Belmont Race 1 DQ

[Onion Monster]

I had Diamond Tough, so I'm very biased, but what do you all think?

Diamond Tough drifted badly, but did it cost Ectoplasm the race?

[DeanT]

It cost me a score, so no bias here. I was not surprised he was taken down. Fair call.

[DeanT]

PS: All I ask for as a horseplayer is consistency. And if the infraction affects the outcome. If the seven lost by four or something and they tossed the two, then I would be upset.

[46zilzal]

I had Diamond Tough, so I'm very biased, but what do you all think?

Diamond Tough drifted badly, but did it cost Ectoplasm the race?
No, that one was done midstretch and was not gaining late in the drive no matter the path.

[HUSKER55]

I had diamond tough and I do not believe it affected the outcome. But it looks like my opinion is not with the stewards. But I am curious if anyone knows the answer.


I always thought that horses had a "herd" mentality. They like to "run together". Diamond Tough just kept going to the outside and it does not appear, (to me), that the jockey had any control at all to stop it. Is that a training flaw or something else?

Thanks

husker55

[cj's dad]

No, that one was done midstretch and was not gaining late in the drive no matter the path.


Agreed-the #7 had no chance of winning; therefore I feel it was a poor call. Luzzi vs. apprentice?? -reversal was a given

Luzzi vs. Prado or the like?? no take down IMO

[Marshall Bennett]

The horse crossed over and shutdown the 7 . Couldn't be more plain and simple . My only question was why it took them so long to make the change .

[46zilzal]

The horse crossed over and shutdown the 7 . Couldn't be more plain and simple . My only question was why it took them so long to make the change .
Shut DOWN??? Hardly...No one was checked or even steadied.

Bothered? possibly as the stewards saw it that way.

And when does drifting over a 1/16th become crossing over?

[Onion Monster]

It looks like an iffy call. I'm glad I'm not delusional.

BTW, speed has done very well thus far. It's a shame the bulk of the remainder is on grass. Just when I figure out a bias, they switch surfaces.

[46zilzal]

It looks like an iffy call. I'm glad I'm not delusional.

BTW, speed has done very well thus far. It's a shame the bulk of the remainder is on grass. Just when I figure out a bias, they switch surfaces.
Speed is the UNIVERSAL track bias: degrees of it are there EVERYDAY.

[BUD]

ok after race #5 belmont....now i agree and think the stewarts suck and are not consistent...
ah..what do i know....i'm sure they think i suck too...

but young sanchez looked like he was playing football with the horse...
dummies....but it paid well....but being new...sh1t like this today confuses the hell outta me

[Onion Monster]

Consistency? They just left Codeword up after he knocked Cosmic sideways in the stretch.

[BUD]

yep...race #6 with the rulings they been handing down...That outcome pre inquiry...I hit nice.......Now like when I play hockey its time for the make up calls.....

Oh well.....maybe if young rudy r spoke the kings english well...maybe his 2nd would stand......

Unless the jockeys are getting ready for camp... I believe the Gaints start next week in the lovely:lol: city..or town...local of Albany..

[the little guy]

Let's see.....I wasn't involved in the 1st race and if they left that horse up it might have been borderline criminal. It could not have been a more blatant and obvious DQ.

I was involved in the 5th, I needed the winner to come down so that I could hit the Pick-4, and while Codeword did commit a technical foul, he did not affect the finish, and was justifiably left up.

Every call is not a bad call. The stewards got it right at Belmont today.

[onefast99]

Let's see.....I wasn't involved in the 1st race and if they left that horse up it might have been borderline criminal. It could not have been a more blatant and obvious DQ.

I was involved in the 5th, I needed the winner to come down so that I could hit the Pick-4, and while Codeword did commit a technical foul, he did not affect the finish, and was justifiably left up.

Every call is not a bad call. The stewards got it right at Belmont today.
Agree! Contessas horse came out on the 7 and that caused the 7 to alter course and go to the inside of the 7, the 7 lost by a length and that altering of course was worth at least a length or two. No problem with that call.

[aaron]

I have one question,if the horse in the 5th was allowed to stay,why was the the horse in the 6th taken down ? To me both races had similar contact. I was not involved in either.
In the 5th Codeword came out and bumped Cosmic into Real Quality.
In the 6th Won Regal Betty bumped Remember Betty into several other horses.

