Stewards statement on Classic to media

[Grits]

http://www.drf.com/news/bayern-survi...ins-bc-classic

Jay Privman is ripping this decision apart on Twitter....which took 90 minutes to release, after they'd left the building.

[Stillriledup]

The teflon dons ran out of the place
before the ink was dry on the last race
they put on their sunglasses in the darkness of night
and ran for the elevators, all in full flight.

They're in their cars as the fans want to know
what the heck happened, in the biggest race of the show
supposedly nothing happened, it was all in your head
there was no large crash, nothing else need be said

people were angry and wanted the truth
the judges said you can't handle the truth
as they ran out of the booth

So on we go to tomorrow
all this rigmarole will be forgotten
it will be business as usual at the great race place
even though the smell will be rotten.

[horses4courses]

I think Privman is right to criticize the stewards.

It actually would have been a refreshing change for them
to go "outside the box", and make a gutsy call.
Instead, as they say in the UK, they decided to "bottle it".

There's little denying that the interference affected the result.
My initial reaction post race was that Bayern might actually
be placed fourth. The horse that took the worst of the trouble
was, of course, Shared Belief. He ran remarkably well to finish
a non-threatening fourth. In the end, the best the stewards could
have done was elevate him to third, and demoting Bayern down 3 places.

Naturally, the stewards decided against a courageous DQ.
Seems they just didn't want to rock the boat.

[cj]

Can anyone remember the last time a horse was DQed at Santa Anita for a gate infraction?

[Robert Fischer]

Stewards said:
“When the contact occurred at the start, according to the rules, we thought the horse was not cost a better placing,”

While they should have said:
“When the contact occurred at the start, it occurred within a proximity of the gate not typically subject to disqualification in major races”.

Being unable or unwilling to accurately state their point doesn't help.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by cj

Can anyone remember the last time a horse was DQed at Santa Anita for a gate infraction?

Why just Santa Anita?
It's very uncommon throughout the sport around the world.

[Greyfox]

Gate incidents in the first two leaps happen every day.
The call was fair. Get over it.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

Can anyone remember the last time a horse was DQed at Santa Anita for a gate infraction?

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)

[cj]

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)

That isn't what I asked.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Why just Santa Anita?
It's very uncommon throughout the sport around the world.

About the only place where I would think the horse had a big chance of coming down might be a Charles Town favorite in a race with a minus show pool.

Other than that, the general interpretation of the rule seems to be that a gate foul is usually not a DQ.

Like I've said in the other thread, I'd like that rule to be looked at, but I don't think the Breeders' Cup is the place to change the tone.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Gate incidents in the first two leaps happen every day.
The call was fair. Get over it.

We have already discussed that there's no unwritten rule on gate incidents according to the SA judges. People are up in arms because they're being told that there would have been a DQ had the judges felt the bump on SB changed the outcome of the race.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

We have already discussed that there's no unwritten rule on gate incidents according to the SA judges. People are up in arms because they're being told that there would have been a DQ had the judges felt the bump on SB changed the outcome of the race.

I don't think "we" have come to that agreement at all about the unwritten rule interpretation.
Only SRU downs seems to be at that agreement.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

I don't think "we" have come to that agreement at all about the unwritten rule interpretation.
Only SRU downs seems to be at that agreement.

If there was an unwritten rule, why have a lengthy inquiry? Why blink something that wasn't against the rules?

Also, why make the comment that the reason for no DQ was the 'not cost a placing' theory? That indicates that this horse COULD have come down under different circumstances for a gate bump.

[menifee]

Originally Posted by cj

Can anyone remember the last time a horse was DQed at Santa Anita for a gate infraction?

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.

[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.

Yup:

Here's the race:

http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbP..._CACHE=N&BT=TB