Del Mar DQ

[speed]

Del Mar race 1

Comical DQ

I think this will do it for myself and likely my group with California wagering.

[andymays]

It was a bad call. The three was quitting anyway but I guess you could say the incident cost him 4th place. The #2 was equally responsible in my opinion.

[Gapfire]

Terrible call. To me it looked like the 2 was more responsible for the crowding of the 3 who was going to finish last any way.

[speed]

It was a bad call. The three was quitting anyway but I guess you could say the incident cost him 4th place. The #2 was equally responsible in my opinion.

I had no wager on the race but if u watch the head on as i am sure you do it is rather comical. I think equally is being quite nice :)

[andymays]

I had no wager on the race but if u watch the head on as i am sure you do it is rather comical. I think equally is being quite nice :)

I have had about 3 phone calls in the last 10 minutes about it. Everyone is pissed off. I expect this stuff from the California Stewards. Their call earlier in the year at Hollywood was the worst I've ever seen and they didn't take the horse down after interfering with 5 horses. What can I say? It's California. I expect it.

[Sunday Silence]

one of the worst I've ever seen..Honestly. 2 comes out and bumps, caused everything, and they take down the easy winner. If I would have had the winner or exotic I woulda been real pissed about that one..Don't know what they were smoking.

[cj]

Was it as bad as the call that gave the Phillies a win last night? Even after the very conclusive replay, the idiot umpire insists he was right.

Just trying to show it happens in all sports.

[andymays]

one of the worst I've ever seen..Honestly. 2 comes out and bumps, caused everything, and they take down the easy winner. If I would have had the winner or exotic I woulda been real pissed about that one..Don't know what they were smoking.

This one was one of the worst I've ever seen. If you know the California Stewards can make this call then the one today is nothing. ;)

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71501&highlight=disqualification

[Stillriledup]

No matter how much you yell and scream about borderline DQs there will always be judges who 'dont get it'.

They don't get that the fans want to be paid if they pick the winner.

Once in a while, there's a massacre that's so obvious Stevie Wonder could make the call, but in 99% of the 'incidents" you LEAVE. IT. ALONE.

Racing is a contact sport and sometimes 'stuff' happens. Sometimes it just APPEARS to happen. At any rate, you leave the stuff alone and pay off the winners.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[tbwinner]

This also brings the argument that DQs should apply to purse money-% only. Bettors don't get any money back when a 1st place finisher gets DQ'd for drugs a week later, why should they if there is some contact involved? Unless it's overly aggressive and on-purpose (and in this case the stews are CLUELESS), they shouldn't touch the mutuels. They wonder why people are turned off by this kind of thing.

[rwwupl]

Stillriledup]No matter how much you yell and scream about borderline DQs there will always be judges who 'dont get it'.

They don't get that the fans want to be paid if they pick the winner.
Once in a while, there's a massacre that's so obvious Stevie Wonder could make the call, but in 99% of the 'incidents" you LEAVE. IT. ALONE.

Racing is a contact sport and sometimes 'stuff' happens. Sometimes it just APPEARS to happen. At any rate, you leave the stuff alone and pay off the winners.
Why is this so hard to understand?[/QUOTE]Stillriledup...

We are on the same page here...

[andymays]

After the one at Hollywood the CHRB made a big deal about that being the right call. If that was the right call then this one was a no brainer to leave up.

Consistency is what we want but Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo! :bang:

[rwwupl]

After the one at Hollywood the CHRB made a big deal about that being the right call. If that was the right call then this one was a no brainer to leave up.

Consistency is what we want but Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo! :bang:


Consistency is "Golden"

[andymays]

Consistency is "Gold"

And rare!

[Igeteven]

And rare!

To Andy and Roger, get off of pace and get back to the races and win :D

[Stillriledup]

To Andy and Roger, get off of pace and get back to the races and win :D


Don't worry les, Mary won't ban you if you talk bad about DMR over here!

[banacek]

Was it as bad as the call that gave the Phillies a win last night? Even after the very conclusive replay, the idiot umpire insists he was right.

Just trying to show it happens in all sports.

Yeah, but the stewards get to use instant replay..and still they mess it up.

