I would have voted to DQ. But the decision isn't nearly as obvious as the head on first appears.
The rule reads a DQ is warranted if a rival was cost an "opportunity" at a better placing.
fouled multiple horses. Each horse in a race is entitled to clear and unobstructed path. Numbers
&
all did not get that and were fouled.
Each foul is an incident exclusive to itself. So let's take them in order.
Not long after the start
shifts outward into the path of
. That horse checks "briefly" in tight quarters. Then drops far behind the field in obvious physical distress. Here's where Stewards must make their first of several SUBJECTIVE decisions. Was
the cause for
apparent injury?
Impossible to know with 100% certainty but IMO the answer is no. Quarter Horse racing is much more rough and tumble than TB racing. What happened to number
was clearly a foul. However, did it cause the horse to not be persevered with. My vote is NO. So
is still in the clear.
The next incident is when
continues to drift outward and solidly bumps
. That very bump, MR. JUDGE THASKALOS, is why I wanted to see the pan shot.
was bumped and forced to check sharply causing it to lose position and start a chain reaction involving
. However did that incident cause
an opportunity at a better placing? Here comes SUBJECTIVE decision #2. IMO no it didn't. When
was forced to take up it happened VERY close to the wire. Perhaps as little 30 or 40 feet from the line.
Here's where it gets VERY tricky. Because of the very difficult angles and optical illusions that exist at Los Alamitos. If two horses appear from the pan shot absolutely dead even with 100 yards to run. I can assure you having seen thousands of races there the outside horse is actually WELL IN FRONT of the horse near the rail. Often as much as a full length. Our eyes are very much deceived. It's the Los Al angles and they're a bitch!
That being said. I "think" when
took up.
&
were in fact already in front of
. I'm 100% sure regarding the
and somewhat sure regarding the
( That one is very close ). The
is where experience and feel come into play.
Ok, now let's bring
into the equation. His trouble of being bumped and jostled in very tight quarters actually began to manifest itself well before the
started to react. ( Some horses and jockeys are more resilient and braver than others)
was much further back from the wire when all the dysfunction began to impact him. So again we ask the same question was
cost an opportunity at a better placing. This one for me is the easiest. YES he was. IMO
would NOT have been passed by
had he not been bothered.
Ok now we know what we think happened. Time to place blame. That part is a no brainer.
. His outward drifting actions caused the entire mess.
Now let's apply those fouls to placings.
wasn't cost NO CHANGE
is the hair splitter. My gut feeling is he had already been passed when his trouble happened. NO CHANGE (but really close). Remember we gotta decide. It's either YES or NO. I've heard people say well if it's that close why change? Because it's our job to MAKE A DECISION.
was clearly cost. (DISQUALIFICATION)
So what appears VERY obvious actually isn't. I think I know why they left
up. It's because of the SUPER CLOSE proximity to the wire when the fouls and reactions occurred.
Personally I would have voted to DQ
and place him behind
. For failure to maintain a straight course.
I tell riders all the time. In 150 years of pari-mutual racing there's never been a horse DQ'ed that ran straight. GO STRAIGHT!! Don't make me have to decide SUBJECTIVELY aka known as guess about what happened. If you do I'm going to lean towards giving the benefit of the doubt to the rivals you impacted because you didn't RUN STRAIGHT.
IMO this INQUIRY was a VERY CLOSE call. I could not say to a fellow Steward I'm sure they were wrong. I would disagree but can also understand the reasoning of those who left it as is.
Hope this helped.
