SA stewards make correct call in Big 'Cap

[Kevroc]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

And that's how I saw it and shows on all the reply... just don't see how people seem to miss the facts as shown.

I'm from the camp that it was the right call but, I can see why it is a tough call. The side angle looks like GoD cornered well, the head-on shows him coming out.. However, TC comes out even more so, imo.. fanning Setsuko even wider.

The initial inside lunge TC takes, whacks GoD on the hindquarters and he loses his action. In turn, he whacks TC twice. The first whack is totally in reaction to the initial bump and the second one is in regaining his action.

The whole question imo, is if he should be taken down for causing interference in the stretch with that second thump... I submit that the horse would've maintained a straight course without suffering the fishtail inducing initial bump on the rear by TC.

Setsuko was compromised and even sustained an injury from this. It is unfortunate but, the anger directed at Sutherland and Co. is unwarranted imo, because she was trying her hardest to stay straight and win the race. The left handed urging on the turn may look bad but, she had a good hold of him with her right arm. If she goes righty with an erratic fatigued TC to her outside, she risks striking that runner.

My .02

[FenceBored]

Longer (10 minutes) inquiry video, includes rear shot of incident at 8 minute mark.

[YT="SA Hdcp"]BXBxGpcYl7Q[/YT]

[Relwob Owner]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Longer (10 minutes) inquiry video, includes rear shot of incident at 8 minute mark.

[YT="SA Hdcp"]BXBxGpcYl7Q[/YT]

Now THAT(the rear angel coming around the turn) was an angle I had not seen and after seeing it, feel like I totally stand corrected and can totally see why those who had seen it were disagreeing with me.....like I said earlier in the thread, won't be the last time I am wrong.....nice call to all who saw it as a non DQ.

[rwwupl]

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/west...-wont-go-away/

Pete Pedersen gives an informed opinion...

Excerpt:

"It wasn't an easy call," Pedersen said. "But I would have voted for disqualification. I don't think there was any question that the winner interfered with the horse (Twirling Candy) between him and (Setsuko). That started the chain reaction. And there was enough interference to merit a disqualification

[David-LV]

Originally Posted by rwwupl

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/west...-wont-go-away/

Pete Pedersen gives an informed opinion...

Excerpt:

Maybe that is why Pedersen retired, I guess his eyes are going also.

_______
David-LV

[Stillriledup]

I gotta be honest with all of you guys. I'm of the camp that i don't want to see any DQs unless there's a REAL legit reason. I would leave the ticky tack stuff alone. So even if you think Chantal came out a hair and started this mess (which i dont), i would have still voted to leave it alone. I would have given a jock some leeway to not have to run in an exact straight line.

The one thing we know in racing is that horses don't always travel in an exact straight line. For a horse to move an inch or two to either side in the run down the lane is going to happen more times than its not going to happen. These horses are tired and straining, the jocks are tired and straining and they're giving all the have. Sometimes 'stuff' is going to happen. That's part of racing.

I love tracks that leave results alone. Some tracks just DQ to DQ (like Turf Paradise for example) but i would pay you if you won.

I know, its a novel concept to actually pay off the winners, but i would pay you if you won.

You guys know the fair catch rule in the NFL? You have to give the player catching the ball some 'space' to actually catch it. In racing, i would judge races where a horse should have some space on each side of him to move an inch or two if he needs to move. You can't pin a horse and run directly along side that runner and just hope he shifts an inch. I'm not exactly sure why Rosario was along side Chantal without giving her a few inches to move and maneuver. This happens in a lot of races where one jock will crowd another jock. If one jock is directly alongside another jock and the inside jock's horse moves out an inch or two, i'd blame the outside horse for being so close. When you turn into the lane, there's really no reason to be a millimeter away from another horse, if you're that close, you're not giving the other horse room for his 'fair catch'.

If Rosario was 5 inches away from Chantal, and she came out 4 inches (hypothetically) there would have still been an inch between them where no bumping would occur. But, when you are right next to a horse crowding him, that can't happen.

