The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread - Page 89 - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Rise Over Run · 01-21-2017, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EasyGoer89

Sorry I meant aqu, the 6th race the 3rd place finisher was placed 5th according to the announcer, not sure why only placed behind the 3, didn't cost that horse a spot, I guess nyra is disqualifying on fouls are fouls?

The 8 completely eliminated the chances of the 3 horse, and to a lesser extent the 2 horse, to compete for the win in the race. It was a just DQ, and I expect Manny Franco to receive a suspension for dangerous riding.

I find it strange how infractions like this should be ignored, yet minor bumping nearing the wire (not talking about herding) should be "prosecuted" to the fullest by the stewards.

EasyGoer89 · 01-21-2017, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rise Over Run

The 8 completely eliminated the chances of the 3 horse, and to a lesser extent the 2 horse, to compete for the win in the race. It was a just DQ, and I expect Manny Franco to receive a suspension for dangerous riding.

I find it strange how infractions like this should be ignored, yet minor bumping nearing the wire (not talking about herding) should be "prosecuted" to the fullest by the stewards.

They need to be a little more intelligent about this the 3 wasn't cost a placing he was beaten a long way.

EasyGoer89 · 01-29-2017, 09:51 PM

Long inquiry and dq today at SA.

2nd place finisher taken Down in the 5th I believe.

Easy call? Bad call?

dilanesp · 01-30-2017, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EasyGoer89

Long inquiry and dq today at SA.

2nd place finisher taken Down in the 5th I believe.

Easy call? Bad call?

It was a weird call, that's for sure. It was a chain reaction which clearly impeded the

. The chain reaction was started by the

, who finished third, bumping into the

, who finished 2nd, and who then bumped the

, who finished 4th, hard. The

, who finished 5th, was behind them and was bothered a little, but I didn't see it costing him a place.

So in my mind, the

should have come down, and maybe the

, and they should have not have moved up the

. So the result should have been 5-3-1-2-6, not 5-2-3-6-1.

EasyGoer89 · 01-30-2017, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It was a weird call, that's for sure. It was a chain reaction which clearly impeded the

. The chain reaction was started by the

, who finished third, bumping into the

, who finished 2nd, and who then bumped the

, who finished 4th, hard. The

, who finished 5th, was behind them and was bothered a little, but I didn't see it costing him a place.

So in my mind, the

should have come down, and maybe the

, and they should have not have moved up the

. So the result should have been 5-3-1-2-6, not 5-2-3-6-1.

I would have had the tri if the 6 got placed 3rd but I didn't use the 2 at all.

To me the tricky part of this dq is that while you can make the case that the 1 hit the 2 from behind and started the chain reaction, the 1 was essentially running in a straight line and only moved a hair to the inside, so the dq tells me that you're not allowed to move an inch either way which is a racing violation, but the
Standard of a perfect straight line isn't reasonable, nobody really expects horses to maintain exact straight lines yet sometimes racing rules require you to do so.

Did the 2 come out at all during the initial moment of contact? Because if he even came over an inch, he needed to come down and be placed behind the 6, I think you can make a case the 2 wasn't perfectly straight.

When I need Alex solis jr to come down and I'm sitting there watching things blink I do have to admit I wish his dad wasn't part of the CHRB.

Rise Over Run · 01-30-2017, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It was a weird call, that's for sure. It was a chain reaction which clearly impeded the

. The chain reaction was started by the

, who finished third, bumping into the

, who finished 2nd, and who then bumped the

, who finished 4th, hard. The

, who finished 5th, was behind them and was bothered a little, but I didn't see it costing him a place.

So in my mind, the

should have come down, and maybe the

, and they should have not have moved up the

. So the result should have been 5-3-1-2-6, not 5-2-3-6-1.

Watch the head on. The

maintained a straight path until the

was forced into a hole too narrow and contacted the rear end of the

. That forced the

over into the

and almost caused S. Elliot to come out of the saddle of the

. I still don't understand how the

was placed behind the

, because that horse really wasn't affected at all.

EasyGoer89 · 01-30-2017, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rise Over Run

Watch the head on. The

maintained a straight path until the

was forced into a hole too narrow and contacted the rear end of the

. That forced the

over into the

and almost caused S. Elliot to come out of the saddle of the

. I still don't understand how the

was placed behind the

, because that horse really wasn't affected at all.

