Maragh suspended for Belmont ride.

[onefast99]

Maragh Suspended 10 Days for Belmont Ride

By Blood-Horse Staff (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/author/blood-horse-staff)
Updated: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:02 AM
Posted: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:48 PM



Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/63585/maragh-suspended-for-belmont-ride#ixzz1PS2lOuZl

[onefast99]

My issue with this is the stewards had plenty of time to put up the inquiry sign, before the fans hit the Cross island Parkway!

[HUSKER55]

so they are saying he did that intentionally?

[postpicker]

Why would there be an inquiry when the horses involved did not finish in the money? Animal Kingdom or Mucho Macho Man would not have been moved up to fourth because of the incident so the stewards did the right thing, looking at it but no inquiry sign posted.

[Hanover1]

so they are saying he did that intentionally?

Didn't see that anywhere....more likely a case of failure to control his mount, causing the other events.

[InTheRiver68]

My impression was that he *was* in control of his mount, but he elected to come over across MMM too soon, before he was clear. And because his mount didn't finish in fourth or better, there was no need to review it at the time.

- InTheRiver68

[onefast99]

My impression was that he *was* in control of his mount, but he elected to come over across MMM too soon, before he was clear. And because his mount didn't finish in fourth or better, there was no need to review it at the time.

- InTheRiver68
The infraction occured at the beginning of the race it should have warranted the inquiry sign being lit, no excuse for that none.

[FenceBored]

The infraction occured at the beginning of the race it should have warranted the inquiry sign being lit, no excuse for that none.

What could they have done through an inquiry except place Maragh's horse last? And how would that have changed anything, considering that's where he finished on his own?

[onefast99]

What could they have done through an inquiry except place Maragh's horse last? And how would that have changed anything, considering that's where he finished on his own?
The stewards had almost 41 minutes before the next post time they could have taken 15 minutes and lit the inquiry sign to give the trainer and owners a chance to see the head on of the infraction as well as speak to the jocks involved but they chose not to do anything until days later.

[cj]

The stewards had almost 41 minutes before the next post time they could have taken 15 minutes and lit the inquiry sign to give the trainer and owners a chance to see the head on of the infraction as well as speak to the jocks involved but they chose not to do anything until days later.

Why? It wasn't going to change any payouts one cent, so why make patrons wait if they want to leave. Plenty of the huge crowd wants out after the Belmont.

[nijinski]

The connections of AK probably would have felt a liitle bit of justice .
It probably should have been called by the stewards .

[onefast99]

Why? It wasn't going to change any payouts one cent, so why make patrons wait if they want to leave. Plenty of the huge crowd wants out after the Belmont.
I would have thought the opposite let them stay and wager on the next race!

[toetoe]

The connections of AK probably would have felt a liitle bit of justice .
It probably should have been called by the stewards .



Attention, please. Isn't He Awful has been disqualified from last and placed ... last. :lol:

[onefast99]

The connections of AK probably would have felt a liitle bit of justice .
It probably should have been called by the stewards .
What harm would it have done? 15 minutes to review the start of the race, talk to the jocks involved.

[Tom]

I thought the stewards should have at least pretend to show some interest in the integrity of the biggest NY race so far this year. My bad.

National TV, the favorites gets wacked and almost loses the jockey, in the very same race the overwhelming favorite to not only win that race but the triple crown as well was pulled up without an excuse.
Just another NY mugging, fughedaboutit.

Gee, wonder why people don't come back to the track?

[Cardus]

I thought the stewards should have at least pretend to show some interest in the integrity of the biggest NY race so far this year. My bad.

National TV, the favorites gets wacked and almost loses the jockey, in the very same race the overwhelming favorite to not only win that race but the triple crown as well was pulled up without an excuse.
Just another NY mugging, fughedaboutit.

Gee, wonder why people don't come back to the track?

To the nearest zero, how many people do you think will not return to a race track because of this supposed steward inaction?

