Stewards statement on Classic to media

[Mr_Ed]

Originally Posted by menifee

March 4, 2012 - race 4 (horse 6) - I love Google. It is not very common.

This is the California rule: "A horse which interferes with another and thereby causes any other horse to lose stride, ground or position, when such other horse is not at fault and when such interference occurs in a part of the race where the horse interfered with loses the opportunity to place where it might, in the opinion of the Stewards, be reasonably expected to finish, may be disqualified and placed behind the horse so interfered with."

Based on what happened to Moreno and Shared Belief, I don't know how they don't take him down under the letter of the rule.

Looks like a freakin copy of what happened today:

#6 is DQ'd and placed behind the #5:



Edit: And, by the way.......Mike Smith was the jock of #6.

[thaskalos]

Gutless call by the stewards...but hardly surprising given the circumstances. What WAS surprising to me was the lame excuse given for the non-disqualification. To say that a mishap like that, at the very start of the race, does not deprive a horse of a better placing simply because there is a lot of racing yet to go shows an ignorance of the game that one would not expect from track officials wielding such influence.

"Unanimous decision"? "Shameful", is more like it...

[PaceAdvantage]

Admit it. Half the guys complaining in this thread about the non-DQ, would be the same exact guys COMPLAINING about a DQ had one occurred.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Admit it. Half the guys complaining in this thread about the non-DQ, would be the same exact guys COMPLAINING about a DQ had one occurred.

I would agree with you if we all hadn't seen misdeeds like this DQed in the past. But we have...and will again.

[Mr_Ed]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Admit it. Half the guys complaining in this thread about the non-DQ, would be the same exact guys COMPLAINING about a DQ had one occurred.

I fully expected this equine bowling ball to be taken down faster than a mother-in-laws picture.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Santa Anita generally leans towards leaving the results alone, although by saying that the bump didnt affect the outcome they were essentially saying they make a DQ if they thought the outcome was affected.

(as opposed to saying the result was affected but we just dont make gate DQs)

I am 100 percent sure that if SB finishes with the other 3 at the wire or if a horse went down, Bayern comes down.

The stewards' statement was 100 percent true and totally consistent with prevailing practice in California

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I would agree with you if we all hadn't seen misdeeds like this DQed in the past. But we have...and will again.

Not in California, unless the victim lost a placing.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Mr_Ed

Looks like a freakin copy of what happened today:

#6 is DQ'd and placed behind the #5:



Edit: And, by the way.......Mike Smith was the jock of #6.

So 1 race, 3 1/2 years ago?

[dilanesp]

I went to calracing.com to watch the race pointed out by people.

The 4th on March 4, 2012 was a SIX FURLONG race, so the start is a lot more important than it is at 1 1/4 miles. In this race, the 6 horse came in all the way to the rail, bothering FIVE horses. Two of those horses, numbers 2 and 3, were COMPLETELY ELIMINATED from the race. They each ended up 12 lengths behind the leader a sixteenth into a 6 furlong race. The 6 ended up 2nd and was placed behind the 5 horse, who broke directly to his left and therefore was the first horse to be bothered.

The last part was questionable, as the 5 didn't really suffer a lot of trouble and ended up in a stalking position behind the leader, and the 5 was a well beaten 5th and well behind the 4th place finisher.

But other than that, this race is demonstrative of exactly what people who supported the stewards' decision are saying. In a 6 furlong race, where you wipe a couple of horses out at the start such that they have no chance at all of reaching contention, you can get disqualified.

In contrast, Shared Belief and Moreno were not eliminated from the race. They lost a couple of lengths each, but they remained in striking distance. They had every chance, over 1 1/4 miles, to make up ground on Bayern but didn't.

Further, Moreno's pace tactics are not something that can be taken into account by the stewards. They don't know whether the jockey was going to send Moreno or take back. They can only look at the horse's position and whether he clearly would have had a better finish but for what Bayern did. You can't say that about either Shared Belief or Moreno. Case closed.

[dilanesp]

Here is the broadcast and post-race of today's race on NBC. I highly recommend it, especially for Jerry Bailey's analysis after the fact. (Martin Garcia lying that he didn't think he broke inward is, of course, preposterous.) Bailey explains exactly why you don't take a number down for this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUs7KlD8o0s

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I went to calracing.com to watch the race pointed out by people.

The 4th on March 4, 2012 was a SIX FURLONG race, so the start is a lot more important than it is at 1 1/4 miles. In this race, the 6 horse came in all the way to the rail, bothering FIVE horses. Two of those horses, numbers 2 and 3, were COMPLETELY ELIMINATED from the race. They each ended up 12 lengths behind the leader a sixteenth into a 6 furlong race. The 6 ended up 2nd and was placed behind the 5 horse, who broke directly to his left and therefore was the first horse to be bothered.

