The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

Since you thought it was the correct call, what would have warranted a DQ in your opinion?

Had Ortiz actually gone over the rail and got seriously hurt would that have been enough? Because another few inches and that's what happens. Smith did everything but put him over the rail.

Eventually it's going to happen and I hope we don't get a lot of "prayers for the fallen rider" posts from people who have been okay with this reckless, dangerous riding in the past.

I understand your point 100%.

Here's my view.

The rules allow for some degree of herding (or whatever you want to call it) and have a degree of safety built into them also. If a rider crosses paths without being clear he'll get DQ'd and if he's reckless in some way he'll get called in and suspended.

So what you are really arguing is that the rules suck. That's a different issue than whether they made the right call yesterday. I feel 100% sure they made the right call yesterday given the rules.

The one problem I'd have with changing the rules is that sometimes horses drift on their own and get the same result as when riders purposely do it.

So if the horse does it does that mean it's OK but if the rider does it purposely the horse should get DQ'd? Should they always get DQ'd?

I'm not so sure it's a good idea to give the stewards more room to make subjective calls like that.

I think the rules are fine as they are but I'd be very open to ensuring safer riding via more frequent suspensions or fines instead of potentially allowing 3 blind mice to make the DQ call.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I'll ask the same question I asked earlier. In this case is the only thing warranting a DQ Ortiz going over the rail?

A significant enough bump to change the outcome or being forced into the rail would have gotten Smith taken down.

As to going over the rail, read my previous note to you on fines and suspensions.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

A significant enough bump to change the outcome or being forced into the rail would have gotten Smith taken down.

As to going over the rail, read my previous note to you on fines and suspensions.

If you watch the head on, had they actually made contact, Ortiz would have went over the rail. As it was he was right on top of it, because he was herded.

I'm just saying that eventually someone is going to get hurt. No amount of fine or suspension will matter when someone loses their life or is paralyzed.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I'm just saying that eventually someone is going to get hurt. No amount of fine or suspension will matter when someone loses their life or is paralyzed.

If people think the rules (as they exist now) are dangerous, the time to change them would be now. That way we can reduce the possibility of something tragic happening. Let the riders know that fines and suspensions are going to be handed out for this kind of thing. Then maybe they will stop.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If people think the rules (as they exist now) are dangerous, the time to change them would be now.

The current interpretation of the rules is dangerous and detracting.

This is jousting, not racing.

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

No amount of fine or suspension will matter when someone loses their life or is paralyzed.

And it will likely happen to one of best and bravest young jockeys. Someone like a Jose Ortiz yesterday, who opted to keep riding through a 'tight spot' rather than take-up and act, or simply take up for his own safety fears (You really think a Johnny V. or Joe Bravo would allow himself to stay in that situation?).

It's an awful, awful interpretation of the rules, and that is even before they are called out for allowing politics to enter their rulings.
If you have a much-beloved racehorse = "ohhh, taking her/him down is unthinkable"...
heavy chalk = "ohhh, a lot of people would be yelling..."
supertrainer-owner shipper = "ohhh, you don't want Baffert to stop shipping his mega-owners over here, do you?..."

[Robert Fischer]

2nd-tier jockey Kendrick Carmouche on a long shot smaller-barn ship-in Rocky Policy gets taken down for herding.

I thought herding was just race ridin' ?

I thought you had to be guaranteed to get past the race-ridin' horse to move up?

[Hambletonian]

I had the 7 all ways to Sunday and was a little miffed...especially since the 8 was very unlikely to get a better placing.

My poor 18 year old son, enjoying the first day at the track when he could bet himself, had a $2 exacta box 5-7...the big spender took it pretty well all things considered

Just seems a little inconsistent with what Smith did and the no DQ there. There is no question the 7 came out....just a question of whether the 8 was impeded enough to cost the 8 a better placing.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

2nd-tier jockey Kendrick Carmouche on a long shot smaller-barn ship-in Rocky Policy gets taken down for herding.

I thought herding was just race ridin' ?

I thought you had to be guaranteed to get past the race-ridin' horse to move up?

Well, when you go to herd a horse and you cut off another horse on the way I would imagine that changes the dynamic a bit.

