Worst beat of ALL TIME (Rainbow 6 at Gulfstream)

[JohnGalt1]

I don't know if this was mentioned since the identity of the better is unknown, But I wonder if he had the 13 to at least get paid something.

If not, he got zip.

[jdhanover]

Very interesting article about this from John Pricci addressing the DQ, the Stewards, the head-on replays and WIll Pays not being shown. Hopefully the link pasted right (article written Feb 24 in case it changes every day)

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/On-The-Line/

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Steve Crist writes really well, too. If you haven't read his "Betting on Myself," you should pick up a copy - great read.

You read my mind mentioning Crist, Mike. He's on par with Beyer in my book.

Another guy I like to read is Bill Finley. And Ray Paulick who discusses the DQ at the link below:

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...gm-deplorable/

[Maryland Owner]

I keep seeing references to Stewards Don Brumfield and Jeffrey Noe . Are they the only Stewards or is there a 3rd ? If so, who is the other ?

[parlay]

First, i agree with the stewards. Second, my sincere condolences to the player. Please seek professional help, you are going to need it trust me.
The problem with these decisions is the inconsistency. The same day at Aqueduct in the 5th race we get no DQ FOR A MUCH WORSE MUGGING.
This is what causes the frustration. How do you eliminate this, you cant.
You can make the process as transparent as possible to minimise the controversies.
And while were talking about enforcing the rules of racing.... what about all these pinheads not riding out the race. This is the biggest plight on a game that has wagering on as many as 5 places

[Rookies]

I originally received this issue via e-mail and included a strong comment from one of the PA members in this thread.

I am with the minority, as follows, although I've seen waaaaaaaay worse.

IMHO, the lugged out TWICE and it occurred in the Stretch Run as the 13 was going by him or certainly had virtually 100% the momentum to go by. On the second one, it looked like the 13 slowed or pulled up a bit.

Lugging out is a classic tactic that good Jockeys use to cinch victory. The problem with the was twofold.

1) It was too late. He needed to have done it a second sooner, forcing the 13 to choose to change rides and come inside or go further outside.

2) He did it TWICE! Once, you get away with it. Twice, the intent is obvious and Interference is certainly possible.

That being said, a horrible beat! One to go off the bridge after.

Saw one earlier in the day with the same , who cut off a bit and forced a check/bump in the first 200 yards after the gate opened. In that one, the stayed up, as the Stewards must have deemed the 1 & 1/8 M Race sufficient to overcome an early bump. ( I had THAT )

[Stillriledup]

The owner's share of the purse who won the 2013 Ky Derby was about HALF of what this bettor would have taken home and yet, that owner would have been 10X less likely to be disqualified for the win if the same exact incident happened.

[Track Phantom]

Every time there is a questionable DQ and people defend it, I can't help but thinking of this race.

Would you believe there was NO inquiry and NO objection?

An neutral person knowing zero about horse racing would laugh at the GP 12th on Saturday (DQ) and the '07 Blue Grass (No DQ, inquiry or objection).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODSRxsop_7I

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Valento

Every time there is a questionable DQ and people defend it, I can't help but thinking of this race.

Would you believe there was NO inquiry and NO objection?

An objective person knowing zero about horse racing would laugh at the GP 12th on Saturday (DQ) and the '07 Blue Grass (No DQ, inquiry or objection).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODSRxsop_7I

Musket Man got clobbered late in the stretch in the Ky Derby 2009 and there was no inquiry, no nothing.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Musket Man got clobbered late in the stretch in the Ky Derby 2009 and there was no inquiry, no nothing.

I'm sure there are tons of examples but did you watch that video of the '07 Blue Grass? I'm not sure how that could have possibly not been looked at by the stewards.

Is there anyone on this forum that thinks an inquiry wasn't called for there? If we all agree there should have been, how do you explain no inquiry? I've always been puzzled by it. It's not exactly a subjective thing, is it?

The whole stewards thing confuses me anyway.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

You read my mind mentioning Crist, Mike. He's on par with Beyer in my book.

Another guy I like to read is Bill Finley. And Ray Paulick who discusses the DQ at the link below:

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...gm-deplorable/

Online comments (or "character assassination" as Paulick puts it) about Tim Ritvo and the stewards' decision in this case "is one of the most despicable acts" Paulick has ever seen in this game?

Really?

Wow.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Online comments (or "character assassination" as Paulick puts it) about Tim Ritvo and the stewards' decision in this case "is one of the most despicable acts" Paulick has ever seen in this game?

Really?

Wow.

Paulick posts here on occasion, maybe he can clear that up, you know, his choice of words.

Ray?

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Online comments (or "character assassination" as Paulick puts it) about Tim Ritvo and the stewards' decision in this case "is one of the most despicable acts" Paulick has ever seen in this game?

Really?

Wow.

Takes one to know one. Paulick has gone after a few in his time.

When he went after Jeff, that was the most despicable act I have ever seen in this game............

just doesn't ring the same when I say it huh?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Online comments (or "character assassination" as Paulick puts it) about Tim Ritvo and the stewards' decision in this case "is one of the most despicable acts" Paulick has ever seen in this game?

Really?

Wow.

I don't know...maybe I qualify to be placed among those "less experienced racing observers" who Paulick says smell a conspiracy behind every questionable call...but I just can't see what Mr. Paulick is trying to tell us here.

This is what he writes towards the end of his column:

"Was the disqualification warranted? I don't know. It was a judgement call by officials who are trained for this job. It's okay to question their judgement on this particular call.

But don't question their integrity. The unfounded character assassination of people like Don Brumfield, Jeff Noe and Tim Ritvo is one of the most despicable acts I've seen in this game."


Okay...let's look at this comment in some detail. We don't know if this disqualification was warranted...according to Mr. Paulick. It was a judgement call...that -- as judgement calls often do -- could have gone either way. This time, the call went against a player on the verge of a seven-figure score...but so what? The call was made by highly trained individuals...and that should be enough to quiet anybody.

But I have a question for Mr. Paulick, which I hope he will be kind enough to honor with a reply...since I know that he makes the occasional appearance here:

Mr. Paulick,

Why should the horse be disqualified...when you yourself cannot come out and say that the disqualification was warranted? When you say that you don't know if this disqualification was warranted or not...aren't you in fact saying that the evidence was not clear-cut in this case?

And so I ask:

In cases like this, where the evidence is not clear-cut and there is room for doubt...who -- in your opinion -- should get the BENEFIT of that doubt? If there was room for doubt in YOUR mind regarding this disqualification...shouldn't there have been considerable doubt in the minds of the stewards as well? Or are you just an "inexperienced racing observer"...like the rest of us?

It's one thing to say that the disqualification was JUSTIFIED -- as Beyer proclaimed it to be. If you had said THAT, then I couldn't argue with you...because you have the same right as everybody else to form and defend an opinion.

But you didn't say that the disqualification was justified. You said that YOU DIDN'T KNOW if it was justified or not.

And I submit that we should be SURE that the disqualification is warranted...especially if a seven-figure score is hanging in the balance.

Or should only the seven-figure PURSES be protected in cases like these? Would this disqualification have occurred if we were talking about a Grade 1 race with a million-dollar purse? I think not...

But hey...what do I know?

According to you...I am just a despicable, "less experienced racing observer"...

[precocity]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Musket Man got clobbered late in the stretch in the Ky Derby 2009 and there was no inquiry, no nothing.

what???? papa clem got killed in that race?