiry...yet...relax... :ThmbUp:

There is now. I think he should stay up, but who knows with these jokers any longer?

[Robert Fischer]

;) sorry, too much coffee and i could use this .50 tri

[Tom]

Looking at TFUS adjusted times, the :4: had a huge F1 advantage of 22.05 in the slop.

[PaceAdvantage]

Of course he should stay up (nice numbers by the way CJ...TFUS gives me another honker of a mutuel...but I digress).

Not only was the horse WELL clear when he bolted, he was clear when he came back in front...and at no point can I see (viewing the head on), that the others were interfered with in a way that made them even twitch...

[cj]

Of course he should stay up (nice numbers by the way CJ...TFUS gives me another honker of a mutuel...but I digress).

Not only was the horse WELL clear when he bolted, he was clear when he came back in front...and at no point can I see (viewing the head on), that the others were interfered with in a way that made them even twitch...

Agree with this, but it is taking too long. He is coming down I bet.

[PaceAdvantage]

WOW

[Robert Fischer]

that's gonna pay a little less...

[PaceAdvantage]

I can't wait to see this reply again...I guess I missed something obvious

[Grits]

I'm shocked! I thought he was clear. Dubb ain't gonna be pleased AT ALL.

[PaceAdvantage]

Ortiz was pissed..and rightfully so

[cj]

I'm shocked! I thought he was clear. Dubb ain't gonna be pleased AT ALL.

Typical clown show in the steward's booth.

[Tom]

Pletcher will NOT be denied!

[PaceAdvantage]

And Pletcher gets put up to boot...what a world

[ArlJim78]

You've got to be kidding me. Horse won clear and gets put down to third?
I'm so f*ing steaming right now.

[PaceAdvantage]

What interference? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

[PaceAdvantage]

RIGHT THERE...he said...causing interference RIGHT THERE...

But NOTHING HAPPENED!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Robert Fischer]

It was close. Tough one. Too good of capping to get DQ'd to a public horse Pletcher winner.

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe there is something to these steward-bashing threads after all

[PaceAdvantage]

It was close. Tough one.Actually, it wasn't close at all...the horse was how many lengths in front when he crossed over? 2-3? Are they kidding?

Watch the :10: behind him. Neither the jock or horse BLINKS as the :4: crossed in front...

I'm guessing they took him when he came back and caused perhaps a SMIDGE of crowding on the rail...but that's being generous...

[Robert Fischer]

387 for the .50 tri

what's that pay for :4::11::10: ?

[cj]

Maybe there is something to these steward-bashing threads after all

Never any consistency.

[menifee]

I just screwed out of a nice score. You have to be kidding me. The horse was 4 lengths clear.

[SuperPickle]

I didn't listen to the explanation but i believe he was taken down for when he corrected him not when he bolted out

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm just going to say that DQ was absolute BULLSHIT. And I'd be saying the same if I didn't have a dime on the skittish winner.

[PaceAdvantage]

I didn't listen to the explanation but i believe he was taken down for when he corrected him not when he bolted outYou mean when he was drawing away again and still clear? :faint:

[menifee]

I didn't listen to the explanation but i believe he was taken down for when he corrected him not when he bolted out

No that is wrong. In the explanation, they said he got taken down when he bolted. That the 10 had to pull up. Are you kidding me?

[SuperPickle]

Yeah it had nothing to do with him getting out.

Sterling says the 10 was clearly compromised when he corrected him.

I have not seen the head on.

https://twitter.com/andyserling

[moneyandland]

It's not about being clear and the fact he was an easy winner, It's not the drift out that changed it, its the drift back in, On thehead on he clearly cost the 10 place, the 10 lost a bob to the 11 for 2nd and had to check up even if it was slightly. Yes no one was going to beat him but his actions CLEARLY changed the finish, OBVIOUS DQ. If it finishes 4-10-11 than I'm all for leaving him up, but once it becomes 4-11-10 hes got to go

[Spiderman]

I had the :4: . No need for Ortiz to whip as severely as he did. Stewards are not consistent. :4: did not cause horse who finished third to lose placing to 2nd.

Rough day.

[Stoleitbreezing]

awful dq. Horse was clear. This happens in a stake race and at the Spa?

