Freehold Raceway proves itself a joke -- again

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

So, in today's 6th race at Freehold, Torrid Bromac N was a significantly overbet 1-2 based on his previous form -- or so it seemed. However, he was much the best and toyed with his competition for an easy win -- or it seemed.

After the race, the inquiry light goes on for "possible" pylon violations. But what is "possible?" He either did or did not. After a very long inquiry, he remains up. Ok, so I guess he did not. So they show the replay and the horse went inside multiple pylons (I counted 4, others counted more) on a couple of turns.

So if you're not going to dq a horse for something he did, why put up an inquiry? I did not see him go inside any pylons on the last turn, but going inside a pylon on a turn on a half mile track saves significant ground.

Of course cynical players in attendance said the judges needed to check their tickets before making a decision.

But the bottom line is that the inquiry was for pylon infractions -- which there were, multiple times -- and the horse was not dqd.

Yet another black eye for Freehold Raceway.

[jocko699]

So, in today's 6th race at Freehold, Torrid Bromac N was a significantly overbet 1-2 based on his previous form -- or so it seemed. However, he was much the best and toyed with his competition for an easy win -- or it seemed.

After the race, the inquiry light goes on for "possible" pylon violations. But what is "possible?" He either did or did not. After a very long inquiry, he remains up. Ok, so I guess he did not. So they show the replay and the horse went inside multiple pylons (I counted 4, others counted more) on a couple of turns.

So if you're not going to dq a horse for something he did, why put up an inquiry? I did not see him go inside any pylons on the last turn, but going inside a pylon on a turn on a half mile track saves significant ground.

Of course cynical players in attendance said the judges needed to check their tickets before making a decision.

But the bottom line is that the inquiry was for pylon infractions -- which there were, multiple times -- and the horse was not dqd.

Yet another black eye for Freehold Raceway.

Jess,

My story is 2001/2002. I had returned from Afghanistan, stationed at Earle Weapons Station, an I would head to Freehold every so often. I much preferred the BigM.

I took a shot in the 1st on a horse I figured had a big shot and singled in the double to 3 horses in the 2nd. The horse won and paid $60.00 and a horse I used in the 2nd also won and paid $9.00. When I bet the double it was paying $600.00 and when I collected I received $175.00 lol.

I would have made more money parlaying the 2 horses.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Jess,

My story is 2001/2002. I had returned from Afghanistan, stationed at Earle Weapons Station, an I would head to Freehold every so often. I much preferred the BigM.

I took a shot in the 1st on a horse I figured had a big shot and singled in the double to 3 horses in the 2nd. The horse won and paid $60.00 and a horse I used in the 2nd also won and paid $9.00. When I bet the double it was paying $600.00 and when I collected I received $175.00 lol.

I would have made more money parlaying the 2 horses.

I'm more impressed with your being stationed in Afghanistan. That's a lot tougher than suffering through the slings and arrows Freehold Raceway tosses at us every race day.

Since there hasn't been a draft in over 40 years -- thanks, man!

[DSB]

I don't usually even look at the harness section of this site. There is rarely anything of interest to me. I couldn't let this go without comment.

Everyone seems to love trashing Freehold. The 6th yesterday is a good example. Does anyone who criticizes the judges for their actions - or lack thereof - know the reasoning behind it?

I was there and here's what happened. Jim Marshall III for some reason decided to leave the gate with a 56-1 shot, Ralbar. The 1-2 favorite, Torrid Bromac, beat him to the front and apparently his driver, Joey Bongiorno, made the decision not to let him go to the top and parked him. Marshall crowded the favorite for more than a half mile, forcing him inside a couple of pylons before quitting badly and finishing last.

The judges obviously thought that the violations were not the fault of the favorite. Nowadays, the judges are allowed to decide whether or not the infraction altered the outcome of the race when rendering a decision.

Nothing that happened in that race altered the outcome of the race, for sure. Torrid Bromac most likely would have won easier had he not had to contend with the actions of Marshall and Ralbar.

Oh, and going inside a pylon with a wheel doesn't necessarily "save significant ground."

