View Full Version : Mon 3rd at MNR ....Worst DQ I have ever witnessed
Nmytwenties
12-16-2008, 05:14 PM
I am sure some posters on here caught this ridiculous takedown that occured in the 3rd at MNR last night(Monday). If you have ever been a victim of one that was worse than this then I give you my 100% sympathy.
The explanation that it's only one guy's opinion can only go so far and when the people making these decisions are so off the mark. I observed a race at Beulah yesterday in which there was actual bumping that took place in the stretch and there was no action taken, as there shouldn't have been as the outcome of the race was not affected there either.
The horse that was put up was not impeded, his momentum was not affected by the winner and I don't even think the horses made contact. They maitained a almost straight line down the stretch as the horses had a good duel, the winner stubbornly wouldn't let the 2nd place finisher by but didn't foul him in any way that a person with any type of competancy would see.
I have had three winners before this over the last two weeks that have had to survive claims of objection which were all frivolous and without merit, one at Calder, one at Philly, and the one at Beulah on Monday, but the one at Mnr on Monday's 3rd was the easiest of the 4 to see nothing took place to warrant a DQ and its the one that gets taken down.
Had the DQ'd winner in the Pick 3. I have only left a track before the end of the day's card of simulcasts one other time but that left me so shocked and disgusted that I just left. I was actually up moneywise on the day as a whole but when a replay showing absolutly nothing plays for 4 minutes, the whole time you wondering what the hell they are looking at or trying to pull, and then they change the result of the race, it just leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Found out today that I would have lost the Pick 3 bet in the last leg which alows me to consider coming back.
Its just so much work, especially at that track, to nail down solid selections and for a half hour of work to be nullified by this crap just makes you question the point of doing it in the first place. As a person of STRICT PRICIPLES, it goes way beyond percentage of winners and money lost or won. Its about reinforcing this ridiculous happenstance. Do I not say I am pefectly alright with this kind of utter lack of competance on the part of the stewards at Mnr or any other track if I return?? I would have to say I am if I do return.
In the NFL and other sports that use instant replay a call can be overturned only if there is unrefutable evidence. I would have felt guilty to cash a ticket where I benefited off such a ridiculous takedown. I don't know how anyone who had the DQ'd horse could have been pissed if he were not put up to a position he didn't deserve based on the replay. So reversing such a beyond borderline call you really risk losing customers in my opinion.
Long post but I am just in a quandry, I love this sport but that what happened was just unacceptable. Had I had my picks in that Pick 3 come in I wouldn't even be writing this long a post, I really would be soured for life. I guess I am in a position many others have been in before, should I tolerate this and go back or turn a blind eye to the sport as my priciples are telling me. Hmmm I could think of another use for the word blind relative to Mnr stewards but I will stop there.
lamboguy
12-16-2008, 05:26 PM
i agree with you. it is a very quetionable call. but there was some contact there.
mountaineer is the home of the phantom NICOLE'S DREAM takedown with over $150,000 in the show pool on the race. you had substitue judges sitting in that night there.
boomman
12-16-2008, 05:41 PM
Nmy: I did not see the call in question, but I have a suggestion for everyone about the rash of inconsistent calls made by stewards across the country lately, and that is to send the tape of the dq to the Racing Officials Accreditation Program (ROAP) and have them review it as they are responsible for training stewards and if everyone will start sending them documentation and video of all of these questionable calls that have taken place, perhaps it could do some good down the line. You can reach them @:
http://horseracingofficial.com/officials.asp
As for the NFL, (and as a former High School and small college referee for 16 years I have a little knowledge in this field) the level of incompetence among referees going under the hood has reached epidemic proportions this year, and they have to do something FAST or the sport will lose ALL integrity (if it hasn't done so already). Besides Ed Hochuli blowing the whistle and costing San Diego a game against Denver earlier in the year, Bill Carollo not overturning 1 single call in like 15 straight challenges last year (and there's absolutely NO WAY his crew got it right in 100% of those challenge situations), and Walt Coleman appearing to be dumber than a fencepost, they have real integrity issues which border on the level of the WWF. Coleman went under the hood twice on Sunday and got both calls 100% wrong, both favoring Pittsburgh and screwing Baltimore in the process. Baltimore challenged a spot on a crucial 1st down play which was clearly about a yard short of where it was spotted and Coleman refused to overturn that call, then his crew got the non-touchdown call right when the ball was about 1 yard short of breaking the plane of the endzone and would have brought up 4th down with 26 seconds left and Baltimore leading by 3 points. (clock was reset to 47 seconds after he blew the call) This is very simple NFL: Put a replay official in the booth that will have the balls to review and possibly overturn calls in the last 2 minutes of each half, and make the review decision solely up to the booth replay official! Take this decison making (or lack therof) out of the on field referee's hands before its too late!:mad:
Boomer
cj's dad
12-16-2008, 05:53 PM
Nmytwenties
I assume from your screen name that you are a young guy? so your experience with bad calls is somewhat limited.