[Tom]

How many do you think it will encourage to return?

[cj]

What was going to be accomplished if there was an inquiry? It isn't like the stewards didn't watch the race and they probably did take a quick look and realized the was nothing to inquire about...unless of course you can bet on last.

[nijinski]

What harm would it have done? 15 minutes to review the start of the race, talk to the jocks involved.
I know and certainly agree with you. I was surprised itwas ignored.

[nijinski]

Attention, please. Isn't He Awful has been disqualified from last and placed ... last. :lol:
Now Now Toe Toe , AK didn't have a blemish on him going into this
race before Rajiv mugged him . Poor boy's on the Vets list now. :p

[PaceAdvantage]

I know and certainly agree with you. I was surprised itwas ignored.I'm not sure how you can state with such certainty that it was ignored. :confused:

All you had to do was look at the head on, see who caused the trouble, see that the troublemaker finished last, see that no jockeys are claiming foul...thus no need for a formal inquiry...

It's really quite simple.

[Tom]

No need to explain to the customers why there was no action?
I disagree. People who bet and got screwed a little POS size 3 hat deserved the consideration of an explanation - an inquiry could have been flashed and quickly followed by an explanation.

I guess I expect too much as a customer.

[FenceBored]

No need to explain to the customers why there was no action?
I disagree. People who bet and got screwed a little POS size 3 hat deserved the consideration of an explanation - an inquiry could have been flashed and quickly followed by an explanation.

I guess I expect too much as a customer.

I agree. Put a set of stocks up next to the winner's circle and have the stewards immediately place offending jock in there for the rest of the day. Ok, we'll need to have a line of them.

[elysiantraveller]

What would the result of the inquiry been?

A horse that wasn't winning didn't hit the board and the horse that caused the infraction finished last....

What would it have really accomplished?

[onefast99]

I agree. Put a set of stocks up next to the winner's circle and have the stewards immediately place offending jock in there for the rest of the day. Ok, we'll need to have a line of them.
A simple solution would be a little transparency on the stewards part especially in a race this prestigious. You wouldn't want an explanation or at least a stewards view of the infraction that took place at the start of this race? It would have taken 15 minutes to do this, if you think a steward could review the race while it is being run I don't agree. They had 2:30 from start to finish that isn't sufficient time to make a judgement call. The top four finishers weren't involved but there was a lot of money on a horse that was involved.

[FenceBored]

A simple solution would be a little transparency on the stewards part especially in a race this prestigious. You wouldn't want an explanation or at least a stewards view of the infraction that took place at the start of this race? It would have taken 15 minutes to do this, if you think a steward could review the race while it is being run I don't agree. They had 2:30 from start to finish that isn't sufficient time to make a judgement call. The top four finishers weren't involved but there was a lot of money on a horse that was involved.

So, there was a lot of money on the horse. I'm not a "shoot the no-hopers" guy, I don't want the amount wagered on a horse determining what kind of justice we get, thank you very much. In a normal race on a normal day the stewards would flag it for later review and hand down any punishments within a few days. That's what I expect, that's what they did.

[Tom]

When you expect so little, that is normally what you continue to get.
I am sure the customers never entered the minds of the stewards.

[onefast99]

So, there was a lot of money on the horse. I'm not a "shoot the no-hopers" guy, I don't want the amount wagered on a horse determining what kind of justice we get, thank you very much. In a normal race on a normal day the stewards would flag it for later review and hand down any punishments within a few days. That's what I expect, that's what they did.\
That is the wrong answer, it indicates the stewards really could care less what the general public thinks. It was one of the three biggest races thus far of the 2011 racing season.

[FenceBored]

When you expect so little, that is normally what you continue to get.
I am sure the customers never entered the minds of the stewards.


When you expect too much, you're never satisfied by what's reasonable.

[elysiantraveller]

When you expect so little, that is normally what you continue to get.
I am sure the customers never entered the minds of the stewards.

