Aqueducts 3rd race 3/15

[cj's dad]

This race had the #4 Carolyns Cat completely destroy the #2 coming out of the gate. The #2 was hit so hard that I am amazed that she stayed up. the jock on the #2 was hit twice in the nose by his mounts neck and ended up finishing last by 33 lengths; it was a miracle that she even finished the race.

There was a stewards inquiry and everyone @ Laurel was saying that the #4 would come down. I said that if this horse did not come down then no other horse should ever be DQ'd. She did not come down. The golden boy- Alan Garcia was on the 4.

I would like to hear any opinion from those who have seen this that justifies the #4 not being DQ'd.

[The Bit]

Another reason why this game sucks … (http://horseracingtalk.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/another-reason-why-this-game-sucks/)

Want another reason why this game sucks and we can’t get anyone new interested? Go watch race 3 at the Big A today and watch a head on if you can. The race winner, #4 Carolyn’s Cat comes out of the gate, veers right and completely eliminated #2 Throbbin’ Heart. Throbbin’ Heart almost falls down she was hit so hard, yet they looked at it twice and made the race official.

How can you take horses down for slight incidents in the stretch yet leave this horse up after she completely eliminated another opponent. And I mean eliminate.

--------------

That is from my blog, the link is below.

[cj's dad]

Another reason why this game sucks … (http://horseracingtalk.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/another-reason-why-this-game-sucks/)

Want another reason why this game sucks and we can’t get anyone new interested? Go watch race 3 at the Big A today and watch a head on if you can. The race winner, #4 Carolyn’s Cat comes out of the gate, veers right and completely eliminated #2 Throbbin’ Heart. Throbbin’ Heart almost falls down she was hit so hard, yet they looked at it twice and made the race official.

How can you take horses down for slight incidents in the stretch yet leave this horse up after she completely eliminated another opponent. And I mean eliminate.

--------------

That is from my blog, the link is below.

I swear I am going to give long hard consideration as to whether i stay in this game after this race inquiry. If this horse doesn't come down, who will ever ??? If you didn't see this, find it somewhere, anywhere and watch the replay and please reply.

[Tom]

I saw it, because it was on HRTV, and I thought to myself, "Oh, NYRA. the black and white track. I remember when they had class racing there."
Must be they let the new govenor be steward for a day today! :lol:

[Murph]

Makes it hard for me to believe that the NTRA is willing to do anything horseplayers would suggest. We aren't allowed to bet by the same rules from race to race. Horseplayers have long asked for consistent application of rulings. Yet another major proken piece of the game.

[The Bit]

I'd say that we should send this link or email them asking for answers but I'm not foolish enough to think that they care about what the people who keep them in business think.

[john del riccio]

I swear I am going to give long hard consideration as to whether i stay in this game after this race inquiry. If this horse doesn't come down, who will ever ??? If you didn't see this, find it somewhere, anywhere and watch the replay and please reply.

There was a day where NY racing was th eabsolute standard by which every other venue was measured with respect to the stweards calls and a straight path is required, no questions asked, or you are coming down.

Now, its a free for all, but NO PLACE is as bad as CT, they may as well using bumper cars !

John

[Spendabuck85]

I agree that there should have been a DQ.
With that being said here is a comment from the NY Post today:
Stewards posted inquiry into start, let result stand, ruling that bumping came right after break and that Elliott said his filly "didn't have her feet underneath her."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03162008/sports/through_the_binocs_102229.htm

[the little guy]

Here's the problem as I see it.....the Stewards, pretty much everywhere, let fouls at the gate go. I am not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with this strategy but I think everyone here understands this to be the case. So, yesterday a gate incident caused a rider to fall off. If the same bump " merely " knocked the horse off stride, and I watch many start head-ons carefully and see worse bumps all the time, then they wouldn't even have looked at it. However, because a rider fell off they looked at the films. Personally, I don't think they can adjudicate an incident differently because of what results. An incident is either a punishable foul or it isn't.