Having said that, I also witnessed that race on TVG and have to disagree w/ you. The #2 began drifting out somewhere inside the 1/8 th pole and continued to do so from that point to the wire. The #2 first made contact with the #4 near the 1/8 pole when the #2 was in the 3 path and the 4 was just off his right flank. By the time the race was over, the #4 was in the center of the track, moved out about 7 paths. Don't you think that cost the 4 more than the neck it lost by.
If you think this was a bad call, I have to tell you, you are going to see many more worse calls than this, brace yourself.
Nmytwenties
12-16-2008, 06:03 PM
Very little contact if any there lambo. If you care to take a look at race 6 at BEU yesterday, you will see much more bumping and there was no DQ. The outcome there was not affected either, though I would not have left if they took that one down because there was at least some bumping.
I mean I watch alot of races and have had to wait out some DQ decisions. If there is some merit you actually get concerned at some point and prepare for disappointment. This wasn't there at Mnr last night for me, I was hardly even paying attention after 3 replays, it was so obvious that nothing to place to warrant a takedown. How many races are run where there is no contact between runners at some point during the race??? I would say very few. If the outcome is not DEFIANTLY affected then it shouldn't warrant action.
As for sending the tape in Boomer, I will leave that to the industry. It is useless for me to take the time away from my life to get and probably pay for a tape and then pay to send it. I don't even feel like taking the time to email the link though I appriciate your effort. I guess if the industry didn't see the customer as expendable they would have a system in place that reviewed every DQ to improve conditions.
The only thing I wish I had stayed for was to see what if anything Mark and Nancy had to say about it. Mark is pretty blunt and I am sure he was short and to the point if he saw it the way I imagine anyone who isn't blind would have.
Onion Monster
12-16-2008, 06:24 PM
I played most of the races at the Mountain last night. I passed on the race in question, though.
I thought it was a weird DQ too. It looked like your typical stretch duel. Mark and Nancy, by the way, agreed with the call. They thought Ganpath was in the wrong (I belive it was all started by a jock's objection, not by the stewards).
Nmytwenties
12-16-2008, 06:26 PM
CJ'S DAD
I just don't agree with your opinion of the incident and I will leave it at that though I will not say that worse takedowns have not happened that I haven't seen. I guess the fact that it's NOT the worst one ever would be more reason for me just to quit. For me it's either irrefutable or its a no-call.
This industry should be concerned with not pissing off its already shrinking fan base. I can honestly say that had I had the 2nd place finisher in that race, lets even say the Pick 3 was on the line, last leg, I just wouldn't have been miffed about the non call, it just wasn't blatant enough in my opinion. I think you alienate more people when you take a horse down than when you don't. This is why it has to be blatant enough for a reasonable person to say with no reservations that a foul occured. I wonder how many bettors tracks lose with calls like that, I would say probably not enough.
Nmytwenties
12-16-2008, 06:41 PM
Disappointing that Mark and Nancy agreed. Now I feel guilty for cashing that ticket in the 6th at Beulah yesterday then I guess, there was certainly more drifting and bumping in that one that's for sure. The horse that finished 2nd was 70-1 in that race so you guys can debate that one. Win or lose I am not into accusing these people (stewards) of personally benefiting off these calls but maybe I am the dummy to not do so. I guess I just think that stewards should only get involved in more severe cases.
If Ganpath gets days for that he should pick up and leave for Tampa. It's not worth freezing your ass off out there for crap like that.
