No DQ..You have to be kidding me..

[cmoore]

Philadelphia Park on Feb. 17th race 5..

This 3 cuts the 1 off on the turn and there's no DQ..What were these stewards looking at?? Watch the replay..Right when the 3 makes it into the turn. He enters into the shadow. He's outside of the shadow down the backstretch then moves into the shadow and impedes the one. I don't care if he won by 18 lengths..He moved into the ones path causing the one to clip heels..It's that simple..These guys are idiots..

[speed]

That was insane. I can't imagine an explanation that the stewards could give. The 3 was 1/2 a length in front of the 1 when he clearly took the rail path. The 1 clips heels and bobbles throwing Elliot to the track.

There was a similar no DQ at Tampa on the 8th race 2 that i could not
believe.

I am on owner who doesn't carry mortality insurance on my horses. Perhaps racing in some of these jurisdictions we need to.

[asH]

should have been taken down, even if it was Cohen/Klesaris... they backed up the tape at least 10 times..rules state a clear lead, that, was never established.

[The Bit]

Philly Park has long been a mystery when it comes to steward's decisions.

[phatbastard]

worked to my advantage for once.....:jump:

[JustRalph]

is there a head-on available anywhere........?

[phatbastard]

it was just entering far turn, no head-on shot, and it was difficult to see if the 3 dropped over, it appeared he did, but not easily ascertained

[JustRalph]

I just dug it up on the DVR. I don't think that horse went down on his own?

too bad there is no head on.


Did the :9: step on Stewie? Looked like he jumped Elliott and lost his rider?

[cmoore]

it was just entering far turn, no head-on shot, and it was difficult to see if the 3 dropped over, it appeared he did, but not easily ascertained
Watch how the 3 enters into the shadow on the turn..
You were counting your money on the turn..:lol:

[phatbastard]

i might be a tad jaded in my opinion....exacta pd 151 :blush:

[cmoore]

i might be a tad jaded in my opinion....exacta pd 151 :blush:

I understand Phatbastard..Good hit..You must be buddys with the stewards..:lol:

[speed]

I just dug it up on the DVR. I don't think that horse went down on his own?

too bad there is no head on.


Did the :9: step on Stewie? Looked like he jumped Elliott and lost his rider?


Ralph i watched the head on. It was a joke sir. What Cmoore said about the shadow is correct. Shadow was the 2 path, the horse goes from the 2 path to the rail while only being a 1/2 length clear.

I phoned Tampa stewards last week after there incident and they had me in tears with there explanation. I race at Tampa and am seriously rethinking that.

You can get head ons from equibase. Many plans to choose from

[dutchboy]

is there a head-on available anywhere........?

Anyone else recall when they never showed head on shots? I seem to recall the reason was that the tracks were afraid of the controversy they might cause. It seems like it may have been in the mid 1980's before they started with the head on shots or it could have been just the local track before simulcasting became such a big deal.

[Shemp Howard]

The Keystone stewards took the day off today after getting paid double time holiday pay yesterday.

The Aqueduct stewards worked in their place. They thought Dominguez was riding the horse cutting over.

[Imriledup]

Philadelphia Park on Feb. 17th race 5..

This 3 cuts the 1 off on the turn and there's no DQ..What were these stewards looking at?? Watch the replay..Right when the 3 makes it into the turn. He enters into the shadow. He's outside of the shadow down the backstretch then moves into the shadow and impedes the one. I don't care if he won by 18 lengths..He moved into the ones path causing the one to clip heels..It's that simple..These guys are idiots..

The key words in your rant are:
'on the turn' and 'won by 18 lengths'

the equibase chart said the winner HAD his heels clipped. The way its written in the chart, seems to indicate that the winner was the one who got clipped and not the other way around.

[onefast99]

Ralph i watched the head on. It was a joke sir. What Cmoore said about the shadow is correct. Shadow was the 2 path, the horse goes from the 2 path to the rail while only being a 1/2 length clear.