That would be leaving the course, aka IP, which is an automatic DQ if the horse does gain an advantage.

[Stick]

The problem with your argument is that Bongiorno was also inside pylons up the backstretch AFTER Marshall had fallen out of the race. Also, after the half when Bongiorno completely cut the turn I did not see any evidence of Marshall forcing him in. Just having a guy parked out next to you does not mean you can go inside multiple pylons because you feel crowded. This horse clearly did not run a mile. As far as the outcome of the race this is just subjectivity on your part.

[cj]

Is this as bad as the suspended trainer of the Canadian Pacing Derby being interviewed on track after his horse won while in the name of a beard trainer last night?

[Stick]

CJ
When the average guy goes to the track he is not aware of what you mentioned. The average guy does however see the horse inside multiple pylons and complains how every race is fixed. Less and less of these guys come to the track because of this. I heard a guy yesterday claim that a horse was stiffed in a 500K race at Yonkers. The more that the pylon rule can be black and white the better it is for the sport. Think about football for a moment. We all know what offsides looks like but pass interference gets us up in arms half the time. The less subjective the better.

[DSB]

The problem with your argument is that Bongiorno was also inside pylons up the backstretch AFTER Marshall had fallen out of the race. Also, after the half when Bongiorno completely cut the turn I did not see any evidence of Marshall forcing him in. Just having a guy parked out next to you does not mean you can go inside multiple pylons because you feel crowded. This horse clearly did not run a mile. As far as the outcome of the race this is just subjectivity on your part.
Did they disqualify the horse? Maybe the judges saw what I saw and not what you saw. Because they have the advantage of viewing the race from various angles, I'll take their word for it over yours.

Like it or not, the judges have the authority to take the question of outcome into consideration, subjective or not.

Any chance you bet the race? Because that could affect your objectivity.

[Stick]

I did not bet the race. I looked up the replay after this was posted. Lets face some facts. The horse did go inside multiple pylons. The horse did go inside pylons after Marshall faded. Stewards do make poor rulings. If you can't see that your blind. My argument is not with this particular race. It is that there is no pylon rule. Its all a judgment call. They are all over the place with this rule. That is bad for racing because people think the rule is being manipulated. The last thing you want in horse racing is anything that lends itself into looking corrupt.

[DSB]

The last thing you want in horse racing is anything that lends itself into looking corrupt.

And taking down a 1-2 shot for a chickenshit reason wouldn't look corrupt.

Right.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

And taking down a 1-2 shot for a chickenshit reason wouldn't look corrupt.

Right.

Jerry Rice would have a touchdown reversed for stepping out of bounds with a toe and Tom Seaver would be called for a balk that lets in a winning run in real sports.

Those are sports where people don't stay away because they think its crooked.

I'm not sure what the bigger problem in harness racing is: 1) People who think every race is fixed; 2) Pollyannas who make excuses for all of its obvious failings.

Let's call it a tie.

Rules were clearly broken. The judges obviously saw it. The judges did nothing. End of story.

[DSB]

Rules were clearly broken.
Apparently not.
The judges obviously saw it.
Apparently what they saw didn't warrant disqualification.
The judges did nothing.
What should they have done if they didn't feel anything was warranted?
End of story.
Finally, something we can agree on. I'm finished here.

NO DISQUALIFICATION

[DSB]

One post script:

There is one way to get the skinny on what happened in the Torrid Bromac race - ask the judges. That's what I did and this is what they told me:

The reason there was no Dq is because no rule was broken. The USTA has recently adopted new pylon rules. According to those new rules, no infraction took place.

The new rules are a bit complicated, but here's what I recall they said:

A horse can go inside 2 consecutive pylons without penalty. If they go inside 3 consecutive, they are Dq'd and placed last.

If a horse goes inside 2 consecutive pylons and is lapped on at the finish, he is placed behind the lapped on horse(s).

They agreed that TB was crowded but that did not enter into their decision.

That's what happened. The reason the winner wasn't taken down was because he didn't break any rules.

Perhaps I'm not owed an apology, but the judges at Freehold certainly are.

