Hollywood Race 9 7/4/10

[Maverick58034]

Sorry for starting another thread like this, but I just wanted to see what you all thought of R9 @ Hollywood today - specifically whether the :5: should have been taken down. I had a WPS on the :1: so I know my opinion is not objective. Nevertheless, I was at least somewhat surprised the :5: stayed up - I felt that he might interfered with the horse on his outside (I believe the :8:? ) before (more blatantly) veering in sharply near the wire, forcing the :1: to check sharply.

After an inquiry and no change, the rationale given was that the :5:'s actions did not impair the :1: from a better placing, but I can't say I agree with that logic: the :5: cut hard in front of the :1: and took his path to the wire. On the contrary, given the :5:'s actions, there was no possible way the :1: could have had a better placing. The :5: didn't strongly accelerate past the :1: until he actually veered in front of him (perhaps the acceleration looks more dramatic because the :1: had to take back sharply?). The argument to keep the :5: up seems like bootstrapping - keep the :5: up because he would have finished in front of the :1: anyway, but in finishing in front of the :1: the :5: took away all chance of the :1: having a better placing.

To draw from The Big Lebowski - "Am I Wrong?"

[miesque]

That race was comprised of two year old maidens, most of whom were making their first start so if any situation would have flexibility, this would be it. I would have been inclined to take down the :5: and move up the :1: to second, but I am the type that if I was a steward a lot more horses would be coming down as I tend to take a much stricter, less forgiving implementation of the rules.

[Spalding No!]

After an inquiry and no change, the rationale given was that the :5:'s actions did not impair the :1: from a better placing, but I can't say I agree with that logic: the :5: cut hard in front of the :1: and took his path to the wire. On the contrary, given the :5:'s actions, there was no possible way the :1: could have had a better placing. The :5: didn't strongly accelerate past the :1: until he actually veered in front of him (perhaps the acceleration looks more dramatic because the :1: had to take back sharply?). The argument to keep the :5: up seems like bootstrapping - keep the :5: up because he would have finished in front of the :1: anyway, but in finishing in front of the :1: the :5: took away all chance of the :1: having a better placing.

To draw from The Big Lebowski - "Am I Wrong?"
They didn't replay the entire race on TVG nor is the head-on angle up yet on Cal Racing, but something also went on rounding the far turn at the 1/4 pole. The 5 horse ducked in sharply just prior to that (the announcer mentions this), securing the rail and forcing the 1 horse to angle outwards. However, as they round the turn apparently the 5 horse wanted back out and the 1 horse is forced to steady slightly and moves back to the rail.

Basically, though not as severe as the final insult at the 1/16th pole, the 5 made the 1 his biatch throughout the race.

It's like Lenin said:

"I am the walrus..."

[Stillriledup]

Here's the problem with the "better placing" argument in this particular case. Once the 5 pulled himself up or whatever the heck that was that he did, he put the 1 in a position to not be able to take advantage of his greenness. In other words, lets say the 1 was running 9 lanes wide on the far far outside and in 3rd position...he might have been able to get up for 2nd when the 5 'blew up'. See what i'm saying? But because the 5 bore into him, the 1 wasnt able to try and take advantage of the 5's bad behavior.

I wonder if the 1 would have been able to get up for 2nd had the 5 drifted to the OUTSIDE instead of lugging in?

[JustRalph]

Sorry for starting another thread like this, but I just wanted to see what you all thought of R9 @ Hollywood today - specifically whether the :5: should have been taken down. I had a WPS on the :1: so I know my opinion is not objective. Nevertheless, I was at least somewhat surprised the :5: stayed up - I felt that he might interfered with the horse on his outside (I believe the :8:? ) before (more blatantly) veering in sharply near the wire, forcing the :1: to check sharply.

After an inquiry and no change, the rationale given was that the :5:'s actions did not impair the :1: from a better placing, but I can't say I agree with that logic: the :5: cut hard in front of the :1: and took his path to the wire. On the contrary, given the :5:'s actions, there was no possible way the :1: could have had a better placing. The :5: didn't strongly accelerate past the :1: until he actually veered in front of him (perhaps the acceleration looks more dramatic because the :1: had to take back sharply?). The argument to keep the :5: up seems like bootstrapping - keep the :5: up because he would have finished in front of the :1: anyway, but in finishing in front of the :1: the :5: took away all chance of the :1: having a better placing.

To draw from The Big Lebowski - "Am I Wrong?"

I can't decide if I love the look of that post or hate it..........Never seen it used that way.......those green and red checks (horse numbers) look like a lumberjacks flannel shirt.......... :faint:

[carlonr]

There is another issue here that the stewards failed to see (recognize). That is the safety issue. Interference in the stretch, is as much of a safety issue as a winning/losing/placing issue. It is in the stretch that most horses are being asked for their most, and therefore the stewards need to rule in such a way that the jockeys feel their safety is always a major concern.

[andymays]

If someone would have passed the :1: for third because of the :5: then the :5: would have come down. This was an easy call and I'm surprised the Stewards took so long to make it.