head on replays

[SG4]

Why is it that the head-on replays supplied by tracks only seem to be missing for controversial races? This is not a good look for transparency, and I've seen this across multiple jurisdictions.



Case in point, anyone know any outlet where I can see a head-on shot of Santa Anita's 5th on 10/8 or Keeneland's 3rd from 10/9?

[the little guy]

Head-on replays are taped by Roberts and then sent out. Essentially, if for one reason or another a track doesn't show the head-on, or Roberts forgets to tape it, it won't be available through replay sites.

I totally get that the replay for the 3rd on 10/10 ( 10/9 was Tuesday ) being unavailable smells because of the absurd non-DQ, but it might be that Keeneland didn't show it due to time constraints after the inquiry...and thus it wasn't taped.

I don't know if that happened but it's possible.

[theiman]

I watch replays all of the time. SA never showed the head on of the 5th race from 10/8. I was at an OTB and it never came on. It isnt on Cal Racing nor Xpressbets replay site.

[BIGTKLO]

Originally Posted by theiman

I watch replays all of the time. SA never showed the head on of the 5th race from 10/8. I was at an OTB and it never came on. It isnt on Cal Racing nor Xpressbets replay site.

Ice Cube wrote a song that applies here, it's titled NO VASELINE.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by theiman

I watch replays all of the time. SA never showed the head on of the 5th race from 10/8. I was at an OTB and it never came on. It isnt on Cal Racing nor Xpressbets replay site.

Why would you want to see the head-on of a race where nothing happened?

[SG4]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Why would you want to see the head-on of a race where nothing happened?

I think we differ greatly in that opinion. I want to see what was going on in that first 1/16 of a mile with a head on, the fact that Van Dyke didn't push on the favorite once to get position was mind boggling to me, and I want to see if he was squeezed (intentionally or not) & if that's why he didn't push or if this was his choice to passively rate. Same question into that first turn, looked like he had every right to get a clear trip stalking 2nd on the outside but he let that slide too. Then in the stretch the favorite looked awkward & he claimed she was lugging in, I would've liked to see proof of that & if there were any holes big enough for her to get through that she just refused.

[SG4]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Head-on replays are taped by Roberts and then sent out. Essentially, if for one reason or another a track doesn't show the head-on, or Roberts forgets to tape it, it won't be available through replay sites.

I totally get that the replay for the 3rd on 10/10 ( 10/9 was Tuesday ) being unavailable smells because of the absurd non-DQ, but it might be that Keeneland didn't show it due to time constraints after the inquiry...and thus it wasn't taped.

I don't know if that happened but it's possible.

Usually in races with inquiries they let the tape roll on the pan replay so you can see the stewards' review & ultimate decision, and at least if they have that I can understand why no dedicated head-on replay. In fact when I first went to the replay sites the pan was about 10 minutes long so I figured it'd include everything but when I clicked on it all I got was a black screen. I come back later and now it's a 4 minute replay which cuts off before the inquiry is even announced, and there's no head-on. It's extremely frustrating for bettors & if Roberts is the organization behind this you'd think someone at one point in time has passed this complaint along & someone can keep the tape rolling for a few more minutes and sort things out. Like I said, these oops we don't have the replay moments seem to happen very often in races where they would be most useful, which gives some fuel to the tin foil hat community & makes even those of us without hats or even hair question WTF is the motivation for denying the public the ability to ever see these replays.



And thanks for the correction, yes I meant 10/10 for the Keeneland race day.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by SG4

I think we differ greatly in that opinion.

How can you have a "greatly differing" opinion when you never saw the head-on?.....Your supposition is just that, you're supposing something happened.....It didn't, but what does REPLAYRANDALL know?


Here, watch the race again....nothing there.

YouTube (Short URL)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by SG4

Why is it that the head-on replays supplied by tracks only seem to be missing for controversial races? This is not a good look for transparency, and I've seen this across multiple jurisdictions.



Case in point, anyone know any outlet where I can see a head-on shot of Santa Anita's 5th on 10/8 or Keeneland's 3rd from 10/9?

I didn't find the head on, but I did watch the pan shot a number of times. If you're thinking the 7 shut off the 4, I thought when the 4 decided to try to pass the 7 on the inside there wasn't enough room. I couldn't conjure anything that would have warranted a DQ. It would be good to get the head on in order to determine if the 4 touched the rail slightly when the jockey tried to move him inside.

You meant October 10. At Keeneland, I assume you thought the 8 fouled the 7. There was contact, but clearly the 8 had a lot left in the tank and the 7 was about finished. From the pan shot I didn't think there should have been a DQ but the head on would have been nice.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by SG4

Why is it that the head-on replays supplied by tracks only seem to be missing for controversial races? This is not a good look for transparency, and I've seen this across multiple jurisdictions.



