Worst DQ ever?
 

So the first horse under the line in CD's finale today would have paid out the entire jackpot pool of 317k, just 2 days before mandatory payout day on Sunday & a certain nice expected profit for Churchill with that upcoming betting activity. The runner up would've had the pick 6 hit multiple times, so the carry would've been about $216k, but CD goes for a double DQ to where the 3rd place finisher had 0 tickets alive & therefore now the whole $317k carries into Saturday.


Having watched the replay several times on the pan & head on this is absolutely one of the worst disqualifications I have ever seen, no matter what sort of payouts were at stake. Considering the value to CD of this pick 6 carrying over, it is hard for me to believe they're not connected which makes me feel sick. I usually despise conspiracy theories & things of this nature, but this was disgusting. The runner-up came over with a decent bump, I could see that DQ with no problem (but not a certainty either), but there is ZERO chance the winner's actions cost anyone a placing as he slightly came out 2 jumps from the wire. I feel bad for whoever held this ticket, especially as it was quite an amazing & game battle to come back at the wire.

I saw the race and agree with you no way the winner should have been DQ'd, smells fishy

I have to agree... the 7 on the outside , at the 16th pole does come in and maybe, yea, you could see a DQ, but that set the whole thing in motion and NO WAY the rail horse should come down. NO way.


[IMG]https://preview.ibb.co/gqWiKq/pic1.png[/IMG]


[IMG]https://preview.ibb.co/gTnqzq/pic2.png[/IMG]

[IMG]https://preview.ibb.co/fpPW5V/pic3.png[/IMG]

The :7: reacted to the incidental contact between the :9: and the :7: by fouling the :9:.

That should DQ the :7: to 3rd in a 3-way stretch run.

Then, near the wire, when the :9: had no chance to overtake the :8:, the :8: came over and fouled the :9:. While this was a foul, it should not result in a change of placing.

The correct result should be :8::9::7:

I wouldn't put being carryover-influenced past the judges, but my default guess is that they were simply incompetent, again.

What really constitutes a double DQ? Considering they are few and far between in the game it's hard to say if the actions of the CD stewards were justified or not.

I would have leaned to leave the winner up and take the 7 down to 3rd.

He "slightly" came out? What the hell replay are you watching? The inside horse was in the 1 path, He came out into the 2 path but unfortunately for him the 2 path was already taken by the 9 who damn near got dropped!

As for the conspiracy theories about the Pick 6. I will remind you the Stewards are employees of the State of Kentucky and therefore have ZERO vested interest in the CD business model.

I was on the air on TVG2 when the incident happened and told the viewers a double DQ was coming.

This was a simple, easy call.

At the point when the 8 came over into the path of the 9, the race was already decided (about 50-100 yards left if i recall). An infraction may have occurred but it had zero bearing on the outcome (at least as it concerned the 9). After the 7 came over on the 9, the 9 was eliminated as a win candidate and was always going to be third.

I have no problem with the stewards DQ'ing the 8 as long as the stewards always DQ the 8 in that kind of instance. They don't and that is what disturbs players.

Regarding the pick 6, you're saying the stewards have zero invested in the outcome. You might be right. Others say the stewards might have some interest in the outcome. They might be right. Hence the problem with horse racing. Speculation runs rampant because the game is woefully non-transparent and now the track actually cares who wins the races and when. Big problem.

Full disclosure: I had all 3 runners in the pick 4 and they paid:
7: 1300
8: 1100
9: 3700

I got lucky.

Bad dq plain and simple.

It did happen very late. Remember they have to decide if the :9: could have possibly finished 2nd. Very tough call but as I said I think they made the correct call. The jock on the :8: certainly did them no favors by carelessly coming out. I always told the riders. Go straight! Don't make us have to split hairs and perhaps get a VERY CLOSE decision wrong. There's NEVER been a horse DQ'ed for going straight. Never.

The replay shows.. when the 7 comes in on the 9 .. the 9 comes over and has contact with the rail horse and forces him into the 1 path.... The rail horse simply recovers and goes back to the path he was in. Watch the replay head on.. pretty easy to see.

And welcome to the weekly.. "Shakes the public confidence in the game" thread.

I have no dog, other than, please don't insult my intelligence by posting that the stewards work for the state and have no interest in what's good for churchill downs. Please stop with that bullshit. Thanks

That's not the way the film looks to me. Or the Stewards.

How did the :9: not already have 2nd locked up?
The :7: clearly fouled the :9: at the top of the stretch. 2nd=:9: , and 3rd=:7:

Yet another "worst DQ ever." It's so hard to keep up with them

I use Allemeuse, a five length winner that was disqualified at 7:1, but was actually the wrong horse...something Jerry Bailey told the Stewards during the inquiry, as the barometer for worst DQ ever. None of the 50 supposed worst DQs ever from 2018 come even close to that.

Occam Razor and the end-result always justifies decisions in business driven by profit. In this case the situation speaks for itself. There is no justification for the double DQ otherwise.

Racing stewards are just as impartial as Executive Compensation Committees, perhaps less so.

Too many people assume that others will act and think ethically as they do; in most situations involving profit, one must assume the worst intention to come up with the correct assessment.

Therefore it is my conclusion that the DQ was solely made on Jackpot ramification.