Strange race at Belmont

[cj]

From Saturday, Race 7, comment on the winner:

RELAXED GESTURE (IRE) lunged through the stall doors at the start, was off in a tangle, was outrun early, advanced three wide, moved to the front when called on and drew clear under confident handling, ridden out.

It sure looks like on the replay he broke the gate open a tad before the other gates actually opened. I'm curious why the horse wasn't declared a non-starter. I'm not saying the start helped him, it certainly did not, but it seems there should be a rule in place for something like this.

[Valuist]

TVG showed the replay several times and were sure he'd get DQ'd. He did break thru slightly ahead of the field but then he jumped. Realistically I don't think he got an unfair advantage. If he had gone wire to wire, I'm sure they would've DQ'd him. But I think the stewards made the correct call.

[cj]

I'm probably cynical, but something tells me his .55 to 1 odds influenced the decision. It seems to me that if you break through the gate before the start, you are out, period. Should it matter which style the horse runs?

[Valuist]

I suppose it's letter of the law vs spirit of the law. According to the rules, you are probably correct. But realistically, he did not gain any advantage. Maybe if he won by a nose they'd have taken him down also. Maybe the odds played some role but the inquiry was so brief that I think they really didn't have any doubt.

[cj]

So what if that happened, and he lost? Do you then not give the money back? I just like as little judgement as possible to be used by the stewards!

[Valuist]

They definitely used judgement. But let's say he was 15-1 and you had him and he won. You see the inquiry go up and you know he had no unfair advantage. If he'd been taken down, wouldn't you have been furious at the stewards? I think, for the most part, the NY stewards are among the best.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why have stewards at all, if they aren't supposed to use some judgement every now and then?

I watched the head-on, and it does seem the Relaxed Gesture broke open his gate a split second prior to the gates opening on all the other stalls.

However, it is obvious he gained no advantage from his fraction of a second head start, as he broke very awkwardly behind the field. If anything, it cost him.

And CJ, if he had LOST, then YES, there might be a case to be made that he be declared a non starter, as the gate mishap clearly impeded him at the start. This is the reason we have stewards.

[cj]

It is my opinion that how the horse finished should not be a factor in the decision of the stewards. Why is that wrong? He should either by rule declared a non-starter or not, and because of what he did at the start, not based on how he finished.

Judgement calls should be kept to a minimum, and this is a case where you don't really need to have the stewards judge anything other than did he start early, or did he not. He clearly did, and rearing afterwards, well, he might have DONE THAT ANYWAY, in which case he did have an advantage. I know it is unlikely, but it is possible.

[NoDayJob]

It's easy to second guess the stewards, especially when you haven't walked in their shoes.

NDJ

[cj]

Thanks for the insightful commentary.

[toetoe]

Agree with cj. The tangled break should occur a split second later, leading to who-knows-what? And advantage is impossible to quantify, even for those playing God. The only time to ignore a no-no is when A impedes B, and B beats A anyway. Officials in the real world (educators, jurists, etc.) I want to show judgement. Racing stewards? Oh, no.

[turfspec]

THOROUGHBRED





4009.21 Refund [failure of starting gate] Non-starter



When a horse starts. Every horse shall be considered a starter when the stall gates open on the signal of the starter, unless the stewards declare a horse or horses non-starters because, in their opinion, their chances were compromised leaving the starting gate. If so, all bets on the non-starters will be refunded unless the horse wins. For placing and program purposes the non-starters will be considered to have run for purse only.

Seems to indicate the Stewards have some discretion in the matter.

Rob

[cj]

This wouldn't really apply in this spot as the gate opened BEFORE the signal.

[turfspec]

I agree. There appears to be no perfect fit in the current rules covering the scenario you described. The quoted clause was the nearest fit under the article concerning the starting gate. I merely offer it as an indication of the sreward's discretion. Note the statements "in their opinion, their chances were compromised leaving the starting gate" and "unless the horse wins". If the specific instance is not covered specifically in the rules I imagine the stewards could use this to rationalize the use of their discretionary powers.

As a bettor, I wish every circumstance was clearly spelled out in the rules but recognize that is impossible. Had a horse Dq'd at AP last weekend (I agree with the foul call by the way) that won by open lengths. Foul probably didn't affect the win but was clearly a foul. Believe I've seen this situation discussed here before. Guess we're stuck with the stewards and their discretionary power, like umpires, refs et al for the forseeable future.

Rob

[Valuist]

Are stewards not the equivalent of umpires in baseball or referees in football or basketball? Not everything is black and white and they have to make judgement calls. I agree with PA on this one.