MNR 4th Nicole's Dream

[bigmack]

Show pool
1: $600
2: $900
3: $3000
4: $1700
5: $1000

9: $132,000

[ryesteve]

This is gonna be interesting... the 9 wiped out the 3rd and 4th place finishers in the run down the backstretch... stewards still watching the tape... nothing like a little drama... :D

[bigmack]

Well whoever just plunked down the $100k just had the worst 3 minutes

[sq764]

wow and DQ's to 4th...

#1 pays $109.20 to show LOL

[ryesteve]

The next time I think I've caught a bad break, I'll be remembering this race.

If this was Del Mar, the stewards would've probably left the 9 up with the explanation that she would've won anyway...

[Ron]

I have to watch this replay..I caught the second half of the race and didn't see anything. I thought the 9 was gonna break the track record.

[DrugSalvastore]

I was IM'ing with a friend of mine before this race.

He told me he was going to bet $10 to show on all the other horses for the hell of it.

And he accusses me of being lucky!

[PaceAdvantage]

After seeing this happen so many times, I have to think that betting to show in races such as this (and let's face it, they don't come up all that often) has returned a flat bet profit going back at least 5 years.....

[DrugSalvastore]

let's just hope the guy who made the bet doesn't burn the track down.

That was a VERY questionable DQ!!!

[Ron]

After seeing this happen so many times, I have to think that betting to show in races such as this (and let's face it, they don't come up all that often) has returned a flat bet profit going back at least 5 years.....

I don't think this exact scenario has happened so many times...very rarely does the favorite crush the field and get DQ'ed off the board.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't think this exact scenario has happened so many times...very rarely does the favorite crush the field and get DQ'ed off the board.

You know Ron, you're right. This exact situation does not happen very often. :rolleyes:

However, I was not talking about this EXACT scenario.....the scenario I was talking about was betting against a bridgejumper, which happens often enough......

[The Hawk]

PA, you might be right about this being a flat-bet profit. You lose so little when the favorite is on the board but the payoffs are huge when you get lucky, and it does seem to happen more often than one would think. I'm like a lot of guys here who always says they're going to try the ALL to show and never seem to remember to check the pools and do it.

[PaceAdvantage]

I know someone on this board a number of years back looked it up in their database. I can't remember who it was or what the query returned.....

A couple of $100 payoffs sure can cover a lot of these $2 to show on a small field....Plus, even if you "lose," in a six horse field, you're guaranteed to get over half your money back....lol

[levinmpa]

We saw this just last month in the Princess Rooney on Summit of Speed Day at Calder. Dubai Escapade was the "bridgejumper" horse. You'd think these people would learn that there's no such thing as a sure thing.

10th Race, Next Post 5:41 Off: 5:10
6 Furlongs. 3 Year Olds And Up Stakes Purse: $500,000
# Horse Jockey Weight Win Place Show
1 Malibu Mint Arce J 116 49.20 26.60 79.40
2 Prospective Saint Castro E 116 15.80 65.80
6 Hot Storm Flores D R 117 32.00
Times in 5ths: :213 :442 :57 1:10
Times in 100ths: :21.79 :44.51 :57.02 1:10.02
Also ran: Ebony Breeze, Annika Lass, Dubai Escapade and Leave Me Alone
Winning Trainer: Chapman James R - Owner: Mulholland, John R. and Martha Jane
$2 Exacta (1-2) Paid $538.60
$2 Trifecta (1-2-6) Paid $3,418.40
$2 Superfecta (1-2-6-5) Paid $25,203.80
$2 Pick 3 (2-6-1) 3 Correct Paid $806.40 Pick 3 Pool $40,324

[lsbets]

let's just hope the guy who made the bet doesn't burn the track down.

That was a VERY questionable DQ!!!

I just watched the replay. I think very questionable is being generous to the stewards. That was a horrible DQ. Hopefully the stewards have body guards, because that bridge jumper might be just a teeny bit pissed.

[ryesteve]

Why do you guys think this dq is so questionable? Didn't the horse directly to her inside take a rump-to-shoulder bump, have to take up sharply and lose about 3 lengths? Forget for a second that she was going to win anyway... a foul is a foul.

[Cesario!]