[Marshall Bennett]

Shut DOWN??? Hardly...No one was checked or even steadied.

Bothered? possibly as the stewards saw it that way.

And when does drifting over a 1/16th become crossing over?
" Shutdown " as in his momentum being altered . This was by far the best horse in the race and deseved a chance . In the eyes of the stewards he was fouled and lost his chance and was moved up . I don't always agree with the stewards , I didn't wager a dime on the race , but in my opinion they got it right .

[BUD]

I had a dumb earlier post...

The only thing I want to know What exactly are the rules...And consistency..

Yesterday to my neophyte eyes seemed very inconsistent.....

But being new I can't figure what other sport beside NASCAR where the officials are hidden and the rules made as proclamations?

Again I am new and just wondering...

[classhandicapper]

Let's see.....I wasn't involved in the 1st race and if they left that horse up it might have been borderline criminal. It could not have been a more blatant and obvious DQ.

I was involved in the 5th, I needed the winner to come down so that I could hit the Pick-4, and while Codeword did commit a technical foul, he did not affect the finish, and was justifiably left up.

Every call is not a bad call. The stewards got it right at Belmont today.

All I know is that I got taken down in the first and needed the horse in the 5th to get taken down. So I didn't cash on either race.

The problem with the standard "he did not affect the finish" is that even though they may have gotten it right today (I thought the first race was marginal even though the foul was clear), it's still a very subjective standard. There are many races where unbiased and thoughtful people might disagree about who was going to win or finish ahead of who without the foul. When you give that kind of power to someone, they better be damned good at making marginal calls. I see no evidence of that at any of the tracks I bet. Sometimes of the decisions are nonsensical. I think all marginal calls should be left as is even when the foul is obvious like in the first race unless the jock was clearly trying to do something wrong.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't really understand why some folks expect robot-like consistency from steward rulings on DQs, when the very nature of their job consists of making highly SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT calls.

Many if not most DQ situations are unique, and as far as I know, there really are no hard or fast rules when it comes to DQs, except for the most obvious of infractions (hitting a rival horse with the whip, for instance).

[Tom]

I think we should expect a high degree of objectivity and specific rules regards telling osme who just wagered his hard earned money on a horse that won that he cannot collect. Don't look at it in racetrack terms, look at in people terms. If you have to tell someone they don't get paid on a winner, you better have solid, objective, defendable reasons.

[aaron]

I don't really understand why some folks expect robot-like consistency from steward rulings on DQs, when the very nature of their job consists of making highly SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT calls.

Many if not most DQ situations are unique, and as far as I know, there really are no hard or fast rules when it comes to DQs, except for the most obvious of infractions (hitting a rival horse with the whip, for instance).
PA- hitting a rival horse with a whip is not an automatic take down. NYRA was taken to court on this and a decision was reversed. Of course,the bettors were still screwed,but the rightful owners got their money.
I guess if the stewards aren't held to any standards,the bettors have no right to question any of their decisions.

[DrugS]

A bug rider on the 2nd place finisher in the Belmont nightcap on Wed hit the 4th place finisher in the face with the whip and no action was taken.

[bigmack]

A bug rider on the 2nd place finisher in the Belmont nightcap on Wed hit the 4th place finisher in the face with the whip and no action was taken.
With a noticeable reaction from the 4th place finisher that most certainly impeded his stretch run. Berrios Cruz was thrashing that whip like some wild banchee.

[DrugS]

Also, anyone who makes pace figures might want to know that the fractions posted in that race are wrong.

I should say the half mile fraction is wrong - in fact - I have no idea how the chart caller guy screwed that one up.

[PaceAdvantage]

A bug rider on the 2nd place finisher in the Belmont nightcap on Wed hit the 4th place finisher in the face with the whip and no action was taken.Did they put up the inquiry sign and look at the replays?

[cj]

Last race, I doubt it. They miss a lot of obvious stuff they would see if they looked at the replay immediately after the race.

There was a fairly recent race where a jockey literally shoved another one coming down the stretch to get room. Since nothing was ever done about it, I can only assume they never bothered to watch the race again.

[PaceAdvantage]

OK then, so I suppose I must be technical about my prior statement and amend it as follows:

"except for the most obvious of infractions that are REVIEWED (hitting a rival horse with the whip, for instance)."