Aqueduct Race 7 robbery in broad daylight

[slew101]

Didn't play the race, but anyone who had the 8 horse in Race 7 was robbed.

The stewards take the winner down at 20-1. Check out the replay. The horse maintained a straight course in the stretch.

Awful call.

[OTM Al]

I disagree and think the interference actually stared occuring before the point they focused on and impeded the 2 from going up the rail.

[BUD]

I bet she endlessly complains about her---ride--the same ride she been riding since day 1---A inflection of the voice---the cut me off----


Today she is more popular with some stewards than Castro----Hell its her one move---I would NEVER let her near the rail if she had a good horse----That said---I really know diddley about race calling---figured I'd take my aim here--it looked like an EZ one...Watch I;m wrong--haha wouldn't be the first time

[toetoe]

Al being a notable exception, I predict the defenders of the D-Q system, as it exists now, will just tell the rest of us to go away.

I only weighed in on this stuff after seeing how many followers of the ponies agree with me. :eek: (:Having myocardial infarction ... no please ... do NOT look that term up.)

The fact that I doubt the "trouble" changed the result is beside the point. :)

[TrifectaMike]

Didn't play the race, but anyone who had the 8 horse in Race 7 was robbed.

The stewards take the winner down at 20-1. Check out the replay. The horse maintained a straight course in the stretch.

Awful call.

It was a terrible call. I still had the ex , tri and super, but taking down the #8 cost me about 4k. It sucks, but part of this game we play.

Mike

[Charlie D]

Right decision .......... but my opinion is biased, as i was on Joe Corrigan :)

[rjorio]

I don't think so.The head-on showed Grand Treasure lugging in ,cutting off the rail path for Joe Corrigan.By the way , The takedown blew-up my PK4 since I did not have Joe Corrigan covered.

[garyoz]

Correct decision... the eight took away the two's path. And I had them boxed in an exacta, so I would have preferred the 8 on top. Absolutely the right decision, consistent with NYRA stewards. In Cali the stewards probably wouldn't have done it because they would say that the 2 wasn't going to win. But, IMHO, you can't take away a runner's path and steward's shouldn't speculate (as in thinking) on who the winner would be. Look at the head-on and there is no doubt the 8 took the inside path away. Studart did everything she could--

[bigmack]

It was a terrible call. It sucks, but part of this game we play.The horse maintained a straight course in the stretch. Awful call.
You're both delusional.

Castro brought his mount in with malice. He was trying so hard to get him to come in that he almost fell off the left side. Furthering his nonsense, he brought him out to thwart her futile movement around.

Punk move by Castro and he knew it. :ThmbDown:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/2_8_09_13_51_08.png

[slew101]

Well, I say you're delusional. Nice picture. What does that prove?

And Castro knew it? So you heard him tell the stewards to DQ him?

[toetoe]

Sir Mack,

I believe that, having seen Maylan's merry-go-round spread, Fast Eddie was horsing. :jump:

[bigmack]

Sir Mack,

I believe that, having seen Maylan's merry-go-round spread, Fast Eddie was horsing. :jump:
That spread ain't no Velveeta! The pony in back looks envious at best.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/MS.jpg

[toetoe]

Aw cheez, mackie. :eek:

[slewis]

Correct decision... the eight took away the two's path. And I had them boxed in an exacta, so I would have preferred the 8 on top. Absolutely the right decision, consistent with NYRA stewards. In Cali the stewards probably wouldn't have done it because they would say that the 2 wasn't going to win. But, IMHO, you can't take away a runner's path and steward's shouldn't speculate (as in thinking) on who the winner would be. Look at the head-on and there is no doubt the 8 took the inside path away. Studart did everything she could--

GOZ,

Do you think that the #2 would have won the race had both horses stayed in their paths.

If the answer is "yes, absolutely".. ok.. it's your call.
If the answer is "maybe" ( or no), my next question is : if you could duplicate todays race 10 times, with the difference being that ALL HORSES STAYED ON COURSE...how many of those 10 times (percentage) do you "think" in your opinion, would the # 2 have outfinished the winner?

