Aqueduct Race 2

[davefulche]

I took alot of time off leading to the Breeders Cup.....it was caused by a run of awful takedowns at Fairplex and some other venues. Now today at Aqueduct in Race 2 it happens again. I don't care what Mr. Bob Baedeker says on TVG. Yes Grand Ave. clearly came over but he also was 10 times the best and didn't cost either horse to the inside a placing. When is racing going to learn until there are clear rules about this stuff it is going to turn people off. I'd prefer racing to be like it is in the Derby and on Breeders Cup day where must be an egregious foul to come down...

[misscashalot]

I took alot of time off leading to the Breeders Cup.....it was caused by a run of awful takedowns at Fairplex and some other venues. Now today at Aqueduct in Race 2 it happens again. I don't care what Mr. Bob Baedeker says on TVG. Yes Grand Ave. clearly came over but he also was 10 times the best and didn't cost either horse to the inside a placing. When is racing going to learn until there are clear rules about this stuff it is going to turn people off. I'd prefer racing to be like it is in the Derby and on Breeders Cup day where must be an egregious foul to come down...

Sounds like ya bet the :3:

[slew101]

Just watched it. Terrible DQ.

[misscashalot]

Just watched it. Terrible DQ.

The dq’d horse moved over two lanes in deep stretch, bumped the second place finisher who, because of the bump, in turn made contact with the 3rd place finisher who finished only a neck behind the second place horse. They took the “winner” down 2 spots and deservedly so.

[phatbastard]

if you don't think that one was justified...i'm speechless.......the rail horse got impeded severely....

[slew101]

I agreed with the original poster's belief. I didn't see enough contact to warrant a DQ there. Neither inside jock really stopped riding. There's more bumping in turf races where they take no action. It seems in smaller fields, they are more quick to DQ.

[ranchwest]

Well, I have a completely different opinion. The 1 and 3 both pinched the 2. It was marginal as to whether there should have been any change. When you look at the pan shot none of the horses change strides or show any signs of contact. On the head-on there is a moment where the 3 does come in fairly significantly.

So, if I were a steward I'd have taken down the 3 and placed him second. The 1 was just as much at fault as the 3 and should not have been moved up.

Taking down the 3 was marginal. Moving up the 1 was larceny.

[CBedo]

Although I've seen much worse, this one seemed pretty clear to me. The rail horse was clealy impeded, and as such could have easily lost a placing. Therefore, they had to DQ the offending horse and place him behind the rail horse.

[ranchwest]

Although I've seen much worse, this one seemed pretty clear to me. The rail horse was clealy impeded, and as such could have easily lost a placing. Therefore, they had to DQ the offending horse and place him behind the rail horse.

The rail horse came out! If he was impeded, it was his own fault. It looked to me like the rail horse, the 1, made first contact. The case against the 3 is bolstered by the fact that he was all over the place before the contact. Had that not been the case, a strong case could be made that the 1 caused all of the contact.

[slew101]

Watching this race, I can't help thinking of the 2001 Beldame. Same exact scenario. I had the winner here and when they flashed that official sign, I couldn't believe it. Anyone have big money on this stretch run with any of the three fillies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sixHo8RguNw

[fmolf]

oft times when a horse feels slight contact from the side they will lean back towards the contact which is what i believe the rail horse did.The horse between the two should have taken the worst of it.Its always a tough call when 3 horses are involved.As we can all see from this thread 10 people will call it 10 different ways!Although it did not look like any of the involved broke stride it is impossiblle to quantify the momentum that each lost.

[CBedo]

oft times when a horse feels slight contact from the side they will lean back towards the contact which is what i believe the rail horse did.The horse between the two should have taken the worst of it.Its always a tough call when 3 horses are involved.As we can all see from this thread 10 people will call it 10 different ways!Although it did not look like any of the involved broke stride it is impossiblle to quantify the momentum that each lost.Actually, it's not impossible. A Trakus type system would have clearly shown any change in direction, velocity, and/or acceleration.

[the_fat_man]

Actually, it's not impossible. A Trakus type system would have clearly shown any change in direction, velocity, and/or acceleration.

Any relevant change in momentum is evident to the trained eye. A horse that's bumped typically also changes leads; most often going from righty to lefty. You can easily see this. It then needs to either change back or continue on the same (wrong) lead -- either way there's a loss of momentum. You can also easily see a horse that has to stop and then start again.

Neither of these situations was the case here. This should've been a NO CALL. Taking this horse down is a JOKE. Is Eric Donovan now a steward? :rolleyes:

[CBedo]

Any relevant change in momentum is evident to the trained eye. A horse that's bumped typically also changes leads; most often going from righty to lefty. You can easily see this. It then needs to either change back or continue on the same (wrong) lead -- either way there's a loss of momentum. You can also easily see a horse that has to stop and then start again.

