Bad (and Sad) Call at Delta Downs

[infrontby1]

1/9 shot Bannah won drawing away in the stretch in a minor stakes race at Delta Downs but was disqualified for brushing with a weakening horse entering the far turn and placed off the board.

What an outcast and shame.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by infrontby1

1/9 shot Bannah won drawing away in the stretch in a minor stakes race at Delta Downs but was disqualified for brushing with a weakening horse entering the far turn and placed off the board.

What an outcast and shame.

It looks like it was the right call. I lost on my last play of the day after a winning day.

Unfortunatly for those who played the 5, the turn was coming up right when it happened.

The 1 and the 5 were racing near even terms.

The 1 took back to re-gather.

The jock of the 5 eased over about a half a path toward the rail to prepare for the turn. All perfectly good riding.

The jock of the 1 re-gathered and dangerously forced his way to attempt to rush through a very narrow hole between the rail and the 5.

The 5 had begun to take the turn and so was moving toward the rail at the time contact was made.

As far as I know, because the 5 was moving toward the rail at the time of contact there was little the judges could do other than take down the 5.

5 was a much the best winner.

[SharpCat]

Originally Posted by infrontby1

1/9 shot Bannah won drawing away in the stretch in a minor stakes race at Delta Downs but was disqualified for brushing with a weakening horse entering the far turn and placed off the board.

What an outcast and shame.

I watched the replay several times and believe the stewards made the correct call. In my opinion the 1 had established position on the rail then the 5 came over into his path. The 1 lost about 2 lengths because of the incident and missed 4th place by 1/2 length.

[Milkshaker]

I got put up on this DQ to be (briefly) alive in the P4. And even I thought it was a bush call.

From the outset, it looked like the ship-in 1-9 fave was being "hounded" by the locals--never got a breather at any early part of the race. I have no problem with this tactic, though.

But when the jock gunned it to come through on the inside (Jansen Melancon) at the entrance to the far turn, he took this tactic too far. He had no business trying to thread such a narrow gap with a spent longshot and was lucky he didn't get killed.

Interesting to note that the jock who ended up winning via DQ is Jansen's father, Gerard Melancon.

"Score the $150K stakes for the home team!" is how this comes across when I look at the stewards' actions.

It was also a very quick DQ without even a foul claim.

[raybo]

I agree, I was playing that card and the call looked like what I would have called. It was an obvious infraction and it appeared that the 1 was trying to get by the 5 and had established position on the rail, IMO, not weakening, and the 5 definitely bore left into the 1, causing that jock to take the horse up sharply, losing any chance it had. IMO, the 5 was the much better horse, but that makes no difference when a clear infraction is committed.

I had the 5 as my pick also, fortunately the odds were too low to bet it. Glad I didn't disregard my minimum odds requirement!

Good call by the stewards, IMO.

[infrontby1]

Let me and the rest of the racing world see this happen if this were a Breeders Cup Juvenile race in California or Kentukcy that's shown on national televesion

[raybo]

Originally Posted by infrontby1

Let me and the rest of the racing world see this happen if this were a Breeders Cup Juvenile race in California or Kentukcy that's shown on national televesion

So, what are you saying, that there was no foul? Are the stewards supposed to make an exception just because the horse was 1/9 and probably the best horse in the race? What if the horse had been 9/1, and you didn't have a bet on him, would it have been ok then?

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by infrontby1

Let me and the rest of the racing world see this happen if this were a Breeders Cup Juvenile race in California or Kentukcy that's shown on national televesion

Let me preface by saying that I lost 10% of my total bankroll on that DQ.

You may be right on this point. I don't know. I think with a fair situation it puts judges in a tough spot, and most of the time would have DQ'd the 5.

Like I tried to describe(in detail) in post #2, my opinion is that the jockey of the 1 was reckless. However - his dangerous move of trying to force through a hole that wasn't really there, happened just as the 5 was starting to take the turn. So in the Head-On, the 5 is technically moving toward the rail when the contact is made.

Had it been on the backstretch, the 5 would not have been moving in toward the rail. The 1 would have still had to check in tight quarters, but there would have been no visual evidence vs. the 5.

In order for the judges to have kept the 5 up, they would really have needed to think outside of the box, and basically repeat my version of events, as well as saying "the jock of the 1 was being an idiot and caused the whole incident, and I don't care that it looks like the 5 is coming in because by gosh, that was the start of the turn.".

It stinks for me. I lost 5 "days" of progress. I also saw the win, went to do something else, came back and then noticed my bankroll had decreased rather than increased making it doubly surprising.


infrontby1, I hope you didn't go "all-in" on that one. Would be a very tough one to accept. If you are playing today, lets get this money back
Be more determined.
We are both "due" a lucky break now *I wish!*

For some reason, I even had a nightmare related to this last night (seriously!). Let's bounce back. Shit happens.

