Think our stews are nuts? Remind me not to bet Mumbai

[MightBeSosa]

via equidaily, race declared null and void when then didn't like the 'weak' ride on the favorite. no mention of those that bet the winner.

ps, I see worse rides on a daily basis here. Must be the curry.

http://www.indiarace.com/FullReview.aspx?ReviewId=2884

video
http://www.indiarace.com/videoFiles/MUMBAI/2012/Nov22/10.wmv

[appistappis]

looked like a normal race at the mountain.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Without offering opinion on the ride or the outcome...

"Such rulings are never easy to satisfy everyone, but what the Stewards did manage was to satisfy a good majority of the betting public, which is justified"

...I'm not sure I think that satisfying a "good majority" of the betting public after the top two "fancied" runners get beat is exactly what I consider the proper barometer for deciding the outcome of a race from the booth.

[iceknight]

via equidaily, race declared null and void when then didn't like the 'weak' ride on the favorite. no mention of those that bet the winner.

ps, I see worse rides on a daily basis here. Must be the curry.

http://www.indiarace.com/FullReview.aspx?ReviewId=2884

video
http://www.indiarace.com/videoFiles/MUMBAI/2012/Nov22/10.wmv "This stirred up the crowd who started to get vocal, venting their displeasure. A Stewards’ enquiry was called for immediately"
"Such rulings are never easy to satisfy everyone, but what the Stewards did manage was to satisfy a good majority of the betting public, which is justified. "
WOW... Mob justice at work.. wow..

[MightBeSosa]

I just watched the replay.

Clearly the fans and stews in India are even dumber then ours. Hard to believe.

The horse in question lugged in badly under a furious ride late, and had to steady.

For the stewards to refund the bets, it had to be more than bad curry, maybe an overdose of the Kama Sutra.

That link above is for another race, this is the one in question

http://www.indiarace.com/fullvedio.aspx?venue=MUMBAI&date=Feb%2017%202013%20&Rno=210

[MightBeSosa]

I see no one here thinks this is amusing but I do.

They are still making a royal stink in india, with a police investigation of what looks to me like an obvious case of a horse lugging in and having to be checked.

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/2/20130222201302220404498127c5793b1/RWITC-probes-fixing-claims.html

Pass the curry.

[HuggingTheRail]

Be nice...those stewards may also serve as the helpdesk for my cable company...

[v j stauffer]

Mob mentality indeed. Every time I see nonsense like this I realize how good we have it in this country.

While of course not perfect I believe our racing officials are the best in the world.

[MightBeSosa]

Yeah, as bad as it can be here, I've never lusted to be part of the third world.

[Track Phantom]

Mob mentality indeed. Every time I see nonsense like this I realize how good we have it in this country.

While of course not perfect I believe our racing officials are the best in the world.

Couldn't possibly disagree with you more. While this example is extreme, at least it tells me they actually care about suspicious activity. While we can disagree on the definition of suspicious, the fact they are taking action gives me confidence they are taking their job seriously.

You see, when a 2-5 favorite breaks from the gate and 20 strides from the gate the rider pulls the horse up, odds go from 2-5 to 7-2 and when "we" cry foul, the board overseeing this crap tells us that nothing seemed abnormal. That is acceptable to you? It isn't to me.

How about the DQ at BEU 1st race on Monday. There was 28k bet on the 2-5 favorite (out of 30k in the pool). During the running of the race, the 6 ran a very normal race but was DQ'd in what was an obvious attempt to remove the favorite and corresponding minus pool. Watch the replay. If that is interference then there should be 7 DQ's in every race.

So, in the end, we will disagree on this one. As absurd as their "witch hunt" might be on this ride, I respect they have the guts to go after what they feel is cheating. I applaud it.

Oh, and until the U.S. adopts a more transparent process from racing officials (example - Australia), then your comment that we have the best in the world is a bit self-serving and uninformed.

[v j stauffer]

Couldn't possibly disagree with you more. While this example is extreme, at least it tells me they actually care about suspicious activity. While we can disagree on the definition of suspicious, the fact they are taking action gives me confidence they are taking their job seriously.