Like I said how many races are run with no bumping involved?? Tracks who card 4 1/2 races and 5F races DQ horses all the time for bumping in the far turn, I was the victim of one of these this summer at TDN. They shouldn't card the damn things if they don't allow for a certain severity of contact, do they think that non will occur in these all out sprints where contenders can't afford to take it easy.
DeanT
12-16-2008, 06:55 PM
The point is NOT whether the call was right or wrong, it was the fact that this is called different ways virtually all the time. Out of ten times I have seen it called as a pitch five times, and as a leave up five times. One stewards bumping is another ones racing.
They need to make a blanket rule with the "drift out in the lane" rulings.
Frontenac
12-16-2008, 07:17 PM
There are no consistencies in the calls made by the Stewards.
I got screwed out of a big win4 the other day at Aqueduct.
My longshot got absolutely shut off and interfered with 2 times in the stretch.
After a jockey's claim of foul and a steward's inquiry of about ten minutes, the result stood. I would have had a huge score. This has happened to me many times on both sides of the coin. I just never benefit from these things, and there just doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the decisions being made.
I watched the replay again for Mountaineer's 3rd last night, and I have to agree with you. No way that horse should have come down.
Frontenac
12-16-2008, 07:35 PM
The Mountaineer Stewards have just struck again.
Molly Day disqualified for interference out of the gate. Unreal!
The horse did absolutely nothing to the 5!
Brutal!AARRRRRGGGH!
garyoz
12-16-2008, 08:43 PM
There are no consistencies in the calls made by the Stewards.
I got screwed out of a big win4 the other day at Aqueduct.
My longshot got absolutely shut off and interfered with 2 times in the stretch.
After a jockey's claim of foul and a steward's inquiry of about ten minutes, the result stood. I would have had a huge score. This has happened to me many times on both sides of the coin. I just never benefit from these things, and there just doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the decisions being made.
Don't confuse race riding with a foul. Good jockeys ride at least two horses every race.
I think stewards do a very good job overall---I remember the pre-video replay days--then players really used to howl. Even back then it was "I've been robbed--would of have had a score!" Never remember hearing "They should have taken my horse down."
Frontenac
12-16-2008, 08:55 PM
I'm not confusing anything. I know a bad call when I see one, and I've seen 3 this week. You watch the replays, and see if you come to a different conclusion.
Don't confuse race riding with a foul. Good jockeys ride at least two horses every race.
I think stewards do a very good job overall---I remember the pre-video replay days--then players really used to howl. Even back then it was "I've been robbed--would of have had a score!" Never remember hearing "They should have taken my horse down."
Nmytwenties
12-16-2008, 11:17 PM
To Garyoz --
As someone who participates for the challenge more than money I could give a damn about what the stewards cost me monetarily. I would not react with even a bit of anger or disgust if a DQ is warranted, what's fair is fair in a case when it is a blatant foul.
If a rivals path is impeded in a way that is blantant then fine, you won't hear me complain even if its costs me a $500 winner and/or I am out 30 minutes looking at the race . Sure I would be pissed but I wouldn't have any problem with the stewards decision. The DQ at MNR just wasn't one that warranted a DQ period. It disgusts me to read the chart and read a description of an incident that just wasn't an incident. Why review the replay 15 times for 5 minutes if it is that blatant?? If it is a foul that warrants a DQ then it shouldn't take more than one or two views to see it in my mind. If your wavering on the decision as a steward, then no change should be made, period.
I guess something like this happening at MNR, the track I probably have the most problems with, adds salt to the wound. I am not someone that, as of now, stays away from any one track but man I almost feel like doing that with MNR, just seems like no matter how much I try and how long I spend looking at their cards I just do a horrible percentage no matter what. I counted that 3rd race Monday as a win on my stats regardless of the DQ, screw the stewards, I got the damn thing right.
ralph_the_cat
12-17-2008, 01:00 AM
For someone that rarely misses a MNR race, I will agree with the poster that said ..."There are no consistencies in the calls made by the Stewards".... at MNR... but I will also say that I thought Nicoles Dream and the DQ on monday were legit, and the one tonight could go either way, I see where they're coming from... but consistency is the most important thing, and I DONT see that... agree with thier calls most of the time.... but I disagree with their NON-CALLS way too much...