My opinion, is that (although we never know what "might" have happened for certain)...
professional stewards should be smart enough and impartial enough to come up with a very accurate probability here. I've watched literally thousands of head-ons and pans VERY carefully, and my number in this situation is one (1).
Maybe 1 out of 10 times would the 2 overtaken the 8.
Ive also stated that unless it's AT LEAST 4 (40%) you cannot punnish the bettors.

This again, in my opinion, warrants nothing more then a heavy fine and days for the jock.. dont punish the people who bet THE FASTEST HORSE IN THIS RACE, trainer and owners.

[bigmack]

how many of those 10 times (percentage) do you "think" in your opinion, would the # 2 have outfinished the winner?

My opinion, is that (although we never know what "might" have happened for certain)...
Maybe 1 out of 10 times would the 2 overtaken the 8.
You're kidding, right? How 'bout we forget about an offensive tackle holding because they would have scored a touchdown anywho?

Get real. Take downs should be based on the facts not extrapolated from what some group of folk think the outcome should be based on PP's.

[garyoz]

GOZ,

Do you think that the #2 would have won the race had both horses stayed in their paths.

If the answer is "yes, absolutely".. ok.. it's your call.
If the answer is "maybe" ( or no), my next question is : if you could duplicate todays race 10 times, with the difference being that ALL HORSES STAYED ON COURSE...how many of those 10 times (percentage) do you "think" in your opinion, would the # 2 have outfinished the winner?

My opinion, is that (although we never know what "might" have happened for certain)...
professional stewards should be smart enough and impartial enough to come up with a very accurate probability here. I've watched literally thousands of head-ons and pans VERY carefully, and my number in this situation is one (1).
Maybe 1 out of 10 times would the 2 overtaken the 8.
Ive also stated that unless it's AT LEAST 4 (40%) you cannot punnish the bettors.

This again, in my opinion, warrants nothing more then a heavy fine and days for the jock.. dont punish the people who bet THE FASTEST HORSE IN THIS RACE, trainer and owners.

I understand your perspective. I think the good news is that the stewards in each jursidiction are consistent. I expected the NYRA stewards to take the #8 down and they did. I tend to be a strict constructionist relative to the Supreme Court, too ;) If you take a horses path away, you have interferred with it-- Personally I don't want stewards to do too much thinking. I prefer NYRA stewards over SoCAl stewards--

[Imriledup]

If there's even ONE IOTA of doubt, the numbers need to be left alone.

According to this thread, there was a modicum of doubt.

[bigmack]

If there's even ONE IOTA of doubt, the numbers need to be left alone.
According to this thread, there was a modicum of doubt.
I can't believe you people actually play this game.

Look at the replay here: http://www.calracing.com/
Register and look-up by horse name: Joe Corrigan

Find ONE IOTA of doubt and let us know where it's at.

[BUD]

I bet she endlessly complains about her---ride--the same ride she been riding since day 1---A inflection of the voice---the cut me off----


Today she is more popular with some stewards than Castro----Hell its her one move---I would NEVER let her near the rail if she had a good horse----That said---I really know diddley about race calling---figured I'd take my aim here--it looked like an EZ one...Watch I;m wrong--haha wouldn't be the first time

I did not mean to degrade her---I just do not understand this game--Sounds like most don't---And this damn disability that keeps getting worse in flashes does not make it easier for me----

maybe each track should get the football sky cam---above on the wire---And its one judges job to watch that 1 camera---then get better frontal angle shots-------open up the inQ or obj like the one i seen in the Australia event---What that benefited?--But we heard the argument--then maybe after each race e stewards reports on good and races they used the Steward's judgement will be available to all----every race day at every track-----Ya they probably do this already----\


I for one thinks when money is on the line things need to be above boards---OK the unpopular BUD statement---makes me look like a homer----

I think things are done pretty well and above boards already-----Yes I know I am a dumb disabled whiner Cop whatta I know------

True whatta I know?

The girl on that hobby horse is cute....

Our game is broke----But NOT in disrepair----And some win-----Some lose----


Bill Parcells and my hockey coach up in Canada---Had nuthin in common except---Both said---If you need to rely on the ref to win or change the way a game is going for you---Sadly you already lost-------If you need to do that..

I have taken that philosophy with me from the cold hockey rinks to the warmer venues---Some of Horse Racing-----I do not know much---But the disabled kid is learning-------I am preaching at NO ONE-------I am taking back my negative words aimed at Maylan tho

[garyoz]

If there's even ONE IOTA of doubt, the numbers need to be left alone.