Maybe this thread should be taken down. It's an unnecessary disparagement of Freehold Raceway and its judges.

[caper]

I have no problem with leaving him up. The horse won easily. The tiny advantage did not at all change the outcome of the race.

[Stick]

One post script:

There is one way to get the skinny on what happened in the Torrid Bromac race - ask the judges. That's what I did and this is what they told me:

The reason there was no Dq is because no rule was broken. The USTA has recently adopted new pylon rules. According to those new rules, no infraction took place.

The new rules are a bit complicated, but here's what I recall they said:

A horse can go inside 2 consecutive pylons without penalty. If they go inside 3 consecutive, they are Dq'd and placed last.

If a horse goes inside 2 consecutive pylons and is lapped on at the finish, he is placed behind the lapped on horse(s).

They agreed that TB was crowded but that did not enter into their decision.

That's what happened. The reason the winner wasn't taken down was because he didn't break any rules.

Perhaps I'm not owed an apology, but the judges at Freehold certainly are.

Maybe this thread should be taken down. It's an unnecessary disparagement of Freehold Raceway and its judges.

Lets think about this moronic rule for a second. I guy on the lead can have both wheels of his bike instead two, but not three pylons and stay up if he is not lapped on. In fact, he can cut across part of the infield ( maybe the grass) if he can get back in time before the third pylon. A horse stuck on the rail in the lane can go completely inside the last two pylons before the finish as long as he can get far enough ahead that he is not lapped on. Meanwhile, at Mohawk, if one wheel goes completely inside the pylon while looking for room up the inside in the lane he is a DQ. I think an apology is owed to the bettors who have no idea from race to race and track to track when pylon violations will go for or against them.

[Stick]

By the way. The horse went inside three straight pylons in a row after the half. Watch the replay again. Of course the steward might have some magical view that only he and God can see.

[DSB]

Lets think about this moronic rule for a second. I guy on the lead can have both wheels of his bike instead two, but not three pylons and stay up if he is not lapped on. In fact, he can cut across part of the infield ( maybe the grass) if he can get back in time before the third pylon. A horse stuck on the rail in the lane can go completely inside the last two pylons before the finish as long as he can get far enough ahead that he is not lapped on. Meanwhile, at Mohawk, if one wheel goes completely inside the pylon while looking for room up the inside in the lane he is a DQ. I think an apology is owed to the bettors who have no idea from race to race and track to track when pylon violations will go for or against them.
The more you talk, the dumber you sound.

The problem with your stupid example is that it would be governed by another rule.

If a horse has both wheels inside a pylon, that is LEAVING THE COURSE. In your example, the horse in question would have gained an unfair advantage and would be disqualified and placed last. Duh.

Mohawk is not only a different jurisdiction, it's in another country. Drivers should know the rules of the track they're racing at.

If you don't like the new pylon rule, call the USTA.

[Stick]

Okay . Not both wheels inside. How about 90% of the bike inside and one wheel just barely on the track. According to you a driver could do this every race for two pylons. What a joke.

[DSB]

Okay . Not both wheels inside. How about 90% of the bike inside and one wheel just barely on the track. According to you a driver could do this every race for two pylons. What a joke.
First off, I never said anything like that. That's a figment of your fertile imagination.

The judges would certainly Dq a horse that saved ground in the way YOU describe.

The comment on the chart would most likely be "Placed last for gaining an unfair advantage while inside the pylons."

You've proved a couple of things in this discussion:

1. You know nothing about the rules of the sport.

2. The way you keep coming up with absurd examples means you've lost the argument.

Quit before you get farther behind.

[Stick]

I won't resort to name calling or anything personal about intelligence. Let me ask you a few questions. You say the judges would certainly take a horse down for being 90% inside the pylons. What about 75%? What about half the bike inside the pylons? Who determines this mysterious gained an advantage? You will come to realize there is no consistent pylon rule. I will leave you with this and then you can call someone else names tomorrow that disagrees with you. The pylons are for safety. There is no reason except for safety that a driver should go inside the pylons. If they called it this way the drivers would no longer do it and everyone looking at an inquiry would know right away if the horse should come down.