You see, when a 2-5 favorite breaks from the gate and 20 strides from the gate the rider pulls the horse up, odds go from 2-5 to 7-2 and when "we" cry foul, the board overseeing this crap tells us that nothing seemed abnormal. That is acceptable to you? It isn't to me.

How about the DQ at BEU 1st race on Monday. There was 28k bet on the 2-5 favorite (out of 30k in the pool). During the running of the race, the 6 ran a very normal race but was DQ'd in what was an obvious attempt to remove the favorite and corresponding minus pool. Watch the replay. If that is interference then there should be 7 DQ's in every race.

So, in the end, we will disagree on this one. As absurd as their "witch hunt" might be on this ride, I respect they have the guts to go after what they feel is cheating. I applaud it.

Oh, and until the U.S. adopts a more transparent process from racing officials (example - Australia), then your comment that we have the best in the world is a bit self-serving and uninformed.

Stewards do not work for the track. Therefore the suggestion they were involved in the association avoiding a minus pool is simply incorrect.

As for transparency. A full recap of the events of every racing day is available to anyone wishing to view. In California at www.chrb.ca.gov (http://www.chrb.ca.gov)

I believe stewards in the U.S. take their jobs VERY seriously. If that's self-serving. Oh well. So be it.

[Stillriledup]

Stewards do not work for the track. Therefore the suggestion they were involved in the association avoiding a minus pool is simply incorrect.

As for transparency. A full recap of the events of every racing day is available to anyone wishing to view. In California at www.chrb.ca.gov (http://www.chrb.ca.gov)

I believe stewards in the U.S. take their jobs VERY seriously. If that's self-serving. Oh well. So be it.

But, their jobs depend on the track staying in business even if they theoretically arent' employed by Beulah.

[v j stauffer]

But, their jobs depend on the track staying in business even if they theoretically arent' employed by Beulah.

Their jobs would be far more in danger if they engaged in corrupt practice in cahoots with the track. They are regulators not partners. The FAA compliance officer that flies on a jet to check things is reliant on the airline industry to continue to operate. If you want to believe racing is corrupt you can spin it anyway that serves your purpose. If you REALLY believe you're being cheated with no recourse, why would you continue to play?

[Stillriledup]

Their jobs would be far more in danger if they engaged in corrupt practice in cahoots with the track. They are regulators not partners. The FAA compliance officer that flies on a jet to check things is reliant on the airline industry to continue to operate. If you want to believe racing is corrupt you can spin it anyway that serves your purpose. If you REALLY believe you're being cheated with no recourse, why would you continue to play?

Racing is probably no more or no less corrupt than the general overall corruption level in our society, there's corruption everywhere and its up to the 'corruption officials' to catch the crooks, hopefully they're hard at work looking for bad guys.

I have a response to your cheated with no recourse question....i believe that the horse tells all if you watch and interpret the replays carefully enough, so, if some humans are engaging in corruption, its my duty to sniff it out and capitalize on it next time. I'm always watching. Carefully. Sometimes you find a nugget in the back of the pack, you find a nugget on a horse beaten 15 lengths....know what i'm saying?

[MightBeSosa]

Tell you why you're mistaken valento. Going after a bogus case like this makes a mockery of actual attempts to police the sport.

Let's not go after a real stiff job, lets investigate some nonsense and say we're doing a public service.

Not me.

[v j stauffer]

Racing is probably no more or no less corrupt than the general overall corruption level in our society, there's corruption everywhere and its up to the 'corruption officials' to catch the crooks, hopefully they're hard at work looking for bad guys.

I have a response to your cheated with no recourse question....i believe that the horse tells all if you watch and interpret the replays carefully enough, so, if some humans are engaging in corruption, its my duty to sniff it out and capitalize on it next time. I'm always watching. Carefully. Sometimes you find a nugget in the back of the pack, you find a nugget on a horse beaten 15 lengths....know what i'm saying?

If you're saying extensive film review is a vital component I agree 100%. If you're saying you can watch a replay and "know" it's corruption that's ludicrous. I can list a myriad of reasons why a horse can be a nugget without any cheating involved.

[Track Phantom]

Stewards do not work for the track. Therefore the suggestion they were involved in the association avoiding a minus pool is simply incorrect.

