Bad DQ? You make the call

[Valuist]

Full disclosure: I did have win money on Gratton Street, who was DQ'd in the 7th race at Hawthorne yesterday for allegedly causing the 5, Massecuite, to clip heels turning for home. Gratton Street may have come out ever so slightly, but IMO the real cause was rider Taylor Riggs, who put the 5 horse in very tight quarters, causing his mount to clip heels. It also should be noted that you had 7 pound apprentice Roman on Gratton Street, and that horse was DQ'd from a win in his last race. Still, IMO the stewards blew this one:

http://www.hawthorneracecourse.com/live_racing/replays.php

race 7 Feb 12

[Stillriledup]

I've seen DQs like this where the trailing horse tries to squeeze thru some non existant hole, and the leader moves over an inch to the right or left, and gets taken down. This happened at Santa Anita a few years ago on the turf, where a Carava horse moved over 1 inch and there just happened to be a horse 1 length behind him trying to maneuver thru a tight hole.

My argument would be that the horse in front can't be held to an impossible standard, which is maintaining an exact straight line, that's too much to ask, racing is a contact sport, horses move inches to either side while entering the lane and while they're under a drive. Almost every horse in every race can't maintain an EXACT straight path....its too much of a standard to adhere to.

Now, if the horse shifts dramatically, that's one thing, but you need to be allowed a few inches 'leeway' on either side.

I'm not a fan of nit pick DQs, i'd prefer my disqualified horse to actually have crashed into someone, rather than shifted slightly and bothered some horse who was in my blind spot.

[Valuist]

Stillriledup-

Very well put. I suspected everything you said, but I'm biased because it cost me a 7-1 shot. If I was a steward, not only would there have been no DQ, but Riggs should get days for wreckless riding.

[Dahoss2002]

Looking at the stewards replay, it looks like the 3 horse comes off the rail to get past the leader and crosses the 5 horse's path too close. Gratton St. was looking for room that wasn't there so he made his own.

[Valuist]

Looking at the stewards replay, it looks like the 3 horse comes off the rail to get past the leader and crosses the 5 horse's path too close. Gratton St. was looking for room that wasn't there so he made his own.

Yeah whatever. You come out a quarter to a half path meanwhile the rider of the 5 puts that horse in tight quarters so you take down the 3? Total bullshit. You seem to like to pick arguments.

[cj]

Yeah whatever. You come out a quarter to a half path meanwhile the rider of the 5 puts that horse in tight quarters so you take down the 3? Total bullshit. You seem to like to pick arguments.

The guy has 18 posts and he likes to pick arguments?

[FenceBored]

Looking at the stewards replay, it looks like the 3 horse comes off the rail to get past the leader and crosses the 5 horse's path too close. Gratton St. was looking for room that wasn't there so he made his own.

:ThmbUp: Well spotted.

[FenceBored]

The guy has 18 posts and he likes to pick arguments?

DaHoss9698, Dahoss2002. Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.

[Dahoss9698]

Yeah whatever. You come out a quarter to a half path meanwhile the rider of the 5 puts that horse in tight quarters so you take down the 3? Total bullshit. You seem to like to pick arguments.

It's not bullshit at all. It was a legit takedown. Your horse took away a path. A path that the 5 had established. However, it was sort of funny seeing you mistake me for someone else.

Don't ask for opinions if you can't handle one that differs than your own. I can guarantee had it been the other way around you would have been whining for a DQ.

[illinoisbred]

I have to agree with Dahoss 9698. The #5 had established that position,and yeah it did become a tight spot,but Roman was not clear when he came out. Riggs was very lucky he did not fall off. It sucks though to lose a 7-1 winner.

[mabred]

When I look at a replay and the jock looks back to

see what he did he usually comes down.An admission of guilt ???

Mabred

[Valuist]

It's not bullshit at all. It was a legit takedown. Your horse took away a path. A path that the 5 had established. However, it was sort of funny seeing you mistake me for someone else.

Don't ask for opinions if you can't handle one that differs than your own. I can guarantee had it been the other way around you would have been whining for a DQ.

It was bullshit; he didn't take away a full path. Riggs was standing up for a decent portion of the turn, refusing to go around and trying to bull his way through. Certainly no surprise he clipped heels. BS if he doesn't get days for this, either.