[Stoleitbreezing]

bet 5 bucks on the 4 to win, based on maggies comment. Rewatched the maiden breaker and made the bet. Running real bad for that to happen.

[Robert Fischer]

Everyone is gonna hammer Stephanie's Kitten now to get even.

I'm gonna get a shower and hit up the beach. Have a good rest of the day fellas. :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

Andy says he was DQ'd when he came back in, which is the only thing I can see that makes even the tiniest bit of sense.

But then Andy says the 4 cost the 10 second place when he came back in?

This has to be one of the most subtle DQs in history...the 4 was drawing away again, and I think, clear of the 10, even when he was coming back in...but whatever.

[Grits]

bet 5 bucks on the 4 to win, based on maggies comment. Rewatched the maiden breaker and made the bet. Running real bad for that to happen.

Maggie thought he looked awesome....

This never goes well in a graded stake. This is bad for the game. It'll be talked about all week around town.

The grandstand's contempt was audible when Larry announced the DQ.

[ArlJim78]

They should not fiddle with the order of finish unless a blatant foul has been committed. The 4 won and the 10 didn't, end of story. Reminds me of that BS in the Fountain of Youth when they took down Upstart and elevated the hapless and beaten It'saknockout. Oh right that was also Pletcher.

[Tom]

Everyone is gonna hammer Stephanie's Kitten now to get even.

I'm gonna get a shower and hit up the beach. Have a good rest of the day fellas. :ThmbUp:

Watch out for the sharks!

[Some_One]

I didn't think the interference on the 10 was that bad, it was the 2 horses on the inside of the 10 that got it much worst, forcing to check which allow the eventually winner and 1 to get ahead late.

[JimG]

If Pletcher trained Magna Light, do you really think they would have dq'd him? It was a bullshit dq and I did not bet a dime on the race.

[Stoleitbreezing]

the 4 horse was 2-3 lengths clear when he veered out because he didn't like the left handed whip. BS call by the stewards.

[Spiderman]

I had the :4: . No need for Ortiz to whip as severely as he did. Stewards are not consistent. :4: did not cause horse who finished third to lose placing to 2nd.

Rough day.

Sat out the Diana because of the dq - had the :4: :4: double and would also be live with :4: :7: in P3 completed in finale. That is how rough a day it's been.

[tubesockshakur]

Much the best, every year I can't wait for Saratoga but I take such punishment :bang:

[cj]

Owner Michael Dubb on DQ:

"There is a different set of standards in racing for Rudy Rodriguez. Maybe because he is Mexican. He is picked on. He is being held to a different set of standards in racing all together and is being treated unfairly. I would be the first to say the horse should come down if he did anything wrong. But he didn't do anything wrong. I am disappointed, but not shocked. Maybe it's (Rodriguez's) Mexican background. They hold Rudy to a set of different standards. It's not good, but it's the world we live in."

[infrontby1]

Owner Michael Dubb on DQ:

"There is a different set of standards in racing for Rudy Rodriguez. Maybe because he is Mexican. He is picked on. He is being held to a different set of standards in racing all together and is being treated unfairly. I would be the first to say the horse should come down if he did anything wrong. But he didn't do anything wrong. I am disappointed, but not shocked. Maybe it's (Rodriguez's) Mexican background. They hold Rudy to a set of different standards. It's not good, but it's the world we live in."

Could it be possible that one of the stewards might actually be of Latin decent?

And besides, that was kind've of cheezy response by Dubb. What, we going to mix racism into the sport of kings also now? Like we don't have enough of it in the news nowadays?

[cj]

Could it be possible that one of the stewards might actually be of Latin decent?

And besides, that was kind've of cheezy response by Dubb. What, we going to mix racism into the sport of kings also now? Like we don't have enough of it in the news nowadays?

I wasn't advocating what he said at all, just posting it. I'm sure he was pissed as hell and said something dumb, like most (all?) of us have done at some point. It might help if the stewards actually explained decisions and the decisions made sense.

The decision given today by Larry Collmus did not match what happened on the track. Is that too much to ask for as bettors?

