Finger Lakes 1st Race Wed 8/2 - Interesting DQ

[BreadandButter]

One of the more "interesting" dqs. The race winner 1A Kim was taken down and placed second as a result of her entry mate #1 Sweet Sweet Afleet who finished third going wide on the far turn.

I say "interesting" in the fact that the actually race winner was clear and not guilty of anything. Not sure what the rules are state to state handling entries involved in inquiries.

Also, somewhat of an oddity in the fact that the horse that was disqualified #1 Sweet Sweet Afleet never changed position even after the disqualification since she finished behind the horse the stewards deemed was compromised.


http://www.fingerlakesgaming.com/Replays.aspx

[johnhannibalsmith]

From rule 4035.2 section e (I remember this one from the turf race last year):

(e) (1) If two or more horses are coupled in the betting as an entry, and one or more of
them shall be disqualified for violation of the rules of racing, the balance of the entry
shall also be disqualified if in the judgment of the stewards such violation prevented
any other horse or horses from finishing ahead of the other part of the entry. If said
violation is without such effect upon the finish of the race, penalty therefor may be
applied against the offender and the balance of the entry may go unpunished.

[BreadandButter]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

From rule 4035.2 section e (I remember this one from the turf race last year):

(e) (1) If two or more horses are coupled in the betting as an entry, and one or more of
them shall be disqualified for violation of the rules of racing, the balance of the entry
shall also be disqualified if in the judgment of the stewards such violation prevented
any other horse or horses from finishing ahead of the other part of the entry. If said
violation is without such effect upon the finish of the race, penalty therefor may be
applied against the offender and the balance of the entry may go unpunished.

Johnhannibalsmith - thanks for the posted rule. As more and more jurisdictions go towards uncoupled entries won't need to be referenced as much.

[devilsbag]

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-07-...e-racing-notes

[BreadandButter]

Originally Posted by devilsbag

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-07-...e-racing-notes

"We have the option to disqualify both parts of an entry if one of the horses commits a foul," said Pete Pedersen, one of the Hollywood Park stewards. "But in order for that to happen, we would have to be convinced that there was collusion, that a jockey on one of the coupled horses was bothering another horse so that his stablemate could win."

The Equibase chart footnotes state in the saddle slipped on the horse found guilty of the infraction in this particular race. So either the Finger Lakes stewards see things quite differently than the Hollywood Park stewards of 30 years ago or the Equibase chartwriter does.

No bones to pick either way. I just find it interesting.

[cj]

Originally Posted by BreadandButter

"We have the option to disqualify both parts of an entry if one of the horses commits a foul," said Pete Pedersen, one of the Hollywood Park stewards. "But in order for that to happen, we would have to be convinced that there was collusion, that a jockey on one of the coupled horses was bothering another horse so that his stablemate could win."

The Equibase chart footnotes state in the saddle slipped on the horse found guilty of the infraction in this particular race. So either the Finger Lakes stewards see things quite differently than the Hollywood Park stewards of 30 years ago or the Equibase chartwriter does.

No bones to pick either way. I just find it interesting.

Different states have different rules. The rule that was cited earlier doesn't appear to leave wiggle room for "no collusion".