Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer
I would have voted to DQ. But the decision isn't nearly as obvious as the head on first appears....
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.
|
Thanks for the detailed response. I understand your individual breakdown but I do not agree at all about the action with #2. The #1 clearly impacted #2 for quite a few yards and (before the 2 dropped far back) the #2 was right in the race (as the favorite) and applying overt subjectivity to the incident NOT contributing to the #2 going on is faulty. You, me or the stewards will never know exactly what caused the #2 to drop back but I can certainly tell you he was not backing up when the incident occurred. Thus, you must error on the side that the incident was a contributing factor.
Saying it another way, if the #2 had re-rallied for 4th you would have DQ'd the #1 on that incident (I think you're saying). If so, what the #2 does after the incident is way too much subjectivity for my liking. What if the #1 had forced the #2 to drop the rider during that incident? We'd have never seen the rest of the race for #2 and DQ would have happened.
I understand subjectivity is a part of this but only to a logical degree. Once extrapolation delves into the guessing territory it becomes illogical to me.