THE THING I FIND FUNNY, is that ever since I started reading public forums about 2 years ago, there is a "Worst DQ I Have Ever Seen" thread started once every month or two... :ThmbDown:
the little guy
12-17-2008, 01:42 AM
There are no consistencies in the calls made by the Stewards.
I got screwed out of a big win4 the other day at Aqueduct.
My longshot got absolutely shut off and interfered with 2 times in the stretch.
After a jockey's claim of foul and a steward's inquiry of about ten minutes, the result stood. I would have had a huge score. This has happened to me many times on both sides of the coin. I just never benefit from these things, and there just doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the decisions being made.
I watched the replay again for Mountaineer's 3rd last night, and I have to agree with you. No way that horse should have come down.
The inquiry at Aqueduct may have lasted about four minutes, but nowhere close to ten, and the absolute right call was made. There was minor and incidental contact and the finish was in no way affected. Anybody that watches the head on, and is unbiased, will agree. It isn't even borderline.
cmoore
12-17-2008, 02:12 AM
To Garyoz --
As someone who participates for the challenge more than money I could give a damn about what the stewards cost me monetarily. I would not react with even a bit of anger or disgust if a DQ is warranted, what's fair is fair in a case when it is a blatant foul.
If a rivals path is impeded in a way that is blantant then fine, you won't hear me complain even if its costs me a $500 winner and/or I am out 30 minutes looking at the race . Sure I would be pissed but I wouldn't have any problem with the stewards decision. The DQ at MNR just wasn't one that warranted a DQ period. It disgusts me to read the chart and read a description of an incident that just wasn't an incident. Why review the replay 15 times for 5 minutes if it is that blatant?? If it is a foul that warrants a DQ then it shouldn't take more than one or two views to see it in my mind. If your wavering on the decision as a steward, then no change should be made, period.
I guess something like this happening at MNR, the track I probably have the most problems with, adds salt to the wound. I am not someone that, as of now, stays away from any one track but man I almost feel like doing that with MNR, just seems like no matter how much I try and how long I spend looking at their cards I just do a horrible percentage no matter what. I counted that 3rd race Monday as a win on my stats regardless of the DQ, screw the stewards, I got the damn thing right.
I like the attitude...You tell em Nmytwenties ..
Tom Barrister
12-17-2008, 02:38 AM
The disqualification looked reasonable to me, although not disqualifying the horse would have also been reasonable.
To Garyoz --
As someone who participates for the challenge more than money I could give a damn about what the stewards cost me monetarily. I would not react with even a bit of anger or disgust if a DQ is warranted, what's fair is fair in a case when it is a blatant foul.
If a rivals path is impeded in a way that is blantant then fine, you won't hear me complain even if its costs me a $500 winner and/or I am out 30 minutes looking at the race . Sure I would be pissed but I wouldn't have any problem with the stewards decision. The DQ at MNR just wasn't one that warranted a DQ period. It disgusts me to read the chart and read a description of an incident that just wasn't an incident. Why review the replay 15 times for 5 minutes if it is that blatant?? If it is a foul that warrants a DQ then it shouldn't take more than one or two views to see it in my mind. If your wavering on the decision as a steward, then no change should be made, period.
I guess something like this happening at MNR, the track I probably have the most problems with, adds salt to the wound. I am not someone that, as of now, stays away from any one track but man I almost feel like doing that with MNR, just seems like no matter how much I try and how long I spend looking at their cards I just do a horrible percentage no matter what. I counted that 3rd race Monday as a win on my stats regardless of the DQ, screw the stewards, I got the damn thing right.
I hate to bust your bubble here but that horse deserved to come down. The jock kept constantly hitting the horse left-handed (6 times) through the length of the stretch. If he would have tried to switch to the right hand just once then maybe the horse would have stood up. Count how many paths off the rail the horse was from the top of the stretch right down to the wire. Everytime the jock hit left-handed his horse continued to drift out into another path. It's clear that the stewards here made the call because of the jockey's use of the whip. No doubt in my mind how that went down.
Joe
Frontenac
12-17-2008, 09:21 AM
The inquiry at Aqueduct may have lasted about four minutes, but nowhere close to ten, and the absolute right call was made. There was minor and incidental contact and the finish was in no way affected. Anybody that watches the head on, and is unbiased, will agree. It isn't even borderline.