So now we are using ESP?

The infraction that occurred didn't affect the outcome of the race. Its not like AK lost by a neck.

Also, why would you want to dilute the outcome of the race with an inquiry when there is no effect on the outcome?

IMO it would hurt the race more in the eyes of the casual fan just tuning in to delay the results 10 minutes when its clear that said infraction had zero effect on the outcome of the race.

You are talking here like something is owed to you.

[Phantombridgejumpe]

Inquiry sign goes up right after the race

3-4 minute review

Announcement that the infraction would not impact the order of the first five finishers.

[FenceBored]

\
That is the wrong answer, it indicates the stewards really could care less what the general public thinks. It was one of the three biggest races thus far of the 2011 racing season.

Evil Knievil couldn't have made that leap safely.

[elysiantraveller]

Inquiry sign goes up right after the race

3-4 minute review

Announcement that the infraction would not impact the order of the first five finishers.

But why when in 3-4 seconds I know that it didn't effect the outcome?

[onefast99]

Evil Knievil couldn't have made that leap safely.
He died in 2007.:ThmbDown:

[Tom]

Also, why would you want to dilute the outcome of the race with an inquiry when there is no effect on the outcome?

Better to dilute the race with a foul on the favorite that goes unexplained to the thousands of people there who do not understand what happened and are not regular players trained to swallow whatever the track serves them?

What figging harm was there to calling for a review and then explaining why nothing will change the results?

The stewards doing their jobs dilutes a race???????

[Tom]

Inquiry sign goes up right after the race

3-4 minute review

Announcement that the infraction would not impact the order of the first five finishers.

Duh?
So simple to have done this......but why bother respecting your customers?:rolleyes:

[rastajenk]

This thread is damaging the reputation this board has for being where the smartest racing fans hang out.

This three or four or ten or fifteen minute delay that some are pining for, maybe it happened and you didn't even realize it. Maybe when Valdivia was going off on his stream of consciousness, the stews were looking at it. Maybe when NBC was showing Graham Motion's response to the incident, the stews were looking at it. Was everything else supposed to just stop while the incident was reviewed? If so, why?

[Phantombridgejumpe]

if they are looking at it (which they may have been) the customer, viewers and bettors should know.

[Tom]

When an inquiry is called, the little light on the tote goes off, people mill about, TV announcers mention it.....I would say 99.99999% certain no inquiry was ever called.

The only thing that stops during this process is the making the ace official, which, seeing how an inquiry is going on, makes sense.

You've never seen this process before?

[onefast99]

This thread is damaging the reputation this board has for being where the smartest racing fans hang out.

This three or four or ten or fifteen minute delay that some are pining for, maybe it happened and you didn't even realize it. Maybe when Valdivia was going off on his stream of consciousness, the stews were looking at it. Maybe when NBC was showing Graham Motion's response to the incident, the stews were looking at it. Was everything else supposed to just stop while the incident was reviewed? If so, why?
You seem to be pretty unsure of yourself here maybe this maybe that. Here is a fact the stewards didn't do their job.

[elysiantraveller]

Tom feels robbed for some unbeknown reason...

Nothing would have changed.

Like I said before he talks like he is owed something. What I don't know.

Maybe an Inquiry into the lack of Inquiry! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[rastajenk]

You seem to be pretty unsure of yourself here maybe this maybe that. Here is a fact the stewards didn't do their job.The title of this thread is "Maragh suspended for Belmont ride." Obviously, they did do their job.

[onefast99]

The title of this thread is "Maragh suspended for Belmont ride." Obviously, they did do their job.
I guess you missed the race and watched it a few days later, like the stewards did.

[Tom]

Tom feels robbed for some unbeknown reason...

Nothing would have changed.

Like I said before he talks like he is owed something. What I don't know.

Maybe an Inquiry into the lack of Inquiry! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe you should spend your time sharpening your reading skill, which seem to be very much lacking, instead of trying to be a funny guy, which you clearly are not.