IMO, gate incidents have a far bigger impact on the running of races than pretty much any of the seemingly obvious incidents people see during races. Bumpings and steadies coming out of the gate cause horses to lose significant tactical positioning that is exacerbated in the early way a race unfolds. However, because of the calamity that can occur when many thoroughbreds break together in close proximity at the gate, it is in many ways unfair to " blame " one participant. It's a far trickier situation than I believe many think, and while it is easy to say, like yesterday's incident, that a foul caused an obvious elimination, I think there is a bigger picture that always should be taken into account. Now, I am not sure that bigger picture is necessarily " always " taken into account by stewards during the running of a race, but I do understand why they made yesterday's decision....whether any of us agree or disagree.

[asH]

It appeared to me that Garcia's intentions was to get the rail at all cost, for that his horse should have been DQ'ed, and he given days. Asmussen should be pissed...hope the horse is ok, had it worst than War Pass

did Elliott claim foul? because he did make a non call in the 6th

[NY BRED]

I would like to hear any opinion from those who have seen this that justifies the #4 not being DQ'd. [/QUOTE]



I recently stated how inefficient and apparently corrupt the Stewards have
become when this very Jock issued an objection several weeks ago and should have been placed first in a race in which he was clearly fouled
that ulimately cost me serious $$.

TVG televised the head on from the gate and it is insane "Carolyn"
wasn"t dq'd yesterday.

I again make this request: have an independent party monitor these
races to give the public,and owners a fair chance.

Otherwise, damn it, why aren't the owners protesting and/or litigating
as payback??

[onefast99]

It appeared to me that Garcia's intentions was to get the rail at all cost, for that his horse should have been DQ'ed, and he given days. Asmussen should be pissed...hope the horse is ok, had it worst than War Pass

did Elliott claim foul? because he did make a non call in the 6th
The non-call in the 6th was pure race riding. He checked about 20 yards from the wire there was no reason for a claim of foul.

[asH]

The non-call in the 6th was pure race riding. He checked about 20 yards from the wire there was no reason for a claim of foul.

I agree,

[asH]

The non-call in the 6th was pure race riding. He checked about 20 yards from the wire there was no reason for a claim of foul.

funny thing about that objection, stewards took about 5 minutes to off the objection lights, when there was clearly no foul... jock objections in NY rarely get a second look... 5 min.??

[cj's dad]

Here's the problem as I see it.....the Stewards, pretty much everywhere, let fouls at the gate go. I am not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with this strategy but I think everyone here understands this to be the case. So, yesterday a gate incident caused a rider to fall off. If the same bump " merely " knocked the horse off stride, and I watch many start head-ons carefully and see worse bumps all the time, then they wouldn't even have looked at it. However, because a rider fell off they looked at the films. Personally, I don't think they can adjudicate an incident differently because of what results. An incident is either a punishable foul or it isn't.

IMO, gate incidents have a far bigger impact on the running of races than pretty much any of the seemingly obvious incidents people see during races. Bumpings and steadies coming out of the gate cause horses to lose significant tactical positioning that is exacerbated in the early way a race unfolds. However, because of the calamity that can occur when many thoroughbreds break together in close proximity at the gate, it is in many ways unfair to " blame " one participant. It's a far trickier situation than I believe many think, and while it is easy to say, like yesterday's incident, that a foul caused an obvious elimination, I think there is a bigger picture that always should be taken into account. Now, I am not sure that bigger picture is necessarily " always " taken into account by stewards during the running of a race, but I do understand why they made yesterday's decision....whether any of us agree or disagree.

Heres the problem as I see it. Once this incident occurred, the #2 had no chance of winning the race let alone hitting the board. How do you not eliminate the #4 Carolyns Cat for completely taking away an opponents chance of winning?? I didn't bet the #2 but how is that fair to others who may have done so?

[cj]

Once the rider of the 2 basically said don't worry about it, what could they do? Talking with the jockeys is just stupid anyway, in my opinion.

[cj's dad]

Once the rider of the 2 basically said don't worry about it, what could they do? Talking with the jockeys is just stupid anyway, in my opinion.