The 6 took up when the 3 came out after getting bumped, the 6 was bothered for sure.

hopbet · 01-31-2017, 04:41 PM

The INQUIRY LASTED a good 10 minutes. I bet the six ( Senior Investment) , the six was taken down for interference against (Bobby the Brain). In my opinion , Bobby the Brain was NOT going to win the race, plus the jockey went to spot (hole ) that was just not there. Any opinions

EasyGoer89 · 02-02-2017, 04:36 PM

SA2 should be no change the 5 was done and being eased at wire he wasn't cost a board spot.

cj · 02-02-2017, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EasyGoer89

SA2 should be no change the 5 was done and being eased at wire he wasn't cost a board spot.

Agree on no change, but Prat should get a good talking too, that was dangerous. Riding the rail doesn't entitle a rider to squeeze through holes that don't exist.

EasyGoer89 · 02-02-2017, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj

Agree on no change, but Prat should get a good talking too, that was dangerous. Riding the rail doesn't entitle a rider to squeeze through holes that don't exist.

I agree.

dilanesp · 02-03-2017, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj

Agree on no change, but Prat should get a good talking too, that was dangerous. Riding the rail doesn't entitle a rider to squeeze through holes that don't exist.

I remember an incident from more than 20 years ago at Santa Anita.

Chris McCarron was on a horse named Book Collector. He did an even more egregious version of what Prat did, basically using his horse's body to open up a hole that wasn't there, and then riding through it for the win. Unsurprisingly to anyone, they took his number down.

The next race was a 1 1/2 mile turf race, and McCarron was riding Pay the Butler. He took the horse to the lead and was out in front by 4 or 5 lengths as they passed the stands the first time. As soon as Trevor announced that it was Chris McCarron on Pay the Butler in front as they passed the stands, the entire crowd booed him until he got to the clubhouse turn.

It's the only time I have ever seen that happen.

ultracapper · 02-10-2017, 04:48 PM

Prat gets DQ'd today in the 2nd on the bridge-jumped 1/5 unofficial show finisher.

If you refer to the BCC held there a few years ago, you would think Prat's actions in an effort to straighten his horse in the very first steps out of the gate would have avoided a DQ.

Another example of steward's inconsistency.

Disclaimer: I had no dog in that fight. I was just a spectator, an interested one when the inquiry sign went up, but still just a spectator.

SG4 · 02-10-2017, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ultracapper

Prat gets DQ'd today in the 2nd on the bridge-jumped 1/5 unofficial show finisher.

If you refer to the BCC held there a few years ago, you would think Prat's actions in an effort to straighten his horse in the very first steps out of the gate would have avoided a DQ.

Another example of steward's inconsistency.

Disclaimer: I had no dog in that fight. I was just a spectator, an interested one when the inquiry sign went up, but still just a spectator.

Unfortunately any time for the next X number of years any time a horse makes a turn out of the gate at Santa Anita people are going to be yelling about Shared Belief.

The DQ today was absolutely shocking, whether based on history from Breeders' Cup events or every single race card since. Doing this to a 1-5 favorite so they're pushed out of the money (bye bye minus pool) was not the best idea if they were trying to keep their inconsistency on the DL. This stinks to high hell & unfortunately will either set a bad precedent going forward, or will just be a one-off horrible decision.

dilanesp · 02-12-2017, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SG4

Unfortunately any time for the next X number of years any time a horse makes a turn out of the gate at Santa Anita people are going to be yelling about Shared Belief.

The DQ today was absolutely shocking, whether based on history from Breeders' Cup events or every single race card since. Doing this to a 1-5 favorite so they're pushed out of the money (bye bye minus pool) was not the best idea if they were trying to keep their inconsistency on the DL. This stinks to high hell & unfortunately will either set a bad precedent going forward, or will just be a one-off horrible decision.

Agreed.

Intellectually I understand it-- the

just missed 4th so you could argue the start cost him that much (which wasn't true with Shared Belief, who was well beaten by the third horse in the BCC). But this is a DQ that basically almost never happens in Southern California and the stewards will get a fair amount of criticism for being inconsistent.