Show me a post in which I mentioned the result would have changed one bit. Or suggested an inquiry into the inquiry.

See, being funny only world when you don't make up everything to suit your emoticon.

Glad you think it is funny to be concerned about the people who were screwed by the game in a big race, and to think maybe the track owes it's customers something. Always a funny topic.

[elysiantraveller]

Maybe you should spend your time sharpening your reading skill, which seem to be very much lacking, instead of trying to be a funny guy, which you clearly are not.

Show me a post in which I mentioned the result would have changed one bit. Or suggested an inquiry into the inquiry.

See, being funny only world when you don't make up everything to suit your emoticon.

Glad you think it is funny to be concerned about the people who were screwed by the game in a big race, and to think maybe the track owes it's customers something. Always a funny topic.

So who was screwed than if the result wouldn't have changed...?

You can't have it both ways Tom.

Just asking a question.

[Tom]

So who was screwed than if the result wouldn't have changed...?

You can't have it both ways Tom.

Just asking a question.

My, my, those pesky reading skills again.
I clearly posted that the people who were screwed by a POS jockey were entitled to an explanation from the track, that is all. I never once implied they would get un-screwed, just that they, as customers, were due some kind of explanation and some kind of feeble attempt by Belmont to address the situation to those who might not understand what had happened, especially with the TV coverage focusing on it.

Both ways?
What post was that supposedly in?

[elysiantraveller]

My, my, those pesky reading skills again.
I clearly posted that the people who were screwed by a POS jockey were entitled to an explanation from the track, that is all. I never once implied they would get un-screwed, just that they, as customers, were due some kind of explanation and some kind of feeble attempt by Belmont to address the situation to those who might not understand what had happened, especially with the TV coverage focusing on it.

Both ways?
What post was that supposedly in?

Why don't you take your vast "reading skills" and reread the title of this thread where the Jockey was suspended... Sorry that judgment couldn't be handed out in the 20 minutes after the race that NBC still was covering it.

Furthermore why don't you apply those "reading skills" to your own signature because for a guy with 46,000 posts its kind of embarrassing....

Here I'll give you a hint:

There are two.

[PaceAdvantage]

Tom's point is pretty simple to understand, whether or not he makes spelling errors on his signature.

Lots of newbie fans in attendance at Belmont on Belmont Stakes day. Lots of said fans bet Animal Kingdom. Lots of said fans see Animal Kingdom mugged out of the gate. Many of these fans know that there are inquiries and disqualifications in racing, and wonder why there was no inquiry in this race after seeing the betting favorite mugged and almost lose his rider.

It's a fairly simple point...easy to grasp and understand...and with a bit of validity thrown in for good measure.

Both sides of the argument have made valid points IMO.

[Tom]

Can you hear me NOW? :rolleyes:

[FenceBored]

Can you hear me NOW? :rolleyes:

No, not unless I turn on the 'text to speech.'

[camourous]

I bet Animal Kingdom and the stumble wasn't good but i was much more upset with Velasquez making a 6 wide run at the 5/8 pole, no reason to do that, you have no shot to win at Belmont doing that, he should've gradually worked himself into the race saving ground, but jockeys don't think that way anymore, it always wide wide wide..horse ran 2 miles in a mile and a a half race.

[FenceBored]

Tom's point is pretty simple to understand, whether or not he makes spelling errors on his signature.

Lots of newbie fans in attendance at Belmont on Belmont Stakes day. Lots of said fans bet Animal Kingdom. Lots of said fans see Animal Kingdom mugged out of the gate. Many of these fans know that there are inquiries and disqualifications in racing, and wonder why there was no inquiry in this race after seeing the betting favorite mugged and almost lose his rider.

It's a fairly simple point...easy to grasp and understand...and with a bit of validity thrown in for good measure.

Both sides of the argument have made valid points IMO.