And that "foul ball"..bounced in twice before the bag, bounced in past the bag and the ump stills says it was wide of the bag..:bang: ...he could learn something from Jim Joyce and admit a mistake. (note to Bud Selig..it's not the 1960s anymore..use technology)

[therussmeister]

This also brings the argument that DQs should apply to purse money-% only. Bettors don't get any money back when a 1st place finisher gets DQ'd for drugs a week later, why should they if there is some contact involved? Unless it's overly aggressive and on-purpose (and in this case the stews are CLUELESS), they shouldn't touch the mutuels. They wonder why people are turned off by this kind of thing.
Do you really believe the majority of the bettors agree with this? It seems to me there are about three threads complaining about non-DQs for every thread complaining about DQs. See, for instance, the thread titled "By all that's holy".

[Seabiscuit@AR]

This is no different to the She'll Heir case at Hollywood a few weeks back. My view is that neither race is worthy of a DQ and the winner should stand in both races. But if you thought She'll Heir should be DQed then this this one should be DQed

[Robert Goren]

You guys gotting to gripe about until this happens. A horse I bet on was in a dead heat for win. The jockey put in a claim of foul against the other horse in the dead heat. The stewards took down my horse left the other one up. I had a horse run second one time and I was sure the winner was coming down. Nope he stayed up. I read in the DRF the next week that jockey on the winner got five days for rough riding in that race.

[rwwupl]

This is no different to the She'll Heir case at Hollywood a few weeks back. My view is that neither race is worthy of a DQ and the winner should stand in both races. But if you thought She'll Heir should be DQed then this this one should be DQed


No bettor really cares what criteria the Stewards use to give justice..But whatever it is it should be a consistent method. Bettors HATE to be D.Q.d' by Stewards who make up rules to fit what they want and reverse them the next time. That is the problem.

Consistency is Golden.

[tallen88]

Mike Smith and Zenyatta scratch tomorrow and take their show to Saratoga and tell them why, no political correctness here. That same lame broad has been in the tower at the top of the stretch at Del Mar for years, I'm sure she was in on this. Maybe she rode a show pony in High School and got the job.
No wonder the handle is significantly down and will continue. Disgraceful and embarrasing to the sport, and by the way, I had money on the 1, not Smitty.

[theiman]

Strange how people knock California all the time.

Can someone explain what happened in the 5th at Saratoga today?

Which was worse?

The #2 Pelican Lake makes a right turn of the turn at the top of the stretch and wipes out the #7 horse.
The result stood.
Put Pelican Lake into the "horse inquiry" at Cal racing and watch.
Here is the link to the DRF charts
http://www1.drf.com/drfPDFChartRacesIndexAction.do?TRK=SAR&CTY=USA&DATE=20100806&RN=5

[Gapfire]

Strange how people knock California all the time.

Can someone explain what happened in the 5th at Saratoga today?

Which was worse?

The #2 Pelican Lake makes a right turn of the turn at the top of the stretch and wipes out the #7 horse.
The result stood.
Put Pelican Lake into the "horse inquiry" at Cal racing and watch.
Here is the link to the DRF charts
http://www1.drf.com/drfPDFChartRacesIndexAction.do?TRK=SAR&CTY=USA&DATE=20100806&RN=5

People already talked about how bad that decision was in an earlier thread today.

[horses4courses]

Strange how people knock California all the time.



You find it strange?
I notice it all the time.
A large percentage of those living outside of California, criticize the heck out of it. It's a pastime for many.

I figure that most are jealous that many Californians live in a near perfect climate. There are those who just couldn't abide California's liberal politics.
They cringe with every illegal who slips undetected through our border.

Add synthetic surfaces into the equation, and now horse racing fans living outside the state have another beef with California.

Even with our problems in California, it is still a great place to live.

Oh, yes. That steward's decision at DMR R1 this evening was a bad call.
That type of problem is hardly unique to that state.

[Stillriledup]

This call will probably be appealed by the owners and reversed. This was beyond comprehension, these judges should all be fired tomorrow for this. Unacceptable.

Mike Smith should scratch Z in the post parade just to Screw with DMR.

[exiles]

I just watched the replay pan and head on,these stewards should be fired immediately,and Del Mar should be boycotted until they are, I've seen a lot questionable DQS and none DQS but this one, is the mother of them all. i had no bet in this race,haven't bet DEL MAR or SA or HOL since they put in the polycrap, by the way the none DQ at SAR today was very bad ,but nothing like this. DISGRACE.

[Stillriledup]

I just watched the replay pan and head on,these stewards should be fired immediately,and Del Mar should be boycotted until they are, I've seen a lot questionable DQS and none DQS but this one, is the mother of them all. i had no bet in this race,haven't bet DEL MAR or SA or HOL since they put in the polycrap, by the way the none DQ at SAR today was very bad ,but nothing like this. DISGRACE.

