The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[the little guy]

People can't think clearly when Irad is involved. Also odd that people seem to root for disqualifications, as they are a potential problem for horseplayers. This was a highly questionable disqualification, at best, and for the life of me I can't understand how justice was served.

The winner was a horrendous 6:5, at a meet where questionably overbet horses have been winning in bunches, but he shouldn't have come down in my opinion.

[cj]

Originally Posted by the little guy

People can't think clearly when Irad is involved. Also odd that people seem to root for disqualifications, as they are a potential problem for horseplayers. This was a highly questionable disqualification, at best, and for the life of me I can't understand how justice was served.

The winner was a horrendous 6:5, at a meet where questionably overbet horses have been winning in bunches, but he shouldn't have come down in my opinion.

I think your last sentence gets to the root of the issue for a lot of people, and definitely for me. I am tired of seeing the top rider that gets the best horses and gets overbet being allowed to save all the ground, and if things don't work out and he thinks he can't get out, he simply forces his way out. It is extremely frustrating when you are trying to beat him.

It isn't like other guys are doing this, or at least doing it and getting away with it most of the time. The "DQing the best horse" argument many make falls flat with me. It is easy to be "best" when you save every inch of ground in a turf race and force your way out when things don't break your way.

As for yesterday, I think that was a clear foul and dangerous. But I understand the argument that maybe it didn't cost the others. I'm fine with no DQ if you are going to punish the riders for these types for things but that has rarely been the case.

[Sheffwed]

Originally Posted by cj

I think your last sentence gets to the root of the issue for a lot of people, and definitely for me. I am tired of seeing the top rider that gets the best horses and gets overbet being allowed to save all the ground, and if things don't work out and he thinks he can't get out, he simply forces his way out. It is extremely frustrating when you are trying to beat him.

It isn't like other guys are doing this, or at least doing it and getting away with it most of the time. The "DQing the best horse" argument many make falls flat with me. It is easy to be "best" when you save every inch of ground in a turf race and force your way out when things don't break your way.

As for yesterday, I think that was a clear foul and dangerous. But I understand the argument that maybe it didn't cost the others. I'm fine with no DQ if you are going to punish the riders for these types for things but that has rarely been the case.

Have to wonder what the best run jurisdictions (HK, Japan) would have done and maybe that is what should be learned from here - consistency isn't happening, that's one of two big problems, the other is jockey and horse safety - allowing for rodeo riding isn't the answer here TLG

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by cj

I think your last sentence gets to the root of the issue for a lot of people, and definitely for me. I am tired of seeing the top rider that gets the best horses and gets overbet being allowed to save all the ground, and if things don't work out and he thinks he can't get out, he simply forces his way out. It is extremely frustrating when you are trying to beat him.

It isn't like other guys are doing this, or at least doing it and getting away with it most of the time. The "DQing the best horse" argument many make falls flat with me. It is easy to be "best" when you save every inch of ground in a turf race and force your way out when things don't break your way.

As for yesterday, I think that was a clear foul and dangerous. But I understand the argument that maybe it didn't cost the others. I'm fine with no DQ if you are going to punish the riders for these types for things but that has rarely been the case.

So because he gets good mounts, and wins, he has to play by different rules? You're biased against the guy. I was the first, and most vocal, criticizing his over aggressive riding, and I'm more than happy to point out when he does it. Don't see it here. This was a weird make up for taking criticism for making the right call on Wednesday. I am kind of surprised that you aren't far more worried about screaming on social media seemingly affecting decisions ( don't know this is true but it's possible to feel that way ).

Twitter was full of people both days lumping the two Ortiz brothers together as far as rough riding. This is indefensibly wrong. Jose is in no way an overly aggressive rider like Irad. Anyone that actually thinks this is paying no attention. But that's how social media works...people saying inaccurate things until they morph into a false truth. It's obviously far worse what it is doing to this Country, but it doesn't help anywhere else either.

