Simple Verse

[Dark Horse]

Is this even possible in the US? A race result reversed from the stewards decision more than a week after the fact...

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/94613/simple-verse-reinstated-as-st-leger-winner

And does the track pay the reinstated winners?

[thaskalos]

Is this even possible in the US? A race result reversed from the stewards decision more than a week after the fact...

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/94613/simple-verse-reinstated-as-st-leger-winner

And does the track pay the reinstated winners?
In the 1985 Flamingo Stakes...the then 23 year-old Thaskalos had $800 to win on Chief's Crown. The horse won, but was disqualified for causing interference down the stretch...and Proud Truth was declared the official winner. A couple of weeks later...a specially-chosen group of stewards ruled that Chief's Crown was well clear when he drifted into Proud Truth's path...and the disqualification was reversed...officially restoring Chief's Crown as the official Flamingo Stakes winner.

Because I always thought that the disqualification was unwarranted, and also because of the size of my bet...I held on to my losing ticket, just as a topic for conversation with my horseplaying friends. When the race result was reversed...I took the ticket to Sportsman's Park, where I had bought it...fully expecting to collect on it. I thought I had a pretty good case...but the track officials laughed me off the track.

It's tough being a horseplayer...even when you are proven right.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks for sharing. What a sick loss.

When the three stooges are on, all bets are off.

[thaskalos]

Thanks for sharing. What a sick loss.

When the three stooges are on, all bets are off.
I've been hating the stewards ever since.

[Dark Horse]

Don't get me started.

I bet exotics and hit enough longshots to make a profit, but those longshots make me very susceptible to the stooges. Because they often win or place in a photo, and not seldom with some bumping involved. In case of an inquiry, almost without fail the stewards rule against such horses. The only times I win is when the result stands. So... my question is: how can that be? Either I don't know what I'm doing, in which case I must be very lucky, or they don't.

[thaskalos]

Either I don't know what I'm doing, in which case I must be very lucky, or they don't.

The officiating in this game is atrocious. These stewards have turned the easiest racing job in existence into an unpredictable adventure. No consistency at all in those calls. :ThmbDown:

[Dark Horse]

They're just guessing about the stretch run. A far cry from the precision that is required in our game.

[Dark Horse]

Gotta love it, though.

Simple Verse - Poetic Justice.

[Robert Goren]

They're just guessing about the stretch run. A far cry from the precision that is required in our game.The stretch run is the place where get right most often. You never see a horse come down for something did on the turns where there is plenty of bumping etc. going on. Once in a great while a horse comes down for something did leaving the gate, but should happen a lot more often.

[Dark Horse]

The stretch run is the place where get right most often. You never see a horse come down for something did on the turns where there is plenty of bumping etc. going on. Once in a great while a horse comes down for something did leaving the gate, but should happen a lot more often.

They're guessing about the impact of a bump. They suggest to you and me that they know the outcome based on that bump, but they don't. I have no problem with clear cases, which, by definition, should produce a unanimous 3-0 decision.

Anyway, nothing will change. It's part of the game. Would be nice though if the track would let you buy insurance, for a tiny amount, that would allow you to cancel a wager in case of a stewards inquiry, if your horse(s) are involved (and the decision was not unanimous). Why would I let my money ride on the opinion of one of three stooges?

There's a plenty of fouling right out of the gate. But for some reason it doesn't piss me off as much as the close decisions at the wire. I guess I file those under 'bad trip'. Or maybe it's because intentional sharp left turns aren't targeted at longshots.

To me the frustration is in the races where a longshot ran a great race, way above public expectation, and a favorite runs way below that expectation, only for the stewards to step in and DQ the longshot for a bump. That same bump, no doubt, would have been ignored, if the favorite had bumped the longshot. And those type of decisions are usually not unanimous, so the decision is left on the shoulders of one steward. And why would he not peek at the toteboard, so that his decision pisses off as few people as possible. The road of least resistance.

I know Vic may get on my case about this. lol And I want to keep it poetic, because Simple Verse won!!

[Hoofless_Wonder]

In the 1985 Flamingo Stakes...the then 23 year-old Thaskalos had $800 to win on Chief's Crown. The horse won, but was disqualified for causing interference down the stretch...and Proud Truth was declared the official winner. A couple of weeks later...a specially-chosen group of stewards ruled that Chief's Crown was well clear when he drifted into Proud Truth's path...and the disqualification was reversed...officially restoring Chief's Crown as the official Flamingo Stakes winner.

