Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 04-01-2011, 04:28 PM   #16
Stillriledup
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
Anyone figure out the answer?
Stillriledup is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 04-05-2011, 05:27 PM   #17
Tenacross
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16
The reason the stewards didn't place #1 behind the #3 is because the #3
faded badly in the stretch. Faded enough that it is doubtful the incident
cost him a better placing. The #2, on the other hand, only was beaten a
head, so it *could* be argued the incident cost him the win.
Tenacross is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 04-05-2011, 06:11 PM   #18
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenacross
The reason the stewards didn't place #1 behind the #3 is because the #3
faded badly in the stretch. Faded enough that it is doubtful the incident
cost him a better placing. The #2, on the other hand, only was beaten a
head, so it *could* be argued the incident cost him the win.
That is the only explanation that makes sense, but it is setting a very tricky precedent.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 04-05-2011, 07:24 PM   #19
Tenacross
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
That is the only explanation that makes sense, but it is setting a very tricky precedent.
That precedent has long been set. From the NY rule posted by You.

(b) A horse crossing another may be disqualified, if in the judgment of the stewards, it interferes with, impedes or intimidates another horse, or the foul altered the finish of the race, regardless of whether the foul was accidental, willful, or the result of careless riding.

In regards to the #3 vs #1, the "crossing another" didn't "alter the finish". Notice in the stewards explanation you posted the justification for placing the #1 behind the #2 was that "the initial action of #1 Awesome Merger altered the finish of the race." This shows the operable language was "altered the finish of the race.
Tenacross is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 04-06-2011, 05:39 PM   #20
MartyZee
Registered User
 
MartyZee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Bellmore N.Y.
Posts: 75
has to change

Although I'm upset with the DQ which cost me a lot of money, I'm still upset with the call that put the 1 horse behind the 2 and not the 3 horse that he supposedly bothered; I DONT CARE IF THE 3 HORSE WAS FINISHED OR NOT___IF HE BOTHERED THE 3 WHO IN TURN BOTHERED THE 2 THEN HE SHOULD BE PLACED BEHIND THE 3; END OF DISCUSSION
MartyZee is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 04-06-2011, 05:43 PM   #21
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
My point was the bump was pretty severe. The 3 may very well have not been finished.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.