JIM DANDY

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Think about the ride on Nest where Irad clearly drifted on the turn just daring Clariere to take the inside path for the stretch drive. Very clearly, Irad wants nothing to do with an inside path down the lane at Saratoga.

The fine should be $30,000, the jockey's entire share of that purse. Five days served during the Saratoga meeting - not deferred to later this season - would also set the tone as we are well past sending a message.

Most certainly, the stewards need to make it clear whether or not creating your own seam for the stretch drive is legal. As of right now, the lack of action has said to all that if you are willing to risk your mount and others in a race, the move is fine and there just has to be something wrong with that approach - stake race or not, FOX or not, Irad or not, Pletcher or not, Repole or not, favorite or not.

Throw everything in conspiracy world away - is it legal to create that seam? This has to be a "yes" or "no" answer since "it depends" allows all of the other arguments to fester.

Can't argue with any of that.

The tactics of herding, bullying, and straight up dangerous riding has to be curbed.

Irad certainly has a history and penchant for such tactics.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by sjk

It definitely leaves me the impression that racing officials do things that are driven by agenda other than what is going on on the track.

I’m the only person on earth that thinks this, but IMO the NYRA stewards are pretty consistent within their own philosophy. Their philosophy is just different than what many horseplayers want.

Many horseplayers seem to want a DQ on all fouls.

The stewards will typically let a foul go unless it very clearly changed the order of finish.

In this case, the fact that some of us think Forte was best and others think Angel of Empire was best means doing nothing was consistent with their philosophy.

The other complaint I often see is when the winner gets DQ’d even though he was very clearly best but interfered with some tiring or well beaten horse. People will complain about the DQ because it’s not consistent with “who was best”.

In those cases the DQ is not about gamblers. If some horse was going to finish 5th and the interference made him finish 7th, it’s costing some owner purse money even if it doesn’t impact horseplayers at all. That’s the reason for those DQs.

People can disagree with their philosophy, but imo the real problem is the lack of punishment for risky riding. Why would Irad ever stop pulling this move if he’s not going to get progressively tougher fines and suspensions?

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

............................

.............. is it legal to create that seam? This has to be a "yes" or "no" answer since "it depends" allows all of the other arguments to fester.

I agree with your logic here.

[Sheffwed]

Originally Posted by sjk

It definitely leaves me the impression that racing officials do things that are driven by agenda other than what is going on on the track. If the Kentucky officials screw over the New York guy the New York stewards are at pains to make sure their guy does not feel like it happened again.

I don't know why they think people are worried about trace samples of medications when the integrity of the officials is clearly questionable.

All of baseball was on steroids and no one seemed to really care - probably most of football now as well

[Tom]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I’m the only person on earth that thinks this, but IMO the NYRA stewards are pretty consistent within their own philosophy. Their philosophy is just different than what many horseplayers want.

Many horseplayers seem to want a DQ on all fouls.

The stewards will typically let a foul go unless it very clearly changed the order of finish.

In this case, the fact that some of us think Forte was best and others think Angel of Empire was best means doing nothing was consistent with their philosophy.

The other complaint I often see is when the winner gets DQ’d even though he was very clearly best but interfered with some tiring or well beaten horse. People will complain about the DQ because it’s not consistent with “who was best”.

In those cases the DQ is not about gamblers. If some horse was going to finish 5th and the interference made him finish 7th, it’s costing some owner purse money even if it doesn’t impact horseplayers at all. That’s the reason for those DQs.

People can disagree with their philosophy, but imo the real problem is the lack of punishment for risky riding. Why would Irad ever stop pulling this move if he’s not going to get progressively tougher fines and suspensions?

To hell with their phi;osophy, the have a freaking rule book. Surely one of three can read?

I know the Toga stewards have a history of incompetency, going back
decades.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-8651927442c4/

[cj]

Originally Posted by Tom

To hell with their phi;osophy, the have a freaking rule book. Surely one of three can read?

I know the Toga stewards have a history of incompetency, going back
decades.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-8651927442c4/

The product at Del Mar is way better anyway. Their stewards aren't exactly great either, but it least it isn't one guy running roughshod over the colony and the fields are so much more bettable. Plus, I get to sleep in now!

