Spinster DQ

[classhandicapper]

I had the winner (Proviso) and got taken down. I more or less hated Swift Temper in there and booked an equal amount against her. So I broke even for the race, but I thought the DQ was very marginal and it cost me a nice score.

What did everyone else think?

[Ian Meyers]

I thought it potentially cost the runner-up the race. Proviso swerved out pretty bad. Would she have beaten the 11 anyway? Maybe but I thought it was a pretty clearcut call. JMHO. I had 4/11 boxed but just broke even. I needed 11/1 for all the money.

BTW, for those following Joe Riddell's KEE tweets, he had a very good Saturday and a pretty good Sunday after a slow start Friday. He's listed under paddockreport on twitter.com for those interested in following him.

[miesque]

I had to leave for Bluegrass Airport right after the race so this was the one race I watched downstairs from the rail at the finish and at the time my impression was that Proviso was drifting but was not severely impacting Muska. I just watched the replay as I am sitting waiting for my flight and I think its a borderline call. I had money on Proviso winning so I am biased here, but I will note that I am one who tends to agree with the more strict calls (like last year's Arlington Futurity, which cost me a winning exacta and tri) so I can't be too upset.

[the_fat_man]

If they didn't take this horse down today, then they better not ever take a horse down again. This was a simple one.

[Java Gold@TFT]

Watching the race in the live version I told my wife that the winner had to come down. After the replay the only doubt was how the KY Stewards interpreted the rules. Proviso definitely interfered and deserved the DQ. It's just that in some jurisdictions the stewards have a little bit of leeway as to whether the clear foul "influenced the finish order" of the race. In this case I think they got it correct.

And I will be looking seriously at Proviso in the Distaff next month. Sort of remiscent of Alysheba's DQ before the Derby. He deserved it but came back to win the next time. I wonder if the database guys have a stat on DQ'd winners coming back to win their next race?

[classhandicapper]

....... It's just that in some jurisdictions the stewards have a little bit of leeway as to whether the clear foul "influenced the finish order" of the race. In this case I think they got it correct.


That's the way I felt about it. There was no doubt she came way out and caused the jockey on the other horse to grab hold, but there is that gray area about whether the horse was clear and whether it impacted the final result.

[Java Gold@TFT]

That's the way I felt about it. There was no doubt she came way out and caused the jockey on the other horse to grab hold, but there is that gray area about whether the horse was clear and whether it impacted the final result.
Two weeks ago in France Da Re Mi was DQ'd for a minor infraction that had absolutley no effect on the race outcome. After an appeal of the DQ the French stewards admitted that they were only following the rules in place but thos rules will now be put under review. If the fould had no affect on the outcome, i.e. interefernce at the 7/8ths pole against a horse finsihing 6th then there should be no DQ. Yesterday's foul was just as bad as the one that took down the King's Bishop winner this year at the Spa.

[cj's dad]

If they didn't take this horse down today, then they better not ever take a horse down again. This was a simple one.


Thanks for your succinct opinion of this DQ- For those of us who may not agree,
please keep us posted on the validity (in your opinion) of all future DQ's.

[Valuist]

Stewards made the right call. I don't think it was a tough call on their part.

[slew101]

I also thought that was an easy one with the major swerve.

But despite the DQ, is any jock riding better than Rajiv Maragh right now? Brought in another 13-1 shot earlier in the card to go with some big price winners the first two days (of course I didn't like any of the winners).

[jballscalls]

based on past experiences, i seem to remember the stews at keeneland never being shy about taking a horse down

[Nikki1997]

[QUOTE=cj's dad]Thanks for your succinct opinion of this DQ- For those of us who may not agree,
please keep us posted on the validity (in your opinion) of all future DQ's.[/QUOTE

Pardon me, but did you see the head on? Proviso decided to go on a voyage of her own and there's some question as to whether she should have been taken down? Geez, it was so blatant that even Helen Keller would have given the thumbs up to the disqualification.

[WinterTriangle]

I have a question. Remember a few weeks ago, I posted about the horse I bet to win getting dQed...it was in a big stakes race.

they moved him from 1st to 4th. Everyone told me that's what they do.

So how come they moved proviso only one place????

[the_fat_man]

Thanks for your succinct opinion of this DQ- For those of us who may not agree,
please keep us posted on the validity (in your opinion) of all future DQ's.

If a horse is in a drive and another horse takes its path to the extent that the former needs to not only pull up but veer to the outside, what do you call that? This isn't OBSTACLE TBRED racing, it's about each horse in the race having a fair chance to run. Last thing we all need is for the stewards to make decisions about which horse could or couldn't have won a race if not bothered. This, given their many INCREDIBLE previous decisions.

My suggestion: let your friends/relatives know that Dan ILLman's Trip Handicapping Video is on your wish list. You just might get it one of the holidays. I know I'll be doing the same. :rolleyes:

[classhandicapper]

Thanks for your succinct opinion of this DQ- For those of us who may not agree,
please keep us posted on the validity (in your opinion) of all future DQ's.

:lol:

The reason I am asking is because it meant a decent amount of money to me. Any chance of being unbiased went out the window as soon as it happened.