According to this thread, there was a modicum of doubt.

There is no doubt that the one path was taken away from the #2 horse. Watch the head-on--it wasn't race riding, it was interference.

[speed]

You wanna laugh guys watch the head on of Tampa from today race 2.The 2 horse into the turn takes the path of the 1 causing the 1 to clip heels and darn near fall. No change? I guess no broken bones no change at Tampa.

[Stevie Belmont]

I had 5 on Ground Treasure, fresh horse, gave him a chance...

The DQ got me upset of course. I thought they could have left it, but Ground Treasure did come over.

[toetoe]

Thereon hangs a monumental issue.

I maintain they speculate ad hoc, ad hominem, ad libitum and ad nauseam. That speculum gets mighty cold and mighty hard, too.

The fact that they choose a new placing for the offender presupposes speculation, no ?

[slewis]

You're kidding, right? How 'bout we forget about an offensive tackle holding because they would have scored a touchdown anywho?

Get real. Take downs should be based on the facts not extrapolated from what some group of folk think the outcome should be based on PP's.

First of all, Im far from kidding.

The horse that crosses the finish line first is the winner. Those that bet on that horse should get paid.

If that horse fouls another horse that one could reasonably say would not have affected the final outcome.. (and beaten the winner) why do you want to punish the winners.??

Your ingenious football analogy which is a joke... and I never said anything about basing a decisioin on, and I quote on "pp's".
I stated basing the decision on a reasonable assessment of what that outcome would be had their been no foul.

Secondly, if you want to take horses down based on "facts", I will find you many many races that there will be DQ's, especially on "out of the gate" infractions... according to you... auto DQ's with no reasoning implemented.

[ArlJim78]

i bet the 8 to win.


in a related story i now have a wooden chair with two broken legs.

[bigmack]

I stated basing the decision on a reasonable assessment of what that outcome would be had their been no foul.
Good idea. While we're at it, let's give the stewards new headwear and ask them for the winning lotto numbers for next week.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/JohnnyCarson.jpg

[speed]

i bet the 8 to win.


in a related story i now have a wooden chair with two broken legs.


Jim i bet the 2 and believe he was not going to pass the 8. She ducked inside and made up no ground prior to steading out. Gave me no indication she was punching through the hole.

At least you are now well stocked with fire wood for the next freeze. :)

[Marshall Bennett]

You wanna laugh guys watch the head on of Tampa from today race 2.The 2 horse into the turn takes the path of the 1 causing the 1 to clip heels and darn near fall. No change? I guess no broken bones no change at Tampa.
Thats why they call it Tampa ( anything goes ) Downs .

[PaceAdvantage]

Joe C. was definitely gaining ground about a moment or two before she had to check out because of crowding. The finish would have been damned close if she didn't have to check..that's a fact.

[Imriledup]

Joe C. was definitely gaining ground about a moment or two before she had to check out because of crowding. The finish would have been damned close if she didn't have to check..that's a fact.

If this is true, why is the OP screaming and crying about Robbery?

When i read the word 'robbery' i shouldnt have intelligent posters who are explaining to me that a disqualification in this instance is something that they could totally understand.

When i read the word robbery, the amount of posters who actually think that the winner should have been disqualified are few and far between.

That doesnt' seem to be the case here.

[slewis]

Joe C. was definitely gaining ground about a moment or two before she had to check out because of crowding. The finish would have been damned close if she didn't have to check..that's a fact.

PA,

Im glad you gave this point of view.... If you read a post I made to GaryOZ, I asked the hypothetical question regarding the "opinioned" outcome had no foul occured.

GaryOZ responded with something along the lines of "a foul is a foul", the horse comes down. OK, I understand his view.

But what happens in the case (i.e. Richard Migliore on a 10 length winner at SPA several years ago) where the winner is light years better then the field?
Do you again punish the bettors with "a foul is a foul"??

So what does the rule book say, and if this situation (or similar) occur's next Sunday, will the decision be the same??

Truth is, unlike other sports, there is no rulebook... The stewards are inconsistant at best, and you know as well as I, that next Sunday's ruling might have a different outcome.

