The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

There's not much precise in that judgment. That's why being a steward is darned hard and thankless.

They are paid to make those decisions and it is very difficult. How do you look inside a horses body and or soul and know what "might" have happened?

That's why they get the big bucks. They are expected to make those very difficult calls.

Remember though how the rule reads. " If in the opinion of the stewards the horse was cost an "OPPORTUNITY" for a better placing.

Somebody has to make the tough decisions. It's agonizing and thankless especially because no matter how you rule a lot of people are going to be pissed.

IMO the stewards, especially here in CA, get it right the vast majority of the time. Always? Of course not. There are no absolutes. Many decisions are split 2-1. I still argue with Kim Sawyer about some call we made at Los Al over two years ago. But absent a better idea this is the process and frankly I think it works great.

Some will say. All bets are off. Just let the results stand no matter what. That's just plain ridiculous. There would be chaos in about 2 days. Followed closely by a long list of dead horses and paralyzed jockeys.

The races wouldn't have anyone dead or paralyzed if the no DQless races had stewards doing their jobs. Jocks are riding for purse money and their own careers, they're not going to do something dumb for 'pari mutuel purposes' especially when they know they'll be fined and suspended for something reckless. Fines and suspensions would have to be more thn CHRB wrist slaps, and if that happened, the races would be safer and the winning bettors would get paid and we wouldn't have bitter old men with agendas flaunting power.

[tophatmert]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Boys, I'm sorry, that's a no brainer DQ by the Stewards.


Tough beat for backers of the 10, YES. Appropriate decision, YES.


It's not my pleasure to agree with a Steward or the resident EGO maniac but the truth is the truth.

He should have kept more options open and avoided having THAT happen at the 1/16 pole.

Agreed he was not very aggressive and the was going to get the for third. Kudos for saving ground Efrain now finish. There was a rider in Chicago ,Uriel Lopez who was a journeyman rider a lot of HAW and FP . He would save ground on both turns in route races and never leave the rail in the stretch and always have to take hold late in the race . I actually looked around the track for his agent to tell him to leave the rail after the ground saving is done. I never did find him, I think the agent worked three jobs because Uriel was usually under a hammerlock in deep stretch

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Boys, I'm sorry, that's a no brainer DQ by the Stewards.


Tough beat for backers of the 10, YES. Appropriate decision, YES.


It's not my pleasure to agree with a Steward or the resident EGO maniac but the truth is the truth.

He should have kept more options open and avoided having THAT happen at the 1/16 pole.

Luckily this 'no brainer' didnt require brains, right in their wheelhouse.

[EMD4ME]

It sucks, the 10 was best but the circumstances caused a violation of rules.

Jock on 10 should've made a decision earier, either dart fully to rail at the 1/8 pole OR come out earlier (and slower-meaning not coming over too quickly) before the 1 got to the hole.

He came out right when the 1 was on his plank, that's too late.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

It sucks, the 10 was best but the circumstances caused a violation of rules.

Jock on 10 should've made a decision earier, either dart fully to rail at the 1/8 pole OR come out earlier (and slower-meaning not coming over too quickly) before the 1 got to the hole.

He came out right when the 1 was on his plank, that's too late.

The unfortunate thing for That jock was that he never looked for the first half of the stretch. We know he had the ability to look because he eventually did, but you gotta be more aware of your surroundings, there was really no reason for him to not take a quick peek before he moved over.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

The unfortunate thing for That jock was that he never looked for the first half of the stretch. We know he had the ability to look because he eventually did, but you gotta be more aware of your surroundings, there was really no reason for him to not take a quick peek before he moved over.

Brain dead?

Intellectually challenged?

Born reckless/stupid?

Obtuse?

Pinhead?


Was zoned out till the 1/16 pole?

I can think of many

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Brain dead?

Intellectually challenged?

Born reckless/stupid?

Obtuse?

Pinhead?


Was zoned out till the 1/16 pole?

I can think of many

It was almost like he wanted to get DQd

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

It was almost like he wanted to get DQd

I'll add to my list...


Policeman....


Popular harness term

[Dark Horse]

Ok, a day later. Anger gone.

The rider could have left his options open. He was too committed to the rail. I agree with that.

But it doesn't mean that the manner of thinking behind the DQ - even if it is the accepted way of thinking - is ideal.

Does anybody realistically think that the #1 was going to beat the #10? If not, why would the #10 not have the right to beat the #1 to the spot? If a Ferrari on the freeway is stuck behind a truck, and someone else comes along in a VW at a higher speed, only to find the Ferrari suddenly pull in front of him and take off like a rocket, did he really hamper the VW? In other words, contrary to a literal interpretation of the rulebook, the demonstrated superior speed by the Ferrari should be enough to quiet any argument the VW might have.

