Storming Home!

[JustRalph]

The Arlington Million!

Did Storming Home get Screwed? I think they should have left him up.

[Show Me the Wire]

Terrible decision disqualifying the winner Storming Home.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[depalma13]

Unfortunately they had to. It sucked because I had him singled in the pick four, and would have hit that. Also would have had the exacta and tri in the million. He did hit Paolini before the wire and that clearly cost him second. He had to be placed behind that one for interference, and since Paolini dead heated, they were forced to place him fourth. I don't like it one bit, but the connections of Paolini had a very valid complaint. The problem lies in that it was probably some stupid photographer who snapped a picture before the finish of the race, and the flash spooked the horse.

[Pace Cap'n]

Having watched all the replays on ESPN & TVG, I think they were correct, as much as I hate to say it. SH did impede the progress of other horses prior to completion of the race, affecting the placement of the runners-up.

Sure did hate to see Stevens go down. Hope he bounces back quickly.

[Valuist]

There's no question they made the CORRECT move. Anyone who is angry at the stewards didn't see all the views. In the head on view, you see you swerves about 4 paths to his right. And it was clearly BEFORE the finish. I was afraid they'd be too gutless to make the DQ because it was a big race, but they made the right move. A guy near me at the OTB had a $200 win bet on Storming Home and he admitted he should come down.

[JustRalph]

I still think it didn't change the outcome. Too close to the finish line, they would have never gotten to him........but it may have changed the outcome of the 2nd or 3rd spot. If that is why they took him down.......they have a point.

[cj]

I think it clearly cost at least one horse a placing, so the DQ was the right thing to do IMO.

[Lefty]

Looking at the "headon" this morn. on TVG have to say he had to come down.

[azibuck]

I think some of you have been watching racing too long and are caught up in what stewards have done, should do, etc.

How about common sense?

What is fair to ALL the horses?

Did he swerve? Sure. Did he impede and affect the runners up? Sure.

Did he cross the frickin line first, without impeding others from beating him there. SURE.

(Note: I had Perfect Soul, so I'm merely bitter about losing 2 bucks, nothing more).

I don't have "The Answer", but know that the answer includes Storming Home finishing first.

Forget about the wagers for a second. Fine the connections. Distribute the 1st place money to places 2-4 instead. But put Storming Home down as The Winner of the 2003 Arlington Million. Engrave his name in the trophy if they do that sort of thing. He won the damn race.

He committed an egregious foul. I taped it, so yes, I saw all the angles from the broadcast, and am fully aware of how far he came across. Making him fourth seems so arbitrary. Why 4th? Why not last?

I'm stunned that so many of you feel the right thing was done. Stunned. There is not an ounce of common sense in the "outcome."

I will never place another bet on a race at Arlington.

az

[Valuist]

Netcapper-

Are you crazy? If you saw the head on, it was one of the most blatant fouls I've ever seen. You know the rules; whether Storming Home ran a winning race is irrelevant. You CANNOT DO WHAT HE DID and get away with it. If this was a $5000 claiming race, there would've been the DQ and no one would've questioned it. Kudos to the Arlington stewards for having the guts to make a (justifiable) win DQ in a huge race although I personally believe Storming Home probably should've been dropped to 5th, not 4th, which would affect the purse distribution and the superfectas.

How about the fans booing the winner's circle ceremony? Totally uncalled for. Maybe it was the same people who were booing players at the All Star Game at US Cellular.

[VetScratch]

Valuist,
You are so right about SH and the fans. How many lanes do you have to cross at such a severe angle? The rule of thumb for stewards is whether an infraction impacts the outcome of purse awards (and wagers had better not be considered). In a big race like the AP-Million, purse money differences between 2nd and 5th amount to more than chump change.