We saw this just last month in the Princess Rooney on Summit of Speed Day at Calder. Dubai Escapade was the "bridgejumper" horse. You'd think these people would learn that there's no such thing as a sure thing.

10th Race, Next Post 5:41 Off: 5:10
6 Furlongs. 3 Year Olds And Up Stakes Purse: $500,000
# Horse Jockey Weight Win Place Show
1 Malibu Mint Arce J 116 49.20 26.60 79.40
2 Prospective Saint Castro E 116 15.80 65.80
6 Hot Storm Flores D R 117 32.00
Times in 5ths: :213 :442 :57 1:10
Times in 100ths: :21.79 :44.51 :57.02 1:10.02
Also ran: Ebony Breeze, Annika Lass, Dubai Escapade and Leave Me Alone
Winning Trainer: Chapman James R - Owner: Mulholland, John R. and Martha Jane
$2 Exacta (1-2) Paid $538.60
$2 Trifecta (1-2-6) Paid $3,418.40
$2 Superfecta (1-2-6-5) Paid $25,203.80
$2 Pick 3 (2-6-1) 3 Correct Paid $806.40 Pick 3 Pool $40,324

You sure about that? Limit your amount on the heavy favorite and hedge slightly with small show bets on the rest of the field (limit to small fields with heavy favorite and "bridge jumping" pool distribution). If you do it right, you cover the losses either way.

[Buddha]

That was a VERY questionable DQ!!!
I think that it was a horrible DQ. There was little if any actual bumping going on. My thought about it, since it was like a 10 minute objection, was that MNR was trying to figure out how much the would lose in the minus show pool, so they decided to take her off the board.

I thought it looked like the 3 might have even slightly came out, impeding the 4 as much as the 9 did, and by the time that she got in from of the horse behind her, she was clear, not like she cut her off and make her check off her heals.

[sq764]

Finally saw the replay.. Thought at worst the 9 cut off the 3 & 4, but not the 1...

Buddha might be right with his theory..

[JustRalph]

I haven't seen the head on............but it looked like a chicken shit DQ to me.......

[abuttry]

The chicken shit rider on the 4 was checking before the 9 even come over and the 3 was coming out into the 4 first . I think they need to check ted arneault's cell phone records to see if a call was placed to the stewards. Mnr is a joke when it comes to this kind of stuff. Dana whitney will do the same thing tomorrow and it'll be official before you can blink an eye

[GMB@BP]

I think that it was a horrible DQ. There was little if any actual bumping going on. My thought about it, since it was like a 10 minute objection, was that MNR was trying to figure out how much the would lose in the minus show pool, so they decided to take her off the board.

I thought it looked like the 3 might have even slightly came out, impeding the 4 as much as the 9 did, and by the time that she got in from of the horse behind her, she was clear, not like she cut her off and make her check off her heals.

good point and i would venture to say your right....no way to know but it makes sense

[Murph]

After seeing this happen so many times, I have to think that betting to show in races such as this (and let's face it, they don't come up all that often) has returned a flat bet profit going back at least 5 years.....It has for me. I will make the ALL show against the bridgejumper play anytime I can catch it. I have hit 3 of these out of seven tries over the past 5 years. One of a very few profitable angle plays I can spot.

Murph

[melman]

This is to funny JoeG :jump: Remember about three weeks ago at the BigM and a DQ to 4th on our show bets. :jump:

[Sly7449]

SQ,

You ststed that you were in agreement that the 9 cut off the 3 and 4 but NOT the 1.

The Unofficial Order Of Finish was 9-1-3-4. The Objection was from the 3 and 4 against the 9. There was NO Objection against the 1 hence, when they DQ'ed the 9, the 1 became the winner with the 3 and 4 to follow.

L8R

Sly

[Valuist]

I think it should be an automatic play. This was actually the first time I cashed on one of these; usually you get caught unaware or are too busy plotting out exotic wagers. But that said, it was a bad DQ. I agree with the earlier post that the rider of the 4 was checking awfully early, and the 9 had cleared her by that point. I also have to think the minus pool might've been a factor. Thumbs down to the M(a)N(u)R(e) stewards.

Did anyone catch Chris Kotulak wishing "good luck" to the bridgejumper? Since he only bets chalk, maybe it was him.