Don't see the validity. There shouldn't be different rules for big days and small days. There shouldn't be different rules for betting favorites and for the rest of the field. Would you like to see every possible foul generate an inquiry sign and a required minimum 2-minute review, during which the stewards are really calling to make their dinner reservations for next Saturday?

What I'm seeing in this call for an inquiry after the Belmont is a call for a lynching; "we've feel cheated and somebody needs to pay for it RIGHT NOW." Thankfully, the Belmont is run in the pacific environs of New York and not Vancouver, otherwise who knows what might have happened.

[PaceAdvantage]

Nobody said there should be different rules.

Are you telling me you've never seen an inquiry when the betting favorite gets clobbered out of the gate and his jockey almost falls off?

How long exactly have you been watching racing?

No validity? Give me a break.

Don't see the validity. There shouldn't be different rules for big days and small days. There shouldn't be different rules for betting favorites and for the rest of the field. Would you like to see every possible foul generate an inquiry sign and a required minimum 2-minute review, during which the stewards are really calling to make their dinner reservations for next Saturday?

What I'm seeing in this call for an inquiry after the Belmont is a call for a lynching; "we've feel cheated and somebody needs to pay for it RIGHT NOW." Thankfully, the Belmont is run in the pacific environs of New York and not Vancouver, otherwise who knows what might have happened.

[andtheyreoff]

I can hear it now...

"Ladies and Gentlemen, there is an inquiry in Race 11 concerning a foul made by the 12th place finisher, Isn't He Perfect, against the 6th place finisher, Animal Kingdom. However, because this will affect neither payouts nor purse money, we'll just show the replay a few times and show the "Inquiry" sign on the board to appease some posters on the internet. Thank you".

[Tom]

What a bunch of nonsense!

i can't believe people actual bet money are so damned opposed to a simple show of acknowledging the betting public. ike a lynching? That is the most ridiculous excuse of an argument I have heard yet. And how in hell does anyone know what they might have seen if they had looked? You just blindly assume everyone saw exactly what happened in the blink of an eye. Did YOU see everything? Durkin missed it. Did you have a better view of it than he did? Did you see it on TV a couple of times before the race called official? You object to making sure of what happened?

I have seen it happen thousands of times - the inquiry sign goes on and after a minute or less, it goes off, well before the jocks have weighed out.
A simple announcement that the race is being reviewed, then one that there is no foul. FL used to do that for every horse that pulled up, or if it looked like one was impeded. Very matter of fact, very fast, very much an un-event.

I am sure that in Vancouver they have much more sense than some do here. Call for a lynching? Do you threaten to shoot cops if they pull you over for a traffic stop?

[FenceBored]

What a bunch of nonsense!

i can't believe people actual bet money are so damned opposed to a simple show of acknowledging the betting public. ike a lynching? That is the most ridiculous excuse of an argument I have heard yet. And how in hell does anyone know what they might have seen if they had looked? You just blindly assume everyone saw exactly what happened in the blink of an eye. Did YOU see everything? Durkin missed it. Did you have a better view of it than he did? Did you see it on TV a couple of times before the race called official? You object to making sure of what happened?

I have seen it happen thousands of times - the inquiry sign goes on and after a minute or less, it goes off, well before the jocks have weighed out.
A simple announcement that the race is being reviewed, then one that there is no foul. FL used to do that for every horse that pulled up, or if it looked like one was impeded. Very matter of fact, very fast, very much an un-event.

I am sure that in Vancouver they have much more sense than some do here. Call for a lynching? Do you threaten to shoot cops if they pull you over for a traffic stop?

I see, the Inquiry sign is to be like one of those No Vacancy signs at a roadside motel, constantly flashing to the point of being useless and ignored by the public. Yep, let's build 'integrity' that way. :rolleyes:

[FenceBored]

Nobody said there should be different rules.

Are you telling me you've never seen an inquiry when the betting favorite gets clobbered out of the gate and his jockey almost falls off?


