done with racing!

[Onesome]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

The Ghost of Still Riled Up (SRU) lives. I think he was banned a while back, but his catch phrase was "pay the winners!"

I agree that the "qualitative" assessment by stewards in North America only sheds more potential corruption in a sport which can't afford it, especially at the smaller tracks.

The surprising DQ of Maximum Security a couple of years ago in the Kentucky Derby signaled to me that the issue isn't seeing any improvement in racing.
(Full disclosure - I did agree with the decision per the CURRENT rules of racing, but was still surprised the CD stewards took him down, especially being the Derby and all)

My advice would be to look at some of the foreign race track circuits, where DQs are much less frequent, and pretty obvious. The stewards in Aussieland, Japan and Hong Kong have less motivation to interfere (pun intended) with the results. They let the riders ride!

Otherwise I can't argue with your decision to pursue sports and fantasy wagering, though of course there's been known (on occasion) to be just a wee bit of flim-flam with those investment opportunities.

GTFO if you think Maximum Security should have stayed out, it's a miracle that there was no equine and/or human injuries or worse when MS bore out like that in the stretch.

If what MS did is legal, jocks will ride to that standard and it become a free for all putting equine and human lives at risk.

For that - **** you.

Also please I would love to see something from HK (plenty of replays available) and Aussieland that isn't a dq there but a dq here.

[Inner Dirt]

I agree the contact was similar, in race 6, if the doesn't slam into the , the does not win but he definitely gets up for the place, he definitely had some decent run left in him when he was interfered with, so the deserved to be placed below the .



In race 8 the was kind of running even when contact was made and I noticed the jockey went to the whip just past mid way on the far turn. He was kind of grinding away late and slowly making up ground. He looked quite a few lengths short of catching the show horse. Without the contact he would have shortened the gap between him and the show horse but would not have caught him.

[delfman]

Am I really that biased because my 13-1 shot got taken down? I watched the replay several times from all angles. I never saw the even touch Irad's horse. Irad certainly sold the interference though. And still everyone seems convinced that the right handed whipping which caused the to drift in definitely caused the a better placing. I'd say possibly it did. Which is exactly the way I feel of the interference in the 8th race. No doubt in my mind that it possibly caused the a better placing. In the 8th the contact happened before the 1/8th pole so that horse had much more time to POSSIBLY get up for the show place. I also find it hilarious that the DRF chart says the was 3.5 lengths behind the 3rd place finisher. Watch the video, it is more like 2.25 or 2.5. So what the stewards determined then is that the interference only caused the , 2.5 to 3 lengths of ground loss compared with the rest of the field. From what I saw it was more like 6 or 7 lengths worth of interference caused.


My point ultimately being the decisions are clearly all judgement calls. And based on what? No rhyme or reason.
Did anyone watch this video from Del Mar?
I'm sure this was the catalyst for my whole rant to begin with. It was the prior time playing horses before Wednesday Saratoga.

YouTube

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Redboard

Class, we had this discussion before and I believe it is California that requires the offended horse be required to have been costed a position, in NY it's either or. (see below). So a horse can be taken down for a careless ride.


NY Horse Racing Rules & Regulations Results
Rule number 4035.2.

(a) When clear, a horse may be taken to any part of the course provided that crossing or weaving in front of contenders may constitute interference or intimidation for which the offender may be disciplined.

(b) A horse crossing another may be disqualified, if in the judgment of the stewards, it interferes with, impedes or intimidates another horse, or the foul altered the finish of the race, regardless of whether the foul was accidental, willful, or the result of careless riding. The stewards may also take into consideration mitigating factors, such as whether the impeded horse was partly at fault or the crossing was wholly caused by the fault of some other horse or jockey.

(c) If a horse or jockey jostles another horse, the aggressor may be disqualified, unless the impeded horse or jockey was partly in fault or the jostle was wholly caused by the fault of some other horse or jockey.

(d) A jockey shall not ride carelessly or willfully such that the jockey’s mount, equipment, or any item or object under his or her control interferes with, impedes, intimidates, or injures another horse or jockey in the race, including that a jockey shall not carelessly or willfully strike another horse or jockey or such other jockey’s equipment with his or her whip. The stewards may disqualify the horse ridden by the jockey who committed the foul if the foul was willful or careless OR may have altered the finish
of the race. The stewards may also take into consideration mitigating factors such as whether the impeded horse was partly at fault or if the foul was caused by the fault of some other horse or jockey.

https://www.gaming.ny.gov/pdf/legal/...%202019-08.pdf

What the rules say and how they are being applied are sometimes different.

I think “cost a position” is weighing heavily into their thinking. Personally I have less of a problem with that than some of the even more subjective and inconsistent alternatives I’ve seen. But again, I do think fines and suspensions have to be part of the process to ensure safety if you are going to be more lenient with DQ’s.