[Bruddah]

the guy in the parking lot with an AK-47, hollering, it's Armageddon Time. He was dressed well for the occasion in his Brooks Brothers suit and Johnson-Murphy brogans. :lol:

[sq764]

SQ,

You ststed that you were in agreement that the 9 cut off the 3 and 4 but NOT the 1.

The Unofficial Order Of Finish was 9-1-3-4. The Objection was from the 3 and 4 against the 9. There was NO Objection against the 1 hence, when they DQ'ed the 9, the 1 became the winner with the 3 and 4 to follow.

L8R

Sly
So I guess, in a twisted, incorrect way I was right- he didn't cut off the 1 :D

[Sly7449]

SQ764,


I thought that the discussion was all pertaining to the DQ of Nicole's Dream from first to fourth.

The jockey on the 4 did seem to pullup a bit prematurely, however; had he not done so, who knows what would have happened. May have resulted in a Nightmare for both Horses and jockeys.

The replays on YouBet after the race repeatedly showed various angles of that portion of the race during the 10 minute sweat period.

Anyway.

L8R

Sly

[ponyplayerdotca]

NICOLE'S DREAM was by far going to win this 5 furlong sprint on the turf on paper. So much so, that 3 of the entrants scratched, leaving just a field of 6. Also, it improved her post position from post 9 inward to post 6.

Jockey E.T. BAIRD (her regular rider) came to MNR for just this race, a simple payday. Once those other 3 were scratched, he only had to outpace the #3 ELECTRICAL CARLITA and #4 ENERGY COUNTS early to secure a probable victory. And considering the huge discrepancy in Beyer figures between Nicole's Dream and the remaining 5 runners, everything was right there for the taking.

Baird had to know the whole field was going to bolt like hell to outrun Nicole's Dream or the race would be over (it was their only collective chance). So what does he do? He immediately shoots diagonally towards the other runners right from the gate instead of keeping Nicole's Dream a little wide and out of trouble.

He went a little too far inside and caused both the #4 and #3 to check or pull up some. Sure there wasn't any contact (or very little), but both Andrew Ramgeet (#4) and Rex Stokes (#3) had to react defensively to the danger or have a three-horse spill at top speed.

Baird then flies away with NICOLE'S DREAM to win by 12 lengths or so. What was the point of him angling so abruptly towards the inside down the backstretch in a race she was destined to win easily in the first place?

All he had to do was keep her a little wide, out of trouble, and by midway on the turn, he would have cleared them all easily and won by 7-8 lengths with no inquiry.

Even if she was very wide and had to stay there, she would have won by 3-5 lengths. What difference does it make as long as she wins, right?

The stewards immediately announced the inquiry, probably asking themselves, "why did he need to do that?". Both Ramgeet and Stokes then lodged jockey's objections on the out-of-towner Baird.

Not knowing what each of the three jockey's said, I'm sure Baird had no legitimate reason (or excuse) for the needlessly aggressive ride towards the inside. No contact doesn't mean no infraction to me.

So, if you have no defense to the accusations, you leave it completely up to the hometown stewards to assess the situation both competitively and financially (nudge nudge wink wink).

Seeing that Baird didn't need to do what he did with Nicole's Dream and still would have won, I think the stewards made a solid call on this one, payout pandemonium notwithstanding.

The "homer" in them probably said, "you can't come in to our track, ride wrecklessly, have no excuse for it on a sure thing winner, and expect us to turn a blind eye". Hence the astonishing DQ.

That's my take on it all. Unfair to the public? Maybe, but it's about time some stewards' decisions take down winners and piss off some owners if there was some sort of unsafe violation.

And Cali stewards wouldn't have DQ'd her because of exactly what that previous poster said, "she would have won easily anyway". I love that logic.

Mark Patterson joked afterwards on the simulcast, "I have notified the local Coast Guard to be on the lookout for anyone thinking of jumping off the closest bridge." Then he added later, "I hope that paddles were administered to that person who bet $100k to show on Nicole's Dream...what a nightmare!"

[Buddha]

After watching TVG and them showing the replay some more, it is very clear that the 3 was laying on the 4 well before the 9 ever came close to crossing over. I guess Rivelli has contacted a lawyer about appealing, and filed notice to the WV Racing Commission, who had already been contacted by who knows who before they contacted them.

