1st saratoga stewards are a joke

[eastie]

Brutal call by the stewards.

[Lasix67]

I had no play on the race and I know the track is sloppy but I think the call was right

[PhantomOnTour]

I disagree with the DQ...think the interference was minimal.

[eastie]

explanation was that he drifted out near the eighth pole.....still think he should have come down. he was well clear anyway at all times.

[BMustang]

It was a weak take-down, especially in light of the no-harm/no-foul manner in which has been the norm to date at the Spa.

The horse did come out after Cornelio Velasquez hit him left-handed, but there was no contact/no interference. The 1a wasn't going to beat the winner, BUT it may have cost him second place. In my mind the result should have stood since the obvious best horse in the race won, and Cornelio gotten days for a careless ride, seeing how the horse had ducked from the left-handed stick previously.

I hate to see folks who bet a loser get paid. I suspect that if the 1a had gotten second there would have been no DQ, or if Pletcher trained and JRV rode the 4, the result would have stood.

Again, no consistency from the men getting paid to make the right decision. :bang:

[Robert Goren]

How can you say there is no consistency from the stewards? They are consistency wrong.;)

[slewis]

Are some on this thread kidding?

Just because you are "clear" does not give you the right to continue to change paths and take away the path(s) of those behind you...ESPECIALLY if those or any behind you are gaining ground.

If you have the lead at the top of the stretch, do you think you have the right to run rodeo in a z-path fashion, back and forth from rail to 5 path to intimidate all closers?

Once a horse is in a specific path, with clear daylight, as a jockey you MUST stay in your path. ...and should you start to drift out or lug in...you must stop riding aggressively an make an attempt to keep your mount straight.

If you continue to drift or lug, and you dont try to straighten, and you IMPEDE the progress of another horse....

YOU GET DQ'D.

Does EVERYONE understand this?

If not, do the following:

See an optometrist....who'll send you to an ophthalmogist....and then to a psychiatrist.

Then take up knitting.:bang:

[the little guy]

I, fairly obviously, got disqualified for a bunch of money in this race. It was very frustrating. It also wasn't a bad call.

They aren't all wrong.

[BMustang]

Are some on this thread kidding?

Just because you are "clear" does not give you the right to continue to change paths and take away the path(s) of those behind you...

I concur with some of what you say.

In this case the 4 horse did NOT CONTINUE to change paths.
In the incident inside the 16th pole, Cornelio hit him left handed (again) and he ducked out causing the 1a to steady, which admittedly might have cost him second place. Again, there was no way he was getting to the winner, and certainly no way that the 2 deserved to become the winner, but life isn't fair.

I do believe that if the 1a had finished second the result would have stood and Cornelio would have rightly gotten days.

I didn't say that a case couldn't be made for the DQ - I said it was weak.

It was weak - we've all seen much more impactful interference cases stand.

[Edward DeVere]

I do believe that if the 1a had finished second the result would have stood.

Ah, but there's the rub.

[eastie]

I, fairly obviously, got disqualified for a bunch of money in this race. It was very frustrating. It also wasn't a bad call.

They aren't all wrong.


what race were you watching ? read the stewards explanation, then watch the replay. 1/8 pole ? I'm dying to hear the explanation of how that wasn't a bad call.

[slewis]

I concur with some of what you say.

In this case the 4 horse did NOT CONTINUE to change paths.
In the incident inside the 16th pole, Cornelio hit him left handed (again) and he ducked out causing the 1a to steady,



Sir,

The problem with your analysis is that :

A) You are in denial.

B) you refuse to acknowledge the rules of the sport.

Read your post closely. You state that the 4 DID NOT CONTINUE TO CHANGE PATHS. Go and watch the replay again. Under left hand whip, the horse continues getting out.....and as he does this, the 1a CHANGES HIS STRIDE LOSING MOMENTUM so as not to run up on the (heels) of#4. NOT ONLY ONCE, BUT TWICE.

What part of YOU MUST STAY IN A REASONABLE STRAIGHT PATH dont you get? AND...should you bear out or lug in...and you take away the path from a horse behind you...and that horse CHANGES IT"S STRIDE.....ESPECIALLY if that horse continues to gain ground on the horse in front...you get DQ'D..

Damn...this is a slam dunk

[BMustang]

Obviously, that's the way the stewards saw it.

Give me this - if the 1a finishes 2nd instead of 3rd, the result stands.

Agree?

[slewis]

Obviously, that's the way the stewards saw it.

Give me this - if the 1a finishes 2nd instead of 3rd, the result stands.

Agree?

If your asking me what my ruling would be if that scenario happened..

My answer would be : ABSOLUTELY NOT..... The winner would come down regardless.

If you are speculating about what the inconsistant NYRA stewards might do...well, maybe...they are certainly NOT consistant.

But I've been screaming to fine the jockeys more and not punish those who bet the winning horse UNLESS there is a CLEAR arguement that the outcome (lets say 75-80%) that the horse fouled would have beaten the horse that fouled.

Mustang, and I say this respectfully, that in this scenario, I am 95 % certain that the #4 would have run right by Schossberg's horse (the winner) had no path changes and steadying/intimidating occured.

95%, in my opinion, is strong enough to warrant a DQ.
And I watch as many races very closely as the guys in the stewards towers.
I've often said the stewards should use a criteria of 75-80%. We never know for certain what would happen if there was no foul, that's why we have stewards (or Judges) who weigh the evidence and make an impartial call based on experience and precedent.
It's the precedent part that I feel NYRA judges flunk on as they are constantly labeled "inconsistant".

[Barney Rubble]

Are some on this thread kidding?

Just because you are "clear" does not give you the right to continue to change paths and take away the path(s) of those behind you...ESPECIALLY if those or any behind you are gaining ground.

If you have the lead at the top of the stretch, do you think you have the right to run rodeo in a z-path fashion, back and forth from rail to 5 path to intimidate all closers?

Once a horse is in a specific path, with clear daylight, as a jockey you MUST stay in your path. ...and should you start to drift out or lug in...you must stop riding aggressively an make an attempt to keep your mount straight.

If you continue to drift or lug, and you dont try to straighten, and you IMPEDE the progress of another horse....

YOU GET DQ'D.

Does EVERYONE understand this?

If not, do the following:

See an optometrist....who'll send you to an ophthalmogist....and then to a psychiatrist.

Then take up knitting.:bang:

If all of this were actually true, every second wire job would come down.
I watched the race, and agree with the people that said the interference was minimal.

[classhandicapper]

I, fairly obviously, got disqualified for a bunch of money in this race. It was very frustrating. It also wasn't a bad call.

They aren't all wrong.

I have to agree with you.

I am opposed to most DQs because I think the only time a horse should get DQ'd is if it's virtually certain the infraction changed the result. That would take of lot of the gray out of the equation. The jocks could be handled separately.

But in this case I think it's pretty close to certain the winner's drift caused the 3rd place finisher the runner up spot, which of course is a shame because the winner was best.

Had the 3rd place finisher finished 2nd, I would have been totally opposed to the DQ.

Of course my views have nothing to do with the stewards rules and consistency.