I'll Give Anyone $500
 

Today's Race 9 at Horseshoe Indiana (QH Race)

Original Order of Finish: 8 6 7

Challenge: Watch the replay pan and head-on, then provide me with a viable explanation why the 6 horse was disqualified from 2nd, and placed 3rd.

Because it cost me a $300+ Exacta.

Thanks.

(you will see the stewards made a huge mistake)

The explanation is in the chart comments, albeit it a fuzzy one. My interpretation is that the 6 was DQed for fouling the 5, but then the 5 was DQed for fouling the 4 and 3.

Maybe like this:

8 6 7 5 4

6 DQed behind 5, so now 8 7 5 6 3 4

Then 5 is DQed behind 4, so 8 7 6 3 5 4

8675309

A real head scratcher. The :6: drifted in as equally as the :5:. Why does the :6: supercede the "foul" committed by the :5:. I do not understand that the :6: did not cause the :5: to move inward, and am befuddled as to why the :6: is not placed behind the :5:.

Strange

Yeah. The placing is confusing. It costs people a pretty nice trifecta too. I felt the 5 drifted in and the 6 just followed along. The replay never shows the 6 withing a body width of the 5.

I will argue that both the :5: and :6: drifted inward through the stretch, but they were "clear" when it began, and when the :4: gathered momentum, the :5: was in his way. Bad racing luck is all I saw there.

very sad, i wanted the $500. i have no good explanation for this, but i didn't have a good one for NICHOLES DREAM either 15 years ago.

:1: :3: & :4: were clearly bothered and cost an opportunity at a better placing.

Now the job of the Stewards is to place blame.

IMO this was a fascinating piece of film with many nuances and ultimately a VERY subjective decision that could have gone many ways.

First I watched the race as a whole.

Then went back and watched only :5: as though :6: wasn't in the race.

Then went back again and watched only :6: and though :5: wasn't in the race.

First let's talk about the start. There was contact between :4: & :5: which was initiated by :5: coming inward.

During the running :5: drifted inward taking the path of :1: :3: & :4:

Now comes the really tough question. Was :5: intimidated and forced inward by
:6: who was also drifting inward? Did :6: cause :5: to shy away as he came closer? If you think the answer is YES blamed can be placed on :6:.

It's close but IMO the answer is NO. When a horse drifts inward other horses will tend to follow them down. Especially young green horses that are still learning.

John G Dooley said the horses were juveniles so that makes sense.

IMO the rider of :5: didn't make sufficient effort to maintain his straight path. Had he would the :6: continued inward and made contact? I don't think so. I say this because the rider of :6: did correct when he realized he had come inward a couple paths. After that correction :5: STILL continued his inward drift. Most of the damage had been done but I feel it made the case as to who was at fault.

DECISION: :5: DISQUALIFIED AND PLACED BEHIND :1: NO ACTION TAKEN AGAINST :6:

I would tell the rider of :6: at morning film review that he could have reacted and straightened his mount quicker and to work on that.

^ This is why you are a Steward and I am not. Thank you for the explanation.

By the way, just donate the $500 to Old Friends. :)

Well analyzed. Still confused on WHY, if the 6 interfered with the 5 (the only possible horse he could have interfered with), why he was only moved to 3rd and not below the 5.

The disqualification cost me the exacta, but by only moving below the 7, who was 15 yards away on the outside, trifecta tickets were affected too.

In what was deemed to be two separate incidents; :6: was first DQ'd behind :5: but then :5: was DQ'd behind :3:

Result at post was:
1st 8
2nd 6 7 (DH)
4th 5
5th 3

DQ's are dealt with in order of occurrence;
> Firstly 6 was DQ'd behind 5, leaving 8/7/5/6/3
> Then 5 was DQ'd behind 3, leaving the final result 8/7/6/3/5

IMO the order of finish should be 8-7-4-3-2-10-1-5-6

Even though the chronology of the alleged incidents was :6: then :5:

By rule the :6: can NEVER be allowed to be placed in front of a singular horse he fouled.

As I stated before. If it was me. I would not have changed the :6:'s placing. I didn't see him cost anyone an opportunity at a better placing.

VERY INTERESTING RACE.

If you think that one was tough. Try this one on for size from this summer at Energy Downs in Gillette Wy


Spoiler alert. The :4: was placed 2nd and the :5:placed 3rd in the single most ludicrous Stewards decision in the history of pari-mutuel racing..

SORRY

8-7-3-4-2-10-1-5-6

Re: The race you posted

How was it not :8::6::7: there? I get it, the :4: and :5: were compromised, but what did the :6: or :7: do there?