Since the infraction was so blatant, several horses in the replay justified rider assertions that they were impeded. And the winner's share ended up in the same royal family, so the after-race party was still a success!:) :)

[WINMANWIN]

Originally posted by VetScratch
Valuist,

Since the infraction was so blatant, several horses in the replay justified rider assertions that they were impeded. And the winner's share ended up in the same royal family, so the after-race party was still a success!:) :)

Yes, When I heard that on the broadcast, I said gee whiz, some things never change in this game. Easy decision for stewards,
Whats the big deal, The prize stays in the family, and they make the right call.:rolleyes: Seriously, As many know, When
a horse interferes with another, They get placed BEHIND the horse they interfere with.

[Lefty]

azbuck, where he was placed is not arbitrary. He is supposed to be pleced behind the horse he fouled. In this case he fouled a few so he is placed behind the worst place finisher of that group. It is not at all arbitrary.

[azibuck]

You know the rules

No, as a matter of fact, I don't. What are the rules? Are they hard and fast rules? Are they always applied the same? Seriously, can you point me to them? Not challenging, I'd just like to know them. Are they posted at some Jockey Club site or something?

When a horse interferes with another, They get placed BEHIND the horse they interfere with.

I'll be watching for this next time a clear winner brushes a quitting frontrunner that goes on to finish last. This is simply not always the case.

And again, I'm saying rules, shmules, what makes sense? What happened? If thirteen owners decided to go off in some field some where and race their horses, we wouldn't even be talking about who finished second, or who was impeded from possibly finishing second.

Douglas and Suborics both are quoted right after the race as saying SH cost them SECOND place. That's my point. If there are some hoked up rules about where to place a horse that only affected positions behind them, so be it.

Storming Home won. Period.

[VetScratch]

Netcapperazibuck,
Douglas and Suborics both are quoted right after the race as saying SH cost them SECOND place. Where is the logic for not penalizing SH for a blatant infraction?

The stewards had NO grounds for moving Sulamani, who did nothing, down to 4th behind Paolini and Kaieteur (who dead-heated). When horse A fouls, you don't penalize horse B to make amends to horses C and D, who were impeded.

SH was moved behind the two dead-heaters who were impeded.

[Valuist]

Jim O'Donnell of the Chicago Sun Times was the only one who's uncovered any possible theories of why Storming Home was spooked:

Instant speculation arose that Storming Home might have been spooked by a reflection of the late afternoon sun as he approached the finish line. But more likely, said one senior trainer at Arlington, was the sudden appearance in the horse's vision of ground-level promotional signs on the inside of the turf course at the track, immediately adjacent to the mirror that helps to serve as the faux finish line. Said the trainer, "A horse can be clipping along in that stretch (at Arlington) and see nothing but rail and green, rail and green. Then suddenly, as he gets 2 or 3 strides from the finish, he sees those signs. They can be very scary, especially for a horse who is new to the course."

Leave it to advertisers and advertising to get in the way of a good event.

[azibuck]

Where is the logic for not penalizing SH for a blatant infraction?

Where is the logic for penalizing the bettors?

Take their purse money. Fine them. Do something besides take down the fastest horse in the race.

I've admitted SH fouled badly. I just don't agree with the penalty.

[VetScratch]

In this case, where the horse almost assuredly spooked and turned Stevens into a helpless passenger/victim, what you say has common sense appeal.

However, for most infractions the case is not so clear, and if we ask for broader subjective interpretations than we already witness, some nasty consequences will become acceptable risks if payouts are excluded from penalties.

[Valuist]

Netcapper-

If you're saying leave the result in tact for the bettors but have the DQ affect purse only, I don't really have a problem with that. I think Beyer had proposed that a while back. Only problem is that if you are going to do that, then lets have ALL of North America go to that. Might be something for the NTRA to consider. But the way I see it, with DQs, over the long haul you're going to benefit on roughly half and get taken down the other half. Theoretically, it should even out

[Observer]

They can not leave a horse up out of sympathy for the jockey or for the situation or for the bettors. The horse spooked a few jumps before the wire, and clearly impeeded several other horses. No question he should come down, period.

It simply does not matter if a horse was clearly best. If he impeedes another horse, that is grounds for disqualification.