That's your opinion, but you are most certainly wrong about the time. It lasted close to ten minutes. Also, the horse got shut off 2 times in the stretch. Compared to Mountaineer, very flagrant fouls.
Frontenac
12-17-2008, 09:26 AM
Anybody that watches the head on, and is unbiased, will agree. It isn't even borderline.
This is where the shut off really shows up, and it was a foul. Plain and simple.
Not even borderline? You must not have watched the same inquiry. All the patrons at my OTB were saying the horse had to come down in the 10 minutes that they had to watch the inquiry. Surely, with the horse being so long they couldn't have all had a vested interest either. :bang:
Frontenac
12-17-2008, 09:31 AM
I hate to bust your bubble here but that horse deserved to come down. The jock kept constantly hitting the horse left-handed (6 times) through the length of the stretch. If he would have tried to switch to the right hand just once then maybe the horse would have stood up. Count how many paths off the rail the horse was from the top of the stretch right down to the wire. Everytime the jock hit left-handed his horse continued to drift out into another path. It's clear that the stewards here made the call because of the jockey's use of the whip. No doubt in my mind how that went down.
Joe
This is why nothing ever changes in this area. Clearly this horse did not deserve to come down. A bad call was made, and there are too many people willing to stand up and defend the stewards decisions no matter how it shakes down. I suppose you think that Molly Day deserved to come down last night too.
Horseplayers should realize that the inquiry system will never change.
the little guy
12-17-2008, 09:49 AM
That's your opinion, but you are most certainly wrong about the time. It lasted close to ten minutes. Also, the horse got shut off 2 times in the stretch. Compared to Mountaineer, very flagrant fouls.
You can say Donner and Blitzen flew down on Santa's sleigh and interfered with the second and third finishers if you like. One viewing of the head-on belies everything you say.
Frontenac
12-17-2008, 09:55 AM
You can say Donner and Blitzen flew down on Santa's sleigh and interfered with the second and third finishers if you like. One viewing of the head-on belies everything you say.
I've got the head-on, and this is where it really shows up. Just drop this. Your perception is your own reality. You say they got it right. Therefore they got it right. I heard your prerace analysis, and know why you think this way.
End of story.
the little guy
12-17-2008, 10:10 AM
I've got the head-on, and this is where it really shows up. Just drop this. Your perception is your own reality. You say they got it right. Therefore they got it right. I heard your prerace analysis, and know why you think this way.
End of story.
I know a foul when I see one, regardless of who I bet, and this one wasn't even borderline.
Frontenac
12-17-2008, 10:19 AM
I know a foul when I see one, regardless of who I bet, and this one wasn't even borderline.
Everyone feels this way. Doesn't mean your opinion means anymore than mine, and vice versa.
That's why the system will stay the same. No matter what the call, you're always going to have camps on both sides.
Cheers
i agree with you. it is a very quetionable call. but there was some contact there.
mountaineer is the home of the phantom NICOLE'S DREAM takedown with over $150,000 in the show pool on the race. you had substitue judges sitting in that night there.
I swear they keep that 2.20 minimum just to sucker more bridgejumpers into betting that track.
Frontenac
12-17-2008, 05:13 PM
I know a foul when I see one, regardless of who I bet, and this one wasn't even borderline.
BORROWING BASE outrun during the opening half, advanced steadily into
contention on the backstretch after being put to encouragement while
continuing to take the inside route, was taken outward midway on the far
turn, fanned four wide into the lane, ranged up to the leaders, lugged
inward under strong right handed whipping at the eighth pole, bumping with
NIJINSKY BULLET, was put back on a straight course soon afterwards
That's why we had a jockey's claim of foul, and a steward's inquiry of 10 minutes because according to you it "wasn't even borderline".
Frontenac
12-17-2008, 05:22 PM
The inquiry at Aqueduct may have lasted about four minutes, but nowhere close to ten.
Off time 3:46 et Posted official at 3:58 et
the little guy
12-17-2008, 06:04 PM
Off time 3:46 et Posted official at 3:58 et
You said to drop it and then posted twice. What am I missing?
