Horrible Job by Arlington Stews.

[Imriledup]

A double DQ?

The first mistake they made is not placing the 11 out of the money. He interfered with multiple horses by drifting out.

Secondly, they punished the winner for lugging into the 10 horse but that lug in didn't cost the 10 a better placing. Not only did it not cost the 10 a better placing, but you can make a legitimate case that the original interference knocked the winner off his path and then made him weave inward. The winner was going straight until the 11 crashed into a bunch of horses and caused the winner to go wide.

the 11 interfered with the 12 and cost him a better placing but he didn't get placed behind the 12....the 6 did NOT cost the 10 a better placing and he got placed behind that runner.

So, lets summarize. There was a horse who was disqualified for causing interference but not placed BEHIND all the horses he bothered. The physical winner was disqualified for interfering with a horse who was NOT cost a better placing by the interference.

Go figure.

[BIG49010]

Terrific acting job on 10 also, by the pan shot 6 looked clear when he lugged in.

The 6 ran some race, up close then closed to win.

[cj]

DQs should be for purse money only!!!

It is a joke. A hasty (and seemingly random many times) decision is made that PERMANENTLY sets the parimutuel payouts. Purse distribution, which involves far less money, can be contested. Just one more way the game sticks it to the biggest customers.

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

Another one of those "are they watching the same race I am?" calls.

[Imriledup]

I'd love to hear the explanation. They weren't thinking outside the box in this one. They looked at the winner drift inward and just had their little brains wrapped around that but it never dawned on them that the winner was originally interfered with by the 2nd place finisher and pushed out a few lanes (so you can make the case that the horse got unnerved from being slammed)

Also, the winner never cost the 3rd place finisher (the horse who got placed first) a better placing. I don't understand how you can make a double DQ in a stakes race when the 3rd place finisher wasn't cost a better placing.

You CAN say that the 3rd place finisher (who got placed first) was cost a better placing from the 2nd place finisher because the 2nd place finisher caused the original crashing. But, once that original crashing was done with and multiple horses got interfered with, its not a continuation play. Its not the winners fault that the 3rd place finisher got wiped out by the 2nd place finisher, yet he was punished as if had.

[BIG49010]

It doesn't do the the people that bet this horse any good, but I hear that the
owner / trainer has been encouraged to appeal this.

[Tom Barrister]

Illinois stewards don't always use the "made a difference in the outcome" rule. If a horse causes substantial interference, the stewards may take it down, even though it was clearly the best and didn't cost any horses a placing.

That said, I've looked at the replay, and it does look like they missed the boat on this one.