I tend to be very biased towards NOT DQing horses unless it's a blatant foul (like a bump) that "clearly" impacted the outcome. To me, once you have to debate whether the horse was clear or whether it impacted the outcome, that's already grounds for not disqualifying the horse. Perhaps that's an extreme view, but that's how I feel about it.

However, like I said, there is no chance of me being unbiased in this case and I haven't even looked at the replay.

[jballscalls]

I have a question. Remember a few weeks ago, I posted about the horse I bet to win getting dQed...it was in a big stakes race.

they moved him from 1st to 4th. Everyone told me that's what they do.

So how come they moved proviso only one place????

they move the horse behind the horse with whom he interfered with. If the horse that dq'd would have interfered with a horse that finished third, they would dq him and put him in 3rd, thus moving the horse who was fouled up to second.

[Imriledup]

This is a tough DQ for the fans of the winner as the runner up was not going to win. She was not 'getting to' the physical winner at the line. Also, it didn't help the winner that you had Kent riding the 2nd place finisher totally overcorrecting and dramatizing the interference 'for effect'.

The 2nd place finisher was just traveling at the same speed, one paced and never going by.

One of the tough things in racing that bettors have to deal with.

Great job by Kent selling the call, he deserved to be put up because the bettors who wagered on him got an academy award performance and for that, they deserve to take Oscar home.

[sandpit]

This is a tough DQ for the fans of the winner as the runner up was not going to win. She was not 'getting to' the physical winner at the line. Also, it didn't help the winner that you had Kent riding the 2nd place finisher totally overcorrecting and dramatizing the interference 'for effect'.

The 2nd place finisher was just traveling at the same speed, one paced and never going by.

One of the tough things in racing that bettors have to deal with.

Great job by Kent selling the call, he deserved to be put up because the bettors who wagered on him got an academy award performance and for that, they deserve to take Oscar home.

You're right, Desormeaux is great at the overacting...and though I had Mushka, I didn't think she was going to win either.

The guys on TVG were full of opinions while they were waiting for the stewards' decision. Tom Amoss was in the "no brainer" category; thought the horse must come down; Simon Bray was agreeing with him. Meanwhile, all Todd Schrupp could talk about was how the winner, who was owned by Juddmonte, was going to get dq'ed from the race that they sponsored. And I don't know if anybody saw this, but in the TVG's zeal to get a camera in Desormeaux's face, they zoomed in on him talking to Caton Bredar, their ex-employee who was there working for HRTV! :lol:

[OTM Al]

I liked Proviso on top as well in that race and while I think it unlikely that Mushka was going to get to her, I think the DQ was still warrented as the shift in paths was very severe and she did cut off Mushka. I had no doubt that she was coming down. Looked for a second like the horse was going to bolt to the outer rail. Not all bumps should cause a DQ nor should the fact the didn't bump rule out one. There was significant intereference which changed everything that came after it.

All that said, Proviso looks a bit better than the lot Zenyatta has been smacking around out west, so no matter what race she runs, it's not going to be as easy as the rest she had this year.

[Bochall]

I had the winner (Proviso) and got taken down. I more or less hated Swift Temper in there and booked an equal amount against her. So I broke even for the race, but I thought the DQ was very marginal and it cost me a nice score.

What did everyone else think? I too went down with Proviso but cant fault the stewards. By the same token, I dont buy Kent D's assertion that he was going to get by Proviso. He said Proviso was idling and he was surely going by. Maragh's problem is that he didnt mount a good argument for the stewards, admitting that he bore out but he "corrected him quickly". Played Proviso on top only as Frankel ship ins for GrStks are usually money in the bank.

[jonnielu]

Thanks for your succinct opinion of this DQ- For those of us who may not agree,
please keep us posted on the validity (in your opinion) of all future DQ's.

If Stevie Wonder wasn't tied up making ML's at Mountaineer, he could've made this proper DQ. The only thing Proviso didn't do was stick out a leg and trip Mushka.

I have seen one infraction that was more blatant, Cordero whipping Genuine Risk across the nose.

jdl

[rokitman]

A no-brainer DQ. I do not want any stewards making any "would have lost anyway" decisions on these matters. They are not remotely qualified to do so.

[Imriledup]

A no-brainer DQ. I do not want any stewards making any "would have lost anyway" decisions on these matters. They are not remotely qualified to do so.

I do. I don't stay up till 5am every day so that judges can just randomly DQ horses that are trying to benefit. If you add in the 'would have won' stuff, you have less DQs. Less DQs are a good thing. They're a good thing because that means the rightful winners are paid off. Personally, i don't care what goes on behind the scenes with jocks and the racing commissions, i just want to be paid if i physically cross the wire first. I want my money and i don't care how they get it to me.

[BIG49010]

I said to myself at the time of the foul, if they didn't take down the horse because of the connections, I wouldn't ever bet another race at Keeneland.

[Imriledup]

I said to myself at the time of the foul, if they didn't take down the horse because of the connections, I wouldn't ever bet another race at Keeneland.

But, how would you know if that was the real reason they left her up?