Yes, a race that took over two minutes, followed by a period of over a minute before the inquiry was posted, and then wasn't official until after the inquiry was posted, took a total of 11 plus minutes. Couldn't, therefore, have been a ten minute inquiry. Thank you for clearing that up.
As for using the chart....first of all I never said there wasn't contact. However, what I did say was there was no justification, overall, for a disqualification. Apparently you, as a horseplayer, are placing your vote for rampant disqualifications every time there is contact....except apparently when your horse is at fault ( see Mountaineer.....and herding, in my book, is very often worse than actual contact....but not in yours....as long as your horse is, once again apparently, the aggressor ). But also, using charts to back up your case? Good luck with that. I prefer to watch races....as the charts are inaccurate constantly. But, whatever works for you.
hoovesupsideyourhe
12-17-2008, 06:10 PM
you should listen to the little guy on all matters in horseracing..even more so on the nyra circuit..hes been right way more times than wrong..he gave out a pick 4 a week ago on the air with all 'on top' horses..
Frontenac
12-17-2008, 06:14 PM
you should listen to the little guy on all matters in horseracing..even more so on the nyra circuit..hes been right way more times than wrong..he gave out a pick 4 a week ago on the air with all 'on top' horses..
I agree he does a good job, but it doesn't make him right in this case. My horse got bumped, and I stood to make a big score in the win4. I've seen lesser incidents at Aqueduct cause disqualifications. My point is that day to day the results of an inquiry are strictly random.
hoovesupsideyourhe
12-17-2008, 06:18 PM
im sorry about the 4 i know that hurts
This is why nothing ever changes in this area. Clearly this horse did not deserve to come down. A bad call was made, and there are too many people willing to stand up and defend the stewards decisions no matter how it shakes down. I suppose you think that Molly Day deserved to come down last night too.
Horseplayers should realize that the inquiry system will never change.
You keep saying "bad call was made". I provided you with the reason why the horse was taken down and you just don't want to take that into consideration. There are certain things that a jockey can getaway with when trying to win a race. When the stewards watch the film, they will see if the jock could have done something else to avoid the infraction. In this particuliar case the jock was at fault. You really need to understand why the horse was taken down because I can assure you that this will eventually happen to you again in the future. Don't be one of those types of horseplayers that only see what you want to see. JMHO.
Joe
mountainman
12-18-2008, 10:04 AM
While I've seen more egregious fouls, the Ganpath DQ looked justified. Ray kept applying left-handed pressure even as his mount carried the runnerup out several paths. Consequently, Ganpath probably deserves days, but players who backed his mount shouldn't blame him. The filly is a chronic quitter and, had her rider not played a little rough, it's doubtful she would have finished in front.
The DQ following Tuesday's second race seemed debatable. The incident struck me as minor and didn't cost the promoted horse a placing. The winner did cause the place horse to clip heels(albeit ever so slightly), and that usually results in a DQ.
cmoore
12-18-2008, 10:13 AM
you should listen to the little guy on all matters in horseracing..even more so on the nyra circuit..hes been right way more times than wrong..he gave out a pick 4 a week ago on the air with all 'on top' horses..
Lets not get carried away now..
Frontenac
12-18-2008, 11:11 AM
The DQ following Tuesday's second race seemed debatable. The incident struck me as minor and didn't cost the promoted horse a placing. The winner did cause the place horse to clip heels(albeit ever so slightly), and that usually results in a DQ.
Spot on with this one Mark.
Frontenac
12-18-2008, 11:19 AM
You keep saying "bad call was made". I provided you with the reason why the horse was taken down and you just don't want to take that into consideration. There are certain things that a jockey can getaway with when trying to win a race. When the stewards watch the film, they will see if the jock could have done something else to avoid the infraction. In this particuliar case the jock was at fault. You really need to understand why the horse was taken down because I can assure you that this will eventually happen to you again in the future. Don't be one of those types of horseplayers that only see what you want to see. JMHO.
Joe
This didn't happen to me. I had the winner. In fact, I bet the 2 speeds in that race, so I had it either way. I've seen thousands of inquiries over the last 30 years, and I can tell you that the criteria that they use for dq's is not consistent. Take a look at the Aqueduct race that I mentioned where the horse did not come down, and tell me that the Mountaineer horse should come down.