To take the 9 down there is just frivilous (sp) and borderline criminal.

[ryesteve]

After watching TVG and them showing the replay some more, it is very clear that the 3 was laying on the 4 well before the 9 ever came close to crossing over
Even if the 3 fouled the 4 first, that doesn't exactly make the 9 not guilty.

[DrugSalvastore]

Had show betting not been allowed in this race...


Does anyone think the stewards still would have made the DQ?

Espeically for a rather incidental looking incident that had absolutley no affect on placings or the outcome.

[Ron]

Seeing that Baird didn't need to do what he did with Nicole's Dream and still would have won, I think the stewards made a solid call on this one, payout pandemonium notwithstanding.

That's my take on it all. Unfair to the public? Maybe, but it's about time some stewards' decisions take down winners and piss off some owners if there was some sort of unsafe violation.

And Cali stewards wouldn't have DQ'd her because of exactly what that previous poster said, "she would have won easily anyway". I love that logic.



Doesn't a disqualification happen only if the infraction changed the outcome of the race?

[JustRalph]

I got trashed a few weeks back for saying I don't play MNR because of all the monkey business that goes on there.................let me just say.........I am glad I didn't have any money in the pools there.
:lol:

[cj]

Monkey business or no, if you get back more than you put in on a regular basis, it is still worth playing.

I have seen calls nearly as bad in SoCal and NY, especially SoCal.

[ponyplayerdotca]

"Doesn't a disqualification happen only if the infraction changed the outcome of the race?" (originally posted by RON)

====

You're assuming the "outcome of the race" simply means the winner.

Remember, the #3 and #4 were really running for 2nd place and 2nd purse money (assuming they knew #9 would win, on paper at least).

But the #1 also beat the #3 and #4 due to the slight interference by #9 on them. The #3 and #4 could contend that they'd have beaten #1 for 2nd had they not been compromised.

Or at the very least, the #4 could have beaten the #3 for third if that horse had not been compromised by the #9.

So, did the infraction change the winner of the race? No. But it most certainly did change the outcome of the race. That's why I like this DQ. I know I'm in the minority.

Baird should have ridden wide, safe, and clean for an easy win. Instead, he pressed the issue unnecessarily and got taken down.

[njcurveball]

I may have missed someone saying this in the thread. But do you people realize the $100,000 to show will only return the bettor $105,000?

With the other money in the pool, the track was "on the line" for less than $5,000.

If they have Stewards that will compromise their integrity for much less than what they pay a field of maiden claimers, then perhaps the NTRA should just come in and put their own people in place there.

Also, someone said this is WHY they dont bet Mountaineer. I am thinking they must be the person who bet $100,000, since this decision definitely benefitted anyone smart enough to see the minus pool and bet against the horse.

If you can just hit one $25 ticket, that will make this a very profitable angle even if the horse is in the money over 90% of the time.

Seems like it was a bad call, so I hope there is some talk at the track and they review the whole situation.

I tend to agree that if it were a local horse, the stewards would have looked the other way.

Mountaineer doesn't like vultures coming in to take their money. Wayne Catalano found that out after he shipped there 2 years ago and won over 50% with his first batch of starters.

Somehow he went from winning 50% to something like 1 for his last 20. And many of them were favorites.

Something to be said about trying to beat the "locals". :bang:

[Buddha]

Instead, he pressed the issue unnecessarily and got taken down.

Do you honestly think the 4 had a shot at 2nd or 3rd? Do you honestly think that the 9 cut him off? I think that Ramgeet was checking from the 3 laying on him. From what I can see, there is no real evidence that the 9 came over too soon. Rivelli even said on TVG today that McFadden, who rode the 2 horse, and could have seen everything since he was in last or next to last got the raw end of the deal because Nicoles Dream didn't do anything wrong.

But do you people realize the $100,000 to show will only return the bettor $105,000?

Ah but you are mistaken :) In WV, or at least at MNR the minimum show payoff is 2.20, so it would have been 110,000 and also dont forget there are 2 other horses that have payouts as well, though not as much.

[Ron]

Ha, ha, Toups just blew that ride in the 9th today! He was probably too scared.