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Throw everything in conspiracy world away - is it legal to create that seam? This has to be a "yes" or "no" answer since "it depends" allows all of the other arguments to fester.

Bingo . We have a winner . The whole “did it cost a placing “ opens the door to a judgment, subjective call. How is that determined? Until a foul is a foul. It’s always gonna be an argument pit . How many of these are on that permanent, ongoing dq thread ? Then it’s everyone’s opinion . I don’t even bother arguing or debating it . It is what it is until the rules are different . This is why the calls are all over the board . I almost think they like it . It causes a stir and talk for days or longer . Its a horse players round about . I’ve seen this rodeo forever . Why waste your energy ? Is anyone really that surprised?

[bisket]

This crap “did the best horse win” needs to end. If you foul to get an advantage in the race you lose the purse; period. It’s like we’re laser focused on drugs, but this crap that endangers horse and rider in a race is overlooked. Plain and simple this was business decision by stewards that endangers horses and rider. Allowing an owner, trainer, and rider to profit from this behavior on the track isn’t good for the game. Thankfully a horse didn’t get his hoof stepped on and everyone went back to their family and stall. Yeah Del Mar is heads above this shitshow. Arcangelo, Mage, and Geaux Rocket Ridei are open lengths better than the allowance horses in the Jim Dandy.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

To hell with their phi;osophy, the have a freaking rule book. Surely one of three can read?

I know the Toga stewards have a history of incompetency, going back
decades.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-8651927442c4/

I never read the rule book, but it appears they have some leeway to decide whether an infraction impacted the result. If not, they need to read the rule book.

I'm on an extremely lonely island on this, but I prefer what they are doing now to what the consensus seems to want. I want the stewards involved as little as possible when it comes to changing the outcome.

If they would just raise the fines and suspensions and make them progressively higher for repeat offenders, I think the problem would go away and the sport would be a lot safer for riders and horses.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by bisket

This crap “did the best horse win” needs to end. If you foul to get an advantage in the race you lose the purse; period.

That's a nice idea in theory until everyone is yelling and screaming about all the extra DQs. And of course when their horse was 5 lengths the best and gets taken down for some minor BS that had no impact on the result for gamblers or owners and costs them the Pick 5 or Pick 6, well, that should be fun.

[Sheffwed]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's a nice idea in theory until everyone is yelling and screaming about all the extra DQs. And of course when their horse was 5 lengths the best and gets taken down for some minor BS that had no impact on the result for gamblers or owners and costs them the Pick 5 or Pick 6, well, that should be fun.

punish the offender not the innocent gambler

and these ridiculously mild 3 day suspensions aren't it, not even close

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I never read the rule book, but it appears they have some leeway to decide whether an infraction impacted the result. If not, they need to read the rule book.

I'm on an extremely lonely island on this, but I prefer what they are doing now to what the consensus seems to want. I want the stewards involved as little as possible when it comes to changing the outcome.

If they would just raise the fines and suspensions and make them progressively higher for repeat offenders, I think the problem would go away and the sport would be a lot safer for riders and horses.

Not that lonely,

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Sheffwed

punish the offender not the innocent gambler

and these ridiculously mild 3 day suspensions aren't it, not even close

If you fine the offender but let the resulkt stand, you are screwing the people who's bets were lost by some punk-ass rider, and the owner who should have got the purse.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

If you fine the offender but let the result stand, you are screwing the people who's bets were lost by some punk-ass rider, and the owner who should have got the purse.

That's why I am saying to DQ when it clearly impacted the result for gamblers or owners, but not when it didn't or they aren't sure.

It's that "aren't sure" group that's going to cause trouble because there are sometimes going to be strong opinions on both sides.

IMO you want them to be consistent within that specific category or everyone is really going to go crazy. That's what I think they are trying to do. If they aren't sure it impacted the result for gamblers or owners, they leave it up.

Of course that doesn't we are going to agree with every decision, but I think I at least understand their thinking.

The most shocking part if this discussion is finding myself defending stewards anywhere.