SA - Race 6 Jan 21

[beertapper]

Well, I had a win bet on Spankey come home (#6), so I was disappointed to say the least when he was DQ'ed.. What I don't get is why he was disqualified, and why he ran sideways or at least awkwardly down the stretch ??

[DJofSD]

When he lugged out coming into the stretch, he took up the path of the 11 horse.

Gerry will likely get 3 days for not keeping his mount straight.

[nativenova]

It was ashame they took him down,especially the way he ran that race and still able to win ,clearly the best horse in that field today ,only to be DQ to second,only problem next time he runs he will be 3/5

[DJofSD]

Too bad we don't have TRAKUS at SAX. Looked like he ran an extra 1/2 furlong especially if you see the head on shot. Once he got the horse going again, for a reason I can only guess, he angled towards the rail instead of just running him like they do at Louisana Downs -- down the middle of the track!

[speedking]

There was a lot more confusion, bumping and taking up in that race than that. The stewards, once again, took the quickest and easiest way out.


speedking

[DJofSD]

I saw the 11 bump the horse on his inside coming to the wire.

Trevor announced there were two claims of foul. I figured it was against 6 and then the 11 bumping the horse on his inside as he drifted inwards. But then it was announced both claims were disallowed. So, I guess the stewards inquiry was for the obvious interference with the 6 and 11 and that resulted in the DQ. What the other two riders complained about is beyond me. Maybe that short priced 3 horse felt he was interferred with down the stretch. Who knows? Maybe some one that was on track, that could see which jockies were on the phone with the stewards might shed some light.

[freehouse2002]

I was at the track and the claims of foul actually came from the jocks of the 10 and 12. The 11 clearly bumped the 10 nearing the wire, but I guess it was disallowed as it didn't affect the order of finish. I thought there should've been a double dq, but who am I to say....I'm not a steward :bang:



freehouse2002

[skate]

I was at the track and the claims of foul actually came from the jocks of the 10 and 12. The 11 clearly bumped the 10 nearing the wire, but I guess it was disallowed as it didn't affect the order of finish. I thought there should've been a double dq, but who am I to say....I'm not a steward :bang:



freehouse2002

i agree 100%, should have takin them both down, after the six cut off the #11, the #11 cuts off the rest of the field.

hey, but nice hit with the 6,11.

[Suff]

What I don't get is why he was disqualified, and why he ran sideways or at least awkwardly down the stretch ??

Young horse's frequently run awkardly in the stretch. Refered to as running greenly. Many times its caused by plain immaturity, or they get distracted if they're on the lead and start looking around, or just veer in or out for no apparent reason.

Trainers will add Blinkers in attempt to keep the horse focused in the stretch.

This 3 time starter had Blinkers in all three starts. He may not be adjusting well to them. In this case, trainers will poke two small holes in them to ease the sight restriction just enough to prevent what happened today.

Paddock watchers pick up on this stuff, or people that have barn notes get this kind of information. Good Paddock watchers will watch a horse like this that may have been racing FULL CUP blinkers, and show up in the paddock with HALF CUP blinkers next race, but there will be no notation in the form about an equipment change.

This guy's a bet because he's good. He won't sneek past anyone no matter what he does. But if you take notes on races..... particulary maidens that race erractic at a big number, give an equipment change a 2nd look.

Blinkers are also used to help a horse get away from the gate cleaner as well.

[skate]

im not surprised, that was a good post.


and this is nto totake from your good points, thanks.

im going to look at the race again. from what i recall, the reason the 6 and 11 won the race, was because the 11 took out the field. now the stew, didnt see things that way, ok ,fine.
but from what i remembers sistinkly, im gonna watch for the upcome race, with either the #3 and/or #10. #10 might really be a nicey.

#3-time squared
#10- Pointing star
#6-spankey come home
#11-tiago
#100-skate

[rrpic6]

im gonna watch for the upcome race, with either the #3 and/or #10. #10 might really be a nicey.

#3-time squared
#10- Pointing star
#6-spankey come home
#11-tiago
#100-skate

Both the 3,6 and 10 came out of the same race. The 10 clipped heels early in that race and made a nice closing move. Two races , two nightmare trips. I keyed both 3 and 10 in ALL my bets yesterday, so I'm not in a good mood.:mad:

[GMB@BP]

I bet Tiago and if that was not interference at the top of the stretch then I really should get out of this game, the dq winner was best but you cant do what he did...............

now that being said anyone who bets this "freak" horse next out or singles him at 3/5 is a sucker and has no clue. this is no great steed but just another magical move by "sneaky" sal gonzales who pulls this crap all the time. my money is there is a better chance this horse is dead in the near future then he is a legitimate race horse.