Case in point, anyone know any outlet where I can see a head-on shot of Santa Anita's 5th on 10/8 or Keeneland's 3rd from 10/9?

As TLG said, there are times when the head on just isn't available, but Calracing.com must eliminate head ons as desired either because they don't want to discuss something the stewards decided on, or at other times, as a matter of taste. Bad breakdowns and such at the back of the crowd in the stretch get removed all the time. It's frustrating to me because I'm not one of those morbid people that just want another view of the ugliness. I want to be able to see what happened in the race from that perspective. Removing the head ons to avoid controversy is just wrong, and saying they don't leaves too much to coincidence. It's way too often that you're unable to get the head ons of those races that had a steward issue to be mere coincidence.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You meant October 10. At Keeneland, I assume you thought the 8 fouled the 7. There was contact, but clearly the 8 had a lot left in the tank and the 7 was about finished. From the pan shot I didn't think there should have been a DQ but the head on would have been nice.

The 8 had a lot left in the tank? He won a head bob. Your description is a completely inaccurate assessment of the race. Are you sure you were watching the right race?

The pan means nothing in this case. On the head-on, which some of us saw live, the first finisher bumps the second finisher as he is going by, and should have been taken down. It was a poor non-call, at least in my opinion.

It is not an opinion that the finish was a head bob. That one's a fact. Anyone can feel free to watch the pan for themselves.

[SG4]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I didn't find the head on, but I did watch the pan shot a number of times. If you're thinking the 7 shut off the 4, I thought when the 4 decided to try to pass the 7 on the inside there wasn't enough room. I couldn't conjure anything that would have warranted a DQ. It would be good to get the head on in order to determine if the 4 touched the rail slightly when the jockey tried to move him inside.

I definitely did not think any action in this race warranted a DQ. I just want to try & figure out what Van Dyke was thinking, mostly why he wasn't able to move up in that opening 1/16-1/8th of a mile. So that's why I want the head-on, I want to see if he didn't have enough room & that's why a tepid ride, or was it just a choice of trying to rate from the get go. His mount broke a step slow & I'd like to see just how consequential for early position that might've been & I don't think this can be surely surmised from the pan view.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by the little guy

The 8 had a lot left in the tank? He won a head bob. Your description is a completely inaccurate assessment of the race. Are you sure you were watching the right race?

The pan means nothing in this case. On the head-on, which some of us saw live, the first finisher bumps the second finisher as he is going by, and should have been taken down. It was a poor non-call, at least in my opinion.

It is not an opinion that the finish was a head bob. That one's a fact. Anyone can feel free to watch the pan for themselves.

First, read my post again. Since SG4 didn't specify which horse was fouled by the 8, I thought he might have been referring to the 8 and the 7, and the rest of the reply goes from there. Apparently I had the wrong two horses.

But knowing it was between the 8 and 9...
I didn't see the race live or get any sort of a head on shot, and I agree the pan shot gave you almost no indication of a serious foul of the 8 against the 9. But now that I know that was the issue at hand, from the pan you can't clearly see a significant bump, nor could you see the jockey of the 9 clearly react. I'm sure with the head-on shot we'd all at least agree on what happened and to what degree it influenced the outcome. That being the case I don't mind trusting that you had better information when it came to evaluating the contact.

Let me mention my comment on the energy of the 8. He was obviously moving away from the field (except for the 9) and I thought that as you see in many horses, once they get the lead they relax a little. You also know as well as I do that jockeys will gear down when they believe they have the race, and perhaps Saez didn't sense the run the 9 was making. I thought the 8 dug in at the point the 9 was coming up on him, understanding that perception may have been an artifact of a foul instead of the heart of a horse. Perhaps "plenty in the tank" was hyperbole, but I would still say he hadn't run out of gas.

I've watched tens of thousands of races since the first time I bet money at the track (Royal Spouse, 1971, Whitney day). I know a foul when I see one same as we all do. At least as long as we all have the same information.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I didn't find the head on, but I did watch the pan shot a number of times. If you're thinking the 7 shut off the 4, I thought when the 4 decided to try to pass the 7 on the inside there wasn't enough room. I couldn't conjure anything that would have warranted a DQ. It would be good to get the head on in order to determine if the 4 touched the rail slightly when the jockey tried to move him inside.

You meant October 10. At Keeneland, I assume you thought the 8 fouled the 7. There was contact, but clearly the 8 had a lot left in the tank and the 7 was about finished. From the pan shot I didn't think there should have been a DQ but the head on would have been nice.

Santa Anita
IMO, the wanted no part in passing on the rail. The horse clearly wanted to get in the clear on the outside.The horse is obviously looking to the outside
(where he wants to go) in the stretch run. This horse had the ability to at least make a run on the leader, but was trapped against the rail and was not comfortable there.

Keeneland
Was contact, and can not tell from the pan view what affect it had. Yes, this happens to many times to be a coincidence.