Orino DQ, Race 5, Aug 7th Saratoga.
 

Seriously?

I had to go back and watch the replay, 'cause I heard TLG support the steward's call afterwards, and since I had no vested interest I just assumed the :3: shut off the :2: .

Wrong. Very iffy ruling. Horrible, actually.

This never would have happened at SRU Downs, where the stewards are closet dog players, and never DQ a pony....

If you say this was a "no brainer" DQ (like the host of Saratoga in 30 tv show did) you just lose credibility as someone who really knows the game. Its hard to make a case for a DQ here much less a "no brainer".

Never seen anyone who continues to play this game who thinks any and everyone in it is so crooked.

Yeah, the starter is kicking horses. Good luck proving that one, buddy.

Yeah, the 3 horse came down. He needed to. Keep watching the head on maybe you'll get it.

Everyone is conspiring against you ... you're just another whiner.

I didn't bet the race. But a friend of mine got taken down hard, he had the double 27 times until the inquiry. That call could of went either way in the "OLD" days, but the fact is for the last few years if you shut the rail off in NY they will get you. Shutting the rail used to be considered good race riding, these days they have consistantly been taking those moves down. You don't have to agree but at least they are treating the situation consistantly. Ask most of the "old timers" and they'll tell you they would never let a horse through there if they knew it was coming. If they were calling it differently from case to case, i could see people beefing but they are being consistant which is only fair.

If the odds on the horses were reversed, do you think the call would of happened?

The way they've been calling those i think it would of been taken down.......but you never know and i wondered about that myself.

I don't think it matters. For the millionth time.

I saw it as a 50/50 chance of being taken down. I thought it was pretty good riding at first. The only problem I had with taking the horse down was "when" the rail got shut off completely. I thought it really didn't get completely shut off until very late in the race. Very late.

Or, if the :1: outbobs the 3-5 :2: horse for second, do the stewards bother since the chalk can't win?

Went back and watched the replays, both side and head-on and still don't see enough cause for the DQ. Would have hated to have taken the 12-1 risk in the :3: stretching out, and get doinked like that. Saratoga doesn't have a "racing lane" like a 5/8 mile harness track, now do they? As always, opinions vary from the players. Just another example of why the human judgement should be removed from the equation, and "dog race finish" rules adopted for the payouts. Let the inquires and objections be dealt with afterwards, and only affect the purse distribution...

I had a vested interest in the outcome, keying Orino in both the Race 4-5 DD and Pick 3. I have been miserable since yesterday.

Having watched zillions of races over the years, as have many of us here on PA, I know one thing is just about 100% dead certain, and it is this:

When there is interference, even the slightest of bumping, that occurs very deep into the stretch, the offending party comes down. The closer the horses are to the finish line, it is even much more likely the perpetrator comes down. You could go to the bank on that.

There is always much less room for margin in the deep stretch than there is at the start of the race or down the backside.

While one might argue if a foul actually occurred, to me, sadly, it was a fait accompli that my horse was coming down.

Prado's horse at 3-5 or Orino being a longshot had absolutely nothing to do with the steward's decision.

After seeing the head on for the first time, I thought for sure and felt that Orion would and needed to come down.

I will say as a whole, these decisions are seemingly handled differently than they were 5, 8, 10 years ago.

I agree.

The winner was pulling away from the 2nd place finisher under the wire, the winner was accelerating, once that horse switched to his 'wrong lead" in deep stretch, he found another burst, that horse wasnt done and the inside horse wasnt getting to him.

There's a LOT of bumping in NY that not only doesnt come down, but doesnt even blink. If you are going to take this horse down, i think you are basically saying that the standard we are going to have is extremely high and we are going to enforce that all horses must remain in an exact straight line all the time.

Is this really reasonable? Isnt horse racing a sport where its generally unreasonable to think every horse all the time will remain exactly straight? Isnt some drifting just part of the horse race, arent some horses going to shift around down the lane when the jock and horse are straining to get every last ounce out of a runner?

I think that's a very high standard to have....but, if you have it, you have to enforce it all the time and to me, that would mean NY would become the DQ capitol of racing and i'm not sure that's what they want. They certainly arent the capitol of paying off the winners, they seem like a place where you really have to win twice in order to get paid.

You said this was a 50/50 chance......shouldnt a 50/50 call go to the horse who physically won the race? Shouldnt the "burden of proof' have to be incredibly high to make a switch?

I hate seeing horses come down because the other jock put himself in a tough position needing to get 'lucky' to get out, the front running jock isnt obligated to move over to let an inside horse thru.

Seems that they have, with this DQ, that the 'cost a board placing' is not really much of a factor...if you bump or brush, you're down, no questions asked.

Seems like you're the one whining...i never suggest i think anyone was crooked, i never mention if i bet on this race or not and i never talk about a "conspiracy".

Maybe your 3rd sentence is the only one you should have posted, its on topic and gets straight to the point. The other stuff is nonsense. Cmon Grits, you're better than that.

I bet $110 on the race and went from cashing $1355 ($100 win bet on Orino) to just $117 ($10 saver exacta, the odds-on fave over Orino).

So I'd have as much reason as most people to be biased. But I thought that it was the correct call. I think Orino might've held off the fave anyway but you can't tell for sure and Orino definitely crossed over into the fave's established path and caused him to steady. Not only did it quite possibly affect the order of finish but it gets quite dangerous when a horse drifts into the path of the rail runner.

Too bad for me but I think the stewards were right on this one.

I dont think they ought to be making calls on the 'danger' factor. The rider of the runner up was in a tough spot, if you bet on the favorite, you don't have a 100 % expectation of getting out.

Also, for what this is worth, the "head on" shot they showed is not really a head on, i think a straight head on would have provided a different view. Its hard to watch what is essentially a pan shot that is disguised as a head on and be able to really make a call like this.

It has to sting you that the rider of the runner up was Edgar "i always get in trouble" Prado and they rewarded him for yet another race where he got himself into a tough spot and had to take his horse up.