I've been watching thoroughbred racing for over 20 years and this is the worst one i've ever seen. I can't remember one worse.

[v j stauffer]

I've been watching 35 years. The horse was correctly DQ'ed. Will Mike Smith get days? Yes I think he will. The ruling will read for crossing over into the path of another horse without sufficent clearance. It's the same reason why the horse was DQ'ed. It was the correct call but VERY unlucky for the people who bet on the #1. The #1 horse straightened for the stretch run and was many lanes off the rail. He then crossed over without being clear into the path of #3. True he did not make contact with the #3. But, he was the REASON #3 came inward and contacted #2 in the rear causing that one to tip outward and cause repeated bumping. It's very simple. Had #1 maintained a straight course and not crossed infront of #3 without being clear NOTHING would have happened. Actually not a difficult call for a steward. Where the bad luck comes into play is if the #3 had finished in front of #4 there probably would have been no change as the stewards could have ruled the #3 was not cost an opportunity at a better placing. I've been in stewards meetings with the jockeys many times. Every single time they beg, plead and cajole the riders to "just go straight" Today Mike Smith did not go straight and it cost him, the owners and the bettors. We move on. Oh and BTW before you guys throw me to the wolves for taking the company line. Remember my company is HP not DM.

[Stillriledup]

I've been watching 35 years. The horse was correctly DQ'ed. Will Mike Smith get days? Yes I think he will. The ruling will read for crossing over into the path of another horse without sufficent clearance. It's the same reason why the horse was DQ'ed. It was the correct call but VERY unlucky for the people who bet on the #1. The #1 horse straightened for the stretch run and was many lanes off the rail. He then crossed over without being clear into the path of #3. True he did not make contact with the #3. But, he was the REASON #3 came inward and contacted #2 in the rear causing that one to tip outward and cause repeated bumping. It's very simple. Had #1 maintained a straight course and not crossed infront of #3 without being clear NOTHING would have happened. Actually not a difficult call for a steward. Where the bad luck comes into play is if the #3 had finished in front of #4 there probably would have been no change as the stewards could have ruled the #3 was not cost an opportunity at a better placing. I've been in stewards meetings with the jockeys many times. Every single time they beg, plead and cajole the riders to "just go straight" Today Mike Smith did not go straight and it cost him, the owners and the bettors. We move on. Oh and BTW before you guys throw me to the wolves for taking the company line. Remember my company is HP not DM.

You're going to the wolves. Its still the same judges, it doesnt' matter what track it is. Maybe Scott Chaney will treat to you a round of golf.

[Stillriledup]

I've been watching 35 years. The horse was correctly DQ'ed. Will Mike Smith get days? Yes I think he will. The ruling will read for crossing over into the path of another horse without sufficent clearance. It's the same reason why the horse was DQ'ed. It was the correct call but VERY unlucky for the people who bet on the #1. The #1 horse straightened for the stretch run and was many lanes off the rail. He then crossed over without being clear into the path of #3. True he did not make contact with the #3. But, he was the REASON #3 came inward and contacted #2 in the rear causing that one to tip outward and cause repeated bumping. It's very simple. Had #1 maintained a straight course and not crossed infront of #3 without being clear NOTHING would have happened. Actually not a difficult call for a steward. Where the bad luck comes into play is if the #3 had finished in front of #4 there probably would have been no change as the stewards could have ruled the #3 was not cost an opportunity at a better placing. I've been in stewards meetings with the jockeys many times. Every single time they beg, plead and cajole the riders to "just go straight" Today Mike Smith did not go straight and it cost him, the owners and the bettors. We move on. Oh and BTW before you guys throw me to the wolves for taking the company line. Remember my company is HP not DM.


There was no superfecta wagering in the race. The horse who was 'bothered' might have been 4th. Why hurt the bettors? Why not just pay off the bettors and then DQ the winner from the purse money after the fact?

If you want to make a case that the winner bothered this stopper and cost him 4th, that still doesnt explain why the bettors got hurt. This horse went from an unplaced 4th to an unplaced 5th, the only ones who got hurt (if you believe its legit interference) is the owners of the horse who get a 5th place check instead of a 4th.

[v j stauffer]

You're going to the wolves. Its still the same judges, it doesnt' matter what track it is. Maybe Scott Chaney will treat to you a round of golf.

