Rajiv Maragh cost me 3 grand yesterday

[tbwinner]

I had keyed the 14-1 Argentine Tango on top of race 8 at fulfstream. I had $50 win and place and a $1 tri 4/1/all and 4/all/1. I have never seen a rider have so much horse under him and he came flying all the way from way last. Rajiv decides not to keep his horse straight and impedes the 5 horse.

The result was 4 - 2 - 1 and the 2 was 60-1. The tri would have paid a thousand for a buckaroo plus the 50/50 WP. The 5 who finished fourth objects against the 4 and he comes down.

I've never been so sick in my life.

[horses4courses]

Rajiv decides not to keep his horse straight

Many here, including myself, have sympathy for you.
However, the line quoted above doesn't make much sense.

[tbwinner]

Many here, including myself, have sympathy for you.
However, the line quoted above doesn't make much sense.

Yeah don't think I meant to say he did this on purpose. My point was he had so much horse that I think he would have won if he used a little energy in keeping his mount straight.

[Dahoss9698]

The real issue here, IMO is that the stewards made a bad call. If you look at the head on, the rider on the horse that claimed foul was barely touched. He was never going to go past the horse in front of him and the finish was not effected at all by the winner coming in slightly.

We're talking about 2 year olds here, so we have to kind of expect they aren't going to run pin straight.

I don't think Maragh did anything wrong and it cost me a pretty good score also. As you mentioned the horse was much the best and the finish would have been the same regardless. It comes down to consistency and as we have seen over and over again, there is none.

I said it in another thread, but this is the kind of thing that will deter people from betting on the sport more than anything else.

[cj]

Dahoss is right. That is as bad a call as you will ever see.

[classhandicapper]

This is why I always say the default value for the stewards should be to do nothing. If it's even debatable, DQing a horse is going to piss off a lot of people. If everyone understands that the foul has to be clear cut and definitely cause a horse to lose a placing before a horse will be DQ'd, some people might not agree with the rule, but there will be greater consistency in the decision making. They can deal with jockeys as a separate matter. This looked like a bad one to me also.

[Light]

Stewards are the scum of horse racing. They are one of the most dishonest,biased or incompetent people at their job. When I win something substantial today, the first thing I do is see if the A-Holes have put up an "inquiry" sign to find out if I am going to get screwed.

[andymays]

Stewards are the scum of horse racing. They are one of the most dishonest,biased or incompetent people at their job. When I win something substantial today, the first thing I do is see if the A-Holes have put up an "inquiry" sign to find out if I am going to get screwed.
Yep. :lol: You never know when they're going to give you a crap sandwich.

[Tom]

The whole deal about how stewards work needs to be brought into line. The current system is not good and never has been. the technology is there to have a central "stewards room" 100% independent of the tracks with the identities of the horses and riders involved not revealed. An in depth formal document of every DQ is required with the specific rules cited and all steward's decision must be reviewed by another independent board and each steward subject to a quarterly published report card with consequences.

[andymays]

The whole deal about how stewards work needs to be brought into line. The current system is not good and never has been. the technology is there to have a central "stewards room" 100% independent of the tracks with the identities of the horses and riders involved not revealed. An in depth formal document of every DQ is required with the specific rules cited and all steward's decision must be reviewed by another independent board and each steward subject to a quarterly published report card with consequences.

I'd like to see 4 Stewards in the booth and when you have a tie the natural result stands.

Other than that I agree with Tom.

[davew]

although your horse was clearly the best, the horse I bet on (the 5) was the 2nd best

and did not get 2nd because your horse bore in and blocked 5s path making them pull up and steady

the 4 and the 5 would have pulled the 1 along so finish would have been

4-5-1-2, except the 4 bore in, blocking the 5


bummer we both lost and the 2 wins by default being the 3rd or 4th best in race that day

[Robert Goren]

There are few things get people more up set than having their horse DQed. One of them is not having a horse DQed that bother another horse that would have put them in the dough. If the horse in question had not been DQed, it is highly likely we would have thread bitching about that instead of that this one.

[horses4courses]

The one constant about stewards?
They are consistently inconsistent.

It's not an easy job, though.
Bettors always grumble, too, about decisions being made by stewards according to which mutuel tickets they have in their pockets.
I doubt that there is much corruption, but it sure would be nice if they all received similar training, and had to reach a certain level of qualification.

[tundral]

funny race #7 castellano found trouble from 3/8 to wire. Watch race i would consider funny.

[startngate]

I doubt that there is much corruption, but it sure would be nice if they all received similar training, and had to reach a certain level of qualification.Uh, they do ...

http://www.horseracingofficials.com/

Stewards at pretty much every meet these days have to have gone through the accreditation process at ROAP. They also have to go to continuing education courses every couple of years to keep their certifications.

[Dark Horse]

Why not send the images to one national, centralized stewards room for all tracks and give those jobs to former top jockeys?

[thaskalos]

The one constant about stewards?
They are consistently inconsistent.

It's not an easy job, though.
Bettors always grumble, too, about decisions being made by stewards according to which mutuel tickets they have in their pockets.
I doubt that there is much corruption, but it sure would be nice if they all received similar training, and had to reach a certain level of qualification.

