Astounding DQ at DMR race 1 (Aug 13th)

[cj]

Horses almost never maintain a straight line, that is a standard that could never be applied.

[Moto Pete]

Oh I agree Guiterrez whipping right handed through deep stretch was damning but he didn't benefit. I guess it all boils down to the bump at the top of the stretch. If you feel that was sufficient enough for a dq then it's done. If not then no. It's that simple.

[TucsonGreyhound]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

the rule that they must have is if there's ANY bump at all and the margin is a nose or a neck, the letter of the law is take the horse down.

Yes, that is pretty much the way the rule is written. If the had gone on to win by more than a length they probably would not have dropped him to 2nd.

Below is CA rule #1699 which defines it pretty clearly. You should familiarize yourself with Part (a) next time you decide to complain about the leader not running in an "exact straight line."



During the running of the race: (a) A leading horse is entitled to any part of the course but when another horse is attempting to pass in a clear opening the leading horse shall not cross over so as to compel the passing horse to shorten its stride. (b) A horse shall not interfere with or cause any other horse to lose stride, ground or position in a part of the race where the horse loses the opportunity to place where it might be reasonably expected to finish. (c) A horse which interferes with another and thereby causes any other horse to lose stride, ground or position, when such other horse is not at fault and when such interference occurs in a part of the race where the horse interfered with loses the opportunity to place where it might, in the opinion of the Stewards, be reasonably expected to finish, may be disqualified and placed behind the horse so interfered with. (d) Jockeys shall not ride carelessly, or willfully, so as to permit their mount to interfere with or impede any other horse. (e) Jockeys shall not willfully strike or strike at another horse or jockey so as to impede, interfere with, intimidate, or injure. (f) If a jockey rides in a manner contrary to this rule, the mount may be disqualified and the jockey may be suspended or otherwise disciplined by the Stewards.

[banacek]

As I said earlier..it cost me money, but I expected the dq. Clearly there is a difference of opinion on this, but in no way was the decision "astounding" or "beyond words" as was initially posted. I have had a few "Beyer hole in the wall" dq's through decades of betting the races. This was not even close to one that I would get upset about.

It is a difference of opinion, nothing more or less..nobody's opinion is right or wrong.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

Horses almost never maintain a straight line, that is a standard that could never be applied.

In my opinion, this was the standard that they applied here. Sometimes they permit horses to not run exactly straight, other times they don't.

Why they didn't take into consideration that the 1 came in when he was bumped is only a question that god could answer.

Too bad God isn't a PA member.

[Moto Pete]

I think we all should be stewards for a week. Only then will we really know what really goes on in circumstances like this.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by banacek

As I said earlier..it cost me money, but I expected the dq. Clearly there is a difference of opinion on this, but in no way was the decision "astounding" or "beyond words" as was initially posted. I have had a few "Beyer hole in the wall" dq's through decades of betting the races. This was not even close to one that I would get upset about.

It is a difference of opinion, nothing more or less..nobody's opinion is right or wrong.

Its a matter of philosophy. There are mostly 2 kinds of DQs in the world, most fit under one of two categories. The really obvious ones, or the ones that could go either way. My argument is that if it could go "either way" you leave up the winners, you pay the winners so you don't have to interject an 'opinion'.

Go back to the 1st race at Santa Anita on Jan 2, 2014. THAT was a DQ a blind man could make. That DQ needed no "opinion" to be rendered. THAT is ONLY kind of DQ that i want them to make...if they have to think about it and decide if it could go "either way" err on the side of paying the winner.

[banacek]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Its a matter of philosophy. There are mostly 2 kinds of DQs in the world, most fit under one of two categories. The really obvious ones, or the ones that could go either way. My argument is that if it could go "either way" you leave up the winners, you pay the winners so you don't have to interject an 'opinion'.