I phoned Tampa stewards last week after there incident and they had me in tears with there explanation. I race at Tampa and am seriously rethinking that.

You can get head ons from equibase. Many plans to choose from
At least they got on the phone with you most tracks the stewards wont discuss anything with you unless you go to see them in person.

[mostpost]

I did not see a replay of the race in question, so I'm not sure of the value of my opinion. Naturally I'll give it anyway. The argument was made that the three came over and interfered with the one causing the one to stumble and unseat his rider thus causing the one any chance in the race.
The purpose of a disqualification would be to prevent the three from getting an unfair advantage due to his interference with the one. However the one did not finish the race. You can't move him ahead of any of the other horses who did finish the race. This is just bad racing luck for the one. The other question would be "Did the three earn an unfair advantage over the rest of the field?'
The other horse which had trouble was the two which "checked at the flank of the loose horse" according to the chart. This may have affected the chances of the two (and the loose horse may have affected the chances of other horses), but that was not the fault of the three.
To summarize; the three did not interfere with any of the horses which finished the race. The only horse which he interfered with was the one. Since the one did not finish the race, she could not be helped by a disqualification; therefore there was none. Perhaps the jockey should be given days for his ride, but the result should stand.

[cmoore]

I did not see a replay of the race in question, so I'm not sure of the value of my opinion. Naturally I'll give it anyway. The argument was made that the three came over and interfered with the one causing the one to stumble and unseat his rider thus causing the one any chance in the race.
The purpose of a disqualification would be to prevent the three from getting an unfair advantage due to his interference with the one. However the one did not finish the race. You can't move him ahead of any of the other horses who did finish the race. This is just bad racing luck for the one. The other question would be "Did the three earn an unfair advantage over the rest of the field?'
The other horse which had trouble was the two which "checked at the flank of the loose horse" according to the chart. This may have affected the chances of the two (and the loose horse may have affected the chances of other horses), but that was not the fault of the three.
To summarize; the three did not interfere with any of the horses which finished the race. The only horse which he interfered with was the one. Since the one did not finish the race, she could not be helped by a disqualification; therefore there was none. Perhaps the jockey should be given days for his ride, but the result should stand.


So your saying if the jockey didn't fall of the horse and finished the race. Then a DQ is possible..What kind of logic is that??

[ryesteve]

The other horse which had trouble was the two which "checked at the flank of the loose horse" according to the chart. This may have affected the chances of the two (and the loose horse may have affected the chances of other horses), but that was not the fault of the three
I'm flabbergasted by your point of view, but I've got to ask how you figure that wasn't the fault of the three. Why do you think there was a loose horse in the first place??

[speed]

I did not see a replay of the race in question, so I'm not sure of the value of my opinion. Naturally I'll give it anyway. The argument was made that the three came over and interfered with the one causing the one to stumble and unseat his rider thus causing the one any chance in the race.
The purpose of a disqualification would be to prevent the three from getting an unfair advantage due to his interference with the one. However the one did not finish the race. You can't move him ahead of any of the other horses who did finish the race. This is just bad racing luck for the one. The other question would be "Did the three earn an unfair advantage over the rest of the field?'
The other horse which had trouble was the two which "checked at the flank of the loose horse" according to the chart. This may have affected the chances of the two (and the loose horse may have affected the chances of other horses), but that was not the fault of the three.
To summarize; the three did not interfere with any of the horses which finished the race. The only horse which he interfered with was the one. Since the one did not finish the race, she could not be helped by a disqualification; therefore there was none. Perhaps the jockey should be given days for his ride, but the result should stand.

I had to read this post 6 or 8 times. the first 3 because i fell from my chair and likely suffered a mild concussion so i was not reading clearly. The next 3 cause i could not see through the tears of laughter rolling down my face. Finally i was able to read this post and can only guess that you sir are one of the stewards.

I believe this gets my vote for post of the year. :) :) :)

[mostpost]

So your saying if the jockey didn't fall of the horse and finished the race. Then a DQ is possible..What kind of logic is that??