[Dahoss9698]

It was bullshit; he didn't take away a full path. Riggs was standing up for a decent portion of the turn, refusing to go around and trying to bull his way through. Certainly no surprise he clipped heels. BS if he doesn't get days for this, either.

Come on man. I understand the frustration of getting DQ'd, but this one is legit. You admitted the jock came out. The 5 was forced to check because your horse came out into his path. There was no reason for Riggs to go around. He had already established position.

I understand you were affected by this from a money standpoint and it's probably clouding your judgement a bit. But if you looked at it without bias, I think you would see it was the right (although a bad break for the bettors) decision.

[Pell Mell]

It looked to me as if the 3 had the rail and was a length or more behind the horse in front of him. Jock on the 3 made a premature move to go around but had he waited the 5 would have boxed him in. So the kid on the 3 took his best shot and it didn't pan out.

[Charlie D]

Can't seem to see a "Stewards Corner" on Hawthorne website so it's difficult to know the stewards view and reasoning for the DQ, but fwiw, the 3 moving out did cause serious interference and if rules at Hawthorne are same as here http://www.nyra.com/stewards/aqu/SC020511.shtml


Then a DQ is right decision.

[craigbraddick]

Full disclosure: I did have win money on Gratton Street, who was DQ'd in the 7th race at Hawthorne yesterday for allegedly causing the 5, Massecuite, to clip heels turning for home. Gratton Street may have come out ever so slightly, but IMO the real cause was rider Taylor Riggs, who put the 5 horse in very tight quarters, causing his mount to clip heels. It also should be noted that you had 7 pound apprentice Roman on Gratton Street, and that horse was DQ'd from a win in his last race. Still, IMO the stewards blew this one:

http://www.hawthorneracecourse.com/live_racing/replays.php

race 7 Feb 12

The disqualification was in my favor but I did not see Grattan Street causing that horse to get hampered.

Craig

[FenceBored]

The disqualification was in my favor but I did not see Grattan Street causing that horse to get hampered.

Craig

You think the :3: horse, by coming out into the :5:'s path thus causing him to clip the :3:'s heels and nearly fall, did not hamper the :5:?

Is that correct?

[Knowclew]

IL stewards never comment in public on their decisions..I think NY may be alone in their post race comments...sure is nice though.

I think this inquiry is like many others...it really could go either way. I have seen far worse stand...and far milder come down. Honestly, if they leave him up, there would be just as much moaning the other way. I can see both sides, but I would probably rule for the DQ.

I often wonder if the riders involved have something to do with the decisions....not claiming conspiracy here, or the typical "they" had that one bet crap. But I think a more accomplished rider gets the benefit of the doubt.
This would be a prime example. Riggs on the horse that stumbled...not a huge Riggs fan, but I think he was leading rider at Haw, and at least has a solid reputation in Chicago. Roman, an apprentice, really green at this point. He was all over the track with one horse Friday, and was looking lost more than once last fall.

If the riders were reversed here, I wonder if the result is different???

Just a thought.

To the OP, I kinda think the call was right, but understand your gripe.
Tough beat.

[Charlie D]

IL stewards never comment in public on their decisions..I think NY may be alone in their post race comments...sure is nice though.




It would be good PR for them (and other tracks) to do so imho. but as we know racing is not big catering to the customers

[Stillriledup]

[QUOTE=Knowclew]IL stewards never comment in public on their decisions..I think NY may be alone in their post race comments...sure is nice though.

I think this inquiry is like many others...it really could go either way. I have seen far worse stand...and far milder come down. Honestly, if they leave him up, there would be just as much moaning the other way. I can see both sides, but I would probably rule for the DQ.

I often wonder if the riders involved have something to do with the decisions....not claiming conspiracy here, or the typical "they" had that one bet crap. But I think a more accomplished rider gets the benefit of the doubt.
This would be a prime example. Riggs on the horse that stumbled...not a huge Riggs fan, but I think he was leading rider at Haw, and at least has a solid reputation in Chicago. Roman, an apprentice, really green at this point. He was all over the track with one horse Friday, and was looking lost more than once last fall.
--------------------------------------------------------
You make a point that i want to elaborate on. You say that if they leave him up, there would be just as much moaning the other way. Here's the difference though.