Tuesday night at Mountaineer, it was disgraceful that Molly Day came down, and the night previous, the race you keep saying was correct, is highly debatable. Just look at the posts in this thread. That horse would have never gone by the real winner. So don't tell me that I'm one of those horseplayers that only sees what he wants to see. I would suggest that it is you who is tilted in that regard. Unable to look at the race objectively, as I did.
Frontenac
12-18-2008, 11:25 AM
While I've seen more egregious fouls, the Ganpath DQ looked justified. Ray kept applying left-handed pressure even as his mount carried the runnerup out several paths. Consequently, Ganpath probably deserves days, but players who backed his mount shouldn't blame him. The filly is a chronic quitter and, had her rider not played a little rough, it's doubtful she would have finished in front.
The DQ following Tuesday's second race seemed debatable. The incident struck me as minor and didn't cost the promoted horse a placing. The winner did cause the place horse to clip heels(albeit ever so slightly), and that usually results in a DQ.
The horse that they put up is also a chronic quitter Mark. The outcome would have been the same. If you watch, you'll see several stretch duels in the coming weeks where the horse is getting out a few paths. I would guess that there won't be dq's as a result. My point is that the calls aren't consistent.
Frontenac
12-18-2008, 11:32 AM
The DQ following Tuesday's second race seemed debatable. The incident struck me as minor and didn't cost the promoted horse a placing. The winner did cause the place horse to clip heels(albeit ever so slightly), and that usually results in a DQ.
Mark, Molli Day was forced to check as a result of the 9 coming over on her.
Also, I've watched the replay 20 times, and I still can't see where Tastee Bubbles clips anyone's heels. The chart makes no mention of this either.
Frontenac
12-18-2008, 11:47 AM
You said to drop it and then posted twice. What am I missing?
Yes, a race that took over two minutes, followed by a period of over a minute before the inquiry was posted, and then wasn't official until after the inquiry was posted, took a total of 11 plus minutes. Couldn't, therefore, have been a ten minute inquiry. Thank you for clearing that up.
As for using the chart....first of all I never said there wasn't contact. However, what I did say was there was no justification, overall, for a disqualification. Apparently you, as a horseplayer, are placing your vote for rampant disqualifications every time there is contact....except apparently when your horse is at fault ( see Mountaineer.....and herding, in my book, is very often worse than actual contact....but not in yours....as long as your horse is, once again apparently, the aggressor ). But also, using charts to back up your case? Good luck with that. I prefer to watch races....as the charts are inaccurate constantly. But, whatever works for you.
Don't downplay the work of the Chart Callers. You came on here and said the inquiry took only 4 minutes, which was wrong. Might have been 9 minutes, but call me out because I was a minute off.
The horse lugged in and caused Nijinsky's Bullet to lose momentum. Cause for a dq in my opinion, but not in those of the Stewards. Fine, and no I wouldn't be out for rampant disqualifications either. If you read this thread, you would know that there were 2 incidents at Mountaineer where I felt the horses should not have come down. I can tell you the Aqueduct lug in and bump was far worse than the Mountaineer slight drift in which the outcome would have been the same. My point again, is that there is no consistency.
I think you do a great job on the air, but I disagree with you on this call.
mountainman
12-18-2008, 12:30 PM
Mark, Molli Day was forced to check as a result of the 9 coming over on her.
Also, I've watched the replay 20 times, and I still can't see where Tastee Bubbles clips anyone's heels. The chart makes no mention of this either.
She does clip heels with the first finisher. It's ever so slight, and you need a sharp eye to see it. Warranted of not, when the stewards witness a bobble, the number is usually taken down. One of their mandates is to send messages that ensure the safety of the riders.
Tom Barrister
12-18-2008, 01:38 PM
I wonder how many people would be complaining if they had a bet on the horse that benefitted from the ruling?
I've watched all of the replays being complained about. I didn't have a bet on any of the races in question. Every decision was reasonable, although some of them would have been reasonable if decided the other way.
Frontenac
12-18-2008, 01:51 PM
I wonder how many people would be complaining if they had a bet on the horse that benefitted from the ruling?
