The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Riles. You should be THRILLED by this post. That is what you're advocating for.

Could somebody please post a link of this Inquiry? I'd like to take a look.

Thanks.

My pleasure to post the links for you, Vic.... Got the popcorn ready......Enjoy:

https://www.nyra.com/belmont/videos/...0150701/8/pan/

https://www.nyra.com/belmont/videos/...0701/8/headon/

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Tall One

I had a little action, but because I was at work, I couldn't see it live. Just watched it, in fact, im hearing the Steward's decision now. EMD, was that you being escorted out behind the Winner's Circle?

Rosario had a ton of horse under him in the lane...momentum almost had him standing up for Christ's sake. What's that law in physics that says two objects can't occupy the same space? That's what you had here. If anything, it was a jockey control foul. That horse took off like a shot, and I think it surprised Rosario to the point he lost his horse for a few strides.

Imo, they had to take that horse down. Rosario did in fact almost put the kid over the inner rail..twice.

Watch it again and read my post carefully about the view you saw not being a perfect head on.

[Stillriledup]

Jason and Maggie (on the recap show) used the word "head ons" when discussing the DQ am I the only one who realizes these are not headons and that when you view something at an angle you don't get the same perspective ?

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Jason and Maggie (on the recap show) used the word "head ons" when discussing the DQ am I the only one who realizes these are not headons and that when you view something at an angle you don't get the same perspective ?

I attached the head-on replay in post #301, what's there to miss?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

I attached the head-on replay in post #301, what's there to miss?

That's not a direct head on, it's their version of a head on but Is not a head on, look at the inner rail, a direct head on would make the inner rail appear completely vertical.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

That's not a direct head on, it's their version of a head on but Is not a head on, look at the inner rail, a direct head on would make the inner rail appear completely vertical.

Not when the rail is set out at 18 feet. I'll forward your post to the NYRA video tech, I'm sure they'll love your comments.....

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Not when the rail is set out at 18 feet. I'll forward your post to the NYRA video tech, I'm sure they'll love your comments.....

I don't think it has to do w video tech guy and his filming, it probably has to do with the tower placement, which is stationary.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Very illuminating from a guy who speaks from the perspective of experience and real-world wisdom-not some abstract, self-congratulatory brainstorming session. But when you frankly convey perhaps unpalatable truths about the game, be ready to duck, because for the "kill the messenger" faction, you then become part of the problem.

I'll have whatever it is you're smoking. In the real world players lose millions of dollars each year, because of an outdated model that could easily be improved, but if they come up with ideas they're self-congratulatory?

Vic is not the hunted here. And it's good to have a steward come in here to participate in a discussion about a topic that bothers many handicappers. Maybe, somewhere down the line, in unforeseen and unexpected ways, discussions such as these will indeed produce an improved model. Horse racing, of all sports, needs to be much more open to positive change.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

I don't think it has to do w video tech guy and his filming, it probably has to do with the tower placement, which is stationary.

What did you do today, lose your shirt? What part of "the rail is set out at 18 feet", don't you understand? C'mon SRU, you're smarter than that.......this conversation's over, go ahead and have the last word.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

My pleasure to post the links for you, Vic.... Got the popcorn ready......Enjoy:

https://www.nyra.com/belmont/videos/...0150701/8/pan/

https://www.nyra.com/belmont/videos/...0701/8/headon/

Thanks Randall

First off I agree with SRU. On a circuit as big as NYRA there 100% should be a true head-on shot. The stewards should have state of the art technology at their disposal. Why make tough calls tougher?

Heck on the fairs at Santa Rosa which installed a turf course about 10 years ago we have what we call robo-cam. Which is a dude with a hand-held standing on the turf at the head of the stretch.

As for the INQUIRY itself. Based on the video I saw. Which I believe was sufficient. The Stewards decision was 100% correct. In fact I think the call was relatively easy

One can write 17 pages with different theories, angles, speculations and whatever.

However, the entire film review and what carries the day can be summed up in two words. INITIAL CONTACT. Which horse initiated the violent bumping? When two thoroughbreds start ping-ponging like that. In the heat of battle, while still going 30 mph and tiring one of them had to deliver the first blow.

Simply said. Who bumped who first? To me the video CLEARLY shows it was Rosario's horse. He "tipped" Ortiz's horse off balance and here we go. Once that happens all bets are off. There's virtually nothing the riders can do.

