Fun N Games At Vallejo

[toetoe]

Race 7, Solano Co. Fair. 1A wins, gets taken down to 4th for interfering with ... HIS STABLEMATE! Hollendorfer and Todaro own 2/3 of each horse, but is it possible the stewards did it on their own? Maybe they had money on Baze? Of course, it was also the usual d'q. over almost nothing.

Also, Del Mar, race 3: Valenzuela wins, then gets taken down. SCal back to normal.

[cj]

Actually, I watched the NoCal race, the horse slammed his stablemate, who in turn slammed into the second place finisher. I don't see how they couldn't take him down, the head on made it look pretty severe.

[toetoe]

Fair enough, I'll take your word. But then put him to second! The owners have to make a sacrifice when they enter a race as part of a coupling, as the tracks are protecting the public from the naughty naughty trainers. Fine. But once that pairing is made, they should be in it together. If he bothered His Royal Bazeness, why just put him to fourth. Why not last? He's a bad boy, after all.

Btw, has a horse ever been taken down for a transgression, real or imagined, by his stablemate?

[kenwoodallpromos]

A non-coupled horse was affected by the act, so why keep both 1's involved in the exacta and trifecta? If the stewards are playing it safe since they are both coupled it sounds reasonable.
In another thread I said I thought nationwide racing was cleaning up their act so of course my opinion has to be the correct one!LOL!!

[Macdiarmadillo]

Something like this happened way back, heck, 20 years ago, maybe.

Charlie Whittingham had sent up an entry to run in N. Calif. and here again Russell Baze was riding one and finished third, the other half won. Russell called foul against his entrymate (it was a jock's claim of foul in this race) and so would be taking the win and purse away, as above. Baze did get roughed up on the turn, but had a pretty good temper then and wasn't thinking too clearly about the consequences, either for the entry or from Whittingham (pretty good temper there also). It was a common ownership then, too, because I remember thinking it made no sense whatsoever to claim foul here. I think it went where Baze was eventually convinced to withdraw the complaint. In any case, it took a fair amount of time to settle. The original results stood.

So remember that Baze is 50% in this situation. :lol: Wish I was there to see Hollendorfer go ballistic.

And I wonder if Wednesday's race was simo'd to Canada (with separate pools) where the final results WOULD make a difference.

[kenwoodallpromos]

" Baze did get roughed up on the turn, but had a pretty good temper then"
He seemed to as of 3 years ago too! Just finishing 3rd and getting laughed at!

[toetoe]

I remember that, Mac. That was a big-time turf race.

As to Ken's point, jeez, find out the non-coupled, injured party, and put 1A directly behind him. The only official word is that he harmed his entrymate! If cj is correct, put him directly behind Baze, which is, yes ... in the exacta and the trifecta, in SECOND PLACE!

[cj]

The stewards got this one right, they had a much better day than the SoCal stewards!

The horse veered very sharply into his entrymate, so hard that he drove his entrymate into the 3rd place finisher. The entrymate finished fourth. Baze's horse was way, way outside away from the action and managed to squeeze between the first finisher and the fouled horse.

I think the original first place finisher was place behind the entrymate, who was originally 4th.

1a-7-2-1 was the finish, the 1a fouled the 1 and the 2, so was placed behind both. It really isn't that confusing if you saw the race.

[toetoe]

As a practical matter, not a huge difference, but if he fouled 2, put him behind 2. Why put him behind 1? That's all.

[cj]

Because he also fouled the 1, I thought I had stated that, maybe not.