[njcurveball]

Show pool from an earlier post.

1: $600
2: $900
3: $3000
4: $1700
5: $1000

9: $132,000

Total pool = $139,200

Let's say the result stands 9-1-3

Winning $ = 135,600 that leaves $3,600 to pay back tickets

Mountaineer is on the line for 10% (with $2.20 minimum) which is $13,560.

So they have to pony up $9,900. That certainly isn't chump change, but this is a track that runs Maiden 5k claimers for $10,000.

In my eyes, the 10 grand means nothing in the decision, but who knows how the Management feels there? Some casino owners get nervous at losing $10,000 even though they "win" over 1 million a day.

Thanks for the tip on the $2.20 minimum, now it makes more sense why they tried to get this bet home in West Virginia.

best to you,
Jim


Total Pool =

[Buddha]

I know this is an old thread, and not sure if there is any way to verify, but I had a fairly reliable source tell me that after this race, there was the DQ obviously, but eventually, Nicoles Dream was awarded the win money.

If that is the case, the whole race was based on a suspicious DQ, and then the bettors were screwed out of their money as well.

[cj]

Yet another reason that DQs should be for purse money only, not betting.

[njcurveball]

I know this is an old thread, and not sure if there is any way to verify, but I had a fairly reliable source tell me that after this race, there was the DQ obviously, but eventually, Nicoles Dream was awarded the win money.

.

If this true, we simply have to find a horse who ran in the money in that race and their purse will be adjusted accordingly. I know many people have databases at their finger tips, so easy enough to look up. :ThmbUp:

[Buddha]

If this true, we simply have to find a horse who ran in the money in that race and their purse will be adjusted accordingly. I know many people have databases at their finger tips, so easy enough to look up. :ThmbUp:

The big problem with that is that I don't know if/when the change was officially made. Also, as far as I know, the results say DQed to 4th

[njcurveball]

The big problem with that is that I don't know if/when the change was officially made. Also, as far as I know, the results say DQed to 4th

No problem at all, since the money has to be on the horses record for 2006. It is very easy to look up the other entrants and see their earnings before the race and calculate from there.

The change HAS to be made with the horsemans bookkeeper. The other owners lose out their higher share of the purse and horses race record reflects that.

With data being able to be sliced "by track", it is easy to see how much was made at Mountaineer.

I will check it when I get time. With databases this stuff is a piece of cake! :ThmbUp:

[TEJAS KIDD]

OK, I'm hooked me into this debate again. Whether or not the DQ was justified, Mountaineer was not liable for the MINUS POOL caused by the show plunger. The conspiracy theory that MNR wanted to save money based on the minus pool is incorrect. They're may have been some home team ties to this DQ but not based on MINUS POOLS.

The money lost in a minus pool is the responsibility of the outlet taking the wager.

[GlenninOhio]

Mountaineer doesn't like vultures coming in to take their money. Wayne Catalano found that out after he shipped there 2 years ago and won over 50% with his first batch of starters.

Somehow he went from winning 50% to something like 1 for his last 20. And many of them were favorites.

Something to be said about trying to beat the "locals". :bang:

Also acknowledging this is an old thread, but I did want to point out that both Bernie Flint and Tom Amoss (mostly for owner Maggi Moss) have "off the charts" win percentages at The Mountain.

As for Flint, he regularly ships up horses that run completely out of their minds at MNR - performances they never approached in the past and never repeated in the future at other tracks.

One filly of his (Starleena) comes to mind in particular because she just about ruined a promising young filly of mine by running a 100 Beyer while winning a "never 4" allowance race by 10 lengths. She ran one more monster at MNR and was never remotely the same horse again. I just noticed that she brought $60K at the Keeneland broodmare sale.

I don't know what the deal is with Flint, but with Amoss it's almost always smart claims at Keeneland and Churchill that he spots perfectly (mostly in lifetime conditions allowances) at MNR.

[njcurveball]

As for Flint, he regularly ships up horses that run completely out of their minds at MNR - performances they never approached in the past and never repeated in the future at other tracks.

.

If this is the case, why are most of his horses going off favorites? All they need to do is duplicate existing form and they win 40% of the time. No secrets there.

