Rice/Lezcano: Racin' dirty?
 

In the 7th race of SAR's 9/1 card, the :2: New York's Finest came out of the gate and immediately veered hard into the path of the other speed, the :3: Saratoga Giro, cutting him off sharply and essentially eliminating him from the race.

In the Saranac yesterday, the same thing happened as the :5: Voodoo Lounge left the gate and obliterated the speedy :4: Bricks and Mortar.

As the NYRA TV crew looked at the head-on replay after the race, a livid Andy Serling called out the connections for the winning horses (Linda Rice and jock Jose Lezcano) and flat out accused them of doing this deliberately, and how such tactics needed to stop.

There was no inquiry (as to the start) in either race. Serling's colleagues acknowledged what happened in the beginning of the races, but quickly moved past it. When the show returned from a break, Serling made no further mention of it.

When does aggressive, tactical race riding become a foul? Why is a move that would never be tolerated down the stretch acceptable out of the gate?

Well when its the 5th or 6th time it has happened this meet then you can see where bettors are getting frustrated.

Feels to a certain extent the stewards have lost grip on the riding out there and its become a shade questionable.

I say when the rider fails to maintain a straight course, a foul has been committed. If no one was bothered by it, you leave the results alone, but you suspend the rider.

Calling hockey checking "race riding" is not in the interest of the game.

NY stewards a total joke - and have been for decades.

I think these things are intentional more often than not but Bricks and Mortar wasn't a pace factor. I bet Mr. Havercamp and thought they could go all the way around. I was cussing Bravo out the whole way. It was like he got in a duel with the 6 against the rail the whole way and was never comfortable. Definite bet back for me.

I recently read a steward explanation that a foul out of the starting gate is somehow less flagrant than a foul commited later-on in the race...because the impeded horses out of the gate supposedly still have enough time left to "recover", and "run their race". It may have been the stupidest comment that I've ever read.

Certain Jocks have a history of stuff like this. In the end no way to know if it was intentional. He was on the speed of the speed by a mile. Set pretty quick fractions into a really short run up last time (CJ should know if that was accurate)

At Saratoga, I think some of these have been 100% intentional. The stewards do nothing, so why wouldn't you Bayern the field when you can? This is particularly true when the rail is 10x better than any other part of the turf courses at Saratoga this meet.

I've always felt there should be more scrutiny on riders for their actions. Particularly should give statements on beaten favorites and running style changes. Get them on the record.

I meant the :5: Voodoo Song, not Lounge. Apparently I have the Rolling Stones on the brain this morning. :p

I Can't Get No Satisfaction? :headbanger:

MR. HAVERCAMP
 

Mr. Asaro,
We were NOT the ONLY two ( horse players ) to bet Mr. Havercamp. Check the replay the horse went from 9-2 to THREE to ONE. I not sure about (stable mail for this horse) ?

Hopbet

Next time and we'll get a much better price.

If that is true CJ, it is just a matter of time before somebody gets hurt, paralyzed or worse.

Stewards can not let jocks run wild.

If the jocks are not worried about what the Stews are thinking, then that is an accident waiting to happen.

Hope you are wrong but you are probably right.

I see their point. In most cases that's true. I guess you can say it's not true for the absolute-must speed horses, but they can't DQ only the ones who take a speed horse out of their game. There'd be too many DQs (which no doubt gamblers would often disagree with) if they took down all the horses who break into another at the start. The jockeys probably have less control over the horse at the break than at any time.

Put cameras in the gates to see if the jockey steers either with the reins or with his body if there are flagrant or repeated fouls out of the gate. Reins should be even and the rider centered at the break.

The only time a foul is irrelevant, is when a horse beats a rival in deep stretch and then fouls the horse after he's clearly beaten him.
(example: travers - Gunnevera bested Irap, before Gunnevera fouled Irap, and was rightly allowed to stand second.)

Other than that, any significant foul should be enforced.

The idea that there are "too many DQs" should not be considered.

The 'intent' of the fouling jockey should not be considered. (doesn't matter if he's pretending to yank the reigns away, or feints with the whip as if whipping the horse away from the foul)

The 'reaction' of the fouled jockey should not be considered. (doesn't matter if the jockey pulls up sharply, or if the jockey shows no reaction whatsover and continues trying to win)

The popularity of a horse should not be considered. (doesn't matter if it's a beloved racehorse, even if it's a beloved female racehorse, even if he or she is 1/9 HOY)

The prestige of the owner or trainer should not be considered. (doesn't matter even if it's a Chad Brown or Bob Baffert, even if the owners are billionaires, even if they enter a lot of expensive horses)