[DSB]

Judges are there... wait for it.... to judge. Questions of whether or not something happened, didn't happen, affected, didn't affect, etc. are under their jurisdiction.

Discretion:

1.The power or right to decide or act according to one's own judgment; freedom of judgment or choice.

If you have a hard time accepting discretionary rulings by those who are empowered to give them, maybe you ought to find another game.

[Stick]

You do a great job of avoiding the questions you don't have answers to. Maybe you can have another imaginary conversation with that steward and get back to me. Enjoy that deuce you had on the 3/5 shot.

[DSB]

You do a great job of avoiding the questions you don't have answers to. Maybe you can have another imaginary conversation with that steward and get back to me. Enjoy that deuce you had on the 3/5 shot.
You can call them if you want. They will tell you exactly what they told me.

You just can't accept that you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about.

By the way, harness racing has judges, t-bred racing has stewards.

No charge for the education.

Also, I didn't bet the race, for your information. I just don't like to see my hometown track and its judges trashed for no reason.

[Stick]

Still no answers?

[Stick]

What amount of the bike has to be inside the pylon to gain an unfair advantage?
1/3?
1/2?
3/4?

Just answer!

[DSB]

What amount of the bike has to be inside the pylon to gain an unfair advantage?
1/3?
1/2?
3/4?

Just answer!

You are dumber than a box of rocks! And a piss poor reader to boot!

It's a DISCRETIONARY call by the judges! Geez! give it up, dude. You're just making a fool out of yourself now...

[Stick]

I thought you mentioned earlier that if the horse was 90% inside it was an automatic DQ. Doesn't sound discretionary to me. Make up your mind.

[DSB]

I thought you mentioned earlier that if the horse was 90% inside it was an automatic DQ. Doesn't sound discretionary to me. Make up your mind.
Dipstick.

[PaceAdvantage]

Dipstick.Keep calling people names...

[DSB]

Keep calling people names...

Is it okay to call someone a liar? Because that's what was done to me.

[PaceAdvantage]

Is it okay to call someone a liar? Because that's what was done to me.By liar, do you mean when stick referenced an "imaginary conversation?"

That was well after you started the name calling.

[DSB]

I originally wanted this thread taken down.

On second thought, leave it up.

Anyone who reads it in its entirety can only come down on one side of this discussion.

And it ain't his.

[PaceAdvantage]

For the record, I easily believe you had a conversation with the judges. From what I've gathered over the years, stewards and judges are a lot more accessible then people might think.

[DSB]

The best time to contact them is in the morning of a race day. They are normally too busy during the races to have a conversation.

Anyone who disputes what I've said here can call the judges themselves.

732-462-3800 and follow the automated instructions.

Judges don't make the rules. Their job is to enforce them. And, like it or not, often their decisions are based on their discretion.

This comes directly from the USTA rulebook:

§ 18 .23
Pylon Violations.
—“A horse while on stride, or part of the horse’s sulky, that leaves the race course by going inside the pylons which constitutes the inside limits of the course, when not forced to do so as a result of the actions of another driver and/or horse, shall be in violation of this rule. In addition, when an act of interference causes a horse, or part of the horse’s sulky, to cross inside the
pylons and the horse is placed by the Judges, the offending horse shall be placed behind the horse with which it interfered .

In races conducted at extended pari-mutuel meetings, for purposes of plac-
ing the following shall apply:;

1 . If a horse while on stride, or part of the horse’s sulky, goes inside two
(2) consecutive pylons, the offending horse shall be placed behind all
horses that are lapped on to the offending horse at the wire;
2 . If a horse while on stride, or any part of the horse’s sulky, goes inside
three (3) or more consecutive pylons, the offending horse shall be
placed last;
3 . If in the opinion of the Judges a horse while on stride, or part of the
horse’s sulky, goes inside a pylon(s) and that action gave the horse an
unfair advantage over other horses in the race or the action helped
improve its position in the race, the horse may be placed at the discre-
tion of the Judges.

http://www.ustrotting.com/pdf/USTARuleBook.pdf