[PaceAdvantage]

Owner Michael Dubb on DQ:

"There is a different set of standards in racing for Rudy Rodriguez. Maybe because he is Mexican. He is picked on. He is being held to a different set of standards in racing all together and is being treated unfairly. I would be the first to say the horse should come down if he did anything wrong. But he didn't do anything wrong. I am disappointed, but not shocked. Maybe it's (Rodriguez's) Mexican background. They hold Rudy to a set of different standards. It's not good, but it's the world we live in."This is ridiculous...now if he had said Pletcher benefiting from the decision played a part in it, that might be less ridiculous a conspiracy... :lol:

In any event, he's pissed, and rightfully so...so I'll let this one slide...

[ArlJim78]

Had the horse been an odds on Pletcher runner under identical race circumstances the chances that they would have placed him third would be zero.

[cj]

Had the horse been an odds on Pletcher runner under identical race circumstances the chances that they would have placed him third would be zero.

Yep.

[Grits]

Now and then, we are caught at our worst, and this may have been the case for Michael Dubb. Too, he knows his trainer doesn't have the stock that Pletcher has, and for this reason, he speaks up, and backs his trainer when he believes he was wronged. .... We should all be so lucky to have someone in our corner that'll speak up for us. Even if the politically correct memo didn't arrive--so what.

Still, I wonder had the trainers/horses been reversed would Todd have been as readily taken down? It seems as though Todd is never, ever touched.

.....Most of all? I would read the chart, gentlemen, it is not in order with the findings of the stewards. I don't see the word impede anywhere throughout.

What happened to his trainer and horse today was unfortunate. It was a bad hour for NYRA. JMO

An excerpt. PERCOLATOR was urged along while just off the pace, chased three wide on the turn, pursued the winner under a left-handed whip in upper strech, switched to a right-handed right handed whip at the furlong marker, continued to pursue the winner into the final sixteenth, had that rival drift in near him at that point and was out finished then lost the place.

[menifee]

Pretty powerful statement given Dubb is on the NYRA Board of Directors. Understand his frustration. That was an awful dq.

[ReplayRandall]

Official Steward's Decision:

Race Decisions - July 25, 2015


Race 9: Steward's Inquiry and Jockey's Objection: Kendrick Carmouche, the rider of # 10 Percolator, lodged an objection against the winner, # 4 Magna Light, for alleged interference in stretch. # 4 Magna Light racing on the lead shifts out several paths after passing the 1/8 pole. # 10 steadies briefly though # 4 is clear when crossing. # 4 then drifts back down toward the # 10 in the final strides causing # 4 to steady.

# 4 finishes third, beaten a half-length for second.

WATCH REPLAY


After reviewing the race videos and speaking with the riders involved, # 4 is disqualified from first and placed third, behind # 10.


The official revised order of finish is 11-10-4-1. § 4035.2. Foul riding penalized.


(a) When clear, a horse may be taken to any part of the course provided that crossing or weaving in front of contenders may constitute interference or intimidation for which the offender may be disciplined.


(b) A horse crossing another may be disqualified, if in the judgment of the stewards, it interferes with, impedes or intimidates another horse, or the foul altered the finish of the race, regardless of whether the foul was accidental, willful, or the result of careless riding. The stewards may also take into consideration mitigating factors, such as whether the impeded horse was partly at fault or the crossing was wholly caused by the fault of some other horse or jockey.

[overthehill]

I empathize with all the people who lost because of this ridiculous DQ. 2nd worse dq i have seen this year, after the chad brown horse that was taken down at churchill in a maiden turf race for coming out on the turn . At this point I would argue that no DQs should affect bettors
given how much of an impact these capricous decisions have in all the gimmick pools. imagine getting knocked out of a pick 4 or pick 6 because of some stupid call like this. The stewards written decision implies that they took the horse down because even though he was clear when he drifted the other horse still steadied. That is a new one for me, taking a horse down even though he is clear when he veers out. by comparison at gp a few days ago there was a horse who ran third after herding a horse so much to the left in the stretch that he would have left the track had he not stopped and they didnt dq that horse.

[Stoleitbreezing]

I'm not sure of where they see the #10 steadied. When I watched the replay when the #4 comes out, the #10 doesn't steady or appear bothered. The reason he doesn't "steady" is because the #4 was a few lengths clear at the time of this "infraction" more and more this decision bothers me because of what others have said about the Todd Pletcher factor. I'm starting to believe it too.