In one breath you say there's one set of rules, the next you invoke "betting favorite" again as though that affords that horse some special privilege.


How long exactly have you been watching racing?


I take that as it was intended, a name-calling insult (which I thought the board had sworn off); much as if I asked you how much you had to drink before you posted your question. Therefore, I'll ignore it.


No validity? Give me a break.

No, give me a break. Three years ago, the betting favorite in the Belmont fouled another horse going into the first turn which clearly cost that horse an uncontested placing (dead-heated for 3rd). That interference cheated bettors who had Anak Nakal in the 3rd spot probably about half the trifecta payout. It cost the connections 25k in earnings. Did we see the Inquiry sign? Noooooooo. Should we have seen the Inquiry sign? Noooooooooo. The horse who fouled him finished last, eased (but that's a different story). What were the stewards going to do? To place Anak Nakal sole 3rd would in effect DQ Ready's Echo and you can bet RE's connections wouldn't have stood still for it. Place the offender last? He was already there. Just go OFFICIAL and deal with the offending jock at your leisure.

And where at that time were the pious cries of "why didn't the stewards post the Inquiry sign?" Did not our good friends onefast99 and Tom have thoughts on the subject? Well, they were too busy defending Kent's ride in the lane to give a thought to the mugging Kent gave Leparoux going into the first turn.

[onefast99]

I see, the Inquiry sign is to be like one of those No Vacancy signs at a roadside motel, constantly flashing to the point of being useless and ignored by the public. Yep, let's build 'integrity' that way. :rolleyes:
Had the inquiry sign been lit by the stewards that day we would not be subject to the brutal analogies you continue to come up with.:lol:

[Tom]

Excellent point!

Stewards doing their job and letting the public know they are.
I can only imagine the horrible things that could lead to.

[GatetoWire]

Had the inquiry sign been lit by the stewards that day we would not be subject to the brutal analogies you continue to come up with.:lol:
Having read 4 pages of the topic and spending 5 minutes of my life that I will never get back here it is for you in simple english.

Inquiries on track right after the race are for to look at infractions that involve horses that finished in the top 4 slots so that the Stewards can ensure the payouts are correct.
Occasionally they will move a horse back who did not finish in the top 4 if the fouling horse finishes ahead of the fouled horse.

In situations where the fouled horse beats the fouling horse they have no ability to effect anything after the race. Hence no inquiry.

In all of these cases the stewards review the races later in the week and hand out suspensions.

There is no need to have an inquiry if you cannot make a placing.

In this case it was clear that AK beat the horses who fouled him. No need for an inquiry. Don't give me the educate new fans argument. It's a very simple concept to grasp.

[onefast99]

And where at that time were the pious cries of "why didn't the stewards post the Inquiry sign?" Did not our good friends onefast99 and Tom have thoughts on the subject? Well, they were too busy defending Kent's ride in the lane to give a thought to the mugging Kent gave Leparoux going into the first turn.

How would anything I said 3 years ago relate to this gross injustice by the stewards for not lighting the Bates Motel sign, I mean the inquiry sign?

http://0.tqn.com/d/gocalifornia/1/7/E/Q/3/20101115031-a.jpg

[FenceBored]

Had the inquiry sign been lit by the stewards that day we would not be subject to the brutal analogies you continue to come up with.:lol:

Consider it a warning: incur my displeasure and the bad analogies will rain down like women's knickers at a Tom Jones' show.

[FenceBored]

And where at that time were the pious cries of "why didn't the stewards post the Inquiry sign?" Did not our good friends onefast99 and Tom have thoughts on the subject? Well, they were too busy defending Kent's ride in the lane to give a thought to the mugging Kent gave Leparoux going into the first turn.

How would anything I said 3 years ago relate to this gross injustice by the stewards for not lighting the Bates Motel sign, I mean the inquiry sign?



Consistency? Principle? Integrity?