I expect another mitigating factor for the stewards was the way Ortiz's horse gathered himself after all the banging and was re-rallying on the inside. He damm near came all the way back to get third. Galloped out strong.

At the end of the day when watching the tapes. Ask yourself ONE question. Who made INITIAL CONTACT and you'll have your culprit and decision.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Thanks Randall

First off I agree with SRU. On a circuit as big as NYRA there 100% should be a true head-on shot. The stewards should have state of the art technology at their disposal. Why make tough calls tougher?

Heck on the fairs at Santa Rosa which installed a turf course about 10 years ago we have what we call robo-cam. Which is a dude with a hand-held standing on the turf at the head of the stretch.

As for the INQUIRY itself. Based on the video I saw. Which I believe was sufficient. The Stewards decision was 100% correct. In fact I think the call was relatively easy

One can write 17 pages with different theories, angles, speculations and whatever.

However, the entire film review and what carries the day can be summed up in two words. INITIAL CONTACT. Which horse initiated the violent bumping? When two thoroughbreds start ping-ponging like that. In the heat of battle, while still going 30 mph and tiring one of them had to deliver the first blow.

Simply said. Who bumped who first? To me the video CLEARLY shows it was Rosario's horse. He "tipped" Ortiz's horse off balance and here we go. Once that happens all bets are off. There's virtually nothing the riders can do.

I expect another mitigating factor for the stewards was the way Ortiz's horse gathered himself after all the banging and was re-rallying on the inside. He damm near came all the way back to get third. Galloped out strong.

At the end of the day when watching the tapes. Ask yourself ONE question. Who made INITIAL CONTACT and you'll have your culprit and decision.

Nice write up. I'm going to respectfully disagree. It was the kid on the 2 who made first contact by coming out after he realized he got aced out. At either rate, even if Rosario was first to make contact, it was virtually simultaneous, this is what I was discussing about forced takedowns. The hole Rosario saw was created because Ortiz didnt stay glued to the hip of the front runner, once Rosario saw that space he reacted decisively, so why did the hole close? Does the 2 move back over to try and correct a mistake he feels he made in the first place?

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Nice write up. I'm going to respectfully disagree. It was the kid on the 2 who made first contact by coming out after he realized he got aced out. At either rate, even if Rosario was first to make contact, it was virtually simultaneous, this is what I was discussing about forced takedowns. The hole Rosario saw was created because Ortiz didnt stay glued to the hip of the front runner, once Rosario saw that space he reacted decisively, so why did the hole close? Does the 2 move back over to try and correct a mistake he feels he made in the first place?

Either the 5 or the 2 made the first bump. That simple. I think the film clearly shows it was the 5. Quite clearly in fact. You don't. You think it was the 2. That's cool. Welcome to the stewards stand.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

I'll have whatever it is you're smoking. In the real world players lose millions of dollars each year, because of an outdated model that could easily be improved, but if they come up with ideas they're self-congratulatory?

Vic is not the hunted here. And it's good to have a steward come in here to participate in a discussion about a topic that bothers many handicappers. Maybe, somewhere down the line, in unforeseen and unexpected ways, discussions such as these will indeed produce an improved model. Horse racing, of all sports, needs to be much more open to positive change.

Vic doesn't get nearly the respect his resume warrants, and at some point, those with real experience and jobs in the industry DO become the hunted online. I've been through it lots of times myself, although rarely on this preeminent forum.

Even so, I meant no offense, sir, and cede to your wisdom (and smiley face).

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Either the 5 or the 2 made the first bump. That simple. I think the film clearly shows it was the 5. Quite clearly in fact. You don't. You think it was the 2. That's cool. Welcome to the stewards stand.

It's actually clear to me the 2 caused his own problem and was the first to make contact by trying to correct his error.

Where does that leave us? Make a DQ on a really borderline case?

[mnmark]

Originally Posted by mountainman

They should strip the 10-bug of his license for that incident. Clearly, the kid isn't ready and is going to get somebody killed. And I said so on the air.

That is exactly why the stewards should have dqed him. The jockey on the horse he cut off could have easily went down clipped hills he had to basically slam on the breaks to avoid an accident to himself and the horse. This was the worst non dq i have seen. i don't care how tired or used the horse was.

This is also referring to the opinion of another poster that it didnt affect the outcome of the race. if the horse he had cut off clipped heels and went down would you still feel like there should be no dq because he cut off a horse who was spent.