As for what caused the horse to spook .. speculation is silly .. the only one who is going to know is the horse .. the smallest thing way off in the distance can easily set them off.

[PurplePower]

Originally posted by Netcapperazibuck
Where is the logic for penalizing the bettors?

Take their purse money. Fine them. Do something besides take down the fastest horse in the race.
Here is what the Texas Rules of Racing says regarding interferende.
Texas Rules of Racing Section 313.442 Interference
a) A leading horse in a race around a turn is entitled to any part of the course, however, when another horse is attempting to pass in a clear opening, the leading horse may not impede the passing horse by crossing over so as to compel the passing horse to shorten its stride. .........
b) A horse may not interfere with or cause another horse to lose stride, lose ground, or lose position in a part of the race where the horse interfered with loses the opportunity to place where that horse might be reasonably expected to finish.
c) The stewards may disqualify a horse who interferes with another horse in violation of this section and may place the horse behind the horse intefered with.
d) The stewards shall display the "inquiry" sign on the infield tote board immediately on observing possible interference.
Obviously those that bet on the winner would feel "robbed" since it was obvious that SH was going to WIN regardless of his sudden right move. What about a bettor having $200 Place bet on #9? That bettor lost any chance of cashing that bet because of the interference. More bettors than those that bet on the winner are involved. As VS said, the above rules should be followed WITHOUT regard to one group of bettors - because no matter which group is considered there is an argument that can be made that another group of bettors was not given fair treatment.

[PurplePower]

Originally posted by Observer
.......As for what caused the horse to spook .. speculation is silly .. the only one who is going to know is the horse .. the smallest thing way off in the distance can easily set them off. Interesting note that Gary reported after he regained ability to talk that SH had spooked at the same spot on the track the day before -- refusing to move for some time. He may have never seen that finish line mirror with his left eye (would be ok with it finishing from the other direction because he was familiar with it with his right eye). But, without him "confessing", we just have that speculation. (For those unfamiliar with the way a horse sees, a horse does not have the same nerve connecting the right and left side of its brain that we do. As a result, what a horse knows with one eye can be totally unknown to that horse with its other eye.)

[VetScratch]

Yup, it's amazing how horses can go so fast while running through two worlds at the same time.:)

[Observer]

I'd like to hear the reasoning from those (currently nine) who voted for no dq.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Observer
I'd like to hear the reasoning from those (currently nine) who voted for no dq.

It happened too late. I don't think it changed much. But there was a heater in there. when it's that close for place and back I guess any interference at all made a difference. But, I still say he should have stayed up. Nobody was going to beat him and in fact nobody did. I think they should of just made a judgement on who was going to be where and left him up. It wouldn't have been any harder than what happened anyway. Some purses got mixed etc. He deserved the win.

[WINMANWIN]

I also believed that the horse would not be DQE'D. I thought
the infraction happened after the FINISH LINE. I understand
fully, that no horse would have won that race, other than
STORM. But, when they write the Rules, They should be Enforced.
Many times the stewards are not consistent with their calls, and
the fans quite naturally, have a right to be angry. So, when an
infraction happens, and the rules are clearly violated. The end result, is what happened. Suggestion to STORM'S connection's
FULL CUP BLINKERS NEXT OUT....:rolleyes:

[Valuist]

Winmanwin-

I'm not sure what angle you viewed the stretch run but it was very conclusive that the foul occurred BEFORE the finish line. You can clearly see the riders of Paolini and Katieur checking. Were they going to win? No, but Storming Home clearly cost them a shot at 2nd, and IMO, bothered Perfect Soul as well. The owners are fortunate he wasn't moved down to 5th.

[WINMANWIN]

Originally posted by Valuist
Winmanwin-

I'm not sure what angle you viewed the stretch run but it was very conclusive that the foul occurred BEFORE the finish line. You can clearly see the riders of Paolini and Katieur checking. Were they going to win? No, but Storming Home clearly cost them a shot at 2nd, and IMO, bothered Perfect Soul as well. The owners are fortunate he wasn't moved down to 5th.