Official Steward's Decision:

Race Decisions - July 25, 2015


Race 9: Steward's Inquiry and Jockey's Objection: Kendrick Carmouche, the rider of # 10 Percolator, lodged an objection against the winner, # 4 Magna Light, for alleged interference in stretch. # 4 Magna Light racing on the lead shifts out several paths after passing the 1/8 pole. # 10 steadies briefly though # 4 is clear when crossing. # 4 then drifts back down toward the # 10 in the final strides causing # 4 to steady.

# 4 finishes third, beaten a half-length for second.

WATCH REPLAY


After reviewing the race videos and speaking with the riders involved, # 4 is disqualified from first and placed third, behind # 10.


The official revised order of finish is 11-10-4-1. § 4035.2. Foul riding penalized.


(a) When clear, a horse may be taken to any part of the course provided that crossing or weaving in front of contenders may constitute interference or intimidation for which the offender may be disciplined.


(b) A horse crossing another may be disqualified, if in the judgment of the stewards, it interferes with, impedes or intimidates another horse, or the foul altered the finish of the race, regardless of whether the foul was accidental, willful, or the result of careless riding. The stewards may also take into consideration mitigating factors, such as whether the impeded horse was partly at fault or the crossing was wholly caused by the fault of some other horse or jockey.

[infrontby1]

This why we need to start having blimps over the track to give a solid bird's eye view of the race. No, really.

We need to see the angles for all possible views, and we have the technology to accomplish this feat this day in age.

In my opinion, the bird's eye view will give the stewards (and bettors) an absolute sighting of any potential mishaps that may have occurred during a particular part of a race.



Official Steward's Decision:

Race Decisions - July 25, 2015


Race 9: Steward's Inquiry and Jockey's Objection: Kendrick Carmouche, the rider of # 10 Percolator, lodged an objection against the winner, # 4 Magna Light, for alleged interference in stretch. # 4 Magna Light racing on the lead shifts out several paths after passing the 1/8 pole. # 10 steadies briefly though # 4 is clear when crossing. # 4 then drifts back down toward the # 10 in the final strides causing # 4 to steady.

# 4 finishes third, beaten a half-length for second.

WATCH REPLAY


After reviewing the race videos and speaking with the riders involved, # 4 is disqualified from first and placed third, behind # 10.


The official revised order of finish is 11-10-4-1. § 4035.2. Foul riding penalized.


(a) When clear, a horse may be taken to any part of the course provided that crossing or weaving in front of contenders may constitute interference or intimidation for which the offender may be disciplined.


(b) A horse crossing another may be disqualified, if in the judgment of the stewards, it interferes with, impedes or intimidates another horse, or the foul altered the finish of the race, regardless of whether the foul was accidental, willful, or the result of careless riding. The stewards may also take into consideration mitigating factors, such as whether the impeded horse was partly at fault or the crossing was wholly caused by the fault of some other horse or jockey.

[reckless]

Owner Michael Dubb on DQ:

"There is a different set of standards in racing for Rudy Rodriguez. Maybe because he is Mexican. He is picked on. He is being held to a different set of standards in racing all together and is being treated unfairly. I would be the first to say the horse should come down if he did anything wrong. But he didn't do anything wrong. I am disappointed, but not shocked. Maybe it's (Rodriguez's) Mexican background. They hold Rudy to a set of different standards. It's not good, but it's the world we live in."

First off, I thought the DQ was a joke. Bad call.

I also don't think for a second that they took down Dubb's horse because it was Pletcher's horse that ran second. Let's get real once in a while, please.

But ... the fact that it was a horse trained by Rudy Rodriguez that was DQ'd ... hmm, now that might have some legs for all the co-conspirators here on PA to run with.

Stewards have been known to be a vindictive bunch with memories of elephants (except when it comes to the sporting and gambling aspect of racing).

Rudy Rodriguez is a stain to the training profession. He has lied to investigators in a number of serious situations, discussed here and elsewhere at numerous times. I am not going to resurrect all his crimes, fines, suspensions and misdeeds here.

So, is it possible it was an opportunity to 'get even' with Rudy Rodriguez for past transgressions? I say it is possible because creeps like Rudy R. should never get the benefit of the doubt.

Would incapable, small-minded stewards relish any opportunity to 'get even' when they could? That's always possible, although I am not saying that was the reason the DQ happened, for sure. First and foremost, it was a bad call. All I am saying is I think they might have gotten even with Rudy R. -- and if so, it was because of WHO the trainer is and not WHAT he is.

Michael Dubb -- NYRA board member of all things -- has hired some of horse racing's worst offenders and skells in the training profession. While it is unbecoming of a Board Member to talk stupid and thrashy, it doesn't surprise me one bit.

[infrontby1]

So then, does Dubb & Rodriguez have the right to appeal the call?

And if so, should it be sustained, guess who still get's screwed out of the call even though the connections wind up getting the purse and the trophy? :confused:

First off, I thought the DQ was a joke. Bad call.

I also don't think for a second that they took down Dubb's horse because it was Pletcher's horse that ran second. Let's get real once in a while, please.

But ... the fact that it was a horse trained by Rudy Rodriguez that was DQ'd ... hmm, now that might have some legs for all the co-conspirators here on PA to run with.

Stewards have been known to be a vindictive bunch with memories of elephants (except when it comes to the sporting and gambling aspect of racing).

Rudy Rodriguez is a stain to the training profession. He has lied to investigators in a number of serious situations, discussed here and elsewhere at numerous times. I am not going to resurrect all his crimes, fines, suspensions and misdeeds here.

So, is it possible it was an opportunity to 'get even' with Rudy Rodriguez for past transgressions? I say it is possible because creeps like Rudy R. should never get the benefit of the doubt.

Would incapable, small-minded stewards relish any opportunity to 'get even' when they could? That's always possible, although I am not saying that was the reason the DQ happened, for sure. First and foremost, it was a bad call. All I am saying is I think they might have gotten even with Rudy R. -- and if so, it was because of WHO the trainer is and not WHAT he is.

Michael Dubb -- NYRA board member of all things -- has hired some of horse racing's worst offenders and skells in the training profession. While it is unbecoming of a Board Member to talk stupid and thrashy, it doesn't surprise me one bit.

[Stillriledup]

What are the chances that this decision cost someone to quit the game never to return?

is that why this is the greatest game on earth because we have a bunch of political appointees Playing god with other people's money so they can stick it to the Mexican (dubbs comments not mine) and hand another win to the untouchable golden boy of racing?

Is it now an official handicapping angle at the spa to not bet Mexican trainers if white trainers are in the race?

This is why you pay the winners and move on.

[classhandicapper]

This is what I saw.

1. #4 was well clear when be crossed over.

2. The rider of Percolator steadied for 1 stride when #4 crossed over, most likely as a precaution. You can see this better from Pan shot.

3. When #4 drifted back in neither the rider of Percolator nor the horse reacted significantly, if at all. When you watch the head on it appears he may have made contact, but on the pan shot it appears he dd not.

I think a reasonable argument can be made that if none of this happened, Percolator might have gotten 2nd. However, it puts you into a very subjective position as to whether the ride of Percolator reacted appropriately to steady for one stride or overreacted given the #4 was well clear. As to the drift in late, that was so minor even if there was contact IMO it did not cost second. This DQ did not meet my personal standards for an appropriate DQ.

I've been told that Donald Trump was a special guest steward. Someone may want to tell Dubb. ;)

[SuperPickle]

So I went back and watch the head on a couple times today.

I get the outrage. He was the best horse. And none of us want to see that happen.

The whole thing comes down to "was he clear?"

It's tough to tell on the pan but he appears up about 4 lengths when he bolts. The width of track is 80 feet. Taking that into account he appears to come out at least 20 feet. Then in correcting it he comes back in about 15 feet. So its 35 feet of lateral movement. If he was 4 lengths in front is that enough to justify 35 feet of lateral movement. I don't know.

It's a 50/50 call.

I'll say this it won't even make the NYRA stewards top 10 bad DQ's and I'll guarantee they'll be a worse DQ this meet.

[Robert Fischer]

If :4: does not drift back in front of the :10:

Was there a significant chance that they finish :4::10::11:??

That's what makes the call so tough. If you think it may have finished 4-10-11, you have to take down the 4.

If the :11: had not plodded up for 3rd, it's an easy, easy decision.
:4: was tons best and :10: had no chance to come back.
:4::10: , but the 11 crashed the party and forced the stewards to make a tough decision.
I honestly couldn't tell you if they got it right or wrong. I haven't studied the camera angles a billion times, but that is the so called 'logic' that I see behind the call. - At least I hope that's the logic. You often never know.

