Quote:
Originally Posted by SBD400
A couple of controversial DQ decisions in last two days at Belmont. Posting them together as they highlight lack of consistency in how they deal with these incidents.
https://www.nyra.com/belmont/racing/replays
Monday 5th race, #6 grey horse Collaboration comes out a bit, looks like the 11 Im Just Kiddin comes in a little too, they bump, 11 doesn't lose any ground, they battle on and Collaboration extends lead at wire. The stewards look at this for about 10 minutes and take down the 6. To me its minor bumping, horses don't run exact straight lines, both moved on each other and it didn't impact the finish.
Yesterdays 4th race, the 3 Dreampoint (red and white cap) first comes out a couple of paths (no contact), then comes out a couple of more paths (no contact), comes out a couple of more paths and cuts off the 2 Captains Party who has to go even wider and is thrown sideways a bit and off stride. No stewards inquiry but a jockey objection. They watch the replay a handful of times, no DQ. To me, Captains Party wasn't going to win anyway. How is there not even a stewards inquiry at the least??
Based on these two, if one of these is a DQ, they both need to be a DQ. Or neither needs to be DQ. Personally I think the 1st shouldn't be a DQ, it was incidental contact that didn't impact outcome. The 2nd was more egregious, a horse coming out 4 or 5 paths and cutting off another horse who has to alter stride like that should be a DQ. If that is not a DQ, what is?
Yes, I had the bad luck of coming out on the losing side of these. The first one burns me more, with the 2nd one I thought OK here is where it evens out, but it just added more salt to Monday's wound.
NY stewards all over the map with their rulings, I see Irad do unneccesary reckless things, not a word or he gets a well timed winter vacation, oopps, I mean suspension , but Dylan Davis comes out ever so slightly, DQ.
|
Thanks for posting those easily watched angles.
First, lets talk about the real "C" word. CONSISTENCY
In stewarding it may very well be the most misused, misunderstood and maddening word ever.
While stewards decisions are of course completely subjective. Applying that word is even tougher.
What it really means is AGREE.
If you agree with 5 consecutive decisions I've made you'll say I'm consistent. However if in the 6th incident you completely disagree. Well there goes my consistency right out the window.
I'm writing this having at this point only watched the first inquiry. Obviously every race is different. But I played it this way so there's no chance I let the films of the two races influence either decision.
The first DQ was IMO correct. I say this with full knowledge that
"may" have NEVER gotten by
if they went around twice more.
However, the contact that was made and clearly initiated by
was a damn site more than a brush or even a bump. It was a full blown strongly delivered hip check. Knocked
off his feet and path.
Did it cost him the race? Don't know. Did it cost him an "opportunity" to win. Damn tootin it did.
I tell riders don't make me decide when it can go either way. Because I'm not ever going to split hairs in favor of the initiator/agreesor.
There has NEVER been a horse DQ'ed for a foul that ran straight.
Correct Stewards decision.
Just watched the 2nd stretch run you shared.
In this instance I feel the Stewards were again correct in leaving the result alone.
My first thought was the only thing similar about these two inquiries is they were both TB races run at Belmont. After that to my eyes they were very different.
First off you spoke of
coming out three times. You're correct but what you have to remember is if a horse is clear and doesn't impede the progress of a rival that horse can go where ever he pleases. So the first two drifts are irrelevant.
As for the third time "slight" contact was made. IMO there are two reasons why no change was correct. At the time of the incident
didn't appear to be gaining any noticeable ground. Pretty much hanging steady about one length behind
Now comes into play the most compelling part of the replay. Even if it could be argued that
did in fact cause
to check, steady and lose momentum. For the sake of this discussion I'll go ahead an concede that part of the debate.
I counted 8 strides from the incident to
crossing the wire. So IMO even "if"
was guilty of a foul. It happened much too close to the wire to warrant a DQ.
Thanks for reading my 2 cents worth.
BTW in regard to your question as to why there wasn't at least a Stewards Inquiry. You answered your own question in the asking.
I personally don't have a problem with lighting the sign just to let the public know we saw something. But the other side of that is you don't want to be over officious and nit picky. Do it for every little thing and it uselessly takes up time. Can really add up in on a day with 10+ races.
California has a protocol called a Stewards review. It doesn't rise to the level of objection or inquiry but it let's the public know they're watching without having to make a formal review. As a player and Steward I like that policy.