PDA

View Full Version : DQs and nonDQs


banacek
06-15-2008, 09:12 PM
Anyone see Hastings Race 8 today. Two horses head and head down the stretch the 6 (at 2-1) on the inside and the 7 (at 25-1) on the outside. Now the 7 took about a length lead just before the wire and then appears to come over on the 6 just a few yards before the wire, but far too late (I thought) to make any difference. I'm still waiting for the head-on view so I could be wrong.

The stewards kicked the 7 (at 25-1:mad: ) out.., so I'm not sure how much he bothered the 6, but my feeling is that it didn't matter.

Not to mention the inquiry not allowed in the first which I thought was blatant and basically cost a horse several lengths. (and affecting the results unlike the one in the 8th)

Not to mention the inquiry that booted out a prime 7-2 winner of mine in the 2nd race (but likely deserved, but no more so than the one in the 1st)

Sometimes I think they should just let them race and punish the jocks with suspensions - I have no idea how the stewards make their decisions.


Not to mention my 6-1 shot in the 6th who blew by the leaders going into the final turn, looked like a lock and then got caught by the same two horses he had just waltzed by.

Sorry its been a lousy day. And it is not true - a bad day at the races is not better than a good day doing anything else.

Just venting..venting..venting.

Any comments appreciated if you saw the race.

Tom Barrister
06-15-2008, 10:37 PM
All I can figure is that he was taken down for reckless/careless riding by Jayson Rodriguez. Not every jurisdiction uses "affect the outcome" as a criteria. Some will disqualify a horse for a blatant enough foul.

Imriledup
06-16-2008, 12:11 AM
There needs to be a rule at ALL tracks that horses who don't affect outcomes stay up.

If the judges know that a horse was either cost a placing or not, than THAT makes their decision for them. The more things we can put in place that make inquiries cut and dried, the better.

46zilzal
06-16-2008, 12:24 AM
I watched the replay of the first (and will look later at the other) and was a confused as you. In the first, the rail horse and subsequent winner, broke IN and then BORE OUT directly in the path of the 2 which had to check hard. WE ONLY SAW THAT on the replay so we got a skewed understanding of the race.
Walking out today I found Mike, one of the steward to explain that to me.

"You did not see the entire race as a new rule is in effect. The horse that had to be checked PASSED the rail horse down the back stretch and the one overtook him again to win late. When the ealier interference does not take the horse completelty out of the race (since 2 passed the one) then the interference did not take away altogether, the horses chances since he, in fact, did head the horse that fouled in later." The rider of the one (Gutierrez )however wiil get days/fined for careless riding but the result stayed.

What about the fact that the two horse had to "start up again" after being checked hard and the difference in that energy loss may have cost him the race? No answer: new rule.

That is a new way of viewing a DQ...Still confused oon that one since the backstretch aspect of the foul was NEVER explained or shown to the crowd.

46zilzal
06-16-2008, 01:14 AM
Just looked at the chart and now am more confused than before.

menifee
06-16-2008, 02:28 AM
Anyone see Hastings Race 8 today. Two horses head and head down the stretch the 6 (at 2-1) on the inside and the 7 (at 25-1) on the outside. Now the 7 took about a length lead just before the wire and then appears to come over on the 6 just a few yards before the wire, but far too late (I thought) to make any difference. I'm still waiting for the head-on view so I could be wrong.

The stewards kicked the 7 (at 25-1:mad: ) out.., so I'm not sure how much he bothered the 6, but my feeling is that it didn't matter.

Not to mention the inquiry not allowed in the first which I thought was blatant and basically cost a horse several lengths. (and affecting the results unlike the one in the 8th)

Not to mention the inquiry that booted out a prime 7-2 winner of mine in the 2nd race (but likely deserved, but no more so than the one in the 1st)

Sometimes I think they should just let them race and punish the jocks with suspensions - I have no idea how the stewards make their decisions.


Not to mention my 6-1 shot in the 6th who blew by the leaders going into the final turn, looked like a lock and then got caught by the same two horses he had just waltzed by.

Sorry its been a lousy day. And it is not true - a bad day at the races is not better than a good day doing anything else.

Just venting..venting..venting.

Any comments appreciated if you saw the race.


Hey, I saw Hastings Race 8. I was very angry during this race, because I liked the 7, but the odds scared me. In any event, the 7 was clearly the best and they should have never taken him down. He was much the best in the race. He did come over on the second place horse, but it was right at the wire and it did not cost the second place horse a placing. I don't even think they have a head on camera at Hastings, because they did not show that view.

After watching a ton of races, I think I've come to the conclusion that stewards should not interfere with the placings as they cross the line. There are no clear rules, the stewards at each track handle things differently, and there is a lot of money at stake which the stewards redistribute willy nilly. If you want to ensure safety, just have mandatory strong suspensions for jockeys that break the rules, but you should not punish the bettor. In any event that was a ridiculous takedown.

trying2win
06-16-2008, 05:12 AM
Banacek:

Yeah! I happened to watch that 8th race at Hastings Park for Sun. June 15/08, on a monitor out at Northlands Park. I was sitting at table with a friend, who had the number 6 and 7 horses both ways in an exactor box on that race. Needless to say, he wasn't happy with the judges decision in the inquiry after the race. It cost him a lot of money, even though he still won a smaller amount on the 6 - 7 exactor adjusted finish.