As for transparency. A full recap of the events of every racing day is available to anyone wishing to view. In California at www.chrb.ca.gov (http://www.chrb.ca.gov/)

I believe stewards in the U.S. take their jobs VERY seriously. If that's self-serving. Oh well. So be it.

OK- Fair enough. I have no idea why BEU DQ'd the winner. But did you watch the replay of the race? I'm guessing you didn't. If you would have, you'd realize the takedown was criminal. No grey area, simply criminal. You cannot with a straight face say you think the 6 caused enough action to be DQ'd. It is not subjective. It is factual. (I did not bet the race).

Having said all of that, I have no idea why they took the horse down. My instinct is it was a personal agenda of some kind. How else would you like me to interpret it, especially in the kind of typical "oversight" that exists today?

[Stillriledup]

If you're saying extensive film review is a vital component I agree 100%. If you're saying you can watch a replay and "know" it's corruption that's ludicrous. I can list a myriad of reasons why a horse can be a nugget without any cheating involved.

I don't know if its corruption nor do i care all that much, all i know is that if a jock is in the back of the pack "giving a horse a race" you can call that what you want, but its usually money in my pocket the next time if i'm right about horse getting 'education' and i'm right about the horse being much better than shown. If i'm wrong and the horse is just slow, than i lose and go back to the drawing board.

[Stillriledup]

OK- Fair enough. I have no idea why BEU DQ'd the winner. But did you watch the replay of the race? I'm guessing you didn't. If you would have, you'd realize the takedown was criminal. No grey area, simply criminal. You cannot with a straight face say you think the 6 caused enough action to be DQ'd. It is not subjective. It is factual. (I did not bet the race).

Having said all of that, I have no idea why they took the horse down. My instinct is it was a personal agenda of some kind. How else would you like me to interpret it, especially in the kind of typical "oversight" that exists today?

One of the most horrendous takedowns i've seen in watching thousands and thousands of races and replays, don't remember one being this bad ever.

Some people come on here and say "hey, it was legit, yada yada yada" but i'll be willing to bet that behind the scenes, away from their keyboards, they aren't running to bet a Beulah race the first chance they get.

[v j stauffer]

OK- Fair enough. I have no idea why BEU DQ'd the winner. But did you watch the replay of the race? I'm guessing you didn't. If you would have, you'd realize the takedown was criminal. No grey area, simply criminal. You cannot with a straight face say you think the 6 caused enough action to be DQ'd. It is not subjective. It is factual. (I did not bet the race).

Having said all of that, I have no idea why they took the horse down. My instinct is it was a personal agenda of some kind. How else would you like me to interpret it, especially in the kind of typical "oversight" that exists today?

Haven't seen the race. Can someone post the replay with as many camera angles as possible? Thanks.

[Track Phantom]

Haven't seen the race. Can someone post the replay with as many camera angles as possible? Thanks.

I don't know how to do that. I can view it on my betting platform. Do you not have access to race replays? It was Monday, BEU, 1st race.

[Track Phantom]

Here is the article by bloodhorse with the video (both normal and headon angles) imbedded. The head on starts at 8:50.

One of the all-time worst DQ's. I can't see how the stewards made this call. It smells pretty bad. However, nothing will be done. No one is accountable. Business as usual.

Attrocious!
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/76502/dq-soaks-beulah-park-bridge-jumpers

[Stillriledup]

Here is the article by bloodhorse with the video (both normal and headon angles) imbedded. The head on starts at 8:50.

One of the all-time worst DQ's. I can't see how the stewards made this call. It smells pretty bad. However, nothing will be done. No one is accountable. Business as usual.

Attrocious!
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/76502/dq-soaks-beulah-park-bridge-jumpers


The steward said this:

"You'd be surprised at how many people think that, but it never comes into play," Parker said. "We never have time to look at the odds or anything like that."

What he probably MEANT was THIS:

"You'd be surprised at how many people think that, but it never comes into play," Parker said. "We never have time to look at the odds or the replay, or the headons, or, anything like that."

[Track Phantom]

The steward said this:

"You'd be surprised at how many people think that, but it never comes into play," Parker said. "We never have time to look at the odds or anything like that."