[raybo]

First of all, I'm sorry both of you guys lost money on that race. But, the fact is, the 1 was on the rail from the first turn on, actually taking the lead at one point, and was never "out of touch" and completely behind the 5, his head was still even with the 5's rump, and then moved to within "a neck" of the lead when the 5 moved left, and "into" the 1, there was never clear separation to allow the 5 to have a clear move to the rail until after the foul occurred. The fact is, the jockey on the 5 had to "know" the 1 was still there, he was within a neck of being "on" the lead, for Christ's sake, at the time of the foul, and yet he still moved the 5 into the rail path that was already occupied by the 1. The 1 moved inside the 5, without physical contact, until it was almost neck and neck with the 5. That is not "being an idiot", there was a definite hole there between the 5 and the rail, until the 5 moved towards the rail "into" the 1. It was a clear foul and one that was completely caused by the 5, the 1 was already there. Whether or not it was at the beginning of the turn or not, makes no difference. The rail was occupied before the foul, the 5 caused the incident, not the 1, as there was a clear hole and he had every right to continue moving forward. Now, if the rail wasn't clear then the 1 would have had to bump the 5, and that is just not what happened. The 1 was there, the 5 moved into him causing the 1 to be pulled up and lose several lengths in the process. Had the 1 not pulled up, likely the 5 would have pushed him into the rail and possibly though it or over it. The "being an idiot" thing was a factor of the 5, not the 1. Horses move through on the rail like that every day of the week, and usually the horse outside it drifts away from the rail, not towards it, a clear blocking move in my opinion.

Sorry guys, but I've looked at that video many times now, both the side view at the point of the foul, and the head-on view at the point of the foul, and that's just what happened. As I said, I had the 5 picked to win the race, and I have no other agenda. I had no bet in the race because the odds were way too low for me to bet the 5 (1/5 at post time does not guarantee a win), so no "rotten eggs" being thrown by me, just what the video clearly shows, if you look at it with an unbiased mind. Unless you are of the mind that the 1 should have backed off simply because the 5 wanted the rail coming out of the turn, then you can make no other decision. Jockeys are not paid to pull up and "let" someone block him off, they are paid to establish position, press that position, and win the race. Being on the lead does not give the jockey permission to impede or pinch another horse who is beside him, and is not completely behind him (and I've even seen horses DQed for doing that too, even when they had clear separation).

As I said, I'm sorry you guys lost your money, but hoping for a dime return on a dollar wager is not real efficient, in the first place, unless you had the horse singled in a Pick. At least that's my opinion anyway.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by raybo

First of all...

I skimmed this over, and it appears that you disagree.

You seem to make a pretty strong case too.

Differing opinions is what this great game is all about.

[Robert Fischer]

For everyone's viewing pleasure, I have illustrated the comments I made on the race.

If you read the comments carefully, and look at the pictures you may find that the comments are accurately reflected by the pictures, and that where there is a discrepancy, it is a case of differing opinions where there is room for 2 or more opinions of the action.
You will also find that I happen to agree with the call and felt that the judges had no other option.

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

It looks like it was the right call.

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

The 1 and the 5 were racing near even terms.

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

The 1 took back to re-gather. [And the 5 began to pull away, nearing the turn]

The jock of the 5 eased over about a half a path toward the rail to prepare for the turn. All perfectly good riding.

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

The jock of the 1 re-gathered and dangerously forced his way to attempt to rush through a very narrow hole between the rail and the 5.

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

The 5 had begun to take the turn and so was moving toward the rail at the time contact was made.

As far as I know, because the 5 was moving toward the rail at the time of contact there was little the judges could do other than take down the 5.

[raybo]

Yeah the 2nd pic shows the farthest back that the 1 got after dropping off the lead, even at that point if the 5 had moved towards the rail it would have been a foul for impeding. The 3rd pic shows the 1 only a neck off the lead, and if you look at the head-on at that exact point you will see that there was a definite clear hole there, not "a very narrow hole" , and it wasn't an attempt to rush through, he was about to take the lead or at least pull even at that point, he already occupied the rail position, without having committed any physical contact. The head-on shot in the last pic occurred when the 1 had already pulled within a neck of the lead, a clearly bad decision by the jock on the 5. Look at exactly the same point in time in both the side view and the head-on and you will see that the 1 had position beside the 5, within a neck of the lead, before the contact. In the head-on you posted it is clear that the 6 is farther back than in the side view, so the contact happened after the 1 was within a neck of the lead.

I initially thought the same thing you did, until I looked closer at both views. At the time that the 1 achieved a neck off the lead, the head-on shows plenty of room between the 5 and the rail, there was clearly room on both sides of the 1 at that point, between the 1 and the 5 and between the 1 and the rail.

In my opinion, this move happens every day, and is perfectly safe, unless the outside horse is unaware that the inside horse is there (which I find it impossible to believe that the jock on the 5 didn't know the 1 was already there), as in a horse coming from well off the lead and trying to squeeze through on the rail. Even then, if the rail horse has not made contact before establishing a competitive position to move through the hole, then a foul would be called, more times than not, on the outside horse for impeding/blocking/pinching.

The time stamps on those 2 shots show the difference in time clearly.

[Robert Fischer]

Raybo, it looks like we agree.

[raybo]

Yes, we both agree that the stewards were correct in imposing the DQ. My only point of disagreement was in your stating that the hole was very narrow. Maybe your definition of "very narrow", as it pertains to racing, is different than mine. To me, "very narrow" means that the room available is too narrow for the horse to move beside the other one, without causing physical contact with either the rail, or the other horse. IMO, if there is enough room to move beside the other horse without causing any physical contact of any kind, then the horse has full right to continue the move. And, once that move has been made, and the other horse can no longer move into that inside path without causing physical contact between himself and the other horse, or without forcing the other horse into the rail, then any contact initiated by the outside horse is a foul.

[Milkshaker]

Sorry gents: You are entittled to your opinons, but I can't believe the time wasted in the above posts to justify this call.

Jansen Melancon is lucky to be still walking after having the balls to pull an inside maneuver like this. Way too close for comfort to skim the rail like that with a horse who had already fired his best shot in the race.