Because I always thought that the disqualification was unwarranted, and also because of the size of my bet...I held on to my losing ticket, just as a topic for conversation with my horseplaying friends. When the race result was reversed...I took the ticket to Sportsman's Park, where I had bought it...fully expecting to collect on it. I thought I had a pretty good case...but the track officials laughed me off the track.

It's tough being a horseplayer...even when you are proven right.

Reminds me when I went to Fairmount for the third time in my life and the horse I bet had the jock fall off coming out of the gate, zooming to the lead and winning handily. I was a little surprised when John Scully didn't call the horse winning, and of course less than enthused when I found out my win ticket was worthless.

The only time I've seen a steward's reversal affect parimutuel payouts was in the late 1980s at Sportsmen's Park. Along about the 3rd race the steward's botched the result from a photo (for second IIRC), and two races later announced the correction. Tickets that hadn't been cashed on the wrong result became worthless, and tickets that were lying on the floor and in garbage cans suddenly became cashable. Complete chaos at Fairmount's 1st Floor Clubhouse, as patrons dove in all directions looking for winning tickets.

Since that day, I always keep my "losers" in a different pocket than my active tickets, in the event lightning strikes.... ;)

[Kash$]

In the 1985 Flamingo Stakes...the then 23 year-old Thaskalos had $800 to win on Chief's Crown. The horse won, but was disqualified for causing interference down the stretch...and Proud Truth was declared the official winner. A couple of weeks later...a specially-chosen group of stewards ruled that Chief's Crown was well clear when he drifted into Proud Truth's path...and the disqualification was reversed...officially restoring Chief's Crown as the official Flamingo Stakes winner.

Because I always thought that the disqualification was unwarranted, and also because of the size of my bet...I held on to my losing ticket, just as a topic for conversation with my horseplaying friends. When the race result was reversed...I took the ticket to Sportsman's Park, where I had bought it...fully expecting to collect on it. I thought I had a pretty good case...but the track officials laughed me off the track.

It's tough being a horseplayer...even when you are proven right.

I remember...
Btw Chiefs Crown til this day only horse to be favored in all three triple crown races and lose..

[Dark Horse]

Just a quick update.
I was wrong about the stewards leaning towards favorites over longshots, although it appears that they do. It's the wrong angle. Instead, they favor the riders... The best ones at the track typically ride the favorites.

[OTM Al]

Just a quick update.
I was wrong about the stewards leaning towards favorites over longshots, although it appears that they do. It's the wrong angle. Instead, they favor the riders... The best ones at the track typically ride the favorites.
Favorites should in the long run be benefiting from DQs over longshots and it has nothing to do with bias. Favorites are better horses as a rule and thus will be better at holding their lines in the stretch. Conversely longshots are running their eyeballs out to be in front late and are much more likely to be drifting late. Since top jockies tend to be on favorites, they then should also more often benefit from DQs as well. All of this should be expected and not as the result of bias.

[Spalding No!]

In 1990, Tight Spot won the Del Mar Derby only to be disqualified and placed last for interference coming out of the chute. Subsequent Eclipse champion Itsallgreektome was declared the winner. On appeal, over a month later, the stewards' decision was overruled by the CHRB and Tight Spot was reinstated as the winner of the Del Mar Derby, which maintained his unbeaten record on the turf that held up through the 1991 BC Mile, when he dead-heated with In Excess (who should have run in the Classic) for 9th place.

[PaceAdvantage]

Favorites should in the long run be benefiting from DQs over longshots and it has nothing to do with bias. Favorites are better horses as a rule and thus will be better at holding their lines in the stretch. Conversely longshots are running their eyeballs out to be in front late and are much more likely to be drifting late. Since top jockies tend to be on favorites, they then should also more often benefit from DQs as well. All of this should be expected and not as the result of bias.Hey...logic! I like that...a rarity around here...thank you Al...

[OTM Al]

Hey...logic! I like that...a rarity around here...thank you Al...
Not that it will do much good, but as always, my pleasure.

[Dark Horse]

Hey...logic! I like that...a rarity around here...thank you Al...

So it is agreed, then, that favorites benefit more often from DQ's?

That observation, ridiculed as it may have been, is backed by the logic that inspired your gratitude.

[OTM Al]

So it is agreed, then, that favorites benefit more often from DQ's?

That observation, ridiculed as it may have been, is backed by the logic that inspired your gratitude.

Yes, but unlike your contention, it has nothing to do with steward bias.