Baze would have tried to go around the #10, but then almost instantly found the #8 closing that gap, so it really was the result of two horses, or, of the way the race unfolded. If Baze can go around the #10, and doesn't make a meal out of it, he may finish second or third. Instead, he stops riding and the #10 is DQ-ed from 1st to ... 4th. Just a case of human beings, in this case the stewards, making themselves far too important.

So I do agree that the jockey made an error in judgment, but, given what happened afterwards (because contrary to popular belief the race did continue) I wouldn't have raised that to the level of a foul. The #10 was too clearly superior to call him back. Referees can and do decide to let things go. But here the tape stopped for the stewards when the #10 changed lanes. All I can say is that refs in soccer are known to let play continue, even after a foul, to see what happens in the immediate aftermath. So it would not be unprecedented to look past the observed infraction. When the situation is reversed, and a horse is impeded in the stretch, the stewards do make a judgment call where he would have finished. That same type of reasoning could have been applied here as well. To instead punish the best horse in the race three spots is not fair to the bettors by any stretch of the imagination. Not in my book. But then ... the name of the horse was Just Bookin. So he just got booked.

Whenever possible, let the horses decide it. Referees are human beings, and, no matter how they insist to the contrary, they do NOT interpret the rules in the same manner. If you don't believe it, put some money on the NFL. Pass interference, anyone?

[outofthebox]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

The unfortunate thing for That jock was that he never looked for the first half of the stretch. We know he had the ability to look because he eventually did, but you gotta be more aware of your surroundings, there was really no reason for him to not take a quick peek before he moved over.

If he would have looked up just once, he would have seen there was room enough on the rail to drive a John Deere tractor through. Surely looked like he didn't pick up his head till he heard the jock on the #1 yell. Tough beat for all you backers of the #10.

[Stillriledup]

DH
Putting this dq aside for a second, I think the bigger problem is the archaic system in which punishment is meted out. Racing has a setup where an offsides penalty is 'loss of game'. If an nfl game was 2 mins old and a player went offsides, the ref doesn't come to the middle of the field and announce 'go home folks, the defensive player was offsides so we are awarding the win to the offense. Game over'

No that doesn't happen, they hand out the appropriate penalty and keep playing. Nhl gamblers don't lose their wager if an interference penalty happens 5 seconds into the game, but in racing, it's an automatic loss.

In racing, any punishment is 'loss of game' no matter how slight.

[Dark Horse]

Horse racing has many archaic elements; a sport that refuses to go with the times. I've used sailing in the past as example. Impossible to watch, until Larry Ellison (Oracle) brought in new technology that turns it into edge-of-your-seat stuff. The reasoning in horse racing is often overly simplistic; not enough nuance. On both sides of the game; bettors as well as stewards. "Horse changed lanes into the path of another horse; end of story". Sometimes that's the end of the story, sometimes there's more to it. In this case a speed evaluation of each horse could have been factored in. So then you get the 'yes, he did do this and hindered the other horse, BUT he didn't cost that horse the win, because he's clearly the best...' Imagine that. Just looking one step further. Do we want the best horse to win, or would we rather punish him for hindering the third or fourth best horse; or the 10th best horse for that matter? Some flexibility could do horse racing a lot of good.

Same stewards who didn't think that Bayern took out Shared Belief at the start of the BC Classic, like nobody every took a sharp left out of the gate? lol
At least in the NFL they're constantly trying to refine the rules. Horse racing could take a page from that book. Some folks wrote the rules that are in place now, didn't they? Who said nothing else could be added?

The crazy thing is that it may take just one guy with enough clout. One Larry Ellison who's into horse racing, instead of sailing...

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Horse racing has many archaic elements; a sport that refuses to go with the times. I've used sailing in the past as example. Impossible to watch, until Larry Ellison (Oracle) brought in new technology that turns it into edge-of-your-seat stuff. The reasoning in horse racing is often overly simplistic; not enough nuance. On both sides of the game; bettors as well as stewards. "Horse changed lanes into the path of another horse; end of story". Sometimes that's the end of the story, sometimes there's more to it. In this case a speed evaluation of each horse could have been factored in. So then you get the 'yes, he did do this and hindered the other horse, BUT he didn't cost that horse the win, because he's clearly the best...' Imagine that. Just looking one step further. Do we want the best horse to win, or would we rather punish him for hindering the third or fourth best horse; or the 10th best horse for that matter? Some flexibility could do horse racing a lot of good.