[onefast99]

Consider it a warning: incur my displeasure and the bad analogies will rain down like women's knickers at a Tom Jones' show.
Now that is a good one, I assume Mr Jones is still with us unlike Evel Knievel.

[FenceBored]

Consistency? Principle? Integrity?

My apologies, I was rushed and this in unclear.

1. Consistency - if one is asking for the stewards to do what they've done in prior Belmonts one has to consider what they did (and how one felt about it) the last time this came up. If how it was handled before didn't cause excitement, why should it this time?

2. Principle - if the question is a principle of explaining things to new players (who say had Anak Nakal in their tris) didn't they deserve an explanation on why a horse could foul their horse and cost them ~$1650 on a $1 tri ticket. If a clear 'robbing' of the bettors in 2008 didn't warrant a review, why this year?

3. Integrity - if the question is the integrity of the game, the 2008 Belmont with Big Brown mugging Anak Nakal and then being suspiciously eased was much more deserving of an immediate inquiry, but nobody clamored for one. There was a general consensus that the integrity of the sport was better served by collecting facts over the next couple of days and then having the stewards reach a conclusion. Exactly what happened this year.

If people feel that an Inquiry should have occured before the 2011 Belmont was made official and didn't express the same feeling about the 2008 Belmont, I fail to see a valid reason for the change.

[onefast99]

My apologies, I was rushed and this in unclear.

1. Consistency - if one is asking for the stewards to do what they've done in prior Belmonts one has to consider what they did (and how one felt about it) the last time this came up. If how it was handled before didn't cause excitement, why should it this time?

2. Principle - if the question is a principle of explaining things to new players (who say had Anak Nakal in their tris) didn't they deserve an explanation on why a horse could foul their horse and cost them ~$1650 on a $1 tri ticket. If a clear 'robbing' of the bettors in 2008 didn't warrant a review, why this year?

3. Integrity - if the question is the integrity of the game, the 2008 Belmont with Big Brown mugging Anak Nakal and then being suspiciously eased was much more deserving of an immediate inquiry, but nobody clamored for one. There was a general consensus that the integrity of the sport was better served by collecting facts over the next couple of days and then having the stewards reach a conclusion. Exactly what happened this year.

If people feel that an Inquiry should have occured before the 2011 Belmont was made official and didn't express the same feeling about the 2008 Belmont, I fail to see a valid reason for the change.
One has nothing to do with the other. BB had issues in that race, it was evident there was a physical issue and he was hard to handle no matter what side of the connections you believe. How would have 15 minutes of reviewing the race after the inquiry sign was posted affect your life or anyone elses today?

[FenceBored]

One has nothing to do with the other. BB had issues in that race, it was evident there was a physical issue and he was hard to handle no matter what side of the connections you believe. How would have 15 minutes of reviewing the race after the inquiry sign was posted affect your life or anyone elses today?

So, a horse acting erratically, mugging other horses (costing them a top placing) and mysteriously being pulled up shouldn't trigger alarm bells, but a horse stumbling while getting squeezed in a chain reaction on the run to the first turn and recovering enough to finish a respectable (under the circumstances) 6th should trigger alarm bells? :confused:

And, unlike Animal Kingdom, there was no physical issue ever found with Big Brown.

[onefast99]

So, a horse acting erratically, mugging other horses (costing them a top placing) and mysteriously being pulled up shouldn't trigger alarm bells, but a horse stumbling while getting squeezed in a chain reaction on the run to the first turn and recovering enough to finish a respectable (under the circumstances) 6th should trigger alarm bells? :confused:

And, unlike Animal Kingdom, there was no physical issue ever found with Big Brown.
No physical issues?

His training routine wasn't the same leading up to the Belmont and there was also a dehydration factor that many have speculated on to this day.

[Tom]

In this case it was clear that AK beat the horses who fouled him. No need for an inquiry. Don't give me the educate new fans argument. It's a very simple concept to grasp.

Why are you so against doing anything that would help people understand what is going on better? It would have cost nothing and it would have taken very little time.