Neither of these situations was the case here. This should've been a NO CALL. Taking this horse down is a JOKE. Is Eric Donovan now a steward? :rolleyes:If your "trained eye" was watching the relative positioning of the two inside horses, it was pretty clear to me that when the outside horse made contact, there was a definite change in positioning of the inside two, with the rail horse losing position.

[fmolf]

Any relevant change in momentum is evident to the trained eye. A horse that's bumped typically also changes leads; most often going from righty to lefty. You can easily see this. It then needs to either change back or continue on the same (wrong) lead -- either way there's a loss of momentum. You can also easily see a horse that has to stop and then start again.

Neither of these situations was the case here. This should've been a NO CALL. Taking this horse down is a JOKE. Is Eric Donovan now a steward? :rolleyes:
Even the slightest change in momentum can cause a horse to lose a race because none of these horses is accelerating in the stretch but merely slowing down at different rates.which is the very reason why it is so hard to quantify.what you are saying is visible to almost all who watch a race i am saying that a horse can be impeded his momentum slowed and be almost impossible to quanti.It can be detected but how do you determine how much momentum is lost?Trakus is not viable most tracks do not have it.This is the dilemma the stewards face ...its not was he impeded but how much did it change the outcome of the finish?

[the_fat_man]

Any relevant change in momentum is evident to the trained eye. A horse that's bumped typically also changes leads; most often going from righty to lefty. You can easily see this. It then needs to either change back or continue on the same (wrong) lead -- either way there's a loss of momentum. You can also easily see a horse that has to stop and then start again.

Neither of these situations was the case here. This should've been a NO CALL. Taking this horse down is a JOKE. Is Eric Donovan now a steward? :rolleyes:

Actually, I just took a closer look. The horse on the rail was in fact forced to change back to lefty lead as a result of the contact. Now, it was being sticked lefty, so someone could argue that it did its share initiating the contact. However, not going to lefty stick means the jock and horse get forced onto the rail. Since the horse was forced to change leads I can live with the take down. The winner was much the best but all horses should be allowed stretch runs where their footwork isn't affected.

[fmolf]

Actually, I just took a closer look. The horse on the rail was in fact forced to change back to lefty lead as a result of the contact. Now, it was being sticked lefty, so someone could argue that it did its share initiating the contact. However, not going to lefty stick means the jock and horse get forced onto the rail. Since the horse was forced to change leads I can live with the take down. The winner was much the best but all horses should be allowed stretch runs where their footwork isn't affected.
I do not envy the stewards their job it is difficult. i do think they can be a lot more consistent from day to day and week to week.we have all seen worse interference where the horse was left up.

[ranchwest]

Actually, I just took a closer look. The horse on the rail was in fact forced to change back to lefty lead as a result of the contact. Now, it was being sticked lefty, so someone could argue that it did its share initiating the contact. However, not going to lefty stick means the jock and horse get forced onto the rail. Since the horse was forced to change leads I can live with the take down. The winner was much the best but all horses should be allowed stretch runs where their footwork isn't affected.

First, the 1 hit the 2 and the 2 went out. Then, the 3 came in on the 2. But, was the 3 continuing to jump all over the track or did the 3 duck in because the 2 moved out? The 3 did not impede the 1, not even indirectly. The 1 was moving out on the 2. The 2 didn't take out the 1's lane.

Just because the 1 lost his lead, that doesn't mean anything. If he'd jumped a shadow or grabbed a quarter he could have lost his lead, but would you take down the 3? What's the basis of DQ'ing the 3 behind the 1? I don't get it.

[the_fat_man]

Just because the 1 lost his lead, that doesn't mean anything. If he'd jumped a shadow or grabbed a quarter he could have lost his lead, but would you take down the 3? What's the basis of DQ'ing the 3 behind the 1? I don't get it.

There's a difference between a horse changing leads on its own and being forced to change leads. There are many cases where a horse has changed to right lead in the stretch and then changes back again. This is not a change in momentum and sometimes an advantage (for some horses). But, when a horse is bumped into a change, this is a change of momentum (as it's not intentional on the part of the horse or the jock --- i.e. induced by the rider's use of the whip).

Additionally, I think cases involving horses on the rail need to be treated differently. You can't have a horse getting squeezed on the rail OR expect a horse that's on the rail, and directly inside another horse, to stay completely straight in the lane.

Which brings up another point. Whenever I watch a European turf race, it seems that, while horses are well bunched for most of the race, they pretty much all seem to be able to get clear runs in the stretch. This is almost never the case in U.S. racing. I mean, I watch 6 horse turf fields where half of them can lack room in the lane. The American jocks are just IDIOTS: they disregard drafting and the bunch up late -- God forbid if someone on a quitting horse actually got out of the way. There's no reason for a horse to be squeezed on the rail in the lane. The only reason this happens is 'gamesmanship', in other words, INTIMIDATION, which really doesn't belong in a dangerous sport.