If Rosario didnt want to get bumped, he should have been farther away from Chantal when he turned for home....that way, if Chantal came out an inch or two, he wouldnt have been hit.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by RXB

PS, I was perhaps undergoing a moment of generosity when I referred to it as a Gr 2 field. "Weak Gr 2 field" is probably more accurate. Just four Gr 2 wins among the lot from 24 Gr 2 starts-- and in two cases, it's because they were soft, slow Gr 2's where someone had to win them. The other two Gr 2 wins both belonged to Twirling Candy, and they were restricted to 3YO only and 4YO only company.

I agree with your assessment that the race was not the high level Grade 1 race you'd expect for the SA Handicap, but "personally" I wouldn't go overboard on the downside either unless you have a high degree of confidence in CA speed figures (which I don't).

The winner and 2nd horse were both competitive in Grade 1 races as 3YOs against some every nice horses and were still lightly raced enough to think they may be just hitting their best stride now. Most of the horses that were competitive in the weaker Grade 2 and Grade 3 CA races earlier in the year got totally buried. That suggests either higher quality at the top or at least significant depth of quality. Twirling Candy had a rough trip but he was well beaten and First dude was left in the dust.

Time will tell about the quality of these horses as some leave CA and more horses like First Dude ship in.

A 99 suggests this was a below average Classified Alw race. Personally, I don't believe it. I think the CA figures have misrepresented the relative ability at the top of the CA circuit for several years because of the shift to synthetic tracks and the problem may still exist.

Horses keep coming out of CA and doing well in the east but few eastern horses seem to be able to replicate their best form going in the other direction (on synthetic or dirt). That does not make sense. Some of the horses going from east to west should have liked synthetic tracks just as some of the CA horses preferred dirt. Now the first evidence of east to west on dirt looks the same among the handful I have seen so far.

[RXB]

CH, I understand your point, but I have enough confidence in my own figuremaking to believe that the number is quite fair. (I settled on 100; the official number is 99.) The track seemed consistent and I'm satisfied that my numbers for the sprints and routes are reasonably accurate. Now, there was some bumping so probably they could've ran a point or two higher if they hadn't been bouncing each other around, but that still leaves it entirely uninspiring. And it fits with my overall class evaluation of that field.

The narrowly defeated place horse (Setsuko) and the second favourite (First Dude) are both still N1X-eligible. That pretty much sums it up. With the way First Dude is going right now maybe he should take a turn at that condition. He had a few semi-respectable placings against a modest group of 3YOs, and now he can't get close against a field of Fla-breds or the worst Santa Anita Handicap field that I've ever seen. He wasn't that good to begin with and he hasn't shown any signs of improvement with maturity. If the best that be said for the first three finishers is that they left FD in the dust, that's damning them with awfully faint praise.

Look at the San Antonio. About MCL20k pace-- that's no exaggeration-- and won by a horse who was just out of his N1X condition after nine tries in MSW and N1X. And that was one of those four G2 wins to the entire group's credit.

The last two 3YO crops have been uninspiring so I don't expect much of anything from the older horses this year unless there's a talented, lightly raced horse lurking somewhere-- and I haven't seen one yet. Twirling Candy has some talent but I don't believe he's anything special at all, and based on his form and breeding I think that he's really a miler. Somebody has to win these races; that's my assessment of Game On Dude's win and that will probably be my assessment of the entire division this year, unless some horse comes out of nowhere.

[Fastracehorse]

Originally Posted by Relwob Owner

Now THAT(the rear angel coming around the turn) was an angle I had not seen and after seeing it, feel like I totally stand corrected and can totally see why those who had seen it were disagreeing with me.....like I said earlier in the thread, won't be the last time I am wrong.....nice call to all who saw it as a non DQ.

John White does the M/L for S Anita and he thinks the stews made the right call.

You just needed evidence

fffastt

[Relwob Owner]

Originally Posted by Fastracehorse

John White does the M/L for S Anita and he thinks the stews made the right call.

You just needed evidence

fffastt

Yep, it took a while but I finally saw what you were talking about and you were right in my opinion

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Relwob Owner

Could not agree more.....this was the reason I found it so surprising when people praised her for her ride.

She's being praised because she's a woman, the first to win the race, the underdog. If that were Gomez, there wouldn't be a bunch of praise for the ride. It's a fan thing, a congratulatory thing, not a real critique of her ride, I'd say.