The last part was questionable, as the 5 didn't really suffer a lot of trouble and ended up in a stalking position behind the leader, and the 5 was a well beaten 5th and well behind the 4th place finisher.

But other than that, this race is demonstrative of exactly what people who supported the stewards' decision are saying. In a 6 furlong race, where you wipe a couple of horses out at the start such that they have no chance at all of reaching contention, you can get disqualified.

In contrast, Shared Belief and Moreno were not eliminated from the race. They lost a couple of lengths each, but they remained in striking distance. They had every chance, over 1 1/4 miles, to make up ground on Bayern but didn't.

Further, Moreno's pace tactics are not something that can be taken into account by the stewards. They don't know whether the jockey was going to send Moreno or take back. They can only look at the horse's position and whether he clearly would have had a better finish but for what Bayern did. You can't say that about either Shared Belief or Moreno. Case closed.

You want the judges to take into consideration that one race is a 6 furlong race and the other is a mile and a quarter, so why not also take into consideration that Moreno might have pressed Bayern as well as taking into consideration that the last time Shared Belief ran, a Baffert horse did a number on him...on purpose. As a human being, you can't not know something, if they knew Baffert ruined SB last time on purpose, how can you 'unknow it'?

Also, i'll ask this question. How could you put up the inquiry, blink the horse for a little while, and then leave it up? Why not just make the race official, a quick official and be done with it. Why waste our time when they knew they weren't ever going to take the horse down?

i'm going to disagree with you on the idea that because you have a mile and a quarter you have "all day" to get back into the race. I watch enough replays to know, at this track right now, if you lose a few lengths early in a race, sometimes you just can't make up an inch. You'll quite often see closers, major contenders, get "Rated" in behind the speeds and when the jock asks the horse to run, there's no response.

Santa Anita has very odd biases these days, you get conveyor belt speed, than one or two races seems to buck that trend, than you go back to the conveyor belt again. This isn't the first time its happened at the meet when speed would be untouchable and the track would change in the blink of an eye. So, you don't know if this particular race had a tremendous speed bias and losing those few lengths was very crucial.

You also don't know if the horse grabbed a quarter, got the wind knocked out of him, got discouraged or "choked" (harness term). Im sure there are many more things that could happen when a horse gets destroyed like that, it wasn't a light brush, that horse had 1,000 lbs crashing into him, for us to sit here and say that he had time to make up the ground, i just don't believe that to be true in all cases. Some horses are different, some can take that hard bump and come back...others cannot and maybe this bump in this race on this day was too much to overcome.

Here's a hypothetical, What If it was found out after the fact that Bayern stepped on SB and cut (SBs) leg or injured SB's foot, would that change your mind as to say for sure that SB "had time" to catch up and the bump didn't matter?

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Here is the broadcast and post-race of today's race on NBC. I highly recommend it, especially for Jerry Bailey's analysis after the fact. (Martin Garcia lying that he didn't think he broke inward is, of course, preposterous.) Bailey explains exactly why you don't take a number down for this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUs7KlD8o0s

When Garcia was being interviewed, he knew there was an inquiry. He wasn't going to say anything other than everything was just perfect until he got back to the steward's office.

[ultracapper]

you get conveyor belt speed, than one or two races seems to buck that trend, than you go back to the conveyor belt again.

Or you get a couple races with legit speed, a couple with cheap speed, and then a couple with legit speed again.

I handicap SA every day. The biases are there now and again, but they are not nearly as prevalent as many would have you believe. California racing is dominated by front speed types.

The biggest misconception at SA at this present meet was that the turf was favoring late runners, particularly at a mile. Watch every mile race on the turf at this meet, and roughly, and this is no hyperbole, 3 out of 4 leaders after 1/2 mile were 15/1 or higher. All those turf routes this meet were being dominated by cheap speed. Race after race, cheap speed. If there was a bias on the turf at a mile at SA this meet, the bias wasn't anything to do with the condition of the track. It was biased against the entry of any decent speed on the engine.

[depalma113]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Here is the broadcast and post-race of today's race on NBC. I highly recommend it, especially for Jerry Bailey's analysis after the fact. (Martin Garcia lying that he didn't think he broke inward is, of course, preposterous.) Bailey explains exactly why you don't take a number down for this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUs7KlD8o0s

Bailey is full of it. Maybe he needs to be reminded of the foul he claimed on Mr. John in the 1998 Lexington stakes, where he got the winner placed 8th for the exact same thing.

[lamboguy]

to me the only problem with the bump is that SHARED BELIEF didn't run his race and now has an excuse for the next time he runs if there is a next time.

the horse that really ran well was CALIFORNIA CHROME, you have to give the trainer all the credit in the world for getting that horse primed for a winning type race off his past 2 performances.