What he probably MEANT was THIS:

"You'd be surprised at how many people think that, but it never comes into play," Parker said. "We never have time to look at the odds or the replay, or the headons, or, anything like that."

Actually, when I read this.... "We never have time to look at the odds or anything like that" I found it absurd. It takes 4.5 seconds to look at the toteboard and know that the 6 (in a 6 horse field) is 2-5 and has 98% of the show money on it.

Why do these guys continue to say things that anyone with an IQ over 17 can see past?

If they didn't take the horse down for personal gain/agenda and they really thought there was a DQ warranted, they should be let go before breakfast. Honestly, for the life of me, I can't understand how they could get this wrong if really trying. I really can't.

[v j stauffer]

Here is the article by bloodhorse with the video (both normal and headon angles) imbedded. The head on starts at 8:50.

One of the all-time worst DQ's. I can't see how the stewards made this call. It smells pretty bad. However, nothing will be done. No one is accountable. Business as usual.

Attrocious!
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/76502/dq-soaks-beulah-park-bridge-jumpers

Wow. What a great piece of tape. I must have watched it for 15 minutes. Here are some thoughts. IMO this was a very difficult call. Not even close to a "horrendous" DQ. Not even close.

Here are a few things to consider. First and I think the most important thing is #1 is ENTITLED to a clear an unobstructed path. From the gate and all the way though the better part of the 1st quarter mile he had that path. Passing the half mile pole that path no longer existed. Why? Because horses crossed over into that path? Or because he wasn't fast enough or ridden aggressively enough to maintain that position? In this case it think it's a little of both. There's a saying stewards use with the riders. " Get in or get out" The rider of #1 broke that cardinal rule by not committing to go all out for his position when he had the opportunity. Which is fine if you don't think you can get there. However if you don't go for it you must take hold and back out. He chose neither and put himself and his horse in an intimidating spot where nothing good was going to happen. Was it all his fault? Definitely not. There was clear and present pressure coming from his outside. Pressure that most assuredly was initiated by #6. Horses will naturally ease toward the inside when racing straight down the backstretch. Especially when there's a space between them. They'll "fill the hole" so to speak. #6 does this by coming from and outside position to the "tight" 3 path. This puts the rider on #5 in an impossible position. He's already totally "up in there" and must now deal with #6 making things tight. He must hope his horse is controllable and not shying from outside pressure and by far most importantly he must try to maintain his path and not drop #1. The jockey on #5 did a masterful job. A lesser ride and I think #1 goes down.

So what to do? I would have voted to allow the original order of finish to stand. No change. But believe me it would not have been an easy decision. Factors into that choice would be the margin of victory. The amount of lengths #1 finished behind and how many lengths it was from him to the next position at the finish.

I read the owners of the DQ'ed horse were very upset. They should be. At their jockey. What he did was extremely foolish and totally unnecessary. The horse seemed kind enough and easy to ride. Unless he was lugging in very badly, which I don't think he was based on a right handed stick approaching the quarter pole, there was absolutely no reason to make things that tight at any point. He HAS to know where he is and how much he has under him at all times. If he keeps his horse in the four path until he clears into the far turn. He wins by only 10 or 11 and nobody is talking about this race. Terrible, terrible ride!

As for corruption or collusion by the association and or the stewards. That is complete and utter nonsense.

This was a very tough call that could have gone either way. As I said before I'd have voted "as is" but honestly couldn't fault a fellow judge voting to DQ.

Valento. Thanks much for providing the tape.

[Track Phantom]

Wow. What a great piece of tape. I must have watched it for 15 minutes. Here are some thoughts. IMO this was a very difficult call. Not even close to a "horrendous" DQ. Not even close.