I respect the NYRA stewards. Dr. Hill is a very humble, educated and brite man. Carmine Donofrio has an enormous amount of experience.
I think they're inconsistancies stem from a lack of applying precendent the way we do in our legal system. Of course even with a rulebook there will sometimes be a debate. That's why there are 3 stewards. Take a vote, make the ruling, and move on.

I've stated previously that if NYRA wants to lead this industry they should develope and make available to bettors, rules and examples that the stewards will follow consistantly so as not perceived to be ( as they are) consistantly inconsistant.

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

The horse was gaining and looked like it had a good chance to win and it's path was clearly taken away; definitely a legitimate DQ.

[HUSKER55]

I had both of them and I was really wanting the 8 to win. However, the 2 was definitely checked and the call was valid. My bitch is the same as others have said in earlier posts. There seems to be inconsistencies in the way these DQ's are applied.


oh well.

[NY BRED]

I was there, could not believe the stretch drive, and don't ever recall
seeing this situation:

Ms. Studart's whip actually became entangled in the tail of
Grand Treasure, which leads me to believe she was somewhat culpable
and #8 should not have been dq'd.

Check the replay and closely watch these horses at the 1/8th pole.:eek:


Ps : the earlier post on Tampa, race 2 is right on..Insane there was no reversal
on the #2 horse.

Once again , who the heck is monitoring these Stewards except for
posts such as these?:bang:

[BUD]

The dialog she be recorded the printed out..then made available to the public----
Slewis does make many superb point---This last one would be a great place to start and this idea could and should be implemented immediately--SLEWIS--I've stated previously that if NYRA wants to lead this industry they should develop and make available to bettors, rules and examples that the stewards will follow consistently so as not perceived to be ( as they are) consistently inconsistent. END QUOTE

He is right that would be a noble first step and would be the begining of ending the gymnastic-figure skating type judging that we perceive..

JMo

[Relwob Owner]

After following horse racing for quite some time, one cpommon practice has now started making less and less sense-why do the jocks call up and plead their case? The only thing that really should matter is the replay and whatever the jocks say will inevitably reflect their point of view-seems like a waste of time....

[garyoz]

I've been betting and watching races for 44 years. I think overall the NYRA stewards do a very good job. What most horseplayers aren't willing to concede is that the stewards understand the sport much better than they do.

The idea of having the stewards speculate on a race outcome relative to an infraction, rather than ruling on the infraction is a slippery slope. It will just lead to greater horseplayer dissent. An infraction is visible--speculating on an outcome without the infraction is potentially arbitrary and capricious.

There is a very simple solution here. Eddie Castro should have kept a straight path. Finger pointing (and the sexist comments) directed at Jockey Studart are missing the point. Her mount's path was obstructed. She did as she should have, she lodged an objection.

[speed]

NY BRED said

Ms. Studart's whip actually became entangled in the tail of
Grand Treasure, which leads me to believe she was somewhat culpable
and #8 should not have been dq'd.


NY you are 100% correct. This happened just as the 8 drifted in.

Great eyes

[slewis]

I've been betting and watching races for 44 years. I think overall the NYRA stewards do a very good job. What most horseplayers aren't willing to concede is that the stewards understand the sport much better than they do.

The idea of having the stewards speculate on a race outcome relative to an infraction, rather than ruling on the infraction is a slippery slope. It will just lead to greater horseplayer dissent. An infraction is visible--speculating on an outcome without the infraction is potentially arbitrary and capricious.

There is a very simple solution here. Eddie Castro should have kept a straight path. Finger pointing (and the sexist comments) directed at Jockey Studart are missing the point. Her mount's path was obstructed. She did as she should have, she lodged an objection.

Garyoz

You probably dont recall the event (if I remember correctly) I commented on earlier:
Several yrs ago at the SPA, a hot first time starter was 2-5 or 3-5 with Mig aboard. Some cheap speed went out to the lead, Mig tracked in the two path and made his winning move just after the turn. The young horse ducked in a bit and cut off the "very tired and about to be easily passed" horse. MIg went on to win by double digit lengths.
They DQ'd him.

Do you really want to punish the bettors, trainer, owner?
Or, being that God has given us humans the ability to REASON (unlike any other species on this planet), shouldn't we implement just that.