So the lesson is dont cut off horses in any scenario.

The better question is was he clear when he came over and then the horse re rallied into the 7's butt.

I could by that one.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Hambletonian

I had the 7 all ways to Sunday and was a little miffed...especially since the 8 was very unlikely to get a better placing.

My poor 18 year old son, enjoying the first day at the track when he could bet himself, had a $2 exacta box 5-7...the big spender took it pretty well all things considered

Just seems a little inconsistent with what Smith did and the no DQ there. There is no question the 7 came out....just a question of whether the 8 was impeded enough to cost the 8 a better placing.

The consistency is exactly what I am questioning.



To be honest, watching the replay this morning, and I was already typing out something to the effect of "hey, I let my emotions get the best of me, and it caused a biased judgement, maybe this wasn't the best example...",


but actually watching the replay again this morning, with a clear head, this is a great example.

Although it wasn't 100% certain, the had a 'chance' to get by with a clean run (which I personally support 1000%, and think the should come down), but is not consistent with the stewards' interpretation of the rules.

The only differences here =
JOCKEY REACTION = Irad Ortiz (jockey of the 8) took-up/stopped riding/checked, rather than dangerously continuing to ride his horse through the hole (like Jose Ortiz did with Elate, when Mike Smith fouled him),
and
POLITICS = The 7 was not a 'beloved' horse like Lady Eli, the 7 was not a heavy-chalk, the 7 was not a Baffert Grade 1(or other top trainer/owner shipper).

Some combination of those two factors (jockey reaction+politics) + randomness = Change in ruling.

[maliksealy210]

7/30 Emerald Downs Race 9

A double DQ off of a trainers objection. This is a first for me, if anyone else has seen that let me know. The 2 and 6 both broke in at the start, but I think the 2 caused most of the trouble. Took down the 6 from first and the 2 from third.

[Elliott Sidewater]

A trainer's objection usually carries about as much weight as a Trump tweet, but in this case the stewards got it right IMO. Why they didn't post an INQUIRY on their own is beyond comprehension, though. The horse that was placed 1st was tons the best, made a big run from last to just miss after being sandwiched from both sides and severely compromised. How a poster could blame it on just one of the two dq'd horses doesn't make sense once you've seen the head on replay. I believe this is the first trainer's objection I've ever seen upheld.

[maliksealy210]

Originally Posted by Elliott Sidewater

A trainer's objection usually carries about as much weight as a Trump tweet, but in this case the stewards got it right IMO. Why they didn't post an INQUIRY on their own is beyond comprehension, though. The horse that was placed 1st was tons the best, made a big run from last to just miss after being sandwiched from both sides and severely compromised. How a poster could blame it on just one of the two dq'd horses doesn't make sense once you've seen the head on replay. I believe this is the first trainer's objection I've ever seen upheld.

I was simply saying the two broke in more than the six did and was also about a half length ahead which had a bigger factor in the four (who started a half length slower) to get steadied versus just squeezed. Both horses fouled but I think the 2 was the bigger fouler in this case.

[Elliott Sidewater]

Maybe so (I didn't see it that way) but the 4 deserved to win and the stewards knew it, so they did the right thing. Blaming the whole incident on the 2 would have done nothing to improve #4's placing. This is unbelievable, I'm actually giving the Emerald Downs stewards credit for a brave but correct call. Now when is the next sighting of Halley's Comet?

[maliksealy210]

Originally Posted by Elliott Sidewater

Maybe so (I didn't see it that way) but the 4 deserved to win and the stewards knew it, so they did the right thing. Blaming the whole incident on the 2 would have done nothing to improve #4's placing. This is unbelievable, I'm actually giving the Emerald Downs stewards credit for a brave but correct call. Now when is the next sighting of Halley's Comet?

What we can agree on

•Befuddlement into why it took a Trainers Objection to look into the race (did the Jockeys not file anything, or did the Trainer beat them to the punch?)
•Amazement that once it was brought to their addition, the Stewards did the right thing in a reasonable amount of time

[cj]

So after the 3rd at Saratoga safe to say a jockey can do pretty much whatever he wants on the NYRA circuit?