This "Cost The Horse A Placing" Has To Go

[Thomas Roulston]

I'm watching Fox Sports 2 - and I agree 120% with Richard Migliore that this business that a foul must "cost a horse a placing" has to go.

One way to assure this is to adopt a staggered purse distribution format; e.g., in a nine-horse field, the winner gets 60% of the purse, with 20% to second, 10% to third, 5% to fourth, 1.9% to fifth, 1.2% to sixth, 0.8% to seventh, 0.6% to eighth, and 0.5% to ninth, with similar doings for all other field sizes.

That way, essentially every foul will cost the victim a placing.

[elhelmete]

What? The purses are already distributed more or less in that fashion.

[ubercapper]

Category 1 rules would address this:


https://racingthinktank.com/blog/rev...s-step-forward'

[woodbinepmi]

Much prefer Cat 1, don't punish the betters for something the riders did unless it is absolutely necessary. HKJC uses Cat. 1 and you might have 3 DQ's in the whole season.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

I'm watching Fox Sports 2 - and I agree 120% with Richard Migliore that this business that a foul must "cost a horse a placing" has to go.

One way to assure this is to adopt a staggered purse distribution format; e.g., in a nine-horse field, the winner gets 60% of the purse, with 20% to second, 10% to third, 5% to fourth, 1.9% to fifth, 1.2% to sixth, 0.8% to seventh, 0.6% to eighth, and 0.5% to ninth, with similar doings for all other field sizes.

That way, essentially every foul will cost the victim a placing.

Confused.
I thought you wanted the loss of a placing to stop.
Or perhaps I misunderstand your point.


On the topic of paying purse money to everyone in the field...
They did this at MTH.
The fields jumped way up in size and players got very excited.

But very quickly things changed when the trainers figured out that they could (basically) work their horses in a race and get paid for it.

The extra 2-3 horses per races were simply there to work out and earn a little purse for doing so.

The end result was more horses entered who weren't trying to win.

I think this is a bad practice.

[Andy Asaro]

"cost a horse a placing" is best by far. The problem arises when some Stewards think that if there's a 5% chance that a horse was cost a placing deserves a DQ. I prefer to leave the natural result alone unless there is more likely than not chance that a placing was missed. For a percentage 75% or greater chance would warrant a DQ.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

"cost a horse a placing" is best by far. The problem arises when some Stewards think that if there's a 5% chance that a horse was cost a placing deserves a DQ. I prefer to leave the natural result alone unless there is more likely than not chance that a placing was missed. For a percentage 75% or greater chance would warrant a DQ.

That seems to be about the percentage of time I get the worst of DQs.

Seriously.
I track stuff like that.

Heck, I track nearly everything. LOL

[Robert Fischer]

If it were up to me I would have a central office in NY or something to decide DQs, and I'd have the rule relative to the Winning placing.

If you pick a much the best value as a single, and he easily wins but fouls a horse that was improbable to contend for the win but 'takes up' and finishes 3rd..., leave it alone and fine or suspend the jock if necessary.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

"cost a horse a placing" is best by far. The problem arises when some Stewards think that if there's a 5% chance that a horse was cost a placing deserves a DQ. I prefer to leave the natural result alone unless there is more likely than not chance that a placing was missed. For a percentage 75% or greater chance would warrant a DQ.

I agree.

I don't now what the correct percentage should be, but imo it should lean towards not disqualifying the horse and the jockey should be dealt with separately if it involved a bit of recklessness.

[elhelmete]

I still don't get what purse structure has to do with it. The %ages might be different as you go down to the later placings, but every finishing position gets a lower portion of the purse. What am I missing?

[thespaah]

I'm a bit sketchy on this. Perhaps I'm not fully understanding.
To my knowledge, interference is where a horse is comprised or loses a chance at a placing if....one of more other horses make contact resulting in a horse to significantly alter course or lose his action resulting in a poorer finishing placing.
The criteria under which interference is deemed is....Accidental or deliberate contact as a result of the rider's or horses actions.
For example, a horse ducks in or out, shies, spooks or bolts, making contact with another horse, causing that horse to lose action( slow significantly) be taken up abruptly, be so compromised as to lose all chance at being competitive or falls/unsteats the rider/causes rider to lose his irons.
In any of those cases, the offending entrant SHOULD be placed behind the placing of the offended horse.
Now, hopefully I have this correct....Under Category 1. the stewards must determine if the foul( generic term) would be nullified if the action had no bearing on the finishing order of the race. As opposed to causing the offended horse at least one position forward( cost a placing). Would this be correct?