[BIG49010]

But, how would you know if that was the real reason they left her up? After 25 years of watching races, this was a DQ, by anybody's book! Only reason I could make for leaving it up, was the connections.

[CBedo]

They were just talking about this on TVG. They said Keeneland had the Trakus guys look at it with their data (after the fact, not used in decision). Looking at velocities before and after the bump, Mushka's lost velocity easily cost her the victory. They concluded that Mushka would have won by about 1.5 lengths if she had not been impeded.

[BIG49010]

That's cool, and very interesting that they looked at the race with an unbiased method.

Thanks for posting that.

[classhandicapper]

I do. I don't stay up till 5am every day so that judges can just randomly DQ horses that are trying to benefit. If you add in the 'would have won' stuff, you have less DQs. Less DQs are a good thing. They're a good thing because that means the rightful winners are paid off. Personally, i don't care what goes on behind the scenes with jocks and the racing commissions, i just want to be paid if i physically cross the wire first. I want my money and i don't care how they get it to me.

That's my feeling.

I want as few DQs as possible. In my perfect world (a minority one for sure), no horse would get DQ'd unless it banged another horse that was CLEARLY going to beat it without the bump. It would have to be so clear, only a deranged horseplayer that bet the DQ'd horse would complain (granted that could still be a lot of horseplayers) LOL

I don't think a horse bearing in/out and taking away a path should mean a DQ even if the jockey was doing it on purpose (the jocks can be disciplined in other ways) unless it's obvious the horse was going to win.

I don't think a hard bump that had no impact on the outcome should mean a DQ.

I could on, but IMO basically anything that is gray as far as what the outcome would have been should mean no DQ. By limiting the decisions that the stewards make to only the clear cut ones, there would be fewer clear cut mistakes.

By my definition, the Spinster would not have resulted in a DQ, but after reviewing the replay, I understand the DQ give the current rules.

[NTamm1215]

That's my feeling.

I want as few DQs as possible. In my perfect world (a minority one for sure), no horse would get DQ'd unless it banged another horse that was CLEARLY going to beat it without the bump. It would have to be so clear, only a deranged horseplayer that bet the DQ'd horse would complain (granted that could still be a lot of horseplayers) LOL

I don't think a horse bearing in/out and taking away a path should mean a DQ even if the jockey was doing it on purpose (the jocks can be disciplined in other ways) unless it's obvious the horse was going to win.

I don't think a hard bump that had no impact on the outcome should mean a DQ.

I could on, but IMO basically anything that is gray as far as what the outcome would have been should mean no DQ. By limiting the decisions that the stewards make to only the clear cut ones, there would be fewer clear cut mistakes.

By my definition, the Spinster would not have resulted in a DQ, but after reviewing the replay, I understand the DQ give the current rules.

So you think a rider who's on a quitting horse should be able to take them to his right and bang into a horse next to him and not get DQ'd and placed last if it's clear he wasn't going to beat the horse who he bumped?

Come on, that's ridiculous. Horses bumping into each other is dangerous and puts too many people at risk.

Contact of any type should be reviewed and more often than not ought to earn a disqualification. The taking of a path similar to what happened in the Spinster is a disqualifying offense 10 out of 10 times. The decision on whether it affected the outcome is subjective but what is certain is that the offense brought the eventual result into question. Thus, there should be a disqualification.

NT

[classhandicapper]

So you think a rider who's on a quitting horse should be able to take them to his right and bang into a horse next to him and not get DQ'd and placed last if it's clear he wasn't going to beat the horse who he bumped?

Come on, that's ridiculous. Horses bumping into each other is dangerous and puts too many people at risk.

Contact of any type should be reviewed and more often than not ought to earn a disqualification. The taking of a path similar to what happened in the Spinster is a disqualifying offense 10 out of 10 times. The decision on whether it affected the outcome is subjective but what is certain is that the offense brought the eventual result into question. Thus, there should be a disqualification.

NT

Of course not. You obviously don't understand what I am saying.

I am saying if a horse does not cause a clear cut alteration in the outcome of the race (stress "clear cut"), IMO there should be no DQ almost no matter what it did.

Once you start DQing horses for taking paths, bumps, bearing in/out etc... where it's questionable who would have won had it not happen, you open the game up to a level to a level subjectiveness that leads to inconsistent decisions from race to race, track to track, major controversy and anger among fans, and even worse, horrible decisions due to total incompetence.

Any of these infractions can be reviewed by the stewards for irresponsible riding as a totally separate matter. Appropriate strict fines, suspensions etc.. can be handed down to prevent rough riding.

IMO, what you want to avoid is DQing horses that were clearly going to win and that did not alter the outcome in any other way due to the infraction. The problem is, in most cases it's not very clear who was going to win. So IMO, instead of the default value being an inconsistent/incompetent subjective decision, it should be to leave it alone. When it's obvious the interfered with horse was going to win (or do better than it did), then a DQ is appropriate.

I understand that this a minority view, but I'm pretty sure it would work better and there would be much less grumbling as long as purposeful rough riding was penalized strongly.

[Gone2Golf]

I bet Proviso and even I admit the horse should have come down. A jock or horse will get killed if they let that kind of thing happen without penalty.