"The stewards reviewed the bumping at the start and have decide that there was no effect on the order of finish."

What is the downside of a simple concept like respecting your customers?

[Fager Fan]

It was well after the race results were posted that charges started flying about someone being at fault. Otherwise, it looked like your average clipping of heels.

Maragh shouldn't have gotten days. He fell on the sword.

[GatetoWire]

Why are you so against doing anything that would help people understand what is going on better? It would have cost nothing and it would have taken very little time.

"The stewards reviewed the bumping at the start and have decide that there was no effect on the order of finish."

What is the downside of a simple concept like respecting your customers?

Valid point....I think that this is a track/NBC issue. You could always get the stewards involved but because of it being a non ruling they should leave it up to NBC or the track.

In other sports you don't see the ref explaining the non calls to the fans. That is the job of the TV analysts.

[nijinski]

Valid point....I think that this is a track/NBC issue. You could always get the stewards involved but because of it being a non ruling they should leave it up to NBC or the track.

In other sports you don't see the ref explaining the non calls to the fans. That is the job of the TV analysts.

When an incident takes place especially in this case where favorite in the race is involved I prefer the TV analysts get feedback from the Stewards. In the other sports there is no public wagering.

[PaceAdvantage]

In one breath you say there's one set of rules, the next you invoke "betting favorite" again as though that affords that horse some special privilege.Feel free to remove my use of the descriptive term "betting favorite." It is unnecessary for my argument.

I take that as it was intended, a name-calling insult (which I thought the board had sworn off); much as if I asked you how much you had to drink before you posted your question. Therefore, I'll ignore it.Insult? It was an honest-to-God genuine question. A horse gets killed out of the gate enough to almost cause his jock to fall off, and you don't think that warrants an inquiry to see just who exactly might have been at fault? How could it have been so clear to the stewards what exactly happened without an inquiry? Or are you saying that an inquiry DID happen, they just didn't formally initiate one? Wouldn't that be odd?

No, give me a break.I've already stated that both sides to this argument make valid points. You obviously have an inability to see this.

Let me ask you a simple question. We've all seen cases where a jockey claims foul and the subsequent video replay shows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED...and I mean NOTHING.

Why do the stewards bother lighting the lamp? Shouldn't they know already (like they knew with Animal Kingdom) that no foul occurred?

Is it me?

[cj]

Let me ask you a simple question. We've all seen cases where a jockey claims foul and the subsequent video replay shows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED...and I mean NOTHING.

Why do the stewards bother lighting the lamp? Shouldn't they know already (like they knew with Animal Kingdom) that no foul occurred?

Is it me?

I don't think stewards have the power to dismiss objections without informing the public, just like when trainers claim foul. They do, however, have the ability to fine participants for frivolous claims of foul.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't think stewards have the power to dismiss objections without informing the public, just like when trainers claim foul. They do, however, have the ability to fine participants for frivolous claims of foul.Yup, correct on both counts. But why is that so?

They must inform the public when a jockey claims foul, however, they don't have to inform the public every time they are looking into an incident on the track? And you can't tell me they didn't look into the start of the Belmont after what happened to Animal Kingdom and JV.

A few posters here have theorized that the stewards took a look at the break, quickly saw that the horse who caused trouble subsequently finished last, thus no need to inform the public that an inquiry was necessary. Yet, by these poster's very own theory, an INQUIRY DID OCCUR. It just wasn't publicized.

[nijinski]

I wonder if Cordero has made any public comments. Would kind of be ironic
since I believe his ride on Codex vs Genuine Risk may be the most controversial one to hold up with both the Stewards and the Commission.
Made me feel there was a loose and unwritten law surrounding the TC races and Stewards were not suppose to mess with the outcome if possible. But that's just a thought I've had for a long and I don't think it's necessarily by
their own choice.

One was deaf , one was blind and the other had too many daisy's !
From someone in Jennys Crew.