[Buddha]

I don't know what the deal is with Flint, but with Amoss it's almost always smart claims at Keeneland and Churchill that he spots perfectly (mostly in lifetime conditions allowances) at MNR.

That is the case with almost all, if not all of the Moss/Amoss horses. She claims KY a lot, and brings them into easier lifetime allowance or claiming races where they can win easier, and get a decent paycheck.

[GlenninOhio]

If this is the case, why are most of his horses going off favorites? All they need to do is duplicate existing form and they win 40% of the time. No secrets there.

Not sure what your point is.

I was not suggesting that betting on Flint was a way to generate positive ROI.

Maybe I misinterpreted your previous remarks, but I thought you were suggesting that it was tough for "vultures" from out of town to take money from the locals.

All I'm saying is that Flint and Amoss do this on a regular basis.

[njcurveball]

As for Flint, he regularly ships up horses that run completely out of their minds at MNR - performances they never approached in the past and never repeated in the future at other tracks.



IF his horses are running "completely out of their minds", why are they usually the morning line favorites on previous form?

[GlenninOhio]

IF his horses are running "completely out of their minds", why are they usually the morning line favorites on previous form?

Ok, you're ignoring my main point once again, so I'll just assume that you concede that there are some "vulture" trainers who do in fact clean up at MNR.

As for your question, how do you presume to know exactly how the ML odds break down between "previous form" and "The Flint Factor?

Furthermore, the actual betting on Flint horses at MNR often far overtakes the ML odds. In the race I described in my first post to this thread, Starleena went off at 3-10. My guess is she was 8-5 or so on the ML.

[njcurveball]

This is what I get for Bernie Flint this year. Also, in the last 365 days he has run 58 horses at Mountaineer and won 17 races. The return is 77 cents for every dollar bet. That is worse than the takeout, a 23% loss.

Notice that over 50% of them are morning line favorites. Hardly making a case for horses "completely out of their minds ".

ML = Morning Line
AO = Actual Odds
AFIN = Actual Finish





ML AODD AFIN WIN$ DATE RACE
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- ----------
1.2 1 1 4 10-APR-07 6
6 2.8 2 0 21-APR-07 9
3.5 4.3 4 0 22-APR-07 6
1.6 1.9 1 5.8 30-APR-07 9
1 .9 6 0 06-MAY-07 1
8 6 2 0 12-MAY-07 10
3 6.5 3 0 14-MAY-07 8
4.5 4.6 1 11.2 15-MAY-07 9
4 3.2 3 0 20-MAY-07 8
3.5 2 3 0 20-MAY-07 9
3 1.5 5 0 25-MAY-07 8
2 1.7 5 0 28-MAY-07 1
3 2.4 1 6.8 28-MAY-07 8
4 4.9 3 0 29-MAY-07 8
5 2 2 0 29-MAY-07 9
3.5 1.6 6 0 01-JUN-07 6
2.5 .6 4 0 05-JUN-07 2
5 1.5 1 5 05-JUN-07 7
1.4 1.2 1 4.4 09-JUN-07 3
2 1.5 1 5 09-JUN-07 4
12 4.9 4 0 09-JUN-07 9
2.5 2.8 3 0 11-JUN-07 2
1.6 1.5 2 0 29-JUN-07 2
2 .4 1 2.8 08-JUL-07 1
2 .9 6 0 08-JUL-07 8
3.5 1.6 4 0 09-JUL-07 3
1.2 .7 1 3.4 22-JUL-07 8
2.5 4.3 5 0 24-JUL-07 4
1.6 .8 1 3.6 29-JUL-07 7
1.2 1 1 4 29-JUL-07 9
1 .5 3 0 30-JUL-07 9
4.5 4.9 2 0 04-AUG-07 4
4.5 4.9 3 0 04-AUG-07 4
2 1.3 2 0 05-AUG-07 9
.8 .3 1 2.6 27-AUG-07 3
3 3.2 1 8.4 11-SEP-07 8
2.5 .9 1 3.8 01-OCT-07 8
1.4 .6 1 3.2 06-OCT-07 1
1.6 1.1 2 0 06-OCT-07 8
4.5 2.1 7 0 07-OCT-07 7
3 6 3 0 07-OCT-07 9
3 2 2 0 08-OCT-07 8
2 1.7 2 0 08-OCT-07 9
2 .8 3 0 14-OCT-07 4
2 2 2 0 15-OCT-07 2
2 3.4 5 0 16-OCT-07 8
3.5 2.9 7 0 20-OCT-07 3
2 1.8 5 0 20-OCT-07 8
4.5 3.1 1 8.2 26-OCT-07 5
3 1.7 7 0 26-OCT-07 7
1.6 1.7 2 0 27-OCT-07 1
5 3.2 2 0 27-OCT-07 7
2.5 1.9 6 0 28-OCT-07 8





