The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[shout1966]

PARX 1 12 - 13 - 2023




9 at 16-1 sweeps and closes to win only to be DQed for coming in on the 5.


I had the 56 in doubles and i am shocked with this DQ.

[must ache]

Originally Posted by shout1966

PARX 1 12 - 13 - 2023




9 at 16-1 sweeps and closes to win only to be DQed for coming in on the 5.


I had the 56 in doubles and i am shocked with this DQ.

i really don't get the dq. i had the 9 in the pick 5, and thankfully the 6, i feel like i was cheated out of a shot at the jackpot

[cj]

I don't see anything wrong with this call. To my eye, the 9 clearly fouls the 5, a horse which recovers to barely miss finishing second. It looks clear to me the 5 was cost a position because of the foul.

[cj]

Ridiculous takedown at Aqueduct in R9. They didn't even blink the horse they DQed.

[Sheffwed]

Originally Posted by cj

Ridiculous takedown at Aqueduct in R9. They didn't even blink the horse they DQed.

NYRA really has become just one big joke

On any given Saturday, maybe now something like the 10th most appealing racetrack to wager on

And that's before the Stewards acting like 2 year olds

[wisconsin]

Originally Posted by cj

Ridiculous takedown at Aqueduct in R9. They didn't even blink the horse they DQed.

On the replay, it sure looked like the caused it. Hmmm...

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by cj

Ridiculous takedown at Aqueduct in R9. They didn't even blink the horse they DQed.

Fifteen minutes of inquiry, announced and blinking against Antonio of Venice, and not only did the winner stand, but a subsequent announcement called out the disqualification of Brick Ambush. Let's take this apart.

[1] Please Drone On - Before I hear one more time that it is "tough to get a good view on the turn", get some drones up in the air to follow the action. If the camera operators are themselves yesterday's news and those roles cannot show adequate information to adjudicate results, replace them - eliminate them. Technology moves on and you change or you die. How many times do we have to hear the hollow promise that we need to protect the bettors? Invest the goddamned money - even the lambasted Los Alamitos does this.

[2] Just Driving, Officer - This disqualification tells the public that we, the stewards, had a clear view that Brick Ambush (#12) came in, but we, the betting public, can actually see Jockey Franco on Antonio of Venice (#1) look back and take out The Big Torpedo (#7). Enough of the jockeys talking to the stewards. This is a complete bullsh*t procedure that is akin to talking to the officer who just pulled you over for doing 70mph in a 55mph zone. Why do the stewards need this input as it is clearly story telling hour. Franco turned to the cameras on ADATR and said "I needed to protect myself around the turn". Exactly how did that comment align with what was on the video? Imagine an NBA official asking two players, "what was your intent on that play?".

[3] When You Cannot Replace the Players... - It is time to replace the entire set of stewards. Clean house. Public confidence is eroded. Remove these folks entirely and demote them to the "B" team. Yes, this includes Braulio Baeza, Jr. He has been a stain on the steward's stand for several years and it is time to fix the problem once and for all. I personally do not care who was right in the litigation over the last two years in particular, but when the "umpires are the story", it is time for change.

[cj]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Fifteen minutes of inquiry, announced and blinking against Antonio of Venice, and not only did the winner stand, but a subsequent announcement called out the disqualification of Brick Ambush. Let's take this apart.

[1] Please Drone On - Before I hear one more time that it is "tough to get a good view on the turn", get some drones up in the air to follow the action. If the camera operators are themselves yesterday's news and those roles cannot show adequate information to adjudicate results, replace them - eliminate them. Technology moves on and you change or you die. How many times do we have to hear the hollow promise that we need to protect the bettors? Invest the goddamned money - even the lambasted Los Alamitos does this.

[2] Just Driving, Officer - This disqualification tells the public that we, the stewards, had a clear view that Brick Ambush (#12) came in, but we, the betting public, can actually see Jockey Franco on Antonio of Venice (#1) look back and take out The Big Torpedo (#7). Enough of the jockeys talking to the stewards. This is a complete bullsh*t procedure that is akin to talking to the officer who just pulled you over for doing 70mph in a 55mph zone. Why do the stewards need this input as it is clearly story telling hour. Franco turned to the cameras on ADATR and said "I needed to protect myself around the turn". Exactly how did that comment align with what was on the video? Imagine an NBA official asking two players, "what was your intent on that play?".