[v j stauffer]

FINALLY I got a chance to look at the two races at Saratoga:

Regarding Race 6

Every horse is entitled to a clear and unobstructed path. had that until drifted in several lanes. bumped and impeded causing her to check and lose position. Then the question becomes was cost an opportunity at a better placing. I definitely think so. When ran alongside that horse responded and was battling bravely to try to stay with certainly holding her own as both were gaining on The rider on really has some stones too because he didn't really take a hard hold until pushed him over the heels of Although it's close to the wire actually was coming again in the final few yards and galloped out strongly past both & IMHO The Stewards made the correct ruling.

Regarding Race 8:

This one to me was much more interesting and fun. This is where we get into the debate over "a foul is a foul & "better placing" First before going forward let me say as a current and former Steward A FOUL IS A FOUL is a terrible rule that doesn't work. It's why it doesn't exist anymore anywhere I know. If a horse is on it's way to a 10 length win and brushes a horse that WAS 10 in front but is now tiring badly. But the brush by the letter of the law could be considered a foul. Is it just to take that horse down and place it last when there's zero chance the "foul" altered the order of finish or cost the tiring front runner a better placing? Of course not. Race 8 though was MUCH closer and IMO a great learning tool. Did foul ? IMO 100% yes. shifted into the path of forcing that rival to check and lose position. So now the question is was cost an opportunity at a better placing. Boy that's a close one. I'd lean towards no but could not tell anyone they were wrong if they voted yes. At the time of the incident "seemed" pretty much all in and not making a forward advance. But of course we've all seen horses that "seemed" finished can find new energy and rally for a win. The margin from 3rd to 4th was 3 1/2 lengths. So now a steward has to decide do they think could have finished 3rd if the incident didn't happen. Is that a SUBJECTIVE viewpoint? You bet it is. That's what the stewards get paid to do. Make those tough calls. Until the rules are written differently they HAVE to make a decision based on training, expertise and years of watching thousands of races. If I was in the stand that day I "think" I would have voted to leave it as is. But for me it was very very close. One thing that swayed it for me. Was the effort the rider of made after the incident which was tepid as best. It tells me he didn't think he had much horse left under him. I'll tell you one thing I would do. Have a VERY stern talk with Mr. Santana the next morning. His ride was careless and dangerous. He was on a horse that was miles the best and rode like a bug boy when they straightened away. No excuse for a rider of his quality. There's no need for him to get the stewards involved and no need to make us have to decide about disqualifying a horse that was so much the best. I would have voted AS IS and for Santana to receive a careless riding suspension.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

FINALLY I got a chance to look at the two races at Saratoga:

Regarding Race 6

Every horse is entitled to a clear and unobstructed path. had that until drifted in several lanes. bumped and impeded causing her to check and lose position. Then the question becomes was cost an opportunity at a better placing. I definitely think so. When ran alongside that horse responded and was battling bravely to try to stay with certainly holding her own as both were gaining on The rider on really has some stones too because he didn't really take a hard hold until pushed him over the heels of Although it's close to the wire actually was coming again in the final few yards and galloped out strongly past both & IMHO The Stewards made the correct ruling.

So why not just make Cancel pay the the difference between Place and Show monies?

Do you think the was cost a 'win'?

[delfman]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

FINALLY I got a chance to look at the two races at Saratoga:

Regarding Race 6

Every horse is entitled to a clear and unobstructed path. had that until drifted in several lanes. bumped and impeded causing her to check and lose position. Then the question becomes was cost an opportunity at a better placing. I definitely think so. When ran alongside that horse responded and was battling bravely to try to stay with certainly holding her own as both were gaining on The rider on really has some stones too because he didn't really take a hard hold until pushed him over the heels of Although it's close to the wire actually was coming again in the final few yards and galloped out strongly past both & IMHO The Stewards made the correct ruling.

Regarding Race 8:

This one to me was much more interesting and fun. This is where we get into the debate over "a foul is a foul & "better placing" First before going forward let me say as a current and former Steward A FOUL IS A FOUL is a terrible rule that doesn't work. It's why it doesn't exist anymore anywhere I know. If a horse is on it's way to a 10 length win and brushes a horse that WAS 10 in front but is now tiring badly. But the brush by the letter of the law could be considered a foul. Is it just to take that horse down and place it last when there's zero chance the "foul" altered the order of finish or cost the tiring front runner a better placing? Of course not. Race 8 though was MUCH closer and IMO a great learning tool. Did foul ? IMO 100% yes. shifted into the path of forcing that rival to check and lose position. So now the question is was cost an opportunity at a better placing. Boy that's a close one. I'd lean towards no but could not tell anyone they were wrong if they voted yes. At the time of the incident "seemed" pretty much all in and not making a forward advance. But of course we've all seen horses that "seemed" finished can find new energy and rally for a win. The margin from 3rd to 4th was 3 1/2 lengths. So now a steward has to decide do they think could have finished 3rd if the incident didn't happen. Is that a SUBJECTIVE viewpoint? You bet it is. That's what the stewards get paid to do. Make those tough calls. Until the rules are written differently they HAVE to make a decision based on training, expertise and years of watching thousands of races. If I was in the stand that day I "think" I would have voted to leave it as is. But for me it was very very close. One thing that swayed it for me. Was the effort the rider of made after the incident which was tepid as best. It tells me he didn't think he had much horse left under him. I'll tell you one thing I would do. Have a VERY stern talk with Mr. Santana the next morning. His ride was careless and dangerous. He was on a horse that was miles the best and rode like a bug boy when they straightened away. No excuse for a rider of his quality. There's no need for him to get the stewards involved and no need to make us have to decide about disqualifying a horse that was so much the best. I would have voted AS IS and for Santana to receive a careless riding suspension.

since you seem to be the expert here, I'd love for you to explain why they took down the in that Del Mar race I linked to.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

So why not just make Cancel pay the the difference between Place and Show monies?