I know that you have been doing this longer than me but I have not seen a worse incident where the horse in question was not DQ'd. And Stewart Elliot is by no means a rocket scientist. He may not even be aware that he was interfered with; only kidding. But what the hell does he have to do with the stewards decision?? They need him to tell them what was obvious to the naked eye?? Furthermore, I am sick and Go- Dam- tired of hearing how gate infractions are considered insignificant!! This was a 6 frlg. race. It's not like the #2 had time to recover from getting wiped out. Officially, he did finish last by 33 lengths. Gee, that happens a lot!!

Disclaimer- This failure to DQ the #4 cost me approx. $500. I would however be almost as adamant if I had "no dog in the fight".

[the little guy]

Heres the problem as I see it. Once this incident occurred, the #2 had no chance of winning the race let alone hitting the board. How do you not eliminate the #4 Carolyns Cat for completely taking away an opponents chance of winning?? I didn't bet the #2 but how is that fair to others who may have done so?


The stewards have made it clear that horses are not accountable for what they do in the few seconds following the start. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this....it is however the case. A bump cannot be deemed as punishable by the actions it causes.....in other words if a horse is steadied it is OK but if a rider falls off or a horse falls down it isn't. If they took that horse down yesterday there should be disqualifications on a daily basis. Is that what we all want? I know I don't.

My biggest gripe with the stewards has absolutely nothing to do with how they adjudicate fouls. I would vote for no disqualifications that punish bettors if I had that choice. Very few of the disqualifications correct the finish properly. I play NY everyday and frankly think that overall the stewards do a good job in their decisions involving foul claims.....especially since Dave Hicks retired.

I can understand the argument that says the winner should have been disqualified yesterday. But I also understand why she wasn't.

[asH]

The stewards have made it clear that horses are not accountable for what they do in the few seconds following the start..

I believe we all understand the rule, but for me when a jockey deliberately angles his horse towards the rail in an effort to gain the rail, cutting a path of destruction in his wake (yeah maybe a bit much) , then all bets should be off. Garcia was in control, he aimed for the rail and got the rail ahead of Dominguez. His intent was the rail from the beginning.

[the little guy]

I believe we all understand the rule, but for me when a jockey deliberately angles his horse towards the rail in an effort to gain the rail, cutting a path of destruction in his wake (yeah maybe a bit much) , then all bets should be off. Garcia was in control, he aimed for the rail and got the rail ahead of Dominguez. His intent was the rail from the beginning.


You are stating your opinion as though it is fact.

[cees with dees]

I never saw the head on, probably because I didn't bet the race.
From the pan, it's hard to tell anything except for the fact that the 2 had big trouble.
My biggest problem with the stewards in NY is their inconsistency.
There have been few if any DQ's this winter meet and thats the way it should be.
In this case though if the winner did in fact foul the 2 at the start, it certainly would have changed the race outcome. In my opinion.
If Carolyn would have had to chase outside, I think she's nowhere.
Bottom line, glad I didn't bet the race. For those who did and lost, chalk it up as one of many bad beats to be experienced in this lifetime.
Enjoy the extended weekend. (For Us).
Ben

[asH]

You are stating your opinion as though it is fact.


deduction my dear Watson



did you look at the head on...you tell me, Garcia took a straight line (actually lika a 45 degree) to the rail from the gate...what were his intentions?? previous encounters between some of these added a premium to the rail position.

[the little guy]

deduction my dear Watson



did you look at the head on...you tell me, Garcia took a straight line (actually lika a 45 degree) to the rail from the gate...what were his intentions?? previous encounters between some of these added a premium to the rail position.


You have a skewed version of the truth in this situation....to say the very least.

I watch every head-on from NY. I watched this one yesterday and watched it ten more times after your post. I would like everyone on this site to watch the break numerous times and please tell me how one can determine anything close to what you are suggesting in the split second it took from the break to the bump.

I can't say for sure there wasn't a foul. But, I also know very clearly that I can't say for sure there was one. I can't say 100% that Dill or No Dill didn't herd the eventual winner a bit after the break. It all happened so fast it's near impossible to tell. Thank God the stewards aren't making speculative judgements of the kind that would have been necessary to have DQ'd the winner. Of that I am certain.

[asH]

draw parallel lines from the gate at the start of the race down the track, try not to focus so much on the horses, tell me what you see.

