Strange race at Belmont

[cj]

From Saturday, Race 7, comment on the winner:

RELAXED GESTURE (IRE) lunged through the stall doors at the start, was off in a tangle, was outrun early, advanced three wide, moved to the front when called on and drew clear under confident handling, ridden out.

It sure looks like on the replay he broke the gate open a tad before the other gates actually opened. I'm curious why the horse wasn't declared a non-starter. I'm not saying the start helped him, it certainly did not, but it seems there should be a rule in place for something like this.

[Valuist]

TVG showed the replay several times and were sure he'd get DQ'd. He did break thru slightly ahead of the field but then he jumped. Realistically I don't think he got an unfair advantage. If he had gone wire to wire, I'm sure they would've DQ'd him. But I think the stewards made the correct call.

[cj]

I'm probably cynical, but something tells me his .55 to 1 odds influenced the decision. It seems to me that if you break through the gate before the start, you are out, period. Should it matter which style the horse runs?

[Valuist]

I suppose it's letter of the law vs spirit of the law. According to the rules, you are probably correct. But realistically, he did not gain any advantage. Maybe if he won by a nose they'd have taken him down also. Maybe the odds played some role but the inquiry was so brief that I think they really didn't have any doubt.

[cj]

So what if that happened, and he lost? Do you then not give the money back? I just like as little judgement as possible to be used by the stewards!

[Valuist]

They definitely used judgement. But let's say he was 15-1 and you had him and he won. You see the inquiry go up and you know he had no unfair advantage. If he'd been taken down, wouldn't you have been furious at the stewards? I think, for the most part, the NY stewards are among the best.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why have stewards at all, if they aren't supposed to use some judgement every now and then?

I watched the head-on, and it does seem the Relaxed Gesture broke open his gate a split second prior to the gates opening on all the other stalls.

However, it is obvious he gained no advantage from his fraction of a second head start, as he broke very awkwardly behind the field. If anything, it cost him.

And CJ, if he had LOST, then YES, there might be a case to be made that he be declared a non starter, as the gate mishap clearly impeded him at the start. This is the reason we have stewards.

[cj]

It is my opinion that how the horse finished should not be a factor in the decision of the stewards. Why is that wrong? He should either by rule declared a non-starter or not, and because of what he did at the start, not based on how he finished.

Judgement calls should be kept to a minimum, and this is a case where you don't really need to have the stewards judge anything other than did he start early, or did he not. He clearly did, and rearing afterwards, well, he might have DONE THAT ANYWAY, in which case he did have an advantage. I know it is unlikely, but it is possible.

[NoDayJob]

:lol: It's easy to second guess the stewards, especially when you haven't walked in their shoes. :lol:

NDJ

[cj]

Thanks for the insightful commentary. :rolleyes:

[toetoe]

Agree with cj. The tangled break should occur a split second later, leading to who-knows-what? And advantage is impossible to quantify, even for those playing God. The only time to ignore a no-no is when A impedes B, and B beats A anyway. Officials in the real world (educators, jurists, etc.) I want to show judgement. Racing stewards? Oh, no.

[turfspec]

THOROUGHBRED





4009.21 Refund [failure of starting gate] Non-starter



When a horse starts. Every horse shall be considered a starter when the stall gates open on the signal of the starter, unless the stewards declare a horse or horses non-starters because, in their opinion, their chances were compromised leaving the starting gate. If so, all bets on the non-starters will be refunded unless the horse wins. For placing and program purposes the non-starters will be considered to have run for purse only.

Seems to indicate the Stewards have some discretion in the matter.

Rob

[cj]

This wouldn't really apply in this spot as the gate opened BEFORE the signal.

[turfspec]

I agree. There appears to be no perfect fit in the current rules covering the scenario you described. The quoted clause was the nearest fit under the article concerning the starting gate. I merely offer it as an indication of the sreward's discretion. Note the statements "in their opinion, their chances were compromised leaving the starting gate" and "unless the horse wins". If the specific instance is not covered specifically in the rules I imagine the stewards could use this to rationalize the use of their discretionary powers.

As a bettor, I wish every circumstance was clearly spelled out in the rules but recognize that is impossible. Had a horse Dq'd at AP last weekend (I agree with the foul call by the way) that won by open lengths. Foul probably didn't affect the win but was clearly a foul. Believe I've seen this situation discussed here before. Guess we're stuck with the stewards and their discretionary power, like umpires, refs et al for the forseeable future.

Rob

[Valuist]

Are stewards not the equivalent of umpires in baseball or referees in football or basketball? Not everything is black and white and they have to make judgement calls. I agree with PA on this one.

[JackS]

It's always a dissapointment and a setback when your winning horse is taken down and you do not agree that your horse was any more at fault than the other horse(s) involved in the inquiry. Ninety-nine % of the time I agree with the stewards but theres always that 1% that can ruin your day if you let it.
I look at it this way- There have been times when I've been knocked into a winning ticket that I feel was really undeserved.
I think it's better to give the Stewards all benfit of any doubt. They are the experts and may have seen the actual cause of the incident that is not readily evident in the re-runs shown on the monitors.
Thankfully these are realative rare occurances when you think you've won legitimatly and the Stewards rule against you.
Stay positive, put it quickly behind you. This is racing and a part of the game we all love and after all there is another race coming up in 15 minutes.