Do you think the was cost a 'win'?

No I don't. But that doesn't help those who had a the 2nd in all their wagers. And what about the owners of the . Difference in purse money is $6800. It's never going to be completely equitable. I think this is best. Far from perfect.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by delfman

since you seem to be the expert here, I'd love for you to explain why they took down the in that Del Mar race I linked to.

Not seem. I AM the expert here and I'd be happy to take a look at it.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by delfman

since you seem to be the expert here, I'd love for you to explain why they took down the in that Del Mar race I linked to.

Such a GROSS DQ for anyone that had who was obviously the best horse. What I've told riders forever is in the 150 year history of horse racing there has NEVER been a horse disqualified that ran STRAIGHT! was clearly outrunning her rivals. However the bug girl PYFER did not keep her mount STRAIGHT!. She drifted into the path of and clearly forced that rival to check very sharply and lose position. had forward momentum and very well could have finished 2nd. I don't think she could have won the race. For those who bet you were VERY fortunate. Not only was she not best she probably wasn't even 3rd best. This is one of those unfortunate anomalies where a horse that's clearly best doesn't get the win and a horse that wasn't gets "kissed" in. That's the way the rules are written. At the end of the day. was badly bothered and cost a chance to be 2nd or certainly 3rd. And DID NOT MAINTAIN A STRAIGHT COURSE. Gross DQ if you had the but correct.

[delfman]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Such a GROSS DQ for anyone that had who was obviously the best horse. What I've told riders forever is in the 150 year history of horse racing there has NEVER been a horse disqualified that ran STRAIGHT! was clearly outrunning her rivals. However the bug girl PYFER did not keep her mount STRAIGHT!. She drifted into the path of and clearly forced that rival to check very sharply and lose position. had forward momentum and very well could have finished 2nd. I don't think she could have won the race. For those who bet you were VERY fortunate. Not only was she not best she probably wasn't even 3rd best. This is one of those unfortunate anomalies where a horse that's clearly best doesn't get the win and a horse that wasn't gets "kissed" in. That's the way the rules are written. At the end of the day. was badly bothered and cost a chance to be 2nd or certainly 3rd. And DID NOT MAINTAIN A STRAIGHT COURSE. Gross DQ if you had the but correct.

I don't get it? It's a gross DQ but still correct?
you are saying you would have taken down the as well?
looked more like close quarters to me.
bad racing luck for the ?
you say she drifted into the path of the ?
you watched the head on?
and also it happened right before the wire.


Like I said I think I am done with American horse racing!
way too much BS involved!
NFL, NCAA football, and golf are easier and less stressful way to go from here on.


At the end of the day. was badly bothered

I guess you are a steward then.
seems to me you are a better handicapper than steward!

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

No I don't. But that doesn't help those who had a the 2nd in all their wagers. And what about the owners of the . Difference in purse money is $6800. It's never going to be completely equitable. I think this is best. Far from perfect.

I hear you. No perfect solution.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by delfman

I don't get it? It's a gross DQ but still correct?
you are saying you would have taken down the as well?
looked more like close quarters to me.
bad racing luck for the ?
you say she drifted into the path of the ?
you watched the head on?
and also it happened right before the wire.


Like I said I think I am done with American horse racing!
way too much BS involved!
NFL, NCAA football, and golf are easier and less stressful way to go from here on.


At the end of the day. was badly bothered

I guess you are a steward then.
seems to me you are a better handicapper than steward!

I'm glad I can amuse you delfman. You asked me to look at it and I did. I said it was gross because if you had the you were VERY unlucky since that horse was clearly best. It's not bad racing luck when the had a clear path to rally which was obstructed by drifting in contacting and impeding that rival. was badly bothered and certainly cost an opportunity at a better placing. Good luck on sports betting. You'll need it.

[delfman]

I find it hilarious that you would say the horse in that Del Mar race was badly bothered but yet say that the in Saratoga's 8th race should have stayed up.
What exact evidence do you propose, where the 100% was not going to get 3rd?
I thank you for your replies to my inquiries.

[delfman]

Sar 8th race if you watch, right before contact was made Javier was about to strike right handed with a good smack, then all hell broke loose for him.
Javier said after the race that the was definitely coming down. his opinion means nothing?
Also, it means nothing that the was still able to run 4th even after losing 7 to 8 lengths due to being knocked off stride?


I started this thread because I was hoping for some explanation to decisions made by stewards. Not to cry about being taken down. It's happened plenty of times to me. Hardly ever get put up because of a DQ.
yes you do amuse me, but then so do most people.
I should have stopped reading right after you said I AM the expert here.