The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[ArlJim78]

Complete BS DQ. the 10 got to the hole first and won it fair and square, I couldn't believe it the dq.
and yes I bet the 10 to win.
Pay the winners and quit rearranging the order of finish based on a whim.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

As with the three musketeers, so with the three stooges. There's actually a fourth.

Tell me that American Pharoah gets DQ-ed for that.

AMERICAN PHAROAH get's DQ'd for that.

And to respond to your other post.

Yes. Absolutely the jockey is supposed to know, check and double check for a rallying horse that he might impede by make such a drastic lane change.

[Dark Horse]

Sure Vic. If a Ferrari is held up by whatever it is you're driving, and I come along speeding along in my Beamer, it would make me a bad driver to not understand that the Ferrari is about to change lanes.

The fact is that the #1 could have gone wider, if the #8 had not been there already. Going wider in this situation happens all the time, and when it does there is no argument.

The role of the #8 was crucial, which is why I would consider this as: just the way the race unfolded. Nobody was at fault. Result should have stood.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Sure Vic. If a Ferrari is held up by whatever it is you're driving, and I come along speeding along in my Beamer, it would make me a bad driver to not understand that the Ferrari is about to change lanes.

I don't know what any of that FERRARI stuff means.

But concerning the DQ. I'm truly sorry your horse was taken down.

I had no rooting interest in the race.

But again I must stress. This was a VERY easy decision.

The rulebook clearly states a horse may not cross over into the path of a rival without being "sufficiently clear". When I was in the stand that usually meant about a length and a half.

wasn't even a little bit clear. The jockey changed lanes into a path that a fast forwardly moving horse was in. jockey was forced to check sharply and in doing so lost that forward momentum. was cost the opportunity for a better placing. Period.

I feel bad you lost but the call was as cookie cutter as it gets.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

AMERICAN PHAROAH get's DQ'd for that.

And to respond to your other post.

Yes. Absolutely the jockey is supposed to know, check and double check for a rallying horse that he might impede by make such a drastic lane change.

Not in the 3rd leg of the TC or in the Derby he doesn't.

Neither does Bayern in the BC.

[Dark Horse]

Vic, if there was consistency in stewards decisions I would have no problem. But if just keep wondering why these decisions keep favoring the favorites.

My mentor, a former T-bred trainer of 30 years, actually explained to me that it's not the right way of looking at it. The real reason behind this strange observed phenomenon is that the best horses get the best jockeys, so the longshots often end up with the lesser jockeys. And those jockeys aren't given the same respect. Instead, they often have to be taught 'a lesson'. Sounds perfectly logical to me.

Bottomline: the lesser jockeys ride more longshots PLUS get less benefit of the doubt!

[Stillriledup]

I have a take on this DQ, ill post a longer writeup later.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Vic, if there was consistency in stewards decisions I would have no problem. But if just keep wondering why these decisions keep favoring the favorites.

My mentor, a former T-bred trainer of 30 years, actually explained to me that it's not the right way of looking at it. The real reason behind this strange observed phenomenon is that the best horses get the best jockeys, so the longshots often end up with the lesser jockeys. And those jockeys aren't given the same respect. Instead, they often have to be taught 'a lesson'. Sounds perfectly logical to me.

For the purposes of an inquiry the jockeys are completely irrelevant. Both who they are and what they do.

The stewards watch the films as though the horses don't even have jockeys on their backs.

The only time a jock might catch an eye is his reaction to the tight quarters he may or may not have been placed in.

Otherwise the stewards look at the horses and ONLY the horses.

The actions of the jockeys is addressed at film review the following morning.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

For the purposes of an inquiry the jockeys are completely irrelevant. Both who they are and what they do.

The stewards watch the films as though the horses don't even have jockeys on their backs.

The only time a jock might catch an eye is his reaction to the tight quarters he may or may not have been placed in.

Otherwise the stewards look at the horses and ONLY the horses.

The actions of the jockeys is addressed at film review the following morning.

Right. And no refs in any sports will consider the players in question when calling a foul...

I respect your knowledge of horse racing, but your absolute insistence on squeaky clean, 100% objective stewards undermines your credibility. Last time I checked they were human beings.