I personally thought that in only 1 of 10 races without a foul might Joe Corrigan have won, not enough for a DQ. PA in his post suggested otherwise, maybe 6 or 7 of 10.
Assuming we are both very competant, along with one more vote (you have 3 stewards), a decision could be reached applying both RULES and REASON.

Of course regardless of a DQ vote, Castro should be fined. He peaked left and right and did nothing to get his mount back into the 2/3 path where he started.

Does everyone at least agree on this (meaning the Castro fine)??

[OTM Al]

I agree with the fine. Castro did it on purpose. Like I said before, he was intentionally blocking with his horse much earlier than the check and was just hoping the other would shy off with no foul. Sometimes you can get away with a move like that and sometimes not, but it is dangerous riding

[garyoz]

I agree that Castro should get days. The way I think the race would have finished if Castro hadn't tried to cut out the move of the#2 is that the #8 would have won in photo. This is because Studart is not a strong finisher. But do you really want the stewards to speculate on the ability of a jock to finish when they make a decision? Where do you draw the line on "reasoning?"

As I said, I had the #2 and #8 boxed and would have made more money if the #8 wasn't dq'ed, but I believe it was the right decision.

[boomman]

Garyoz

You probably dont recall the event (if I remember correctly) I commented on earlier:
Several yrs ago at the SPA, a hot first time starter was 2-5 or 3-5 with Mig aboard. Some cheap speed went out to the lead, Mig tracked in the two path and made his winning move just after the turn. The young horse ducked in a bit and cut off the "very tired and about to be easily passed" horse. MIg went on to win by double digit lengths.
They DQ'd him.

Do you really want to punish the bettors, trainer, owner?
Or, being that God has given us humans the ability to REASON (unlike any other species on this planet), shouldn't we implement just that.

I personally thought that in only 1 of 10 races without a foul might Joe Corrigan have won, not enough for a DQ. PA in his post suggested otherwise, maybe 6 or 7 of 10.
Assuming we are both very competant, along with one more vote (you have 3 stewards), a decision could be reached applying both RULES and REASON.

Of course regardless of a DQ vote, Castro should be fined. He peaked left and right and did nothing to get his mount back into the 2/3 path where he started.

Does everyone at least agree on this (meaning the Castro fine)??

Garyoz: First of all, I definitely agree that Castro should have been fined and possibly suspended for what appeared to be intentional in that when his horse moved away from the #2 in deep stretch, he kept hitting it right handed (and for the novices here, remember the horse will usually run away from the whip) thus causing his horse to move back in toward and impeding the #2. There is no question that the 2 was impeded, but as slewis has pointed out in his Richard Migliore example "did it cost the horse a placing"? That my friends is the question AND the rule. I have spent 28 years in the booth working with stewards and I can assure you ALL that when they go for stewards training to ROAP (Racing Officials Accreditation Program) to be accredited as stewards this is the rule they are given along with many video examples and expected to inforce: WAS THE HORSE COST A PLACING BY THE INFRACTION? If he was, then DQ was warranted. Let me also qualify with this disclaimer that I also had the 8 on top @ 20x1 in the late pick 4 (and would have hit the ticket) so my opinion could be slightly tainted on this one, but I just didn't see that the 2 was going to pass the 8 (even allowing for the infraction) and that is the only question the stewards should be asking, as that is the only time the BETTORS should be penalized! Fine Castro, sit him down, whatever, but make damn sure the DQ cost the other horse a placing before punishing the bettors! This is the consistency that ROAP expects from ALL stewards and I have been fortunate to work with competent stews who are very consistent when it comes to this type of rule enforcement.................

Boomer

[Stevie Belmont]

After watching the replay several times, there is doubt that Grand Treasure came over a bit. Studart did check a bit. Eddie Castro turned to look back after crossed the wire as if he knew he came over.

I have seen good dq's and bad ones. This one could have gone either way I thought. This one was tough, but Im not going to say it was a bad dq.

[bigmack]

Castro clearly gives a hard left to cut her off & then comes back out to further his hooliganism. There oughta be a fine w/ days.

