Saturday 4/8 Oaklawn Race 5

[ManU918]

If anyone knows, can someone please explain to me why the 5 was taken down in race 5 at Oaklawn yesterday? I have watched this race no less than 20 times and do not see a single infringement. Maybe I'm not seeing an angle that the stewards were looking at. The weird part is after the race, Oaklawn's feed cut to the kids playground and they didn't show any replays. I'm not sure what that was about, but something seems extremely fishy about this. The 2 who claimed foul didn't look impacted one bit. He broke fine and ran his race, which in my opinion just wasn't good enough as the 5 won by 7 lengths.

[wisconsin]

Well shortly after the start, the went to the rail, causing the to check into the .

[affirmedny]

Originally Posted by ManU918

If anyone knows, can someone please explain to me why the 5 was taken down in race 5 at Oaklawn yesterday? I have watched this race no less than 20 times and do not see a single infringement. Maybe I'm not seeing an angle that the stewards were looking at. The weird part is after the race, Oaklawn's feed cut to the kids playground and they didn't show any replays. I'm not sure what that was about, but something seems extremely fishy about this. The 2 who claimed foul didn't look impacted one bit. He broke fine and ran his race, which in my opinion just wasn't good enough as the 5 won by 7 lengths.

From the Chart: LUNDBERG came in early to help tighten up and bother a pair of inner rivals,vied into the turn, closest to the inside, disposed
of that pair when straightened for home, remained clear to the wire under steady handling

FOLLOWING A CLAIM OF FOUL BY THE RIDER OF VIGANO AGAINST LUNDBERG FOR
INTERFERENCE SOON AFTER THE START,THE LATTER WAS DISQUALIFIED AND PLACED SEVENTH.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by ManU918

If anyone knows, can someone please explain to me why the 5 was taken down in race 5 at Oaklawn yesterday? I have watched this race no less than 20 times and do not see a single infringement. Maybe I'm not seeing an angle that the stewards were looking at. The weird part is after the race, Oaklawn's feed cut to the kids playground and they didn't show any replays. I'm not sure what that was about, but something seems extremely fishy about this. The 2 who claimed foul didn't look impacted one bit. He broke fine and ran his race, which in my opinion just wasn't good enough as the 5 won by 7 lengths.

angled inward in the first 100 yards causing inside rivals to check and lose position. The damning part is it was a deliberate act by Pedroza. Watch the head on and you'll see how he turns the head of his horse and comes in without sufficient clearance. That being said the horse nearest the rail contributed greatly to the incident as well by coming outward and solidly bumping rivals. IMO this is a terrible DQ. was unquestionably the best horse and the betting public should not have their correct selection taken away from them. If I was in the stand I would have left the result as is and sanctioned Pedroza for careless riding.

[wisconsin]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

If I was in the stand I would have left the result as is and sanctioned Pedroza for careless riding.

I feel this would be the correct move, moving forward, but will never happen. We bettors get shafted too often.

Check DQ's are the worst. Surely there are more serious infractions, but the check/bump DQ's are far too inconsistently addressed.

[ManU918]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

angled inward in the first 100 yards causing inside rivals to check and lose position. The damning part is it was a deliberate act by Pedroza. Watch the head on and you'll see how he turns the head of his horse and comes in without sufficient clearance. That being said the horse nearest the rail contributed greatly to the incident as well by coming outward and solidly bumping rivals. IMO this is a terrible DQ. was unquestionably the best horse and the betting public should not have their correct selection taken away from them. If I was in the stand I would have left the result as is and sanctioned Pedroza for careless riding.

Hey Vic, thanks for the response. I think my biggest issue with the DQ outside of the simple fact that (using your words) it was a "terrible DQ", is when the race was over and the numbers started blinking, no replays were shown. The camera's kept changing from the blinking numbers to the kid's playground. So, the bettors never saw the head on replay. I think it's absurd that in 2023 DQ's can take place when the bettor doesn't even have the opportunity to view what the stewards are looking at.