Let's put it this way: E Hernandez (who rarely even rides at SA!) on the #10 versus ... Tyler Baze on the #1.

lol

Keep on eye on stewards decisions in this context, and I will be very surprised if a clear pattern doesn't emerge.

[HorsemenHeist]

Originally Posted by cj

But you aren't allowed to just change lanes if you aren't clear. It also doesn't matter if you have more left.

Don't like the DQ but I'm not surprised by anything the stewards do. I don't think the 1 was cost a better placing. Also Frank said "Perfect ride by Efrain Hernandez".. Oops

It does apparently matter if you have more left because the standard for disqualifications in most jurisdictions is whether the horse was cost a better placing. Stewards are precisely making a judgment call of how much a horse had left because you're implying that the horse had enough left that it would have finished in an improved position without the interference.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by HorsemenHeist

Stewards are precisely making a judgment call of how much a horse had left because you're implying that the horse had enough left that it would have finished in an improved position without the interference.

Exactly.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Right. And no refs in any sports will consider the players in question when calling a foul...

I respect your knowledge of horse racing, but your absolute insistence on squeaky clean, 100% objective stewards undermines your credibility. Last time I checked they were human beings.

Boy you're all over the place. My post had nothing to do with the objective of stewards or my credibility.

I was simply sharing how the process works.

As for your analogy of sports refs. The horses are the players. It's their actions that carry the day. What the jockey's did or did not do doesn't impact the decision.

A horse is either bumped by another horse or it is not. During an inquiry to determine placings the reason for the incident is irrelevant*

That is addressed separately the next morning at film review.

* At times, though rarely, there can be exceptions. For instance if a horse or rider is attempting to avoid an accident that took place in front of them. Should a horse drastically alter course to avoid that spill there probably would not be sanctions.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by HorsemenHeist

Don't like the DQ but I'm not surprised by anything the stewards do. I don't think the 1 was cost a better placing. Also Frank said "Perfect ride by Efrain Hernandez".. Oops

It does apparently matter if you have more left because the standard for disqualifications in most jurisdictions is whether the horse was cost a better placing. Stewards are precisely making a judgment call of how much a horse had left because you're implying that the horse had enough left that it would have finished in an improved position without the interference.

There's not much precise in that judgment. That's why being a steward is darned hard and thankless.

They are paid to make those decisions and it is very difficult. How do you look inside a horses body and or soul and know what "might" have happened?

That's why they get the big bucks. They are expected to make those very difficult calls.

Remember though how the rule reads. " If in the opinion of the stewards the horse was cost an "OPPORTUNITY" for a better placing.

Somebody has to make the tough decisions. It's agonizing and thankless especially because no matter how you rule a lot of people are going to be pissed.

IMO the stewards, especially here in CA, get it right the vast majority of the time. Always? Of course not. There are no absolutes. Many decisions are split 2-1. I still argue with Kim Sawyer about some call we made at Los Al over two years ago. But absent a better idea this is the process and frankly I think it works great.

Some will say. All bets are off. Just let the results stand no matter what. That's just plain ridiculous. There would be chaos in about 2 days. Followed closely by a long list of dead horses and paralyzed jockeys.

[EMD4ME]

Boys, I'm sorry, that's a no brainer DQ by the Stewards.


Tough beat for backers of the 10, YES. Appropriate decision, YES.


It's not my pleasure to agree with a Steward or the resident EGO maniac but the truth is the truth.

He should have kept more options open and avoided having THAT happen at the 1/16 pole.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Complete BS DQ. the 10 got to the hole first and won it fair and square.

Couldn't agree more.

It's one of those situations where you either look at the whole picture in the stretch, or you don't and just isolate the lane change without the context in which it occurred.

Good referees, I've often heard it say, understand the match and referee it within the spirit of that game. Bad referees often irritate the daylight out of athletes by having no feel for the game, and strictly applying the rule book. As if each rule is a law unto itself, and not part of a bigger picture. As I said earlier, spirit of the law versus letter of the law. Invariably, without exception, players on the field are happier with the ref who has a feel for the game. Spirit of the law refs! They understand that each rule was written for the game (larger context), and not the other way around. Letter-of-the-law folks will never agree with that.