[ranchwest]

There's a difference between a horse changing leads on its own and being forced to change leads. There are many cases where a horse has changed to right lead in the stretch and then changes back again. This is not a change in momentum and sometimes an advantage (for some horses). But, when a horse is bumped into a change, this is a change of momentum (as it's not intentional on the part of the horse or the jock --- i.e. induced by the rider's use of the whip).

Additionally, I think cases involving horses on the rail need to be treated differently. You can't have a horse getting squeezed on the rail OR expect a horse that's on the rail, and directly inside another horse, to stay completely straight in the lane.

Which brings up another point. Whenever I watch a European turf race, it seems that, while horses are well bunched for most of the race, they pretty much all seem to be able to get clear runs in the stretch. This is almost never the case in U.S. racing. I mean, I watch 6 horse turf fields where half of them can lack room in the lane. The American jocks are just IDIOTS: they disregard drafting and the bunch up late -- God forbid if someone on a quitting horse actually got out of the way. There's no reason for a horse to be squeezed on the rail in the lane. The only reason this happens is 'gamesmanship', in other words, INTIMIDATION, which really doesn't belong in a dangerous sport.

My point is that the 1 horse broke lead after LUGGING OUT and BUMPING the 2. That's not the 3's fault, any more than breaking the lead from jumping a shadow or grabbing a quarter. It just isn't the 3's fault. The mere fact that the 1 broke lead doesn't in itself make a case for a DQ of the 3.

[the_fat_man]

My point is that the 1 horse broke lead after LUGGING OUT and BUMPING the 2. That's not the 3's fault, any more than breaking the lead from jumping a shadow or grabbing a quarter. It just isn't the 3's fault. The mere fact that the 1 broke lead doesn't in itself make a case for a DQ of the 3.

How about you actually WATCH THE HEADON and stop repeating yourself?
When they enter the stretch the inside horse is in the THREE path, soon after the horse to its outside has forced it to the rail. Then the 3rd horse comes in and YOUR HORSE gets squeezed a bit, as the horse on the rail really has had enough with being forced in. Maybe if the 2 kept a straight path none of this shit happens. Or maybe if the 3 doesn't squeeze them it doesn't happen. YET, you want to take the 1 down.

No wonder your main focus seems to be with BRIS and TSN format. Do you ever watch a replay or just make the stuff up as you go along?

[ranchwest]

How about you actually WATCH THE HEADON and stop repeating yourself?
When they enter the stretch the inside horse is in the THREE path, soon after the horse to its outside has forced it to the rail. Then the 3rd horse comes in and YOUR HORSE gets squeezed a bit, as the horse on the rail really has had enough with being forced in. Maybe if the 2 kept a straight path none of this shit happens. Or maybe if the 3 doesn't squeeze them it doesn't happen. YET, you want to take the 1 down.

No wonder your main focus seems to be with BRIS and TSN format. Do you ever watch a replay or just make the stuff up as you go along?

Ah, so you childishly change the subject to attack those who disagree.

In case you can't figure this out, the fact that I study data formats does not have anything to do with my vision. Or is that over your head?

I'll agree to disagree.

[davefulche]

I think the point that so many people see this race differently is why it should have stood. I don't think the winner should come down in instances where he or she is much the best and does not clearly cost a placing. That inside horse never gets by the horse in the middle. BY the way I watched the youtube of the Beldame and to me that was much worse than what occured in this race, but similar in the fact that the horse was much the best. I'd like to see a headon shot of that race.

Just saying I think racing would be much better without ticky tack objections and claims of foul. The original order of finish in this race would have been how they finished regardless of the 3 getting in a little bit.

[porchy44]

Calder 1st Race November 8, 2009

#3 wins. Inquiry and objection for possibly impeding #2 horse in stretch.

Final result is NO disqualification this time. Comparing both races (Calder and Aqueduct) My conclusion is disqualifications are A-R-B-I-T-R-A-R-Y.

[slew101]

I didn't realize that Castellano was riding the DQ'd horse on Wednesday. The rider of the Beldame winner in 2001? Castellano.

In the 2001 race, Castellano was whipping right-handed both times the horse lugged in. The first time, he was able to straighten her out. The second time, she bumped Spain.

The 2001 result stood, as I recall from stories, because Victor Espinoza, on Spain, told the stewards the bumping didn't affect his placing, even though Flute beat him by a neck for the place and he did steady for moment. There was also a report that Jerry Bailey was egging Espinzoa to claim foul during the inquiry, because then Bailey's horse would be put up to first. After the race, Bobby Frankel said the winner should have stayed up, but Lukas was upset Spain wasn't placed second. Not sure how Espinoza explained that to Lukas.

[QUOTE=davefulche]BY the way I watched the youtube of the Beldame and to me that was much worse than what occured in this race, but similar in the fact that the horse was much the best. I'd like to see a headon shot of that race.