Disqualification Gulfstream 1st December 6

[porchy44]

#6 placed ahead of the #4 & #8.

#8 should be taken down. # 4 running in straight line. #4 should of been declared winner.

I know its been talked about before. But I renew my contention that the chalk
has an edge in all inquiries and objections.

[Beachbabe]

In today's first race the stewards dq'd 2 horses which gave the infamous Jamie Ness another win (like he needs it). In one of the worst decisions I've seen they dq'd both the #4 & #8. The 8 (who finished first) deserved to come down as he bore out at least 3 paths, impeding Ness' horse; but to take the 4 down (who finished second) was an out & out crime. The 4 who kept a straight path,did nothing other than also being forced out by the erratic 8 horse.

Unreal !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Al Gobbi]

Gulfstream has become a joke of a track.

[the little guy]

Taking the 2nd finisher down, I was not involved and just watched it, is beyond mind boggling.

Wow.

[RXB]

Terrible decision to take down the 4.

[Beachbabe]

The chart for the race just up & the chart-caller says that the :4: lugged in & bothered the :6: .
He must be the only other guy who saw it that way. :confused:

Anyway, Ness' horse got claimed out of the race.

[Not4Love]

First it was the new talking heads. Now this deal. My wagering will be down again at gulfstream . It's the only way to change things.

[Valuist]

I was victimized by the Gulfstream stewards twice in the same day in the mid 90s and didn't bet a dollar on a Gulftstream race for over 2 years.

[onefast99]

The chart for the race just up & the chart-caller says that the :4: lugged in & bothered the :6: .
He must be the only other guy who saw it that way. :confused:

Anyway, Ness' horse got claimed out of the race.
Most chart callers have a motto, "if you don't see it make it up".

[MaTH716]

The chart for the race just up & the chart-caller says that the :4: lugged in & bothered the :6: .
He must be the only other guy who saw it that way. :confused:

Anyway, Ness' horse got claimed out of the race.

Since when is Ness the chart caller at Gulfstream? :rolleyes:

Seriously, DQing the 4 was ridiculous.

[PaceAdvantage]

Taking the 2nd finisher down, I was not involved and just watched it, is beyond mind boggling.

Wow.I had the 4...wasn't all that confident I would be put up, but never did I think I'd be DQ'd to third and watch the chalk be elevated from third to first.

I'm sure I'm way too biased to provide an objective view of this decision, but I did not think the 4 caused anywhere near enough trouble to warrant being DQ'd.

[v j stauffer]

Would love to see a replay. As many angles as are available, Can anyone post a link? Thanks.

[the little guy]

I'm sure I'm way too biased to provide an objective view of this decision, but I did not think the 4 caused anywhere near enough trouble to warrant being DQ'd.

Caused trouble? He was forced out by both of the other two horses, mostly because of the first place finisher, but it's not even clear the 6 didn't come out into him earlier.

It was a horrendous call.

[PaceAdvantage]

The 4 did appear to lean slightly on the 6 at one point, perhaps even bear in just a step, but it was quite incidental in my opinion, and in not in any way obvious...and I can't remember if the 8 was drifting out at that time to cause the 4 and 6 to brush...the slight brush might have happened just as the 8 started to drift out.

[the little guy]

The 4 did appear to lean slightly on the 6 at one point, perhaps even bear in just a step, but it was quite incidental in my opinion, and in not in any way obvious...and I can't remember if the 8 was drifting out at that time to cause the 4 and 6 to brush...the slight brush might have happened just as the 8 started to drift out.

I think it happened because the rider was, justifiably, trying to prevent the other horse(s) from forcing him out.

This was as bad a call as I have ever seen.

[v j stauffer]

I think it happened because the rider was, justifiably, trying to prevent the other horse(s) from forcing him out.

This was as bad a call as I have ever seen.

I wish I COULD see it. Can somebody please help with that?

[cj]

I wish I COULD see it. Can somebody please help with that?

Come on Vic, took me all of 24 seconds to find it.

http://tmedia.trakus.com/dsi/dsivideo/20/wmv/2012/20121206_race01.wmv?WMCache=1

[v j stauffer]

Come on Vic, took me all of 24 seconds to find it.

http://tmedia.trakus.com/dsi/dsivideo/20/wmv/2012/20121206_race01.wmv?WMCache=1

Thanks CJ. I can email and post on here and that's about the extent of it.

[davew]

you need to watch the head-on to see the reason for dq's and order change
-then you can argue about how placings should be

https://secure1.xb-online.com/fe/replay/watch.aspx?xbOsid=35a136f234992cfd7b71e0a3fa18020a&v=2799262

[PaceAdvantage]

link no worky

[v j stauffer]

you need to watch the head-on to see the reason for dq's and order change
-then you can argue about how placings should be

https://secure1.xb-online.com/fe/replay/watch.aspx?xbOsid=35a136f234992cfd7b71e0a3fa18020a&v=2799262

If this is the head-on I couldn't watch it. When I clicked it said a critical error had occurred.