Because then there would have been something for him to be disqualified into. if he HAD finished second, I would definitely agree with taking the three down and putting him behind the one, or one place behind wherever the one finished. The three did not interfere with any other horses in the race, therefore the only other horses who could be moved up would be those finished between the three and the one. As I said previously, I did not see the race. I'm going by what I read in the chart and the fact that none of the other jockeys claimed foul. Don't you think they would have done so if they felt they had been fouled?

[mostpost]

I'm flabbergasted by your point of view, but I've got to ask how you figure that wasn't the fault of the three. Why do you think there was a loose horse in the first place??

The three did indeed cause the loose horse, but she can not be held responsible for what that horse does after that anymore than a jockey can be held responsible for the actions of a horse which he falls off leaving the startiing gate.

The three did nothing to prevent the second place horse (the 2) from winning the race. (18 3/4 lenghths).

[menifee]

I watched the head on. It's not that clear that the 3 cut off the 1 going into the turn. I'm not saying he did not, but I don't think there is clear evidence that he did. Under my standards, no DQ.

If this was at Turf Paradise, the 3 horse would have come down as the stewards will take down a horse if a horse sh*ts on the track and another horse steps on it.
No consistency between tracks.

[mostpost]

and can only guess that you sir are one of the stewards.

Oh, now that's just insulting!!!:eek: TOS violation. I was trying to analyze the decision by the stewards, and I think my position has merit. Would I feel this way if I had a bet on the race. Depends whether I had the two or the three.;)

[speed]

I watched the head on. It's not that clear that the 3 cut off the 1 going into the turn. I'm not saying he did not, but I don't think there is clear evidence that he did. Under my standards, no DQ.

If this was at Turf Paradise, the 3 horse would have come down as the stewards will take down a horse if a horse sh*ts on the track and another horse steps on it.
No consistency between tracks.

Like cmoore said look at the shadows of the rail. The 3 was well outside the shadow in the 2-3 path and then ends up exactly where the 1 was inside the shadow in the 1 path.

[JCB]

I did not see a replay of the race in question, so I'm not sure of the value of my opinion. Naturally I'll give it anyway. The argument was made that the three came over and interfered with the one causing the one to stumble and unseat his rider thus causing the one any chance in the race.
The purpose of a disqualification would be to prevent the three from getting an unfair advantage due to his interference with the one. However the one did not finish the race. You can't move him ahead of any of the other horses who did finish the race. This is just bad racing luck for the one. The other question would be "Did the three earn an unfair advantage over the rest of the field?'
.

It isn't like that. If Horse A interferes with Horse B and causes B to lose at least one placing, then A is placed behind Horse B. If B didn't finish, then A is placed last.

[Thomas Roulston]

But in this case the usual weasel excuse for not DQ'ing - the infraction didn't cost the fouled horse a placing - is presumably inoperative, since the latter DNF'd (it's not as if the 1 horse had finished 4th, 10 lengths behind the 3rd horse).

And I also noticed that they've cut the starter's bonus at Pha to $150 (it had been $250).

[cj's dad]

It isn't like that. If Horse A interferes with Horse B and causes B to lose at least one placing, then A is placed behind Horse B. If B didn't finish, then A is placed last.

Is this a standard rule?

[Zman179]

Is this a standard rule?

Yes it is. If the stewards rule that a horse interfered with another horse, which in turn caused the horse to fall, then the offending horse will be placed last.

In the event that last place offers a cut of the purse (i.e. six horse field with five purse placings), then the stewards also have the option to disqualify the horse from the purse monies. The heading in this case would read, "Disqualified and unplaced."

[ryesteve]

The three did indeed cause the loose horse, but she can not be held responsible for what that horse does after that anymore than a jockey can be held responsible for the actions of a horse which he falls off leaving the startiing gate.Yes she can, because your latter example is an accident, while the former is a foul.

Please, just stop...

[cj's dad]

Thanks for the reply-

makes sense now that I think about it- a riderless horse would obviously be last, therefore if found to have been fouled the horse causing same would be last - duh on my part.