[cj]

I agree for the most part, I don't worry about one race too much one way or the other. I wasn't playing Belmont Saturday, so I had no stake in the race. Just stating my opinion.

As for the stewards being experts, well, some are, and some....

[Zman179]

I remember seeing a race at Turfway Park about 2½ years ago where the exact same thing happened, except that the gate opening was a fraction of a second sooner than the rest of the other horses gate doors. The horse won by a nose and the Turfway stewards then dq'd him from first place and declared the horse a non-starter. The difference between the TP and the BEL incidents was that the Turfway horse actually went to the lead and was ruled to have gained an unfair advantage by the gate being broken open early by the horse.

Thus the question does not lie in if a particular horse's gate opened early, the question is whether or not the horse gained an advantage by it. Clearly in this case no advantage was gained thus, IMO, the right call was made.

[DirtTrack]

Not sure of exact rule or how applied from state-to-state.

Had this happend at BRD in Oklahoma on horse we loaded up on - Won by several links - Race declared no contest and all wagers were refunded.
15-1 :bang: but that's how it goes sometime...

As for the Stewards - decisions should be based on rules not on race outcome (in my opinion anyway)

Anyone remember Powerscourt getting DQ'd last year for interference after the finish line to others that had not finished?

Lot of sad memories for 1st post on site:rolleyes:

[tholl]

As for the Stewards - decisions should be based on rules not on race outcome (in my opinion anyway)

Anyone remember Powerscourt getting DQ'd last year for interference after the finish line to others that had not finished?



I agree, decisions need to be based on rules wherever possible; stewards generally have enough trouble with judgement calls.

Re: Powerscourt, was a contoversial DQ, but the interference happened way before the finish line.

[RXB]

My bet for today was an $80 exacta in the 9th at Belmont, 3-4, with a $20 reverse. The 3 was dq'd behind the 4 because Santos hit the 4 with his whip two jumps before the wire. There's no way that it affected the outcome; the 4 ran 1/2 length behind the 3 for the entire length of the stretch.

So my question is: judgement, or no judgement? They can't have it both ways. One race, they're using judgement, claiming that the outcome wouldn't have been affected; the next, they're calling it by the letter of the law even though the outcome wouldn't have changed. That's what drives me nuts.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"(d) If a jockey willfully strikes another horse or jockey or rides willfully or carelessly so as to injure another horse, which is in no way in fault, or so as to cause other horses to do so, his horse is disqualified."
Strike another horse, DQ. Does not have to affect the race; no judgment involved.
I agree with PA on the first post of the thread- The horse did not have an advantage at the starting position.

[RXB]

So if a horse beats the starting gate, that's not an automatic non-starter?

Any other horse that I've ever seen that broke prior to the official start was declared a non-starter, whether it won or not. Any athletic competition, period, where one competitor beats the gun/barrier/horn, that competitor is declared a non-starter.

[46zilzal]

Given that the horse in question went up in the air at the start, I can see why they let it stand.

[tholl]

My bet for today was an $80 exacta in the 9th at Belmont, 3-4, with a $20 reverse. The 3 was dq'd behind the 4 because Santos hit the 4 with his whip two jumps before the wire. There's no way that it affected the outcome; the 4 ran 1/2 length behind the 3 for the entire length of the stretch.

So my question is: judgement, or no judgement? They can't have it both ways. One race, they're using judgement, claiming that the outcome wouldn't have been affected; the next, they're calling it by the letter of the law even though the outcome wouldn't have changed. That's what drives me nuts.

I agree 100%. Either use the rules all the time, or use judgement all the time.

[RXB]

I don't care if the horse had ran the wrong way for 50 yards and then won the race. If the letter of the law is going to be applied in one case then it should be applied in the other, too.

[GeTydOn]

Maybe the stewards used their "judgement" and decided to "follow the letter of the law" when Santos hit that horse with the whip.

[RXB]

Maybe the stewards used their "judgement" and decided to "follow the letter of the law" when Santos hit that horse with the whip.

Ah, so their 'judgement' is to follow the 'letter of the law' except when they don't feel like it, as per the race last weekend. That makes sense. Thanks for straightening out the matter for me.

[GeTydOn]

All I was saying is maybe judgement is used in applying the law.

[tholl]

All I was saying is maybe judgement is used in applying the law.

But the only reason to use judgement is as to whether the result was affected, and in both cases it was not. IMO. And therefore both winners should have been DQed, or both left up.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Gates plural; your horse was a non-starter until the rest of the gates opened, then that 1 and all others were considered starters. That is the letter of the law, like it or not. I didn't write it but it is a very easy read if you do not read anything else into it.

[tholl]

Gates plural; your horse was a non-starter until the rest of the gates opened, then that 1 and all others were considered starters. That is the letter of the law, like it or not. I didn't write it but it is a very easy read if you do not read anything else into it.