O3hV71vFEzA

[garyoz]

WAS THE HORSE COST A PLACING BY THE INFRACTION? If he was, then DQ was warranted.
Boomer

Maybe, maybe not..Watch again from the pan shot. The #2 gets to within half a length before Castro starts his inside move. Once again, I don't think the #2 would have won because Studart is a weak finisher. Do we know for sure? No, Did Castro take any chance of the horse winning away with his aggressive ride? Yes Do you want the stewards taking into account the "quality" of the jockey in making decisions? No

[OTM Al]

Maybe, maybe not..Watch again from the pan shot. The #2 gets to within half a length before Castro starts his inside move. Once again, I don't think the #2 would have won because Studart is a weak finisher. Do we know for sure? No, Did Castro take any chance of the horse winning away with his aggressive ride? Yes Do you want the stewards taking into account the "quality" of the jockey in making decisions? No

I'd like to add that in my viewing Castro made his intent of interfering clear with his looking back. I have no doubt he was playing on Studart's inexperience. As soon as the objection was announced I was sure the horse was coming down just by the reactions I saw for the length of the stretch, even before I saw the headon.

And those that say the bettors were penalized, well maybe a subset, but what about those that had the 2 on top? Wouldn't they have been penalized if interference had occured and the 8 was allowed to stand? The only one I feel that deserves any blame here is Castro. He knew what he was doing and he was such a bad actor that he got caught. Fine him, give him days, end of story.

[cj]

I'd like to add that in my viewing Castro made his intent of interfering clear with his looking back. I have no doubt he was playing on Studart's inexperience. As soon as the objection was announced I was sure the horse was coming down just by the reactions I saw for the length of the stretch, even before I saw the headon.

And those that say the bettors were penalized, well maybe a subset, but what about those that had the 2 on top? Wouldn't they have been penalized if interference had occured and the 8 was allowed to stand? The only one I feel that deserves any blame here is Castro. He knew what he was doing and he was such a bad actor that he got caught. Fine him, give him days, end of story.

Where exactly was the interference? How much did the horse move in? I've watched the replay many times, especially the head on, and I don't see it. As a much better race watcher than I asked me, why is it you can bear out 10 paths and herd other horses with no DQ, but you can't move in 5 inches?

[garyoz]

Where exactly was the interference? How much did the horse move in? I've watched the replay many times, especially the head on, and I don't see it. As a much better race watcher than I asked me, why is it you can bear out 10 paths and herd other horses with no DQ, but you can't move in 5 inches?

Clearly took away the one path.

[ryesteve]

As a much better race watcher than I asked me, why is it you can bear out 10 paths and herd other horses with no DQ, but you can't move in 5 inches?Easy question... I think we've established pretty frequently that stewards are inconsistent, incompetent, or both.

And my two cents on the race is that I have no idea what the finish would've been otherwise, but it was a stupid and dangerous maneuver that warrants days.

[ezrabrooks]

Where exactly was the interference? How much did the horse move in? I've watched the replay many times, especially the head on, and I don't see it. As a much better race watcher than I asked me, why is it you can bear out 10 paths and herd other horses with no DQ, but you can't move in 5 inches?

Don't know about 5 inches...but the rail has a lot to do with it. The herding is still a puzzle for me..

Ez

[PaceAdvantage]

I personally thought that in only 1 of 10 races without a foul might Joe Corrigan have won, not enough for a DQ. PA in his post suggested otherwise, maybe 6 or 7 of 10. Ahh, you give me too much credit. I merely implied I thought the finish would have been very close.

[PaceAdvantage]

Where exactly was the interference? How much did the horse move in? I've watched the replay many times, especially the head on, and I don't see it. As a much better race watcher than I asked me, why is it you can bear out 10 paths and herd other horses with no DQ, but you can't move in 5 inches?As others have pointed out, I think Castro's body language both during and after the race hurt him greatly.

Castro (along with most everyone else) obviously knows Studart loves the rail, and he did the smart thing by trying to cut the rail path off a bit...problem was, he was way too animated about it...

[boomman]

Let me get this straight: They took Castro down on an either or, NOW Rosie Napravnik's 4 horse comes over and literally knocks the 5 horse ON HIS HEAD and No DQ? What the hell is going on there?:mad:

Boomer

[samyn on the green]

The part you are missing is that Goretty came out as much as Love Strikes came in. Both horses converged on each other. Just because one of the horses almost fell when they clipped heels does not automaticlly put her up. Much different than the Studart issue the other day. Let me get this straight: They took Castro down on an either or, NOW Rosie Napravnik's 4 horse comes over and literally knocks the 5 horse ON HIS HEAD and No DQ? What the hell is going on there?:mad:

Boomer

[boomman]

The part you are missing is that Goretty came out as much as Love Strikes came in. Both horses converged on each other. Just because one of the horses almost fell when they clipped heels does not automaticlly put her up. Much different than the Studart issue the other day.