Right now I prefer he just gave me the $$. Don't forget I'm unemployed. Improving my boogie boarding is important but my wife keeps telling me it won't help with the mortgage.:bang:

[v j stauffer]

[QUOTE=Stillriledup]There was no superfecta wagering in the race. The horse who was 'bothered' might have been 4th. Why hurt the bettors? Why not just pay off the bettors and then DQ the winner from the purse money after the fact?

If you want to make a case that the winner bothered this stopper and cost him 4th, that still doesnt explain why the bettors got hurt. This horse went from an unplaced 4th to an unplaced 5th, the only ones who got hurt (if you believe its legit interference) is the owners of the horse who get a 5th place check instead of a 4th.[/QUOTE

A very reasonable argument. The stewards don't have that option. A change would have to be made in the Ca. rules of racing. Not an easy thing to do.

[Stillriledup]

[QUOTE=Stillriledup]There was no superfecta wagering in the race. The horse who was 'bothered' might have been 4th. Why hurt the bettors? Why not just pay off the bettors and then DQ the winner from the purse money after the fact?

If you want to make a case that the winner bothered this stopper and cost him 4th, that still doesnt explain why the bettors got hurt. This horse went from an unplaced 4th to an unplaced 5th, the only ones who got hurt (if you believe its legit interference) is the owners of the horse who get a 5th place check instead of a 4th.[/QUOTE

A very reasonable argument. The stewards don't have that option. A change would have to be made in the Ca. rules of racing. Not an easy thing to do.


But they could have left up the winner and say that it didnt cost the bothered horse a placing. A placing to me means any placing that affects bettors. I guess you can say a placing might mean anything that affects purse payments, but unless there's specific language, you can interpret it anyway you like.

Its about time racing adopts a situation where they can disqualify the horse just from purse money but leave the bettors alone.

I do disagree with you that the winner drifted in, the 'headon' shot you see from the tower is not a direct head on shot, its at a little bit of an angle, nitpicking at its finest i believe.

[andymays]

I've been watching 35 years. The horse was correctly DQ'ed . Will Mike Smith get days? Yes I think he will. The ruling will read for crossing over into the path of another horse without sufficent clearance. It's the same reason why the horse was DQ'ed. It was the correct call but VERY unlucky for the people who bet on the #1. The #1 horse straightened for the stretch run and was many lanes off the rail. He then crossed over without being clear into the path of #3. True he did not make contact with the #3. But, he was the REASON #3 came inward and contacted #2 in the rear causing that one to tip outward and cause repeated bumping. It's very simple. Had #1 maintained a straight course and not crossed infront of #3 without being clear NOTHING would have happened. Actually not a difficult call for a steward. Where the bad luck comes into play is if the #3 had finished in front of #4 there probably would have been no change as the stewards could have ruled the #3 was not cost an opportunity at a better placing. I've been in stewards meetings with the jockeys many times. Every single time they beg, plead and cajole the riders to "just go straight" Today Mike Smith did not go straight and it cost him, the owners and the bettors. We move on. Oh and BTW before you guys throw me to the wolves for taking the company line. Remember my company is HP not DM.

First of all it was the #5 and not the #1 that was DQ'd. The #1 was put up to first. I've been watching races for 36 years so I guess I know a little more than you. ;)

I would be very surprised if they give Smith days for this. They will take a beating over it if they do.

Vic, I don't know where you come up with this stuff. By your hair splitting logic the Stewards should have taken down three horses. They should have disqualified the #1 for drifting out just a little. Then they should have DQ'd the #2 who was trying to angle out to pass the #1 and who caused the #3 to take up as much or more than the #5.

All of a sudden the Stewards are like great surgeons who can split hairs to the smallest of degrees. What a load of crap. How is it that in the Cinderella at Hollywood they (CHRB) dug in on their position to the position to the point of sending out an memo defending the Stewards decision? They set a precedent by doing that at HP and now for the smallest of questionable infractions in which the #3 might have gotten fourth instead of fifth they make a ruling like this?

Did they set a precedent with the Hollywood (Cinderella) ruling or not? What was that?

YouTube - She'll Heir Survives Inquiry To Capture Cinderella
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSVKYm5mH4U

www.calracing.com has the head on of the Cinderella and it looks 100 times worse than the first at Del Mar yesterday.

Here is an excerpt of that ruling . Anyone jumping in for the first time should really go to www.calracing.com for the head on view of the Cinderella. You wont believe it.