I've watched all of the replays being complained about. I didn't have a bet on any of the races in question. Every decision was reasonable, although some of them would have been reasonable if decided the other way.
I didn't stand to benefit from either ruling at Mountaineer. I'm still complaining about the decisions, and I have also complained about decisions that I benefited from in the past, so your logic is a little off.
This didn't happen to me. I had the winner. In fact, I bet the 2 speeds in that race, so I had it either way. I've seen thousands of inquiries over the last 30 years, and I can tell you that the criteria that they use for dq's is not consistent. Take a look at the Aqueduct race that I mentioned where the horse did not come down, and tell me that the Mountaineer horse should come down.
Tuesday night at Mountaineer, it was disgraceful that Molly Day came down, and the night previous, the race you keep saying was correct, is highly debatable. Just look at the posts in this thread. That horse would have never gone by the real winner. So don't tell me that I'm one of those horseplayers that only sees what he wants to see. I would suggest that it is you who is tilted in that regard. Unable to look at the race objectively, as I did.
30 years of watching thousands of inquiries and you can't understand why that horse was taken down and I'm TILTED. You said that "I can tell you that the criteria that they use for dq's is not consistent". Please explain this criteria to me.
Nmytwenties
12-20-2008, 06:31 PM
Ok someone needs to send a tape of the 9th at Delta Downs on Friday noght to MNR and all other tracks whose stewards change the results of races on nickel and dime borderline calls. The interference in the Delta race was flangrant enough to justify it, even though the DQ'd horse would have won had he not veered in, the horse that was interfered with had to take up. I once again had the DQ'd horse in a Pick 3 (when it rains it pours I guess) but was in no way angry about this one. Wasn't even pissed at the jock (Gerald Melancon) as he at least has the sense to not be a spectator as the rest of the field was as the pacesetter crawled on the lead. He ran him up there to actually contest the race instead of letting the leader run all the way around on the lead and had plenty of horse, just lost control of him in the stretch.
I just hope that borderline crap doesn't interfere with anymore of my selections in the future, it takes too much time to look over races to have jerks nullify your work, MNR stewards need to take a look at that Delta race and get a clue in the future. One more borderline call like that Monday one in the future and my routine Monday visits to the track end after the mid afternoon tracks end at about 7:30pm ,I'll be done with that place that's for sure.
Frontenac
12-20-2008, 06:50 PM
No sense arguing about this anymore. There are too many hard-headed individuals like jotb and tlg who will defend the stewards until hell freezes over. The system will not change.
the little guy
12-20-2008, 06:51 PM
No sense arguing about this anymore. There are too many hard-headed individuals like jotb and tlg who will defend the stewards until hell freezes over. The system will not change.
This is hilarious.
Frontenac
12-20-2008, 06:54 PM
This is hilarious.
You find the truth to be funny?
the little guy
12-20-2008, 06:57 PM
You find the truth to be funny?
I find everything about your posting positively laughable.
You are a cheap shot artist. Guys like you are a dime a dozen, especially on the internet, and you don't fool a single person.
Frontenac
12-20-2008, 07:00 PM
I find everything about your posting positively laughable.
You are a cheap shot artist. Guys like you are a dime a dozen, especially on the internet, and you don't fool a single person.
Who's the cheap shot artist here? I complimented your work here in the forum. Someone has an opinion who differs from yours is a "cheap shot artist".
Good luck with your future endeavours.
Frontenac
12-20-2008, 07:01 PM
All I hinted at was that the system needs a change, and tlg blows a gasket.
You can't tell me that there isn't a better way to conduct inquiries.
All I hinted at was that the system needs a change, and tlg blows a gasket.
You can't tell me that there isn't a better way to conduct inquiries.
Where's that "criteria" you spoke about? By the way, I'm not hard headed. Maybe, you should try watching races with two eyes. One eye on the horse and one eye on the jock. This is horse racing not dog racing.
Jotb
mountainman
12-22-2008, 09:13 AM
When players call for "consistency" on DQ decisions, what they usually mean is that the stewards had better call things consistently their way. And even objective fans who make this plea just don't get it. No two incidents of alleged interference are exactly alike, thus cookie cutter rulings aren't possible, much less desireable. Consistently good JUDGEMENT should be required of the judges, not some phantom uniformity from incident to incident.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.