[davew]

sorry, works for me, but I probably have cookie it needs

shows outside coming in and then inside going out pushing both others out and squeezing out 6

[v j stauffer]

sorry, works for me, but I probably have cookie it needs

shows outside coming in and then inside going out pushing both others out and squeezing out 6

OK. That's good enough for me. Thanks! :bang:

[BombsAway Bob]

I wish I COULD see it. Can somebody please help with that?

http://youtu.be/SmGcFatOTK8

SmGcFatOTK8

[v j stauffer]

http://youtu.be/SmGcFatOTK8

SmGcFatOTK8

Thanks Bombs Away. Any chance you have the head on? The double DQ has caused quite a stir. Would like to check it out.

[davew]

Heres the best I could do - it is a mirrored view from my webcam showing a reverse image from top of the stretch. (my hacking skills need improved)

As horses hit strraightaway the horses of interest are in lanes 3 (8), 4 (6) and 5(4). Towards the finish the 4 (5th out) cuts off the 6 (middle) and then the 8 (3rd out) cuts off the 6 pushing all 3 of them further out slightly.

As they crossed the finish in order 8, 4, 6 and made the official 6, 8, 4 - I am guessing the stewards decided 4 interferred with 6 AND 8 interferred with 6 bringing 6 above both of these horses. Or else the placing judge just put up wrong numbers.

I can see placings, but not a slamdunk no brainer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DROScf4d8k

[RXB]

The 4 did not cut off the 6.

Initially it was actually the 6 that came out just slightly under left-handed whipping and mildly brushed the 4. The 4 did nothing worse in return during subsequent strides. Then suddenly the 8 drifted out badly and caused all of the havoc.

None of what happened strictly between the 4 and 6 was anything other than relatively normal incidental contact between two horses fighting it out in the stretch. There isn't any legitimate rationale for the DQ of the 4.

I didn't bet the race, in case anyone is wondering. But the people who did bet the 4 to win/place, or had what should've been winning exacta/double tickets with the 4 got screwed.

[Track Phantom]

I watched the replay, both in normal view and the head on, multilple times. I have a seriously hard time believing a professional race steward could honestly make a case for the 4 being DQ'd.

I understand being a steward is a hard job and you can't please everyone. But, are you kidding me? The 4 ran almost a PERFECT straight line throughout the stretch. There was minor bumping between the 4 and 6 but, it almost certainly was intiated by the 6 trying to slide away from the 8. Not the other way around.

So, they take down the 4 there at Gulfstream but don't even put an inquiry up on this race (which is the most criminal not inquiry I've ever seen)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODSRxsop_7I

[porchy44]

Everyone responding to the original post are in agreement about the bad call, placing the #4 behind the #6. I maintain IF the #4 was the favorite instead of the #6 being the 2/5 favorite the steward's decision would be different. In effect the chalk was "bailed out".

Watching the outcomes of 100's of inquiries is what I am basing it on.

[Track Phantom]

Everyone responding to the original post are in agreement about the bad call, placing the #4 behind the #6. I maintain IF the #4 was the favorite instead of the #6 being the 2/5 favorite the steward's decision would be different. In effect the chalk was "bailed out".

Watching the outcomes of 100's of inquiries is what I am basing it on.

I hoonestly do not know what the motivations are but I would LOVE for the stewards in this example and the one I posted to explain themselves. I would like to see if they could do it with a straight face.

Two things that always perplexex me about horse racing:

When stewards either don't post an inquiry when something is obvious or, like in this example, they take a horse down that to every other sane person looks ridiculous.
When a shipper running in the money at MSW company at OP and ships into, say WRD, into a maiden claimer and is posted at 20-1. Everyone in the facility knows this horse will go off at 2-5. Why would the linemaker lay it at 20-1. Makes zero sense.

[MaTH716]

I watched the replay, both in normal view and the head on, multilple times. I have a seriously hard time believing a professional race steward could honestly make a case for the 4 being DQ'd.

I understand being a steward is a hard job and you can't please everyone. But, are you kidding me? The 4 ran almost a PERFECT straight line throughout the stretch. There was minor bumping between the 4 and 6 but, it almost certainly was intiated by the 6 trying to slide away from the 8. Not the other way around.

So, they take down the 4 there at Gulfstream but don't even put an inquiry up on this race (which is the most criminal not inquiry I've ever seen)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODSRxsop_7I

What action would you have taken if you were the steward in this case?

[picojim]

gi8jMFKV068

[davew]

Thats very good TVGfan

I am glad I did not have any bet in that race, and could see it going 3 ways - bad situation for stewards - no matter what they do, many people upset.

[Stillriledup]

Can you really, in good conscience, wager on Gulfstream races from this day forward as long as those particular stewards are on the job?

DQ's hurt and they can hurt so badly that its unlikely that any horseplayer who's ever suffered a vicious DQ will ever forget the exact scenario in which they felt money was robbed from their pockets.

I hate to think that some honest and hard working horseplayer has left the game forever because of this particular situation at Gulfstream. Its quite possible that someone may have quit the game and its really hard to blame them. I would tell the horseplayer who's thinking of quitting the game to not quit the game but instead just quit Gulfstream.