[Market Mover]

Originally Posted by rwwupl

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/west...-wont-go-away/

Pete Pedersen gives an informed opinion...

Excerpt:

"I was there Saturday," Pedersen said. "Saw the race, watched the replays a number of times."

And? Tom Ward, one of the stewards for the 2011 Santa Anita Handicap, was one of Pedersen's partners in the stewards' stand for dozens of race meets over the years. The 2-1 decision for Game On Dude's number staying up was Ward and Scott Chaney for, Kim Sawyer against. But I knew that Pedersen wouldn't pull any punches.

"It wasn't an easy call," Pedersen said. "But I would have voted for disqualification. I don't think there was any question that the winner interfered with the horse (Twirling Candy) between him and (Setsuko). That started the chain reaction. And there was enough interference to merit a disqualification."

Much was made of Chantal Sutherland, the rider of Game On Dude, getting to talk to the stewards twice on the phone as they took 12 minutes before taking a vote. But it turns out that Victor Espinoza, who rode Setsuko, also picked up the phone twice, according to the Daily Racing Form. The objection by Richard Mandella, the trainer of Setsuko, was that Bob Baffert, Game On Dude's trainer, got on the phone with the stewards. Ward told the Racing Form that Baffert spoke briefly, for only a matter of seconds, and Ward said he wouldn't have taken the call had he known in the beginning that it was Baffert and not one of the jockeys.

The day after the race, Mandella said: "I said (after the race) that I had no comment, and I don't want to drag the game down by saying anything now about the (stewards') decision. I think they should talk to the jockeys, but I think it was chickenxxxx that Baffert was trying to talk to the other jockeys and to the stewards. I was trying to be a gentleman, and unless the trainer is claiming foul, I just don't think it's right that he is trying to talk to the jocks and the stewards."

A few questions arise:

Does anyone beside Richard Mandella think that phone call from Baffert to the stewards' room is suspect action at best?

If it's not a trainer's claim of foul, does any trainer have the right to phone the stewards during an inquiry/objection?

And, more importantly, can a trainer lodge a claim of foul (or "talk" to the stewards, i.e. provide commentary, race/trip opinions) if that trainer finished first in the posted order of finish?

[Market Mover]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

#6 Setsuko came in slightly causing Twirling Candy to jostle with # 11 Game On Dude. #11 Game on Dude then smacked on Twirling Candy.
Taking either #6 or # 11 or both down meant a 65-1 Quindici Man was going to finish first or second. That wasn't likely going to happen by a Judges decision.

Check Penn National last year, on a race won initially by a 3 year old named Battleground. He veered in leaving the gate, and was DQ'ed, as well as another DQ during the running of the race. And yes, there was yet a THIRD DQ.

Three DQ's in one race. Go figure. It happened on 07/22/2010. Race 1 at Penn National.

Surely soCal would never allow that to happen to a G1 Big Cap, their Signature Race...

Triple DQ's DO occur. They just have to have the right setting: obscure track location with questionable integrity....

[samyn on the green]

[YT="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUAV_E3JjiI"][/YT] steward interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUAV_E3JjiI

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by RXB

CH, I understand your point, but I have enough confidence in my own figuremaking to believe that the number is quite fair. (I settled on 100; the official number is 99.) The track seemed consistent and I'm satisfied that my numbers for the sprints and routes are reasonably accurate.

I don't disagree with much of what you are saying. In fact it's a pleasure discussing the race with you because we think so much alike. I rate the 3YOs from last year a little better than you, but that's it.

To me the entire premise of the 99 (or 100) being accurate is that the CA circuit is accurate relative to the rest of the country. Personally, I am not 100% convinced of that "yet" because of the complexities of switching from synthetic (where figures were depressed at the top) back to dirt, even though it could be. We'll find out eventually, but I understand if you more confidence than me.

However, even if the circuit and 99 is correct, I still think the figure is not reflecting the ability of those horses properly.

Races often come up fast or slow due to pace, race development, competitiveness of the contest etc..

IMHO, there's almost no way those horses are worse than the average Classified Alw race which is what a 99 is suggesting. That field was way too deep with moderate talent and way too many of them got totally buried for it to be that bad.