[Stillriledup]

So I went back and watch the head on a couple times today.

I get the outrage. He was the best horse. And none of us want to see that happen.

The whole thing comes down to "was he clear?"

It's tough to tell on the pan but he appears up about 4 lengths when he bolts. The width of track is 80 feet. Taking that into account he appears to come out at least 20 feet. Then in correcting it he comes back in about 15 feet. So its 35 feet of lateral movement. If he was 4 lengths in front is that enough to justify 35 feet of lateral movement. I don't know.

It's a 50/50 call.

I'll say this it won't even make the NYRA stewards top 10 bad DQ's and I'll guarantee they'll be a worse DQ this meet.

If its 50/50 shouldn't the winner be left alone? Shouldn't we only be considering taking down the 90/10 situations ?

[Stillriledup]

If :4: does not drift back in front of the :10:

Was there a significant chance that they finish :4::10::11:??

That's what makes the call so tough. If you think it may have finished 4-10-11, you have to take down the 4.

If the :11: had not plodded up for 3rd, it's an easy, easy decision.
:4: was tons best and :10: had no chance to come back.
:4::10: , but the 11 crashed the party and forced the stewards to make a tough decision.
I honestly couldn't tell you if they got it right or wrong. I haven't studied the camera angles a billion times, but that is the so called 'logic' that I see behind the call. - At least I hope that's the logic. You often never know.

It's only tough if you're playing god with the results and not judging to a standard that everyone would make. If you poll all the stewards as well as unbiased expert horseplayers do you get at least 9 out of 10 saying DQ? We have plenty of experts in this thread and I don't see a 90/10 in favor of DQ, in fact i see more saying bad call. How are they making a change when the majority of horse racing experts are saying leave the results alone?

[classhandicapper]

If its 50/50 shouldn't the winner be left alone? Shouldn't we only be considering taking down the 90/10 situations ?

That's what I argue for every time we have one of these debates. When in doubt about whether the incident caused a horse to lose position do nothing.

[Tall One]

Could it be possible that one of the stewards might actually be of Latin decent?

And besides, that was kind've of cheezy response by Dubb. What, we going to mix racism into the sport of kings also now? Like we don't have enough of it in the news nowadays?



I've mentioned the name twice in two days now, which is probably more than it's been muttered in years: Braulio Baeza.

[GatetoWire]

I bet the winner and that DQ cost me large but it was an easy DQ and the right call.
The reason that the stewards have lost their way is this constant subjectivity of did it affect the result.

Did the interference affect the placing is irrelevant
Did the best horse win is irrelevant.

The best horse can't wander all over the track and interfere with whomever they like and in this case he bothered the Servis horse twice.

I just don't understand why people think it's ok for a winner to foul a horse behind them and say it's ok. The winner always get an advantage when he fouls another horse.

A foul is a foul. All this did it affect the placing is bullshit. You know why? Because it always benefits the horse doing the fouling.

If this horse does not drift all over the place in the he wins easily...but he didn't and he deserved to be DQ'd.

If the stewards starting penalizing the horse doing the fouling every time and stop trying to determine how it affected the results the jockeys would stop hearding and fouling to gain an advantage and everyone would know exactly what would happen every time the winner gained an advantage by fouling another horse in the race.

Most of these DQ's are easy call. Instead the stewards make it over complicated and try to determine what would have happened. Pure silliness and pure subjectivity.

[Stillriledup]

I bet the winner and that DQ cost me large but it was an easy DQ and the right call.
The reason that the stewards have lost their way is this constant subjectivity of did it affect the result.

Did the interference affect the placing is irrelevant
Did the best horse win is irrelevant.

The best horse can't wander all over the track and interfere with whomever they like and in this case he bothered the Servis horse twice.

I just don't understand why people think it's ok for a winner to foul a horse behind them and say it's ok. The winner always get an advantage when he fouls another horse.

A foul is a foul. All this did it affect the placing is bullshit. You know why? Because it always benefits the horse doing the fouling.

If this horse does not drift all over the place in the he wins easily...but he didn't and he deserved to be DQ'd.