Go back to the 1st race at Santa Anita on Jan 2, 2014. THAT was a DQ a blind man could make. That DQ needed no "opinion" to be rendered. THAT is ONLY kind of DQ that i want them to make...if they have to think about it and decide if it could go "either way" err on the side of paying the winner.

I don't disagree with your philosophy. I would say the same thing about pass interference in football.

I could live with it that way. But we don't make the rules.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by TucsonGreyhound

Yes, that is pretty much the way the rule is written. If the had gone on to win by more than a length they probably would not have dropped him to 2nd.

Below is CA rule #1699 which defines it pretty clearly. You should familiarize yourself with Part (a) next time you decide to complain about the leader not running in an "exact straight line."



During the running of the race: (a) A leading horse is entitled to any part of the course but when another horse is attempting to pass in a clear opening the leading horse shall not cross over so as to compel the passing horse to shorten its stride. (b) A horse shall not interfere with or cause any other horse to lose stride, ground or position in a part of the race where the horse loses the opportunity to place where it might be reasonably expected to finish. (c) A horse which interferes with another and thereby causes any other horse to lose stride, ground or position, when such other horse is not at fault and when such interference occurs in a part of the race where the horse interfered with loses the opportunity to place where it might, in the opinion of the Stewards, be reasonably expected to finish, may be disqualified and placed behind the horse so interfered with. (d) Jockeys shall not ride carelessly, or willfully, so as to permit their mount to interfere with or impede any other horse. (e) Jockeys shall not willfully strike or strike at another horse or jockey so as to impede, interfere with, intimidate, or injure. (f) If a jockey rides in a manner contrary to this rule, the mount may be disqualified and the jockey may be suspended or otherwise disciplined by the Stewards.

Hard to make the case that the 1 was caused to shorten stride, or lost ground or position. I didn't see anything like that.
The effect on the 1 of the drifting out was minuscule and if anything probably cost the 4 as much as much as it did the 1.
It was just too close of a race with too little in the way of drifting or bumping for the stewards to assume that they can ascertain the proper correction with any degree of certainty.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

Horses almost never maintain a straight line, that is a standard that could never be applied.

So it wasn't applied in Race 6 today at DMR?

[bks]

That was a repulsive, sickening, DQ. I'm unable to communicate how bad it was. It cost me plenty, too, but I challenge anyone to defend this terrible decision.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't understand how any, relatively hardened horseplayer, still wastes energy getting all upset over a DQ.

Stewards have always been inconsistent, ever since I started betting back in the late 80s. Do you guys think it was much different back then? Opinions and judgement calls weren't made? People don't look at EVERY INQUIRY just a little bit differently than the last?

I learned early on pretty much to accept these things as is. Sometimes they go against you, and sometimes they go in your favor. Nothing you can do except quit the game if you don't want to deal with this kind of thing on a semi-regular basis.

It's NEVER going to get to the point where you're going to be satisfied with EVERY decision. NEVER. Too much human judgement, varying opinions, and live flesh and blood out on the track.

So either accept it as part of the game, or wear yourself out getting pissed off every time a call goes against you.

These threads give off the vibe for some of you who have been involved in racing for years, that you just picked up the hobby last month.

[Tom]

You never get used to being robbed the the Three Stooges.
Maybe that is why gaming is doing so good - the know who the customer is.
Just another part of the game that has gone broken for decades and the power that be could not care less about - after all, they are just suckers who will bet the next race no matter what we do.

Make the stewards sit out in the crowd, where they can be reached.
That should fix it. Take away their safe room.

[PaceAdvantage]

A ridiculous answer Tom. Nothing has changed as far as inquiries go, since I took up the game.

So....

Either you do away with DQs completely and it's every man (and horse) for himself out there, or you continue as-is with judges often times being forced to make very subjective decisions.

[Tom]

Of course that is the standard answer to all racing problems - nothing we can do about it.

Or want to.

I say there is much that could be done if racing were not run by dead tree stumps in the front offices.

Open your mind, get off your duff.
Two thing not likely to happen at the track.