[trifecta]

Originally Posted by ManU918

Hey Vic, thanks for the response. I think my biggest issue with the DQ outside of the simple fact that (using your words) it was a "terrible DQ", is when the race was over and the numbers started blinking, no replays were shown. The camera's kept changing from the blinking numbers to the kid's playground. So, the bettors never saw the head on replay. I think it's absurd that in 2023 DQ's can take place when the bettor doesn't even have the opportunity to view what the stewards are looking at.

The #4 horse stumbled at the start and lost his rider. Maybe that's why they didn't show the replay. Usually tracks are reluctant to show replays when there's a spill or an incident resulting in a fall.

[ManU918]

Originally Posted by trifecta

The #4 horse stumbled at the start and lost his rider. Maybe that's why they didn't show the replay. Usually tracks are reluctant to show replays when there's a spill or an incident resulting in a fall.

Vic mentions the head on in his response, so how can it not be okay then, but be okay now (or whenever Vic watched)? We are talking about money, and stumbles are part of the game. So, if you are going to change the order of finish due to a DQ, then I believe the bettors have a right to see why a change is being made. If a horse or jockey get hurt and the bettor doesn't want to watch, then that decision should be the bettors, not the track who are allowing stewards to make decisions that impact the outcome.

[trifecta]

Originally Posted by ManU918

Vic mentions the head on in his response, so how can it not be okay then, but be okay now (or whenever Vic watched)? We are talking about money, and stumbles are part of the game. So, if you are going to change the order of finish due to a DQ, then I believe the bettors have a right to see why a change is being made. If a horse or jockey get hurt and the bettor doesn't want to watch, then that decision should be the bettors, not the track who are allowing stewards to make decisions that impact the outcome.

I'm not disagreeing with you. My comments only reflect my understanding of the track's reluctance to show replays after an incident. I believe the full replays, including the incidents, are almost always available after races are run on replay sites or adw's, just not from the track feed immediately after the incident.

[Ahorsewithnoname]

Originally Posted by ManU918

Vic mentions the head on in his response, so how can it not be okay then, but be okay now (or whenever Vic watched)? We are talking about money, and stumbles are part of the game. So, if you are going to change the order of finish due to a DQ, then I believe the bettors have a right to see why a change is being made. If a horse or jockey get hurt and the bettor doesn't want to watch, then that decision should be the bettors, not the track who are allowing stewards to make decisions that impact the outcome.

The same thing happens when a horse has an issue loading up in the gate before races also. Usually the camera pans away from the gate and you as a viewer do not get to see the whole incident. Sometimes the horses act up in the loading gate and you dont get to see if its serious or not.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by trifecta

I'm not disagreeing with you. My comments only reflect my understanding of the track's reluctance to show replays after an incident. I believe the full replays, including the incidents, are almost always available after races are run on replay sites or adw's, just not from the track feed immediately after the incident.

If a spill is really bad. Let's say because of a breakdown, that tape will be edited and not disseminated to the places that have replays. That didn't happen here. I watched both angles on Express Bet.

When I was there I would have to remind the TV Dept to show real time replay views to the public while the Stewards deliberated.

I'm not positive but I doubt they told TV not to show anything.

Was there any explanation by the announcer after the decision of why the DQ was made?

[ManU918]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

If a spill is really bad. Let's say because of a breakdown, that tape will be edited and not disseminated to the places that have replays. That didn't happen here. I watched both angles on Express Bet.

When I was there I would have to remind the TV Dept to show real time replay views to the public while the Stewards deliberated.

I'm not positive but I doubt they told TV not to show anything.

Was there any explanation by the announcer after the decision of why the DQ was made?

Not a thing. It was so freaking bizarre. Went from seeing kids playing on swings to the flashing numbers to the new order of finish with no replays in-between. I know the money aspect is all relative but having had a few hundred to win on Lundberg/#5, and it being a mid-4 figure swing, I am pretty mad about how this was handled. I'm not the only one as I searched Twitter soon after the race and others were just as angry (even those who didn't have the #5, agreed with your response from yesterday that the horse should have stayed up). I've seen way worse stay up... way way way worse. Also... one more thing.. the stewards inquiry came down, then a minute later the objection was lodged and from there it took 10 minutes for the stewards to make a decision. That seemed a bit long.