Yea explain the rules of racing to me Samyn! She came over and nearly dropped the guy on the 5, that's what my 20-20 non lenscrafters vision saw!!!...Looks like you might need to try 'em yourself if you think that wasn't a foul! She hit the horse right handed and he ducks STRAIGHT in and clobbered the 5! I don't know how the rider stayed on the 5 when the horse's head smacked the ground! AWFUL NO CALL!:ThmbDown:

Boomer

[speed]

Boomer watch the head on replay and concentrate on the 5's path. She drifts as well. Yes the 4 drifts but doesnt the 5 need to maintain a straight path for there to be a DQ?

If they both drift are they not both responsible?

[samyn on the green]

I'm just breaking balls a bit with the Lenscrafters bit. But both horses drifted causing the contact, how could you DQ only one of them. Yea explain the rules of racing to me Samyn! She came over and nearly dropped the guy on the 5, that's what my 20-20 non lenscafters vision saw!!!...Looks like you might need to try 'em yourself if you think that wasn't a foul! She hit the horse right handed and he ducks STRAIGHT in and clobbered the 5! I don't know how the rider stayed on the 5 when the horse's head smacked the ground! AWFUL NO CALL!:ThmbDown:

Boomer

[boomman]

Boomer watch the head on replay and concentrate on the 5's path. She drifts as well. Yes the 4 drifts but doesnt the 5 need to maintain a straight path for there to be a DQ?

If they both drift are they not both responsible?

speed: In many cases you would be right with that argument, but remember the question is: did she cost that horse a placing, and I don't see any part of that head on that even remotely shows "joint" responsibility for that incident! She is on the outside, hits her horse right handed in the drive, her horse ducks straight in and nearly knocks the 5 horse down. Can anyone look at that and REALLY think the 5 was jointly responsible or if not, that he wasn't cost a placing?? :confused:

Boomer

[samyn on the green]

See that's where the Lenscrafters bit comes into play. You are completely ignoring that Goretty was drifting out while Love Strokes drifted in. speed: In many cases you would be right with that argument, but remember the question is: did she cost that horse a placing, and I don't see any part of that head on that even remotely shows "joint" responsibility for that incident! She is on the outside, hits her horse right handed in the drive, her horse ducks straight in and nearly knocks the 5 horse down. Can anyone look at that and REALLY think the 5 was jointly responsible or if not, that he wasn't cost a placing?? :confused:

Boomer

[boomman]

See that's where the Lenscrafters bit comes into play. You are completely ignoring that Goretty was drifting out while Love Strokes drifted in.

Nope. Not ignoring anything! I'm just wondering what race you think you watched!:D

Boomer

[speed]

I am quite surprised by your response.

She was cost a placing. But she was responsible for that as much as the 4 was. Let me ask you Boomer, did you see the 5 drifting as well as they made contact If she ran straight and was bumped of course a DQ was warranted.But she drifted as much as the 4 did.

As certain as you are she should come down is my opinion the other way.

Mike

[boomman]

I am quite surprised by your response.

She was cost a placing. But she was responsible for that as much as the 4 was. Let me ask you Boomer, did you see the 5 drifting as well as they made contact If she ran straight and was bumped of course a DQ was warranted.But she drifted as much as the 4 did.

As certain as you are she should come down is my opinion the other way.

Mike

You are surprised by my response because I disagree with you? I respect your opinion Mike and even Samyn's (complete with the uncalled for "ball busting" remark) but there is no way in my view that the 5 was jointly responsible for that incident. Of course I saw him drift slightly, but in no way did he cause that 4 to duck in and nearly knock him down. The right hand whip of Rosie was responsible for that!

Boomer

[speed]

Not at all because you disagree with me. I thought it was obvious that both the horses drifted and that was the reason they collided.
To me if only the 4 drifts they do not bump.
if only the 5 drifts they do not bump.

I suppose thats why im surprised you disagree.