[3] When You Cannot Replace the Players... - It is time to replace the entire set of stewards. Clean house. Public confidence is eroded. Remove these folks entirely and demote them to the "B" team. Yes, this includes Braulio Baeza, Jr. He has been a stain on the steward's stand for several years and it is time to fix the problem once and for all. I personally do not care who was right in the litigation over the last two years in particular, but when the "umpires are the story", it is time for change.

[1] ✓

[2] ✓

[3] ✓

[Jeff P]

I wonder, what would happen if, quietly and behind the scenes, track management and horsemen approached the New York State Gaming Board jointly and asked for some (needed) changes?


-jp
.

[v j stauffer]

A horrifically bad decision. (IF) the #12 did come in slightly it was after the middle two were put in very tight quarters. Which was caused #1. #1 came out without sufficient clearance initiating contact. The rider on #1 was forced to do so or risk getting himself dropped. Double whammy for the #12. DQ'd from second in a $500,000 Stake and could very well have been kissed into the win.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Fifteen minutes of inquiry, announced and blinking against Antonio of Venice, and not only did the winner stand, but a subsequent announcement called out the disqualification of Brick Ambush. Let's take this apart.

[1] Please Drone On - Before I hear one more time that it is "tough to get a good view on the turn", get some drones up in the air to follow the action. If the camera operators are themselves yesterday's news and those roles cannot show adequate information to adjudicate results, replace them - eliminate them. Technology moves on and you change or you die. How many times do we have to hear the hollow promise that we need to protect the bettors? Invest the goddamned money - even the lambasted Los Alamitos does this.

[2] Just Driving, Officer - This disqualification tells the public that we, the stewards, had a clear view that Brick Ambush (#12) came in, but we, the betting public, can actually see Jockey Franco on Antonio of Venice (#1) look back and take out The Big Torpedo (#7). Enough of the jockeys talking to the stewards. This is a complete bullsh*t procedure that is akin to talking to the officer who just pulled you over for doing 70mph in a 55mph zone. Why do the stewards need this input as it is clearly story telling hour. Franco turned to the cameras on ADATR and said "I needed to protect myself around the turn". Exactly how did that comment align with what was on the video? Imagine an NBA official asking two players, "what was your intent on that play?".

[3] When You Cannot Replace the Players... - It is time to replace the entire set of stewards. Clean house. Public confidence is eroded. Remove these folks entirely and demote them to the "B" team. Yes, this includes Braulio Baeza, Jr. He has been a stain on the steward's stand for several years and it is time to fix the problem once and for all. I personally do not care who was right in the litigation over the last two years in particular, but when the "umpires are the story", it is time for change.

Regarding #2. As a Steward who never rode I always valued speaking to the riders. Of course I expect them to advocate for their cause. However, I would often look at things from a different perspective based on what they'd say. Film review, especially when the clock is ticking, can be very tough. I was one of the slowest Stewards in history. I always wanted to look at it just one more time to be sure I didn't miss something. Which still happened. I'd see more things when I got home or in riders film review the next morning.

[SBD400]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

I wonder, what would happen if, quietly and behind the scenes, track management and horsemen approached the New York State Gaming Board jointly and asked for some (needed) changes?


-jp
.

Why quietly? If anyone one of us were this bad at our jobs in public sector we would be fired very quickly. This is harming New York racing, I don’t know who the stewards are accountable to, but regardless NYRA needs to take action, it’s their product regardless of who appoints the stewards.

Does anyone know who the stewards are accountable to? There have been many bad decisions this year, this just happens to be the worst. They need to be suspended or fired.

[Robert Fischer]

Brick Ambush committed no foul.


A disgraceful 'COIN FLIP'
When there is an obvious situation that goes to the stewards,
far too near to only 'half' correct calls on obvious calls.
Too many mistakes.
These blunders of easy calls are met by horseplayers with a chuckle and a head shake, where competent stewards missing such 'soft ball' calls should be met with shock.
Very unfortunate.

This is not acceptable.
Just as unfortunate, should these easy obvious calls happen to involve a 'trip', they subject these obvious calls to perverted logic, often attempting to force an amateur's interpretation of the action into an ill-fitting rule interpretation.
Very unfortunate.

Should a difficult complex call, such as today's 9th race occurs, all hell breaks loose.

There also exists an unfortunate inequality in the actions and interpretations which clearly exists for different jockeys, and arguably extends beyond jockeys to the power concentration of leading connections.