[thaskalos]

Favorites should in the long run be benefiting from DQs over longshots and it has nothing to do with bias. Favorites are better horses as a rule and thus will be better at holding their lines in the stretch. Conversely longshots are running their eyeballs out to be in front late and are much more likely to be drifting late. Since top jockies tend to be on favorites, they then should also more often benefit from DQs as well. All of this should be expected and not as the result of bias.
Yes...but doesn't the opposite make just as much sense? These favorites, being the "better horses", are often not "themselves" when they find themselves defeated by those "inferior horses". There is probably a physical issue of some type which prevents them from giving their "best performance" in those losing races...and, sensing during the race that their normal energy reserves are not available to them...these horses put forth a more "determined" effort than they would otherwise give during the running...which causes them to veer from their straight lanes down the stretch.

[OTM Al]

Yes...but doesn't the opposite make just as much sense? These favorites, being the "better horses", are often not "themselves" when they find themselves defeated by those "inferior horses". There is probably a physical issue of some type which prevents them from giving their "best performance" in those losing races...and, sensing during the race that their normal energy reserves are not available to them...these horses put forth a more "determined" effort than they would otherwise give during the running...which causes them to veer from their straight lanes down the stretch.

Um, no, not really. I would really doubt a trained animal would think that way at all.

[Dark Horse]

Yes, but unlike your contention, it has nothing to do with steward bias.

Provided your analysis is accurate.

You realize that there is no reason at all for longshots who perform well to all but fall apart at the seams and sway all over the place?

[OTM Al]

Provided your analysis is accurate.

You realize that there is no reason at all for longshots who perform well to all but fall apart at the seams and sway all over the place?

The phrasing of your question is difficult to follow but I think in answering your question I would say longshots who are performing better than expected (thus why they are longshots) are more likely on average to tire late and weave than favorites are. Favorites are going to be on average the better horse (they have to be by definition) so they are less likely to run out of gas than longshots.

[thaskalos]

Um, no, not really. I would really doubt a trained animal would think that way at all.

I didn't mean "think"; I meant "REACT". The athletes are not "thinking" out there; they are on autopilot. Thinking slows things down...for man OR animal.

The truth is that ALL of these horses are highly trained. And to think that some of them are "running their eyeballs out"...while others are racing well within themselves...is also mighty doubtful. IMO...this veering off course down the stretch is an accidental occurrence...which has no reasonable explanation. If it were not an accidental occurrence...then the same horses would be disqualified over and over.

[OTM Al]

I didn't mean "think"; I meant "REACT". The athletes are not "thinking" out there; they are on autopilot. Thinking slows things down...for man OR animal.

The truth is that ALL of these horses are highly trained. And to think that some of them are "running their eyeballs out"...while others are racing well within themselves...is also mighty doubtful. IMO...this veering off course down the stretch is an accidental occurrence...which has no reasonable explanation. If it were not an accidental occurrence...then the same horses would be disqualified over and over.

They are trained to run as hard as they can through the wire. How hard they can run depends on how good they are. They veer and come out when they have tired. (I'm not including those that veer due to shadows or being struck though both instances could also be argued as happening on average due to bad trainer or jock and thus also could be attributed, on average, to longshots as well). A longshot by nature is more likely to tire than a favorite because on average he is an inferior horse. Thus a longshot is more likely on average to veer. Thus a longshot is more likely than a favorite to be taken down on a DQ

[Dark Horse]

The phrasing of your question is difficult to follow but I think in answering your question I would say longshots who are performing better than expected (thus why they are longshots) are more likely on average to tire late and weave than favorites are. Favorites are going to be on average the better horse (they have to be by definition) so they are less likely to run out of gas than longshots.

Not really a longshot player, are you? Longshots that perform much better than expected have great form of day.

There's bumping down the stretch in many races. But if a lesser jockey is involved, instead of one of the top jockeys, the chances are much greater that the stewards feel he should be taught to race the right way. And you will find lesser jockeys on longshots much more often than on favorites.

[OTM Al]

Not really a longshot player, are you? Longshots that perform much better than expected have great form of day.

You are thinking of individual cases here. More often than not they fail. If you are a longshot player, then you know that. I am talking in the aggregate. If longshots are better horses and/or are performing much better than expected in the aggregate, then bettor behavior is completely irrational.

[Dark Horse]

You are thinking of individual cases here. More often than not they fail. If you are a longshot player, then you know that. I am talking in the aggregate. If longshots are better horses and/or are performing much better than expected in the aggregate, then bettor behavior is completely irrational.

Each race is an individual event. Of course the trick is to find longshots with strong form of day. Without that they're not even part of this discussion, because they won't hit the board.