Here are a few things to consider. First and I think the most important thing is #1 is ENTITLED to a clear an unobstructed path. From the gate and all the way though the better part of the 1st quarter mile he had that path. Passing the half mile pole that path no longer existed. Why? Because horses crossed over into that path? Or because he wasn't fast enough or ridden aggressively enough to maintain that position? In this case it think it's a little of both. There's a saying stewards use with the riders. " Get in or get out" The rider of #1 broke that cardinal rule by not committing to go all out for his position when he had the opportunity. Which is fine if you don't think you can get there. However if you don't go for it you must take hold and back out. He chose neither and put himself and his horse in an intimidating spot where nothing good was going to happen. Was it all his fault? Definitely not. There was clear and present pressure coming from his outside. Pressure that most assuredly was initiated by #6. Horses will naturally ease toward the inside when racing straight down the backstretch. Especially when there's a space between them. They'll "fill the hole" so to speak. #6 does this by coming from and outside position to the "tight" 3 path. This puts the rider on #5 in an impossible position. He's already totally "up in there" and must now deal with #6 making things tight. He must hope his horse is controllable and not shying from outside pressure and by far most importantly he must try to maintain his path and not drop #1. The jockey on #5 did a masterful job. A lesser ride and I think #1 goes down.

So what to do? I would have voted to allow the original order of finish to stand. No change. But believe me it would not have been an easy decision. Factors into that choice would be the margin of victory. The amount of lengths #1 finished behind and how many lengths it was from him to the next position at the finish.

I read the owners of the DQ'ed horse were very upset. They should be. At their jockey. What he did was extremely foolish and totally unnecessary. The horse seemed kind enough and easy to ride. Unless he was lugging in very badly, which I don't think he was based on a right handed stick approaching the quarter pole, there was absolutely no reason to make things that tight at any point. He HAS to know where he is and how much he has under him at all times. If he keeps his horse in the four path until he clears into the far turn. He wins by only 10 or 11 and nobody is talking about this race. Terrible, terrible ride!

As for corruption or collusion by the association and or the stewards. That is complete and utter nonsense.

This was a very tough call that could have gone either way. As I said before I'd have voted "as is" but honestly couldn't fault a fellow judge voting to DQ.

Valento. Thanks much for providing the tape.

Your entitled to your opinion. I disagree especially when compared to similar action on just about every other race. If you want to disect this like the Zapruder film, then sure, you might find 11 things that were borderline. Taking this horse down is not in the SPIRIT of racing. If stewards were to follow this approach for every race, that track would have 9 people wagering on it (actually, that might be the current #....I'll change that to 3).

I think it is in the all-time top 10 bad calls I've ever seen and the fact there was 28k of 30k in the show hole adds fuel to the fire.

I have no idea what motivates people to do anything and I surely couldn't begin to have a clue in this case. They were wrong and overreaching in the power and many people who wagered on the 6 were negatively impacted and shouldn't have been.

Things like this are why people that are on the fence with this game go away.

[v j stauffer]

Your entitled to your opinion. I disagree especially when compared to similar action on just about every other race. If you want to disect this like the Zapruder film, then sure, you might find 11 things that were borderline. Taking this horse down is not in the SPIRIT of racing. If stewards were to follow this approach for every race, that track would have 9 people wagering on it (actually, that might be the current #....I'll change that to 3).

I think it is in the all-time top 10 bad calls I've ever seen and the fact there was 28k of 30k in the show hole adds fuel to the fire.

I have no idea what motivates people to do anything and I surely couldn't begin to have a clue in this case. They were wrong and overreaching in the power and many people who wagered on the 6 were negatively impacted and shouldn't have been.

Things like this are why people that are on the fence with this game go away.

You did read the parts where twice I stated I would not have disqualified him. Correct?

As far as the fuel goes. Had the winner raced far away from other the horses there would be no fire. The DQ and the show pool are completely unrelated and coincidental.

[Track Phantom]

You did read the parts where twice I stated I would not have disqualified him. Correct?

As far as the fuel goes. Had the winner raced far away from other the horses there would be no fire. The DQ and the show pool are completely unrelated and coincidental.

You're probably right but how do you know for sure? How do you know they didn't bet others in the race to show? It's pure conjecture. All I know is they purposely took down a horse they knew would upset many people. A horse that won by a dozen lengths. How could you possibly know what they were thinking?

The problem is their decision opened the door for anything. At this point, anything, in my mind, is plausable.

I just don't think you're in a position to KNOW for certain.

[v j stauffer]

You're probably right but how do you know for sure? How do you know they didn't bet others in the race to show? It's pure conjecture. All I know is they purposely took down a horse they knew would upset many people. A horse that won by a dozen lengths. How could you possibly know what they were thinking?