All of these unfortunate lapses in competence hurt the integrity of the game.

You have the high quality NYRA racing product. The betting public would love for NYRA to replace the current Stewards with 3 highly skilled experts. Men and women who are both expert race watchers and masters of the rule interpretations.

The reason given of why we can't have good Stewards, is that Stewards are appointed by and the responsibility of the New York Gaming Commission.

This true statement of fact is not an excuse nor is it a buffer of passing responsibility. It remains unacceptable that in years of racing with poor quality Stewards, that negotiations can't be reached to demand a higher standard.

[senortout]

It seemed to me, having bet the 12, that my horse must've caused some interference, however, upon reviewing the replay multiple times, there did appear to be plenty of room between the 12 and the 11 but the horse and rider on 11 seemed shocked that a horse could appear alongside and pose a threat to the rally of the 11;in fact the 11 'freaked out'. I want my money back!

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by SBD400

Why quietly? If anyone one of us were this bad at our jobs in public sector we would be fired very quickly. This is harming New York racing, I don’t know who the stewards are accountable to, but regardless NYRA needs to take action, it’s their product regardless of who appoints the stewards.

Does anyone know who the stewards are accountable to? There have been many bad decisions this year, this just happens to be the worst. They need to be suspended or fired.

Why quietly and behind the scenes?

Personal experience.

In the fall of 2008 the TOC (Thoroughbred Owners of California) and THG (The Horsemen's Group) banded together and did a blackout of track signals from ADWs.

The blackout went on for months neither side giving an inch. There were a lot of track signals horseplayers were unable to bet. The most costly for me was Hollywood Park. Needless to say it wasn't just me - a LOT of player badwill was created as a result.

A handful of players started venting about the signal fee impasse in a chatroom (The War Room) here on the Paceadvantage site. The longer the blackout dragged on the more players' frustration grew.

Those chat sessions about the signal fee impasse eventually led to the formation of HANA.

One afternoon I did the unthinkable.

I picked up the phone and called Jack Liebau then President of Hollywood Park and Chairman of YouBET's Board of Directors.

I wrote about that phone call on November 7 2008, here.

I started a conversation about the signal fee impasse. I quickly realized the two of us shared one thing in common. I heard the same frustration in his voice that had driven me (as a horseplayer) to call him.

The next day I picked up the phone and called Drew Couto, President of the TOC and Vice President of the THG.

When I started a conversation about the signal fee impasse, it didn't take me long to realize I was hearing that same frustration in his voice too. I listened while he explained the horsemen's point of view.

I wrote about that phone call on November 8, 2008, here.

I was also involved in a series of emails between Hollywood Park, TOC, and the CHRB. I need to make it clear I was not involved in negotiations between the parties. However I did make it clear six months was at least five months too long, and "This is creating a LOT of customer badwill. You do realize that, right?"

Two weeks to the day after my first call to Jack Liebau both sides had reached an agreement.

Again, I was not involved in negotiations between the parties.

But at the same time I have to think Jack Liebau, Drew Couto, and the Commissioners of the CHRB were taken aback and given a nudge by a horseplayer who inserted himself into the middle of it and reminded them of the customer's point of view.

In 2017 I was involved in getting Track Management at Santa Anita and the TOC to jointly ask the CHRB to make a rules change when races come off the turf after wagering had closed for the Single Jackkpot Pick-6.

I wrote about that on the HANA Blog, here.

Note there's a typo in the first sentence at the above link. The actual race date was March 05, 2017 (not March 05, 2016.)

That said, in both cases, the desired result was achieved (and quickly I might add) by working quietly and behind the scenes.

Over the past year I also played a small part (quietly and behind the scenes) in getting a bad California Senate Bill that was passed in 2021 repealed and replaced with acceptable language in a new Senate Bill passed this year.

Fyi, the Senate Bill is not related to horseracing so I'll stop there.

But suffice to say the effort on my part was done quietly and behind the scenes.

If the NY State Gaming Board is anything like the CHRB/California Horse Racing Board:

Its decision makers are political appointees.

One thing I've learned is whenever political appointees are involved, if you go in saber rattling or trying to embarrass them:

You WILL meet resistance.

I'm talking about the kind of resistance where they dig in and do everything in their power to prevent you from achieving the desired result.

Even if they stand to benefit from the desired result.


-jp
.