Here is Tom Amoss, much of the same! No profit to be made with these guys.



ML AODD AFIN WIN$ DATE RACE
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- ----------
2 2 3 0 02-APR-07 8
1 .4 1 2.8 07-APR-07 7
2 2.1 4 0 09-APR-07 8
1.6 1.3 1 4.6 16-APR-07 9
4.5 2.9 3 0 17-APR-07 8
1.2 .4 3 0 28-APR-07 9
2.5 1.2 1 4.4 30-APR-07 6
2.5 1.4 1 4.8 30-APR-07 8
2.5 .5 1 3 11-MAY-07 5
1.4 1.1 2 0 11-MAY-07 8
1.4 1.3 1 4.6 22-MAY-07 3
2.5 1.4 3 0 22-MAY-07 9
1.4 .4 1 2.8 25-MAY-07 7
3 2.2 3 0 26-MAY-07 8
1.8 .8 1 3.6 27-MAY-07 2
3.5 2.2 1 6.4 29-MAY-07 8
2.5 1.2 3 0 01-JUN-07 9
4 2.2 3 0 09-JUN-07 9
2 .7 1 3.4 19-JUN-07 8
4 2.3 2 0 19-JUN-07 9
2 1.7 8 0 29-JUN-07 8
2.5 .8 6 0 29-JUN-07 9
3 3.6 2 0 08-JUL-07 8
2 .8 2 0 10-JUL-07 8
1.4 .6 1 3.2 15-JUL-07 3
2 1.8 4 0 17-JUL-07 8
2 1.5 1 5 17-JUL-07 9
1.2 .9 3 0 21-JUL-07 8
2 .3 1 2.6 28-JUL-07 7
3 1.7 9 0 29-JUL-07 2
.6 .7 6 0 29-JUL-07 4
5 2.9 6 0 04-AUG-07 6
1.4 1.6 2 0 04-AUG-07 7
5 1.8 1 5.6 10-AUG-07 9
2.5 1.7 2 0 14-AUG-07 8
2 1.3 2 0 17-AUG-07 9
2.5 2.7 5 0 18-AUG-07 4
3.5 1.7 3 0 01-OCT-07 3
3 3 5 0 07-OCT-07 7
4.5 3.3 6 0 07-OCT-07 9
1.2 .5 1 3 08-OCT-07 4
5 4 9 0 08-OCT-07 9
3.5 3.4 6 0 09-OCT-07 7
1 .6 4 0 09-OCT-07 8
2 .9 2 0 14-OCT-07 9
5 3.8 2 0 22-OCT-07 9
2 2.3 2 0 23-OCT-07 9
1.6 1.6 1 5.2 02-NOV-07 8

[njcurveball]

I know this is an old thread, and not sure if there is any way to verify, but I had a fairly reliable source tell me that after this race, there was the DQ obviously, but eventually, Nicoles Dream was awarded the win money.

If that is the case, the whole race was based on a suspicious DQ, and then the bettors were screwed out of their money as well.

the winner of that race, Bluegrass Breeze does not show a race in my database for this year.

However, the 2nd place finisher, Electrical Carlita does, so by tracking her.

As of April 18,2007, no reversal of the order of finish

July 1, 2007, no reversal

September 25, 2007, still no reversal.

Maybe you can ask your "fairly reliable source" for more information. It is rare to never a stewards decision is reversed over a year after the race is official.

If you see Electrical Carlita in the entries check her recent races and the show box. As of this writing, she had 4 lifetime 3rds. If that number mysteriously flips to 5 without any 3rd place finishes in her PPs, then you can tell sometihng happened.