There are a few tracks in the nation where i've seen the most bizarre disqualifications and these tracks are on my 'never play' list. Gulfstream has just been added to my list after seeing this...no way i would want to put myself in a position to have money taken from me in this fashion. It happened once, what's to say it won't happen again tomorrow.

Black eye for racing.

[v j stauffer]

gi8jMFKV068



I would not have disqualified #4. Curious. Who was the rider of the 4? Name guy? Occasional journeyman? Bug Boy?

[Track Phantom]

What action would you have taken if you were the steward in this case?

If you're talking about the 2007 Blue Grass, then:

A) There should have been an inquiry
B) Tueflesberg, who finished 4th, should have been moved down to 5th

Unless I'm way off here, this is one of the most no-brainer situations I've ever seen. Tueflesberg swerved out TWICE and dramtically impeeded one runner and slightly a few others. My biggest gripe is there was NO INQUIRY.

You can debate whether it should come down or not. You certainly can't debate that is warrants an inquiry.

[therussmeister]

Can you really, in good conscience, wager on Gulfstream races from this day forward as long as those particular stewards are on the job?


Yes I can. Because I make good money there. An occasional bad call is not going to change that.

[MaTH716]

If you're talking about the 2007 Blue Grass, then:

A) There should have been an inquiry
B) Tueflesberg, who finished 4th, should have been moved down to 5th

Unless I'm way off here, this is one of the most no-brainer situations I've ever seen. Tueflesberg swerved out TWICE and dramtically impeeded one runner and slightly a few others. My biggest gripe is there was NO INQUIRY.

You can debate whether it should come down or not. You certainly can't debate that is warrants an inquiry.

Fair enough.
Makes you think what the reason/reasons could be for them not wanting to take a look.


I would not have disqualified #4. Curious. Who was the rider of the 4? Name guy? Occasional journeyman? Bug Boy?
Jose Alvarez

[cj]

Thats very good TVGfan

I am glad I did not have any bet in that race, and could see it going 3 ways - bad situation for stewards - no matter what they do, many people upset.

You and the stewards seem to be the only ones that see it that way.

[davew]

You and the stewards seem to be the only ones that see it that way.

I don't think so - if you look at TVGfans clip from 13s to 16s, you can see the 4 leaning in (at a 30 degree angle) and pushing the 6 towards the rail. When the 8 started drifting it was ahead of 6 and made no contact - 6 started pushing back on 4.

If 4 stays, so should 8 - I am not sure where finish line is compared to 8 drifting in front of 6.

PS, bad dq's are just like bad rides or bad starts. they sometimes happen. I remember having a bet at Saratoga in race 2 on 8/2/1986, and the stewards DQ'd Allumeuse that was a couple lengths away from the action and the horse forced into rail. I have continued betting there.

[v j stauffer]

I don't think so - if you look at TVGfans clip from 13s to 16s, you can see the 4 leaning in (at a 30 degree angle) and pushing the 6 towards the rail. When the 8 started drifting it was ahead of 6 and made no contact - 6 started pushing back on 4.

If 4 stays, so should 8 - I am not sure where finish line is compared to 8 drifting in front of 6.

PS, bad dq's are just like bad rides or bad starts. they sometimes happen. I remember having a bet at Saratoga in race 2 on 8/2/1986, and the stewards DQ'd Allumeuse that was a couple lengths away from the action and the horse forced into rail. I have continued betting there.

What stewards often do when watching subtle bumping is determine who "initiated" contact. Once contact is made. Especially with horses tiring and centers of gravity being thrown off further bumping and culpability is very tough to determine. To me. The first contact although very slight was by the #6 drifting out slightly and brushing the #4.

[cj]

What stewards often do when watching subtle bumping is determine who "initiated" contact. Once contact is made. Especially with horses tiring and centers of gravity being thrown off further bumping and culpability is very tough to determine. To me. The first contact although very slight was by the #6 drifting out slightly and brushing the #4.

That is the first contact, which is what makes the decision so baffling.

[thaskalos]

I don't think so - if you look at TVGfans clip from 13s to 16s, you can see the 4 leaning in (at a 30 degree angle) and pushing the 6 towards the rail. When the 8 started drifting it was ahead of 6 and made no contact - 6 started pushing back on 4.

If 4 stays, so should 8 - I am not sure where finish line is compared to 8 drifting in front of 6.

PS, bad dq's are just like bad rides or bad starts. they sometimes happen. I remember having a bet at Saratoga in race 2 on 8/2/1986, and the stewards DQ'd Allumeuse that was a couple lengths away from the action and the horse forced into rail. I have continued betting there.

Although there may be valid reasons for a bad ride or a bad start...there can never be a valid reason for a bad DQ. The stewards have plenty of time...and plenty of video assistance...to get the call right every time.

This isn't like footbal...where the ball is sometimes hidden, thus creating "inconclusive evidence"...

This was a terrible call...and the stewards should be reprimanded.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

This was a terrible call...and the stewards should be reprimanded.

And piss tested.