[Greyfox]

I was wondering about that race myself. There is no question that # 6 Spankey went wide and impeded the # 11.
Then I thought that # 11 may have interfered with # 3 the favorite.
What I am in awe about though is:
1. How far Spankey ran in this race and then was able to pass the others at the wire.
2. It looked like Spankey was almost brought to a complete stop from 8 or 9 lengths behind the other runners. Then from wide out he took off again and passed them at the wire.
3. The thought crossed my mind that had he not gone wide, he would have won by a possibly 25 lengths.
4. The thought also crossed my mind that maybe he was "stimulated' by something that caused him to run "blind" around the turn for home.
5. My money says that Spankey will not duplicate that performance again and he'll likely be bet down next time out.

I can't recall seeing anything quite like that performance. Neither could the bettors around me. Truly puzzling.

[skate]

greyfox;



i would not disagree with what you said.

im going to look again, but what i remember was that when the #11 came back to/and in front of the field, what he caused was a reaction from the field.

their reaction from the slowing down of #11 caused them to slow, that why the 2 jocks filed complant. hence the #6 was continuing, although wide, while the others were slowing.

i was glad, not to be the stews, on that call. but i guess they gave the #11 a reprieve, cause of the problem from the #6.

[rrpic6]

i was glad, not to be the stews, on that call. but i guess they gave the #11 a reprieve, cause of the problem from the #6.

I doubt that was the case. Its sooo hard to figure the SoCal Stewards. That race reminded me of one about 10 years ago. The numbers involved were 11, 2 and 5. Can't remember jocks or horses, i think one was ridden by Kent D., who usually got involved in crazy, wild rides. In the stretch, 2 is leading, 11 closes from the right, drifts in towards the 2, jock on 2 loses irons, drifts to his left, causing 5 to check who is closing on the rail. 11 loses action after veering into 2. 2 wins race (jock out of irons still). Original order is 2-11-5. Stewards rule 2 cut off 5 in the stretch. New order, 11-5-2. I remember this as I had 2 and 5 in a Pick 6. Would have had 5 of 6 that day for about a grand.

[Greyfox]

The bottom line is:

Coming around the turn for home # 6 goes wide.
Doing so, he took # 11 wide as well. Interference, yes.
As a result of that interference, # 6 cannot finish ahead of # 11 Tiago.

Then # 11 Tiago, maneuvering inwards, somehow, goes on to win the race.
He may have interfered with others, he may not have.
# 6 ran up, again, from an almost impossible position and from a near stop,
actually "won" the race.
The only horse that it interfered with was # 11 Tiago.
Since # 6 impeded # 11, the case was clear for
# 11 to win over the # 6.
If # 11 had interfered with anyothers, it too might
have been taken down. In the judges opinion, it didn't and
it wasn't. Had # 11 been taken down, then the third and fourth finishers
might have been placed 1 st and 2 nd.
The bottom line that remains is:
How was # 6 ever able to run so far?
How was it able to catch the other front runners after
coming to an almost dead halt?
If, without a "stimulant" (internal or external)
of some type, this would be your
next Derby winner. Yes. I have my major doubts.
I wouldn't bet this one next out.

[GMB@BP]

at this point I think Tiago is a more talented horse then his brother, so he may have a future

[skate]

I doubt that was the case. Its sooo hard to figure the SoCal Stewards. That race reminded me of one about 10 years ago. The numbers involved were 11, 2 and 5. Can't remember jocks or horses, i think one was ridden by Kent D., who usually got involved in crazy, wild rides. In the stretch, 2 is leading, 11 closes from the right, drifts in towards the 2, jock on 2 loses irons, drifts to his left, causing 5 to check who is closing on the rail. 11 loses action after veering into 2. 2 wins race (jock out of irons still). Original order is 2-11-5. Stewards rule 2 cut off 5 in the stretch. New order, 11-5-2. I remember this as I had 2 and 5 in a Pick 6. Would have had 5 of 6 that day for about a grand.

usually i start chewing on the table, and from what you say, id still be chewing on the table.

[GMB@BP]

at this point I think Tiago is a more talented horse then his brother, so he may have a future

ok, the sun shines on even my pathetic ass once in a while.....i beat pletcher as well, does not get much better then that.