IMO, any horseplayer would switch jobs with a steward in an instant...if given the opportunity.

It's incomprehensible to me that they can be wrong as often as they are...even with all the camera views that they have at their disposal.

[castaway01]

Why not send the images to one national, centralized stewards room for all tracks and give those jobs to former top jockeys?

Tracks have different, sometimes informal standards as far as what constitutes a disqualification (and they don't even enforce those rules consistently). Some follow the "if it doesn't affect the order of finish, then let it go" standard, while others think any infraction should result in a DQ. Also, as you probably know, tracks are not owned or run by one entity. It's not like the NFL where a league enforces rules for all the teams. So, as nice as it would be to have this setup, it's not legal or possible without a great deal of change and compromise. Considering separate tracks/organizations can barely agree on anything (and are, in fact, competitors), I doubt we'll ever see this.

[onefast99]

The whole deal about how stewards work needs to be brought into line. The current system is not good and never has been. the technology is there to have a central "stewards room" 100% independent of the tracks with the identities of the horses and riders involved not revealed. An in depth formal document of every DQ is required with the specific rules cited and all steward's decision must be reviewed by another independent board and each steward subject to a quarterly published report card with consequences.
Tom I agree with you, in 2007 we were dq'd for drifting out in the stretch the jockey was the track favorite and he was on one of Stronachs horses. I went to the stewards booth with my trainer to find out why the dq they told me even TVG agreed the horse should have come down, now thats a good source!

[ByeByeBuck]

I know this, I've been screwed MANY more times over the years from being DQ'd than I have being helped with my horse being put up a notch.

[iceknight]

Well, what about Goldikova's rider NOT being DQ'ed in the latest Breeder's Cup.. that pissed me off a little bit.. it did not affect me personally though.. I had Turallure to win and lost anyway..

[tbwinner]

There was also one time at Hawthorne I think recently where 2 horses should've come down because they both seriously affected the 3rd or 4th place finishers outcome (think he was coming with a full head of steam and was impeded big time by two horses). Everyone around me said they'll take down both. They didn't and let the result stand. The official "buzz" was the IL stewards didn't want to take 2 horses down :lol:

[Beachbabe]

The stewards probably intimidate the jocks.
Picture this scenario at the beginning of a race meet:
The stewards call all the jocks into a room & issue this warning: "Any rider who lodges more than 3 objections in a meet, thereby disturbing our afternoon nap too many times, will be hit with one of those 'not prevailing with his mount through the stretch' suspensions."

[Cardus]

Why not send the images to one national, centralized stewards room for all tracks and give those jobs to former top jockeys?

Why a "top" jockey? Wouldn't a marginal jockey or any other jockey with terrific judgment be effective?

This smacks of declaring that former "top" ballplayers should become managers instead of former mediocre ballplayers. As you know, the "top" athletes do not necessarily make for elite managers/coaches/executives, etc.

[Cardus]

The stewards probably intimidate the jocks.
Picture this scenario at the beginning of a race meet:
The stewards call all the jocks into a room & issue this warning: "Any rider who lodges more than 3 objections in a meet, thereby disturbing our afternoon nap too many times, will be hit with one of those 'not prevailing with his mount through the stretch' suspensions."

This is foolish, even if it weren't literal.

[Dark Horse]

Why a "top" jockey? Wouldn't a marginal jockey or any other jockey with terrific judgment be effective?

This smacks of declaring that former "top" ballplayers should become managers instead of former mediocre ballplayers. As you know, the "top" athletes do not necessarily make for elite managers/coaches/executives, etc.

It was just a general suggestion. Not something I wish to defend with my life, because it's just around the corner. lol

But since you asked, there's obviously a big difference between top riders and average ones. Top jockeys ride in much closer proximity to each other. Lesser jockeys leave much more space. So the judgment of top jockeys would be best.

[Beachbabe]

Why a "top" jockey? Wouldn't a marginal jockey or any other jockey with terrific judgment be effective?

This smacks of declaring that former "top" ballplayers should become managers instead of former mediocre ballplayers. As you know, the "top" athletes do not necessarily make for elite managers/coaches/executives, etc.


What a blatantly picayune criticism of someone's post.
But why am I not surprised ?

[PaceAdvantage]

What a blatantly picayune criticism of someone's post.
But why am I not surprised ?I disagree. And if anyone but Dahoss had posted that, you wouldn't have submitted such a reply.

[grant miller]

at alot of harness tracks they have the judge explain with video how the ruling was made(pocono-norhfield-buff,batavia ect) it makes for a clearer understanding but it still sucks when your numbers blinking. p.s. Im only a 2.00$ player.

[breeze]

Top jockeys ride in much closer proximity to each other. Lesser jockeys leave much more space. So the judgment of top jockeys would be best.

I found the opposite to be true when I was riding. The top riders at the top tracks left much more room than the riders at the lower level tracks. Also, bug riders tend to cut things very close more often than seasoned riders.

The hungry riders are more likely to intimidate, take chances, etc. They are the ones who pay the most attention to where the blind spots are to take a shot at another horse/rider. A rider that is not getting top mounts will have to be more creative to get in the money.