The problem is their decision opened the door for anything. At this point, anything, in my mind, is plausable.

I just don't think you're in a position to KNOW for certain.

What I KNOW for certain is that had #6 stayed well away from the other horses nobody would be talking about any of this. The stewards were forced into making a decision when the #1 took up so sharply that his rider lost the irons nearly falling off next to the rail at 30 mph. They got involved because that's their job. Analyze film and administer the rulebook. There cannot be a plausible explanation for two totally separate occurrences to mesh other than coincidence. An inquiry and a massive show bet connected? How do you get to that point? How do you connect those dots? Set everything up in the few minutes after the wagers were made? Cmon. Common sense says that's impossible. How would you in those minutes orchestrate a very very dangerous three horse incident. Ask a jockey to risk paralysis to save the track a few thousand dollars? How do you choose which horses? How could the riders have known THIS was the race the bridge jumpers would try? That's what would have had to take place if everything was connected in the collusion/corruption. Can't happen. Wouldn't happen. Not conceivably possible. Keep an open mind and really think this through. Can't happen. Wouldn't happen. Not conceivably possible.

[Track Phantom]

What I KNOW for certain is that had #6 stayed well away from the other horses nobody would be talking about any of this. The stewards were forced into making a decision when the #1 took up so sharply that his rider lost the irons nearly falling off next to the rail at 30 mph. They got involved because that's their job. Analyze film and administer the rulebook. There cannot be a plausible explanation for two totally separate occurrences to mesh other than coincidence. An inquiry and a massive show bet connected? How do you get to that point? How do you connect those dots? Set everything up in the few minutes after the wagers were made? Cmon. Common sense says that's impossible. How would you in those minutes orchestrate a very very dangerous three horse incident. Ask a jockey to risk paralysis to save the track a few thousand dollars? How do you choose which horses? How could the riders have known THIS was the race a bridge jumpers would try? That's what would have had to take place if everything was connected in the collusion/corruption. Can't happen. Wouldn't happen. Not conceivably possible. Keep an open mind and really think this through. Can't happen. Wouldn't happen. Not conceivably possible.

Now you're just typing to watch yourself type. I never said there was some grand conspiracy.

The only thing I know is stewards chose to DQ a dominant winner over something that was extremely difficult to find. The show pool isn't the issue.

[v j stauffer]

Now you're just typing to watch yourself type. I never said there was some grand conspiracy.

The only thing I know is stewards chose to DQ a dominant winner over something that was extremely difficult to find. The show pool isn't the issue.

The show pools is not involved? You should watch yourself when YOU type. Two posts ago you posed the question " How do you know they didn't bet others in the race to show?"

[Track Phantom]

The show pools is not involved? You should watch yourself when YOU type. Two posts ago you posed the question " How do you know they didn't bet others in the race to show?"

Yep - you got me. Good job. You win.

[v j stauffer]

Yep - you got me. Good job. You win.

No winner. Just racing fans trading viewpoints in a civilized manner. Always a pleasure.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... " Get in or get out" ...

Gawd I've been waiting for someone to post something obvious in the ten pages about this DQ. Up until the point about it not being the rider's fault for being in that spot, I agree completely with this perspective. I'll say it was the fault of the rider on the one - for all the reasons you state before acquitting him - that's just the way these scenarios have been decided for as long as I can remember. It's exactly that - get in or get out - as you head down towards that turn, that rail horse is always and forever watching a shrinking hole and it is the rider's responsibility to recognize that outside pressure always moves down and you better commit to moving for that shrinking hole if you want the benefit of the entitlement to that path at the spot.

It was a terrible call, for the sole reason that of the two riders, the outside rider did very little in the way of anything out of the ordinary for the situation while the rail jock basically violated a cardinal rule of protecting yourself as a jock. Rail jock created the whole problem, outside jock didn't babysit him and made it worse, but in the end - no way the outside rider, horse, and connections, along with the supportive wagering public, deserved in this inexplicably deviant decision, to bear the burden of the blame being misappropriated on the lesser of the two parties responsible for and guilty of creating this scenario.

[MightBeSosa]

sorry, but I see worse, 10X worse every single day and not even a claim is made.

This dq was ludicrous.

And how did this Mumbai thread get hijacked.