If the stewards starting penalizing the horse doing the fouling every time and stop trying to determine how it affected the results the jockeys would stop hearding and fouling to gain an advantage and everyone would know exactly what would happen every time the winner gained an advantage by fouling another horse in the race.

Most of these DQ's are easy call. Instead the stewards make it over complicated and try to determine what would have happened. Pure silliness and pure subjectivity.

If it was an easy DQ why are 9 out of 10 in this thread as well as some unbiased experts saying bad call?

You do realize that these races are not run in a vacuum and horses aren't going to maintain exact straight lines all the time, they're not like trains running on fixed rails, jocks are straining and horses are working furiously to win, drifting is part of the game, what you are advocating is essentially a DQ every race, I don't know if you've ever been to a track before or seen a replay of a horse race, but they have these little things called head ons and if you've ever seen a headon shot out of the gate, someone is almost always bumped or brushed, they are fouls in your book, right? You're saying every bump or brush would be a DQ in your book, or maybe you don't mean a foul is a foul?

[SuperPickle]

No a 50/50 call is a coin toss.

I wouldn't blame the stewards for taking him down or leaving him up.

I could live with either decision.

[Stillriledup]

No a 50/50 call is a coin toss.

I wouldn't blame the stewards for taking him down or leaving him up.

I could live with either decision.

Why toss a coin, why not just pay the winner?

[VeryOldMan]

Why toss a coin, why not just pay the winner?
Maybe you should start an advocacy project on this point ;)

[Stillriledup]

Maybe you should start an advocacy project on this point ;)

Does it not make sense? Why not take a novel approach and only DQ horses you're sure about, not the ones your 'on the fence' with?

[infrontby1]

Are you kidding me?

Again, another inquiry with a stakes race with a potential to move Pletcher up to first?

[moneyandland]

Are you kidding me?

Again, another inquiry with a stakes race with a potential to move Pletcher up to first?

Yesterdays DQ forced the hand on this one, a non-dq today would of been the prime example of the inconsistency problem

[SuperPickle]

This one is a lot more cut and dry.

It's probably the quickest DQ in a Grade One in human history. I think they only looked at it for about five minutes.

It's a textbook DQ.

[Tom]

Are you kidding me?

Again, another inquiry with a stakes race with a potential to move Pletcher up to first?

Call him Horseshoe Todd.....close counts! :lol:

Todd...4 words for you, seriously man.....


BUT A LOTTERY TICKET!

[PaceAdvantage]

I bet the winner and that DQ cost me large but it was an easy DQ and the right call.
The reason that the stewards have lost their way is this constant subjectivity of did it affect the result.

Did the interference affect the placing is irrelevant
Did the best horse win is irrelevant.

The best horse can't wander all over the track and interfere with whomever they like and in this case he bothered the Servis horse twice.

I just don't understand why people think it's ok for a winner to foul a horse behind them and say it's ok. The winner always get an advantage when he fouls another horse.

A foul is a foul. All this did it affect the placing is bullshit. You know why? Because it always benefits the horse doing the fouling.

If this horse does not drift all over the place in the he wins easily...but he didn't and he deserved to be DQ'd.

If the stewards starting penalizing the horse doing the fouling every time and stop trying to determine how it affected the results the jockeys would stop hearding and fouling to gain an advantage and everyone would know exactly what would happen every time the winner gained an advantage by fouling another horse in the race.

Most of these DQ's are easy call. Instead the stewards make it over complicated and try to determine what would have happened. Pure silliness and pure subjectivity.Except there was absolutely, positively, NO interference when he drifted out. NONE. Watch the 10...both jock and horse did NOT REACT...not even a twitch!

So...he must have been DQ'd for coming back in? Right?

Except we've all seen countless stretch runs where a horse comes in a bit on those inside of him, not causing much of any problems, and stays up...probably wouldn't even have warranted an objection or an inquiry...

I contend there is NO WAY the 4 gets taken down if he hadn't drifted OUT initially. You playback that same exact race minus the drifting OUT part, and the 4 stays up 100% of the time.

That's why it's a bad DQ. You have NO FOUL on the drift out, and the drift back in by itself would never result in a DQ.

[Bullet Plane]

Horrible DQ.

Zero interference.

Zero effect on race.

These are two year olds..

hello... hello ...

anybody home?