[the little guy]

Thanks. I know how to watch races.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I am personally glad that horses aren't being disqualified in NY on what might have happened. It's hard enough to win.

[asH]

how bout this one

how many strides did it take for Garcia's horse to get to the rail from the opening of the gate.

[the little guy]

how bout this one

how many strides did it take for Garcia's horse to get to the rail from the opening of the gate.


What could that possibly have to do with the foul?

Considering the strength of the rail for much of this inner meet I wish every horse I bet was aggressively taken to the rail. The funny thing is that Garcia has shown less of an urgency to get to the rail than almost any rider out there.

[asH]

intent

[Semipro]

A rose is a rose,a turd is a turd, a foul is a foul that was a foul and the horse should be DQed.A sense of fairness and justice to the bettor is betrayed in these situations.:ThmbDown:

[eastie]

What could that possibly have to do with the foul?

Considering the strength of the rail for much of this inner meet I wish every horse I bet was aggressively taken to the rail. The funny thing is that Garcia has shown less of an urgency to get to the rail than almost any rider out there.

It seem like the bug boy Morales knows the rail is good. Are you advising him personally TLG ? He seems to be as clever as you. I know you must be on him already.

[the little guy]

It seem like the bug boy Morales knows the rail is good. Are you advising him personally TLG ? He seems to be as clever as you. I know you must be on him already.

He has obviously been advised by adherents to the sheets....which is working as long as this insane bias continues to exist....and so many other riders are clueless.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

The good news? The main track opens in a week.

[slewis]

Heres the problem as I see it. Once this incident occurred, the #2 had no chance of winning the race let alone hitting the board. How do you not eliminate the #4 Carolyns Cat for completely taking away an opponents chance of winning?? I didn't bet the #2 but how is that fair to others who may have done so?

What everyone's missing here is that horses dont necessarily come out of the gate straight and orderly and that's just part of the "gambling" aspect of gambling. The only way you can ever take horses down due to a wipe out at the start is when they wipe out a significant number of horses (like 4, 5 or 6 when they make a turn which wipes out the field.
Other than that, if on the film the jock makes a reasonable effort to straighten his mount and there is no sign that it was done intentionally, it's just bad luck to those who bet the victim (horse)

[slewis]

The stewards have made it clear that horses are not accountable for what they do in the few seconds following the start. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this....it is however the case. A bump cannot be deemed as punishable by the actions it causes.....in other words if a horse is steadied it is OK but if a rider falls off or a horse falls down it isn't. If they took that horse down yesterday there should be disqualifications on a daily basis. Is that what we all want? I know I don't.

My biggest gripe with the stewards has absolutely nothing to do with how they adjudicate fouls. I would vote for no disqualifications that punish bettors if I had that choice. Very few of the disqualifications correct the finish properly. I play NY everyday and frankly think that overall the stewards do a good job in their decisions involving foul claims.....especially since Dave Hicks retired.

I can understand the argument that says the winner should have been disqualified yesterday. But I also understand why she wasn't.

Hey buddy,

Here's an idea that's LONG overdue. (Knowing what a great relationship you have with NYRA in comparison to mine)
Every MAJOR sport has a rule book.
Racing in NY (and in general) is in DIRE need of rule clarification and a rule book, posted online, sold at track, and advertized through a series of PR messages in between races is just what we need. This type of innovation could move NYRA in the right direction in the eyes of racing fans.
By having the stewards clarify the criteria they use for different DQ's (i.e. a horse whipped in the face) and explaining the voting process they partake in to come to these decisions would make gamblers feel better about the very difficult job they have.
Gamblers need to understand that many situations are not clear cut and overlap into a "gray area", like starting gate mishaps. The most important thing in these "gray area" decisions is consistancy.
This is where the decisions, I find, can often be inconsistant from week to week leaving a bad taste on everyone's palette.
Our entire legal system is based on "precedent" and "balance of scales" and the stewards should be using the same/similar criteria in making decisions.
An official detailed rule book written by the stewards and jocks and approved by the NYRA board AND made available to the public will make many of these decisions easier for the general public to deal with, and probably give the stewards a good reference guide to review when there's a "close call".