No, the quote earlier was "..every horse shall be considered a starter when the stall gates open ON THE SIGNAL OF THE STARTER...". And, as CJ pointed out in his post, this does not apply here as the gate opened BEFORE the signal.

[PaceAdvantage]

Figman usually has access to rulings. What's the rule when a gate opens .5 second prior to all the others, but the horse in question breaks behind the field?

Could it be argued that the gate opening a split second early actually HINDERED the horse in question, because the jockey and the assistant starter were unprepared at that moment for the start?

Lots of ways to look at this incident. We need official rules from the source....

As for the whip strike, that's an automatic DQ, period. The only judgement for the stewards is in determining if accidental contact took place. Once that's confirmed, it's a no brainer.

But the gate thing.....let's find the official rulebook and see what it says.....

Figman?

[JackS]

Several years at one of the Cal Fairs a jock whose horse fiished second lodged a complaint against the winner. The objection was disallowed and the finish stood as posted.
A few days latter, I read in the DRF that the jockey appealed the ruling and the judges this time agreed that the initial ruling was wrong, and declared the 2nd place horse the winner.
Of course there was no appeal for the patrons that day who had the real winner since all payoffs were made to the horse that finished first and then placed second.
I had this race if the correct decision had been made in the first place.
Stuff happens.

[cj]

PA,

I just don't see how you could ever say the gate opening early hinders a horse. I'm sure it probably does, but this should be a black and white rule, either the gate opened early, or it did not. I'm not saying that is the rule, but it should be. Its not like it opened on its own either, the horse caused it.

[tholl]

Several years at one of the Cal Fairs a jock whose horse fiished second lodged a complaint against the winner. The objection was disallowed and the finish stood as posted.
A few days latter, I read in the DRF that the jockey appealed the ruling and the judges this time agreed that the initial ruling was wrong, and declared the 2nd place horse the winner.
Of course there was no appeal for the patrons that day who had the real winner since all payoffs were made to the horse that finished first and then placed second.
I had this race if the correct decision had been made in the first place.
Stuff happens.

Yes, but what's the point ?

[JackS]

tholl- Is this routine? If it is , I guess there's no point.

[tholl]

No, not routine. Thought maybe you were infering that the connections of the second finisher should appeal ?

[JackS]

I was inferring that the correct decision should have been made right after the race. If the decision was incorrect, then it would have been better to let it stand and a Steward admonishment handed down.
This type of error is the equivilent of giving a losing football team a winning touchdown in the 4th quarter for in incorrect call in the 1st quarter.

[saratoga guy]

I'm antsy about giving the stewards too much discretion -- but I'd feel better arguing a case where it was misapplied. It doesn't seem as though it was in this case.

After watching the race and the head-on replay I feel the correct decision was made here.

Perhaps the solution is, if the stewards are given discretion in making judgement calls the process should be more open, with the stewards having to explain themselves.

I think a certain amount of discretion is justified -- but I agree that it can be dangerous.

For those that missed the race, a still shot is here... Keep in mind though that when watching the live video, the early opening of the gate is virtually imperceptible -- and the horse reared as soon as it left the gate, and was at the back of the pack within the first fifty yards.

http://www.equidaily.com/images/BEL514.jpg

[kenwoodallpromos]

"every horse shall be considered a starter when the stall gates open ON THE SIGNAL OF THE STARTER...".
We are in complete agreement- the starter signaled to opened the gates, and at that point in time EVERY HORSE was considered a starter, including the 1 in question. I do not see the word "EXCEPT" anywhere.

[saratoga guy]

I think I would agree with tholl that "when the stall gates open on the signal of the starter," means the starter has to be in control of all gates opening. In this case he did not cause one of the gates to open -- it was forced open before the signal of the starter.

However, the rule really doesn't apply anyway. It's talking about what to do if the gate door fails to open:

4009.21. Refund--failure of starting gate.

(a) When a horse starts. Every horse shall be considered a starter when the stall gates open on the signal of the starter.

(b) If it be determined by the stewards that a horse has been prevented from racing because of the failure of the stall door of the starting gate to open, the money bet on the horse shall be refunded; if such horse is part of an entry or field, such circumstances shall be treated as a scratch as provided in section 4009.20 of this Part, notwithstanding the placing of any remaining part of the entry or field.

[DirtTrack]

Happened again today and they declared the horse a non starter with a refund on wagers

Lone Star - Reace 1
#3 U GOTTA LUV DEE
Got a slpit selcond early break on the field
Finished second

Inquiry on the race - U GOTTA LUV DEE - declared a non-starter with refund of wagers

Workd for me as it laded me the exacta 4-6 :)

[Tee]

Just saw the replay of Relaxed Gesture's last race.

He definitely had a bit of a head start!! :D

Ran very nicely today as well!!!!!

[linrom1]

With a better ride Relaxed Gesture would've won the Manahattan G-1. A very nice horse. Speaking of nice turf horses, I wish they put back Migliore back on Archie Schiller, Prado can't ride him.