I didn't have a bet on that race myself, nevertheless, I disagreed with the judges decision to disqualify the number 7 horse as the winner, thus changing the order of the first two finishers. I thought the order should have stayed the same as the original finish, but with a fine and/or suspension on the rider of the number 6 horse for careless riding.

The number 6 horse looked like it was well beaten before the number 7 horse drifted over in front of him just before the wire. On a closer look at the finish of the race, it appears the jockey on the number 6 horse stood up in the irons, because he got startled by the sudden drifting over by the number 7 horse just before the wire. Perhaps the judges have a rule somewhere that " It doesn't matter if a horse is clearly beaten in the stretch of a race, if the passing horse causes clear interference, then the interfering horse will be set back in the order of finish in some way". Anyone wanting to review the replay of the race, can look at the video at this site and form their own opinion:

http://www.hastingspark.com/racing/replays/2008/


T2W

46zilzal
06-16-2008, 12:17 PM
http://www.hastingspark.com/racing/replays/2008/


Good camera work by Don and Diane.

banacek
06-16-2008, 12:20 PM
What about the fact that the two horse had to "start up again" after being checked hard and the difference in that energy loss may have cost him the race? No answer: new rule.


Exactly. Say that a need to lead horse has that happen, then he charges up on the backstretch and passes the offending horse..so everything is evened out?

The main point is that what happened in the first likely had a large effect on the 2 horse (and the outcome). What happened in the 8th was meaningless in the outcome of the race.

46zilzal
06-16-2008, 12:27 PM
There have been a ton of frivolous jockey claims. back lash?

The stewards, traditionally, are very conservative in their calls and play it very close to the rules.

gemcity39
06-16-2008, 10:05 PM
You want to see stewards who are clueless, just watch Los Alamitos. QH races you swerve in and out, horses get taken up, etc., then if you're Paul Jones or Adan Farias, no change, if the fouling horse even looks mean at one of the horses trained by those 2, you're coming down. They are so inconsistent, and the "shills" for the track on TVG just babble away how that's a tough call constantly. They allowed a rider to hit another horse in the face last October, no change, said the second horse wouldn't have won anyway, what?...left a horse out of the gate in race 1, so too bad, you get no refund, just the favorite in the pick 4, and on and on.Stewards are answerable to no one, they just make silly, arbitrary rulings. There needs to be a clear, same for every state set of rules. You don't have different rules by state in football, basketball,(Well maybe in the NBA), baseball, etc. Rules should be the rules.

46zilzal
06-17-2008, 12:24 PM
Funny thing happened when I reviewed the Hasting's races. When the camera goes to split screen, the director usually cuts out anything below the rail (back stretch). As I slowed down the shot of a race, BOOM, low and behold I saw myself (first time too) in the frame as the field went by.

I have to talk with that director as my Screen Actor's Guild card is not up to date (if it every was).

menifee
06-17-2008, 02:30 PM
You want to see stewards who are clueless, just watch Los Alamitos. QH races you swerve in and out, horses get taken up, etc., then if you're Paul Jones or Adan Farias, no change, if the fouling horse even looks mean at one of the horses trained by those 2, you're coming down. They are so inconsistent, and the "shills" for the track on TVG just babble away how that's a tough call constantly. They allowed a rider to hit another horse in the face last October, no change, said the second horse wouldn't have won anyway, what?...left a horse out of the gate in race 1, so too bad, you get no refund, just the favorite in the pick 4, and on and on.Stewards are answerable to no one, they just make silly, arbitrary rulings. There needs to be a clear, same for every state set of rules. You don't have different rules by state in football, basketball,(Well maybe in the NBA), baseball, etc. Rules should be the rules.

AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY - I DON'T BET LOS AL ANYMORE BECAUSE OF THIS.

HuggingTheRail
06-18-2008, 02:36 AM
Funny thing happened when I reviewed the Hasting's races. When the camera goes to split screen, the director usually cuts out anything below the rail (back stretch). As I slowed down the shot of a race, BOOM, low and behold I saw myself (first time too) in the frame as the field went by.

I have to talk with that director as my Screen Actor's Guild card is not up to date (if it every was).

Careful, you may be blamed for Big Brown losing! :D

In all seriousness, I was shocked the winner of the 1st didn't come down, and I didnt know of this new rule. I hope this race causes them to re-think the rule.

The 8th race was a toughie...the horse on the outside appears to be crowding the rail horse from about the old 6F start point...right near the 1/16th pole. I think it was a sum effect of trouble over the final 1/16th, not a specific instance during that timeframe that caused the DQ. That said, I have seen a lot worse go unpunished over the years at Hastings