Cinderella ruling excerpt:

However, Rule 1699 (Riding Rules) requires more than interference for a disqualification. To warrant a DQ, the stewards also must determine that the trouble made a significant difference in the outcome. Specifically, the rule states: (c) A horse which interferes with another and thereby causes any other horse to lose stride, ground or position, when such other horse is not at fault and when such interference occurs in a part of the race where the horse interfered with loses the opportunity to place where it might, in the opinion of the Stewards, be reasonably expected to finish, may be disqualified and placed behind the horse so interfered with.

The stewards felt that Rockin Heather, who had led to midstretch, was tiring badly from the front-running effort and was about to be engulfed by the rest of the field when the trouble occurred. They felt that Rockin Heather would have dropped back even with a clear trip. Their opinion was reinforced during the inquiry when they spoke on the phone with the rider of Rockin Heather, Martin Garcia, who told them, “I was out of horse.” And the next morning they spoke with Rafael DeLeon, the trainer of Rockin Heather, who told them he thought his horse finished just about where she would have without the trouble.

The stewards felt the brushing and bumping between the horses outside of Rockin Heather was minor by comparison and, again, did not alter the order of finish.

We realize that Rule 1699 introduces subjectivity into the decision-making process by requiring the stewards to form an opinion about where a horse or horses were going to finish. However, we believe this rule, when properly applied, adequately protects all involved. We have confidence in our stewards and we trust them to make fair and reasonable decisions.

Here is an article about the precedent set in the Cinderella.

West Points: An unfortunate precedent

http://startelegramsports.typepad.com/west_points/2010/06/an-unfortunate-precedent.html

Excerpt:

Their claim to clairvoyance would be amusing if it weren't coupled with an alarmingly dangerous precedent . By not disqualifying She'll Heir, the 3-5 favorite, from winning Wednesday's Cinderella Stakes at Hollywood Park, the stewards there basically have given the best horse license to run over and through anybody on the way to the winner's circle.

That's what She'll Heir did. With about a furlong remaining in the Cinderella, She'll Heir, bursting with energy and with want-to, had nowhere to run. And so Rafael Bejarano sent the filly into a sliver of space, a mere crack in the wall of horses in front of him, and without hesitation she bulled her way through, initiating a bumping incident that ricocheted four-horses deep. She'll Heir, by the way, already had dropped over on Trick Skate in the turn and caused that one to steady, and so she directly or indirectly bothered five of the other seven horses in the race. Rockin Heather, who was the first and hardest to be bumped, immediately retreated and finished seventh. Trick Skate ran last.
-------------------------------------------------

When do the effin Stewards every get days for being incompetent? When does the CHRB ever pay a price for meet after meet of their employees making inconsistent and incorrect rulings. Nothing ever changes. :ThmbDown:

[v j stauffer]

You're right it was the #5 of course not the #1. Sorry wrote the opinion late.

[v j stauffer]

First of all it was the #5 and not the #1 that was DQ'd. The #1 was put up to first. I've been watching races for 36 years so I guess I know a little more than you. ;)

I would be very surprised if they give Smith days for this. They will take a beating over it if they do.

Vic, I don't know where you come up with this stuff. By your hair splitting logic the Stewards should have taken down three horses. They should have disqualified the #1 for drifting out just a little. Then they should have DQ'd the #2 who was trying to angle out to pass the #1 and who caused the #3 to take up as much or more than the #5.

All of a sudden the Stewards are like great surgeons who can split hairs to the smallest of degrees. What a load of crap. How is it that in the Cinderella at Hollywood they (CHRB) dug in on their position to the position to the point of sending out an memo defending the Stewards decision? They set a precedent by doing that at HP and now for the smallest of questionable infractions in which the #3 might have gotten fourth instead of fifth they make a ruling like this?

Did they set a precedent with the Hollywood (Cinderella) ruling or not? What was that?

YouTube - She'll Heir Survives Inquiry To Capture Cinderella
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSVKYm5mH4U

www.calracing.com (http://www.calracing.com) has the head on of the Cinderella and it looks 100 times worse than the first at Del Mar yesterday.

Here is an excerpt of that ruling . Anyone jumping in for the first time should really go to www.calracing.com (http://www.calracing.com) for the head on view of the Cinderella. You wont believe it.