The people who physically won have more of a right to moan than a person who's horse was too slow to win. Its not like a coin was tossed in the air and it was 50 50 as to who was deserving of the win. The horse who physically won has the right to stay up unless the horse who was too slow to win can prove that what happened to him was something more than just normal everyday bumping that happens in almost every race. The bumped horse needs to come up with a tremendous case to get moved up a placing. I didnt see the race, but from what the OP said, it seemed like this was just a bad luck situation the bumped horse got himself into.

I know how hard it is to pick winners and i know how hard it is to win as an owner, so if i was a steward, you would need an extreme situation for me to disqualify a rightful winner. I don't know, maybe its just me, but i believe the winners should be paid unless there's some extreme situation that warrants them NOT being paid.

[Dahoss9698]

I didnt see the race

Totally inexcusable, especially considering the thread starter provided a way to view the replay, for free. How can you comment and have an opinion on a DQ that you are admitting to not seeing?

Are you that desperate for attention?

[Valuist]

You think the :3: horse, by coming out into the :5:'s path thus causing him to clip the :3:'s heels and nearly fall, did not hamper the :5:?

Is that correct?

Big assumption...that the 3 actually CAME OUT. You come out 3-4 paths, which we do see plenty of times, you get taken down, no question. You come out a quarter to a half a path, nope. Especially when you consider the rider of the 5 horse put the horse in harms way by putting him in tight quarters. And lets not forget the 10 came in slightly so the hole that Riggs was going for wasn't there. If Riggs ended up on the ground, he would've deserved it.

[cj]

Are you that desperate for attention?

He clearly is.

[Knowclew]

--------------------------------------------------------
You make a point that i want to elaborate on. You say that if they leave him up, there would be just as much moaning the other way. Here's the difference though.

The people who physically won have more of a right to moan than a person who's horse was too slow to win.


Not having the right to moan hardly stops most people...in fact they are usually the biggest. I do agree with your point, though.

How about my thought on the jockeys being reversed here...any merit?

[Let's Roll]

It was bullshit; he didn't take away a full path. Riggs was standing up for a decent portion of the turn, refusing to go around and trying to bull his way through. Certainly no surprise he clipped heels. BS if he doesn't get days for this, either.
I see it that way myself, I don't like the idea of being rewarded for dangerous riding.

[MONEY]

Can't seem to see a "Stewards Corner" on Hawthorne website so it's difficult to know the stewards view and reasoning for the DQ, but fwiw, the 3 moving out did cause serious interference and if rules at Hawthorne are same as here http://www.nyra.com/stewards/aqu/SC020511.shtml


Then a DQ is right decision.
:ThmbUp:I agree.
The #3 moved a good distance to his right to go around the #8 and interfered with #5.

[Marlin]

It would be good PR for them (and other tracks) to do so imho. but as we know racing is not big catering to the customersThey should put mics and a camera on them while they review the incident. The phone discussions with the jocks should be broadcasted as well. That would be great TV.

[Charlie D]

They should put mics and a camera on them while they review the incident. The phone discussions with the jocks should be broadcasted as well. That would be great TV.

like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FQt5W0ZjTk

[tbwinner]

The DQ was right in my opinion. I was on track, saw it happen, nearly everyone around me agreed they should the 3 horse down.

This Roman apprentice has been riding loosely seemingly since riding here, the 5 horse is lucky not to go down and still take 2nd (before DQ). He's all over the track in that first race, riding pretty loose here and maybe that stood wherever he came from, but not here.

[FenceBored]

Big assumption...that the 3 actually CAME OUT. You come out 3-4 paths, which we do see plenty of times, you get taken down, no question. You come out a quarter to a half a path, nope. Especially when you consider the rider of the 5 horse put the horse in harms way by putting him in tight quarters. And lets not forget the 10 came in slightly so the hole that Riggs was going for wasn't there. If Riggs ended up on the ground, he would've deserved it.

The three is behind and to the inside of the eight on the rail. Next thing you know he's coming around the eight. It's not an assumption that he came out. It's a fact.

[Valuist]

Not having the right to moan hardly stops most people...in fact they are usually the biggest. I do agree with your point, though.

How about my thought on the jockeys being reversed here...any merit?

Absolutely. No doubt in my mind Riggs wouldn't have been taken down if he was on the 3 and 7 lb apprentice Roman certainly would've been suspended for putting the 5 in tight quarters if their mounts were switched.