To me, no horse should be taken down without it being clear cut. Not sure how anyone could see it this way, and it's clear the Stewards didn't, as the Inquiry took way too long for it to be an open and shut unanimous decision. This call was about Irad, and I get that, but if you get taken down on a marginal call because it's some kind of make up, I doubt you, or anyone here, will be happy.

[cj]

Originally Posted by the little guy

So because he gets good mounts, and wins, he has to play by different rules? You're biased against the guy. I was the first, and most vocal, criticizing his over aggressive riding, and I'm more than happy to point out when he does it. Don't see it here. This was a weird make up for taking criticism for making the right call on Wednesday. I am kind of surprised that you aren't far more worried about screaming on social media seemingly affecting decisions ( don't know this is true but it's possible to feel that way ).

Twitter was full of people both days lumping the two Ortiz brothers together as far as rough riding. This is indefensibly wrong. Jose is in no way an overly aggressive rider like Irad. Anyone that actually thinks this is paying no attention. But that's how social media works...people saying inaccurate things until they morph into a false truth. It's obviously far worse what it is doing to this Country, but it doesn't help anywhere else either.

To me, no horse should be taken down without it being clear cut. Not sure how anyone could see it this way, and it's clear the Stewards didn't, as the Inquiry took way too long for it to be an open and shut unanimous decision. This call was about Irad, and I get that, but if you get taken down on a marginal call because it's some kind of make up, I doubt you, or anyone here, will be happy.

That's BS. He is playing by different rules. I'm biased against him getting away with breaking the rules and not being punished for it. Finally he was and I'm good with it. We'll have to agree to disagree on yesterday, it was dangerous in my opinion. If the others don't stop riding it could have been very ugly.

I hate make up calls, you just wind up screwing over two sets of people instead of one. What I want is the stewards to be better at their jobs. It shouldn't be too much to ask.

I certainly don't lump the Ortiz brothers together, they are night and day different. Jose is riding great right now and would probably be leading rider if not for getting dumped in a race in which his brother was at least partially responsible, though certainly not to the degree Twitter would have you believe. He is also a much cleaner rider.

[cj]

To be more clear, I'm not saying the rules are different. What is different is that Irad it willing to take way more risks than other riders do. It is up to the stewards to determine if it is within the rules.

I don't think a lot of what he does should be considered within the rules because it is dangerous. The last thing this sport needs is horses and riders getting dumped, especially considering the product is on national television on an almost daily basis these days. In other words, I don't think Irad (or any rider) should be rewarded from crossing the line from bold to dangerous. Stewards have done a very poor job of establishing that line and not just in New York.

The bottom line for me is stewards need to do a much better job than they do now. I'm all for less DQs, but dangerous rides have to be dealt with and in a serious manner. The rider's name shouldn't matter, but we saw in the Jaime Torres case it sure seems to matter a lot.

[cj]

Another race, another Ortiz inquiry, this time Jose. To be fair it was mostly the horse.

[garyscpa]

Irad does it again in the Jim Dandy

[cj]

I'm done with NYRA after the Dandy. I'll make figures and enjoy watching good horses but they aren't getting another cent of my money.

[BIG RED]

I believe he did . Did not bet the race, but thought he would be thrown back.

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

Twitter

[rastajenk]

Maybe somebody can explain to me why Angel of Empire did not outfinish Forte when he never broke stride.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Maybe somebody can explain to me why Angel of Empire did not outfinish Forte when he never broke stride.

If we run a 400 meter race, how many times am I permitted to push your shoulder outside? What ever happened to maintaining a straight course in the lane?

[cj]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Maybe somebody can explain to me why Angel of Empire did not outfinish Forte when he never broke stride.

What does that matter? He was clearly fouled and if Forte doesn't foul to get out, Angel finishes second.

[rastajenk]

Maybe AofE could've pushed back, I guess. I didn't see any point where he slowed. He just didn't keep up.