DQ or no DQ you be the judge

[Greyfox]

thaskalosand some are just for venting. I think there is room here for both. I am not really passionate about this issue, and this injustice in the Classic didn't cost me one thin dime...but it was an injustice nonetheless....

We're 256 vents into this thread. I'd hate to see an injustice that you are passionate about.
P.S. I didn't think it was injustice. The right 3 top finishers were at the wire when the dust settled after 1 and 1/4 mile.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

P.S. I didn't think it was injustice. The right 3 top finishers were at the wire when the dust settled after 1 and 1/4 mile.

I don't agree with what you say here...but I would defend to the death your right to say it.

[iceknight]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Nobody was denied anything. <<Your opinion

What happened in this race happens DAILY across racing in this country. Stewards are presented with a possible DQ, and they decide accordingly. <<b>But inconsistently. heck I lost zero dollars in this race, but their actions were inconsistent and that is the crux of the problem. </b>

There is thread upon thread upon thread on this board filled with people complaining about stewards' decisions they did not agree with. This is nothing more than another tire on the burning pile.

This is the way the game is played when shit happens on the field. It's been this way since basically <b>forever. </b> NICE. Ostrich much?

What exactly are you or anyone else going to do about it? I AM NOT PLAYING THIS GAME. Have already unsubscribed from lot of BC/Derby etc mailing lists, information sources, withdrawn my wagering account

I could not understand why Baffert/Shah and M Garcia were not beaming in the press conference, having won the Classic.

That's another "conjecture" for you.

Yes, I have moved on. From wagering in North american tracks.

[iceknight]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

We're 256 vents into this thread. I'd hate to see an injustice that you are passionate about.
P.S. I didn't think it was injustice. The right 3 top finishers were at the wire when the dust settled after 1 and 1/4 mile + the run up.

Or is that included in the 1 1/4th mile... I would never know in this sport!

[pandy]

Originally Posted by iceknight

I could not understand why Baffert/Shah and M Garcia were not beaming in the press conference, having won the Classic.

That's another "conjecture" for you.

Yes, I have moved on. From wagering in North american tracks.

Imagine if Baffert trained Shared Belief instead of Bayern. Holy Cow, he would have went berserk and he would viciously berated the stewards, no doubt about it. The Shared Belief team handled themselves well considering.

[ILovetheInner]

Originally Posted by pandy

Imagine if Baffert trained Shared Belief instead of Bayern. Holy Cow, he would have went berserk and he would viciously berated the stewards, no doubt about it. The Shared Belief team handled themselves well considering.

What if it were CC to have taken the hit instead of the composed SB camp? With those owners, surely by now we'd have a real rodeo on our hands

[pandy]

Oh yeah.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Nobody was denied anything.

What happened in this race happens DAILY across racing in this country. Stewards are presented with a possible DQ, and they decide accordingly.

There is thread upon thread upon thread on this board filled with people complaining about stewards' decisions they did not agree with. This is nothing more than another tire on the burning pile.

This is the way the game is played when shit happens on the field. It's been this way since basically forever.

What exactly are you or anyone else going to do about it? If there was actually a BETTER WAY, it would have been implemented by now, don't you think?

No matter WHAT happens, somebody is going to come up with some little (often times ridiculous) angle to push. Was it the Baffert influence?...was it the fact that there was big money involved?...did the bumping turn one horse from clear winner to clear loser mere strides out of the gate when there were 10 more furlongs to run?...should we hire completely objective stewards just for this one day (GOOD LUCK FINDING SUCH PEOPLE)?

It's all nothing but massive conjecture, which is exactly what the stewards involved with this decision had to do...there will never be a right decision when it comes to this sort of thing that ALL will agree with...and there will always be saber rattlers when it comes to controversy...

This is a curious response from the one who benefits most from hundreds of people posting on a subject. Is that not what this forum is for? To talk about issues involving Horse racing. Is it not a good thing that people CARE enough to actually be frustrated that a potentially wrong decision was made? That they care who becomes horse of the year(frankly I could care less-California Chrome failed to prove he was and SB did not get a chance to prove he was). That they are bothered that the stewards let a horse who should have been disqualified(if that is how they feel) get away with it and if they feel that injustice was done, coincidentally Bob Baffert of all people was the beneficiary.

Isn't every subject matter discussed on this form basically an act of futility. We all discuss what is wrong with the sport, why it is failing.....and meanwhile there are a bunch of suits marching to their own drummer who think we are all of little to no consequence. As to your if there was a "better way it would have been implemented by now", REALLY? You really think that the decision makers in this industry or any industry always do things the best way. I think not. Usually change isn't implemented until enough people die, enough press and public outcry requires the change or a big lawsuit enables them to see the light.

Also why is the fact this act could have been deliberate is considered of so little consequence is beyond me. Yes it has no influence on whether you leave the horse up or take him down, but a horse could have died, a jockey could have died, all because someone noticed complacency in how the stewards punish gate incidents and looked for a little extra edge. Maybe that is one of the subject matters you consider "ridiculous", but still nobody has provided any reasonable opinion on why Baffert wanted Martin Garcia to basically say nothing at the press conference and tried to spoon feed him an explanation as to what happened, This is not the behavior of someone whose horse randomly rammed into half the field. If it was random, why would he care what Martin Garcia said publicly?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by pandy

Gee, I don't know. It was the richest race of the year, it decided the Horse of the Year, it was an obvious poor decision by the judges that may have been influenced by politics, not the actual incident...all in all, a pretty big deal, I'd say.

This is a longshot, but it would be great if the Breeders Cup took over the officiating by choosing a non partisan, volunteer (no pay) group of stewards from different areas of the country, but not the host track. We have a national track announcer for the big races, why not a national group of stewards?