Same stewards who didn't think that Bayern took out Shared Belief at the start of the BC Classic, like nobody every took a sharp left out of the gate? lol
At least in the NFL they're constantly trying to refine the rules. Horse racing could take a page from that book. Some folks wrote the rules that are in place now, didn't they? Who said nothing else could be added?

The crazy thing is that it may take just one guy with enough clout. One Larry Ellison who's into horse racing, instead of sailing...

A guy like Jeff Gural is trying to fight to clean up the sport of harness racing, but he gets a lot of backlash and criticism, nobody is really on board, and there's no Gural in tbred racing.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Ok, a day later. Anger gone.

The rider could have left his options open. He was too committed to the rail. I agree with that.

But it doesn't mean that the manner of thinking behind the DQ - even if it is the accepted way of thinking - is ideal.

Does anybody realistically think that the #1 was going to beat the #10? If not, why would the #10 not have the right to beat the #1 to the spot? If a Ferrari on the freeway is stuck behind a truck, and someone else comes along in a VW at a higher speed, only to find the Ferrari suddenly pull in front of him and take off like a rocket, did he really hamper the VW? In other words, contrary to a literal interpretation of the rulebook, the demonstrated superior speed by the Ferrari should be enough to quiet any argument the VW might have.

Baze would have tried to go around the #10, but then almost instantly found the #8 closing that gap, so it really was the result of two horses, or, of the way the race unfolded. If Baze can go around the #10, and doesn't make a meal out of it, he may finish second or third. Instead, he stops riding and the #10 is DQ-ed from 1st to ... 4th. Just a case of human beings, in this case the stewards, making themselves far too important.

So I do agree that the jockey made an error in judgment, but, given what happened afterwards (because contrary to popular belief the race did continue) I wouldn't have raised that to the level of a foul. The #10 was too clearly superior to call him back. Referees can and do decide to let things go. But here the tape stopped for the stewards when the #10 changed lanes. All I can say is that refs in soccer are known to let play continue, even after a foul, to see what happens in the immediate aftermath. So it would not be unprecedented to look past the observed infraction. When the situation is reversed, and a horse is impeded in the stretch, the stewards do make a judgment call where he would have finished. That same type of reasoning could have been applied here as well. To instead punish the best horse in the race three spots is not fair to the bettors by any stretch of the imagination. Not in my book. But then ... the name of the horse was Just Bookin. So he just got booked.

Whenever possible, let the horses decide it. Referees are human beings, and, no matter how they insist to the contrary, they do NOT interpret the rules in the same manner. If you don't believe it, put some money on the NFL. Pass interference, anyone?

Even if you believe strongly the was not going to beat the . What about the owners of the being denied the chance at 2nd or 3rd purse money?

Or perhaps even more importantly what about bettors who bought place tickets on or had him 2nd in exactas?

The actions of the very adversely effected the chances of the to get his maximum placing.

One thing I can assure you is stewards have no great desire and certainly find no joy in DQ'ing horses.

However there are very well defined rules of racing. Until those rules are changed the stewards are simply doing the job they're paid to do.

As I said in another post. They know very well that regardless of their decision somebody is going to be pissed. Comes with the territory. Not fun.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Even if you believe strongly the was not going to beat the . What about the owners of the being denied the chance at 2nd or 3rd purse money?

Or perhaps even more importantly what about bettors who bought place tickets on or had him 2nd in exactas?

The actions of the very adversely effected the chances of the to get his maximum placing.

One thing I can assure you is stewards have no great desire and certainly find no joy in DQ'ing horses.

However there are very well defined rules of racing. Until those rules are changed the stewards are simply doing the job they're paid to do.

As I said in another post. They know very well that regardless of their decision somebody is going to be pissed. Comes with the territory. Not fun.

Question, if you don't mind, about stewards in calif.

Do the judges take into consideration specific tendencies or recent tendencies of horses or jocks? Ill give 2 examples to explain my question better.

The horse in question that was bothered in This most recent DQ (ryderoo) has a big 'floppy' gait and I believe she wears an extension blinker, to my eye, I believe she's a horse who takes a while to get rolling, but if she gets "stopped" she can't come again quickly, I think this specific horse wasnt re-rallying due to her grinding gait and slow into stride way about her, would this be something the judges would consider and if not, why not?

Also, lets say a jock is riding tentatively and has had a recent habit of overreacting when anyone gets near him, shying away from contact and riding scared, will the judges be aware of a jock who is really overreacting to things when they are blinking a horse who allegedly interfered with this tentative jocks mount? Are you, as a judge, aware of these things?