Cinderella ruling excerpt:

However, Rule 1699 (Riding Rules) requires more than interference for a disqualification. To warrant a DQ, the stewards also must determine that the trouble made a significant difference in the outcome. Specifically, the rule states: (c) A horse which interferes with another and thereby causes any other horse to lose stride, ground or position, when such other horse is not at fault and when such interference occurs in a part of the race where the horse interfered with loses the opportunity to place where it might, in the opinion of the Stewards, be reasonably expected to finish, may be disqualified and placed behind the horse so interfered with.

The stewards felt that Rockin Heather, who had led to midstretch, was tiring badly from the front-running effort and was about to be engulfed by the rest of the field when the trouble occurred. They felt that Rockin Heather would have dropped back even with a clear trip. Their opinion was reinforced during the inquiry when they spoke on the phone with the rider of Rockin Heather, Martin Garcia, who told them, “I was out of horse.” And the next morning they spoke with Rafael DeLeon, the trainer of Rockin Heather, who told them he thought his horse finished just about where she would have without the trouble.

The stewards felt the brushing and bumping between the horses outside of Rockin Heather was minor by comparison and, again, did not alter the order of finish.

We realize that Rule 1699 introduces subjectivity into the decision-making process by requiring the stewards to form an opinion about where a horse or horses were going to finish. However, we believe this rule, when properly applied, adequately protects all involved. We have confidence in our stewards and we trust them to make fair and reasonable decisions.

Here is an article about the precedent set in the Cinderella.

West Points: An unfortunate precedent

http://startelegramsports.typepad.com/west_points/2010/06/an-unfortunate-precedent.html

Excerpt:

Their claim to clairvoyance would be amusing if it weren't coupled with an alarmingly dangerous precedent . By not disqualifying She'll Heir, the 3-5 favorite, from winning Wednesday's Cinderella Stakes at Hollywood Park, the stewards there basically have given the best horse license to run over and through anybody on the way to the winner's circle.

That's what She'll Heir did. With about a furlong remaining in the Cinderella, She'll Heir, bursting with energy and with want-to, had nowhere to run. And so Rafael Bejarano sent the filly into a sliver of space, a mere crack in the wall of horses in front of him, and without hesitation she bulled her way through, initiating a bumping incident that ricocheted four-horses deep. She'll Heir, by the way, already had dropped over on Trick Skate in the turn and caused that one to steady, and so she directly or indirectly bothered five of the other seven horses in the race. Rockin Heather, who was the first and hardest to be bumped, immediately retreated and finished seventh. Trick Skate ran last.
-------------------------------------------------

When do the effin Stewards every get days for being incompetent? When does the CHRB ever pay a price for meet after meet of their employees making inconsistent and incorrect rulings. Nothing ever changes. :ThmbDown:

I also thought the horse in the Cinderella should have been DQ'ed. Everybody is entitled to an opinion on every case.

[andymays]

I also thought the horse in the Cinderella should have been DQ'ed. Everybody is entitled to an opinion on every case.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but the Stewards need to be consistent and get it right but more often than not they get it wrong.

Where is the consistency from the Hollywood call?

They went to the point of putting out a ruling and sending it out to me and everyone else that questioned the call. How does anyone reconcile that decision with the one yesterday?

[v j stauffer]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but the Stewards need to be consistent and get it right but more often than not they get it wrong.

Where is the consistency from the Hollywood call?

They went to the point of putting out a ruling and sending it out to me and everyone else that questioned the call. How does anyone reconcile that decision with the one yesterday?

I wrote at long length about the word "consistency" during that debate. Don't have the energy to revisit it. Suffice to say consistency only exsists when a person agrees with all calls made. As soon as a difference of opinion takes place consistency flys out the door for that person. Explained my position on that in much more detail in the Cinderella threads.

[rwwupl]

I wrote at long length about the word "consistency" during that debate. Don't have the energy to revisit it. Suffice to say consistency only exsists when a person agrees with all calls made. As soon as a difference of opinion takes place consistency flys out the door for that person. Explained my position on that in much more detail in the Cinderella threads.

Consistency :
agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another or a whole : CORRESPONDENCE; specifically : ability to be asserted together without contradiction b : harmony of conduct or practice with profession *followed her own advice with consistency

It is not difficult to understand...CONSISTENCY is golden. Forget trying to explain inconsistency,that is too tough. Try being consistent, you will like it.

[Robert Goren]

DQing in horse racing everywhere (not just at Delmar) is like fouling in the NBA. The Fans and the Betters don't have a clue about what is going on. It is not good for either sport, but I don't expect the powers that be in either sport will make a good faith effort to change that anytime soon.