When you think about it, using the track's judges for these international style races is absurd. How do we know that the judges wouldn't have made a different decision if the trainer of Bayern was from New York, or France? Or if the trainer was a small town guy, not the guy who has the biggest barn at the track and who has threatened to move his horses in the past? To me, this incident certainly raised conflict of interests questions.

Imagine if each NFL team had their own refs and the Super Bowl is played in New Orleans and the New Orleans refs, who are paid by the New Orleans Saints, get to ref the Super Bowl?

Great points.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

This is a curious response from the one who benefits most from hundreds of people posting on a subject. Is that not what this forum is for? To talk about issues involving Horse racing. Is it not a good thing that people CARE enough to actually be frustrated that a potentially wrong decision was made? That they care who becomes horse of the year(frankly I could care less-California Chrome failed to prove he was and SB did not get a chance to prove he was). That they are bothered that the stewards let a horse who should have been disqualified(if that is how they feel) get away with it and if they feel that injustice was done, coincidentally Bob Baffert of all people was the beneficiary.

Isn't every subject matter discussed on this form basically an act of futility. We all discuss what is wrong with the sport, why it is failing.....and meanwhile there are a bunch of suits marching to their own drummer who think we are all of little to no consequence. As to your if there was a "better way it would have been implemented by now", REALLY? You really think that the decision makers in this industry or any industry always do things the best way. I think not. Usually change isn't implemented until enough people die, enough press and public outcry requires the change or a big lawsuit enables them to see the light.

Also why is the fact this act could have been deliberate is considered of so little consequence is beyond me. Yes it has no influence on whether you leave the horse up or take him down, but a horse could have died, a jockey could have died, all because someone noticed complacency in how the stewards punish gate incidents and looked for a little extra edge. Maybe that is one of the subject matters you consider "ridiculous", but still nobody has provided any reasonable opinion on why Baffert wanted Martin Garcia to basically say nothing at the press conference and tried to spoon feed him an explanation as to what happened, This is not the behavior of someone whose horse randomly rammed into half the field. If it was random, why would he care what Martin Garcia said publicly?

Love this post. Good stuff Poiny.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by pandy

The bottom line is, they were badly impeded and therefore we have no idea how they would have done, which is why Bayern had to be disqualified.

So you are in favor of taking people's money away when we have no proof that the outcome was affected?

I think some folks need to take a step back here. A disqualification is not an academic matter. The reason state appointed officials, and not racetrack employees, determine disqualifications is because there's public betting money involved. If you run an informal race on your horse farm, you can apply any rules you want regarding disqualification.

But when there's public betting money involved, there has to be a neutral decisionmaker. And that decisionmaker can't just overturn results willy-nilly. There has to be sufficient proof to warrant a disqualification.

Hence, the presumption is no disqualification. If we are reasonably sure it costs a horse a placing, then we disqualify.

By the way, that's no different than instant replay rules in other sports. Indeed, horse racing really invented replay review, when you think about it. But in a football game, when we aren't sure the guy caught the pass, but we think he did, what is the ruling? The play stands as called. That's how replay works.

And it's how replay has to work when you are talking about taking away people's money.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

The Chief clown, er steward, said that is SB had finished closer, say within a length, they might have taken the winner down.

So if the early trouble had been LESS severe, Bayern may well have come down.

That's a straw man. If the early trouble had been LESS severe, it would have required SB to finish even closer, or would not merit a disqualification at all.

Someone posted a citation to a DQ at the start of a race in California in 2012. In that race, 2 horses were essentially left at the post, 15 lengths behind the field, as a result of the foul. They didn't remain in contention as SB did. They had no chance. Had that happened to SB, Bayern comes down.

So it's a combination of (1) how bad the trouble was and (2) how close the horse finished.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by pandy

This is a longshot, but it would be great if the Breeders Cup took over the officiating by choosing a non partisan, volunteer (no pay) group of stewards from different areas of the country, but not the host track. We have a national track announcer for the big races, why not a national group of stewards?

When you think about it, using the track's judges for these international style races is absurd. How do we know that the judges wouldn't have made a different decision if the trainer of Bayern was from New York, or France? Or if the trainer was a small town guy, not the guy who has the biggest barn at the track and who has threatened to move his horses in the past? To me, this incident certainly raised conflict of interests questions.

Wagering on horse races is regulated at the state level, by state officials. The role of the stewards arises out of this.

Now, if you would like the BC to run betless exhibitions (perhaps in Dubai), you can have whatever stewards you want. (Not that this will solve anything, as was shown with Almutawakel in the DWC.)

But if you want betting, the jurisdiction that regulates the betting picks the stewards. Dem's the rules.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

There you are wrong. Old values don't just step aside or roll over. A battle between the old and outdated and the new and improved is a very common theme. Silence is compliance. Be glad that there are those who protest on behalf of better racing conditions. Eventually things will change. When that will be, nobody can know. Hopefully sooner than later.

What's the better way then? No DQs at all? Anything and everything goes? Maybe you'll get suspended later?

I mean, come up with a viable option if you want to discuss seriously.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here is how I look at it, Greyfox. Some posts are for "adding new things to people's understanding"...and some are just for venting. I think there is room here for both. I am not really passionate about this issue, and this injustice in the Classic didn't cost me one thin dime...but it was an injustice nonetheless...and it deserves to be talked about at length. If we don't talk about it here...then we can't talk about it anywhere.

I would accept this ruling and move on to another topic, as PA suggested, but, try as I might, I just can't seem to get excited about the NJ sports betting situation...or the career of Mike Luzzi.

Don't get me wrong...you can keep talking about this until the cows come home. That's fine with me.

I'm just offering my opinion...I'm not handing down an administrative ruling...