DQ's

[cj]

I've had a similiar opinion to the below article for a long time. How do fellow handicapper's feel? I say, let DQ's affect purse money only, not payoffs. Let the order of finish stand!

http://espn.go.com/horse/columns/finley_bill/1315137.html

[FortuneHunter]

I disagree. The rules are the rules. As Walter Blum says, to speculate on the future is "playing" God.

Can you imagine if the NFL ruled on interference or fumble calls based on whether the team can cover the vegas point spread? Wait a minute, I think they do. An eye for an eye up there in New England last weekend.

[anotherdave]

I can see your point, but I say don't let it stand. And I am certain I have lost more money on DQs than I have profited on them. My problem is that the decision-making processes by the stewards on the DQs seems so variable.

Last Wednesday I had a good size bet on a 7-1 horse called Rock'N Metallica who came 2nd at Aqueduct. I didn't see the race, but I look at the result chart the next day and it says:

1A
Take Three: hustled clear, set pace, came in midstretch, dug in, held on
2
Rock'n Metallika: speed inside, inside move, steadied, altered course, gamely

The jock (not the stewards?) file an objection and it was denied. Now again, I didn't see it but if what the chart caller says is true - steadied, altered course - shouldn't the stewards have seen that and asked to look at it right away? I'm not saying they should have kicked the winner out, but if the possiblity of a foul was that obvious what were the stewards waiting for? (Anyone see that race?)

Now, a couple of times I have lost a race to a horse who days later had the purse money taken away from them for some banned substance. Now I have worthless tickets despite the fact the horse that beat mine cheated. Now that is irritating. Of course there was the time I won on the cheating horse....

[Tee]

I unfortunately was on the loosing end of the race in question. Watched the replay over & over again & knew they were going to take Trounce down even though he was much the best horse.

Seems to me that it might be time to re-evaluate the regulations that are in place.

The quote in the article regarding the rule states "a horse crossing another so as to actually impede him is disqualified, unless the impeded horse was partially at fault". Now why was Exogenous not disqualified in the Beldame? Because the stewards were playing God.

Human beings are going to make errors in judgement, but as each inquiry involves a different situation shouldn't the rules allow for the best interpretation of the situation & subsequent outcome?

[sq764]

I think the jockeys are at fault to some degree as well. I have seen some ridiculous interference that goes unchallenged by jockeys. I am amazed when there are inquiries, yet no jockey objections. From an owner/trainer standpoint, I would want my jockey to contest even the slightest of questionable interference.

Just my opinion.


Scott

[karlskorner]

sq764

If a jockey raises an objection and it is found unwarrented, he can be fined, hence, few jockey objections.

Karl

[sq764]

Why, because it makes the stewards look like they aren't doing their jobs? That's a stupid rule in my opinion.

[ceejay]

After the Korean's "number was taken down" in the Olympic short track 1500, I now know that horse racing isn't the only sport that changes the order of finish after the race due to the referee's (stewards) opinions of the race.

[GameTheory]

They were even harser on him then if it had been a horse race. He was dq'd altogether, but in horse racing he probably just would have been moved back to 2nd...