The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[Scanman]

Originally Posted by spiketoo

Scanman you make very valid and succinct points but IMHO he came down because we do not have uneven and undulating surfaces here (which I believe you're primarily referencing grass surfaces). I do agree that the muddy surface contributed to the DQ but I also believe the stews generally do not take that into account. For 'consistency' (in quotes as I use the term loosely), if an impediment appears to have cost a horse a placing, they come down - at least that's the def in SoCal. The subjective part depends on whether the impediment caused a horse to lose action and\or placement.

Thank you. My reference to uneven tracks is exactly as you have stated. A fast dirt track condition that is properly harrowed usually results in an even surface. CD/the Derby didn't have that today.

Keeping in mind the state of the track and the location of where the interference took place, the stewards most certainly should have taken that into consideration before rendering their decision.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Scanman

Thank you. My reference to uneven tracks is exactly as you have stated. A fast dirt track condition that is properly harrowed usually results in an even surface. CD/the Derby didn't have that today.

Keeping in mind the state of the track and the location of where the interference took place, the stewards most certainly should have taken that into consideration before rendering their decision.

I vehemently disagree.

Horses don't run straight. Intent has never been a necessary component of a foul.

[BlueChip@DRF]

Scanman +1 for each post concerning the Maximum Security DQ.

[startngate]

Serious question for everyone.

Does your opinion change if the goes down and takes several horses with him?

I ask because after watching the replay several times and seeing the still photos that have been posted, I think it's a minor miracle that didn't actually happen.

[how cliche]

i think it would behoove players to look at adjudications the same way they do any other part of the game, with percentages. I felt the 7 stayed up 80% of the time in the kyd. This was the 20% of the time he came down. 90 minutes later yours truly was dq'ed out of a $695 $2 pick 3 in SA10 for a minor infraction. Spent $10 to be live, so no big loss. I felt the 9 stayed up 60% of the time. It was the 40% of the time he came down. With both I've seen more stay up and less go down.

I'm telling you all this for your own good. Believe me. When dq'ed, it hurts a lot less when you think this way.

[bob60566]

Intresting view.

Twitter

[fast4522]

How I view the DQ call may or may not satisfy everyone. Because it was the Kentucky Derby many have split views, my view is the disqualification should be the same as if it occurred in one of the many prep races leading up to the Derby. So I do believe had the same thing occurred in the Wood Memorial there would have been a disqualification.

[Scanman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I vehemently disagree.

Horses don't run straight. Intent has never been a necessary component of a foul.

Well, thereinlies the problem. What are the totality of circumstances that could determine a foul? A foul as defined is an infringement of the rules in a sport. It is true that the did interfere with the , but did the circumstance that caused the interference result in a foul?

Was the interference a result of an infringement of the rules by Saez (didn't appear so) or was the interference caused by the uneven state of the track from the heavy rain? I submit that it was the latter and this unavoidable/unforeseen state of the track is what caused the interference. As such, no foul was committed. The was simply a victim of an unavoidable, non-malicious event.

Unfortunately, the CD stewards failed to take the state of the track into consideration in determining if a "foul" had been committed.

Do you believe that the condition of the track and the location were not contributing factors that caused the interference?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Scanman

Well, thereinlies the problem. What are the totality of circumstances that could determine a foul? A foul as defined is an infringement of the rules in a sport. It is true that the did interfere with the , but did the circumstance that caused the interference result in a foul?

Was the interference a result of an infringement of the rules by Saez (didn't appear so) or was the interference caused by the uneven state of the track from the heavy rain? I submit that it was the latter and this unavoidable/unforeseen state of the track is what caused the interference. As such, no foul was committed. The was simply a victim of an unavoidable, non-malicious event.

Unfortunately, the CD stewards failed to take the state of the track into consideration in determining if a "foul" had been committed.

Do you believe that the condition of the track and the location were not contributing factors that caused the interference?

It doesn't matter if Saez had no fault whatsoever and it was totally due to the track.

That matters as far as giving Saez days. I think it was intentional. But if it was due to the track, fine, no suspension, but his number goes down anyway.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Intresting view.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1124818251010019328

excellent view. watch the track surface with respect to the feet. you will see the 7 cross over to right.

is there slow motion video of the #2 (perhaps the #12) pulling up slightly to avoid the #20 horse somewhere between the 1/2 and 1/4 pole

[Scanman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It doesn't matter if Saez had no fault whatsoever and it was totally due to the track.

That matters as far as giving Saez days. I think it was intentional. But if it was due to the track, fine, no suspension, but his number goes down anyway.

So you believe that it is okay to penalize a rider who did not commit a foul. Alright then, I can't get my arms around that one, but you are entitled to your opinion.

You think it was intentional. Foul. DQ. Fair enough.

I think it was the state of the track and location of the interference. No foul. No DQ.

I laid out two valid factors that I believe the stewards overlooked due to ignorance or neglect.

Guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Scanman

So you believe that it is okay to penalize a rider who did not commit a foul. Alright then, I can't get my arms around that one, but you are entitled to your opinion.

You think it was intentional. Foul. DQ. Fair enough.

I think it was the state of the track and location of the interference. No foul. No DQ.

I laid out two valid factors that I believe the stewards overlooked due to ignorance or neglect.

Guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

I think it is the ONLY acceptable rule to disqualify a horse who interferes with another horse. It is not a "punishment". That word shows you fundamentally have no idea why we take numbers down.

It isn't a "punishment". It is a correction.

The "punishment" is suspending the rider, which is based on intent or negligence.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Scanman

There is a great deal of truth to that.

Maximum Security? Meet Maximum Insanity.

[Scanman]

Originally Posted by Scanman View Post
So you believe that it is okay to penalize a rider who did not commit a foul. Alright then, I can't get my arms around that one, but you are entitled to your opinion.

You think it was intentional. Foul. DQ. Fair enough.

I think it was the state of the track and location of the interference. No foul. No DQ.

I laid out two valid factors that I believe the stewards overlooked due to ignorance or neglect.

Guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think it is the ONLY acceptable rule to disqualify a horse who interferes with another horse. It is not a "punishment". That word shows you fundamentally have no idea why we take numbers down.

It isn't a "punishment". It is a correction.

The "punishment" is suspending the rider, which is based on intent or negligence.

I didn't use the word "punishment". I used the word "penalize".

Penalize, as defined - to inflict a penalty on
Penalty, as defined - disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action.

Maximum Security's connections were unduly penalized (as they most certainly suffered financial loss as well as not being recognized as a winner of the Kentucky Derby) for a non-foul. I contend that no "correction" was needed, as there was nothing to correct.

You support the fact that Maximum Security's connections needed to be and were penalized for a non-foul.

No worries, I won't try to change your mind. I offered up the plausability of different factors that no one was considering that could have led to an alternate/appropriate outcome of the Derby. I don't want this thread to turn into a back and forth between you and I. Peace.

[Scanman]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Maximum Security? Meet Maximum Insanity.

Yes, so it would seem. That's why you have the best racing forum to participate in.