My mistake, I meant to say, Initially I thought the infraction occurred after the FINISH Line. I was watching on Espn, and to my knowledge, The replay was not conclusive. Espn, I believe
was not showing the track feed replays, that were probably conclusive. Like I said, RULES ARE RULES, and If a horse interferes
like Storm did prior to the finish line, THE RULES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. In a 5k Claimer or a million buck Stake. As we stipulated Earlier in this thread, The cashola went to the same NEEDY family anyway !!!!!!:eek:

[azibuck]

But I still disagree. I guess I disagree with the rule, if not the ruling.

If those horses were impeded for 2nd, put them all second then, and combine the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place purses, and show and place pools. Heck, give them Storming Home's purse as well, as punishment. Then pay exactas to all three with SH. Tri's too. Payouts would be disappointing, and no one would be truly happy, but neither unhappy.

I also understand why it's easier to just follow a hard and fast rule than to take things on a case by case basis. The stewards would be under even more fire, and conspiracy theories would fly. But that doesn't make this outcome any easier to fathom in my amatuer eyes.

Also, I still don't think it's hard and fast. But I mostly watch the NY circuit, so maybe they have a little more leeway here.

[PurplePower]

Originally posted by Netcapperazibuck
But I still disagree. I guess I disagree with the rule, if not the ruling.

If those horses were impeded for 2nd, put them all second then, and combine the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place purses, and show and place pools. Heck, give them Storming Home's purse as well, as punishment. Then pay exactas to all three with SH. Tri's too. Payouts would be disappointing, and no one would be truly happy, but neither unhappy........ So then, since Shaq fouled Kobe on a shot, don't give Kobe any free throws, reward the bettors that had the fortune to bet on LA even though they won because Kobe was fouled. (I am not a BB fan and only know that Shaq plays for the Lakers and that Kobe is in the news a lot.) Then, because all teams foul during the course of the year, just declare all of them NBA champions and split the trophy between them and the money (if there is any) for winning the championship -- but only pay the bettors that bet on the Lakers because they were going to win anyway since they have the biggest, roughest players? :)

I think I understand your frustration Net. But, what about the owners of the horses? Yes, we may have had a significant wager on SH, maybe even $2000 to WIN, and we get penalized because he darted to the right - but without question was going to WIN. Consider, however the owner of #9 who deadheated for third. How much did he wager? In entry and start fees alone he had put up at least $20,000 not to mention transportation costs, training fees, etc. etc. Dead heat for third he gets $80,000. Second by himself he would get $200,000. As it was, with the deadheat (which the stewards couldn't change just because it was "obvious" that #9 was going to be second) he made $150,000 - $50K less than a solo second, but still $70K more than he gets if their is no DQ. Granted, that is only one person to consider, but that is another aspect of this that sometimes gets lost when we consider only the horse players that might have been "robbed".

Making a decision to disqualify a horse is not an easy decision to make. And disagreement is part of what makes this game (and this bulletin board) so much fun.

[cj]

I know I've brought this up before, but I still advocate letting DQs affect purse distribution only, not mutuel payouts.

[azibuck]

I don't want to belabor this any more, I'm clearly the crackpot here. But it's funny you used a basketball analogy. I used one on a buddy of mine. There is a situation in basketball where an offensive player charges (fouls) but scores in the process. Sometimes he still gets the two points, but is charged with the foul.

[Observer]

It's amazing .. take the same exact circumstances, but pretend for a second the 100-1 Tripat pulled off the upset .. running the same exact race favored Storming Home did .. just flip-flop the two horses in theory .. how many people would still be crying that this longshot horse should have stayed up because he clearly was best in the race??!! Rules shouldn't be bent according to the wagering .. the rules should be followed, regardless. And I have a hard time believing 100-1 Tripat would be getting the same backing had it been him that freaked out and cut off a few horses before the wire as opposed to Storming Home.
:rolleyes: