The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[davew]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

What's a cultivation line?

When the tractors go around the track, they are pulling an implement which is attached to their drawbar. Whatever they were using (cultivator or harrow) left parallel lines in the track. Those lines are a little lower than surrounding stuff but are basically the same distance from the rail all the way around the turn. If you watch the horses feet, you can see it moved in 'lines' making it closer to the rail.

You see those lines all the time unless it was a sloppy track that has been 'sealed', or a second/third lap on longer race.


Vic, roughly what percentage of stewards are ex-jockeys? I could see their experience determining if a horse did something on its own or from jockey urging would be helpful.

[ScottJ]

Taking the video evidence submitted earlier in this thread with the field early in the turn and exiting the turn, you can get a pretty clear view of the action.

The red lines count five harrow lines from Brick Ambush down to the rail.

You can see that the approximately 50 harrow lines are consistent in both images.

Translation #1 : Brick Ambush had a consistent arc through the entire turn from image to image.

Translation #2 : That is not applying any pressure to the inside horses which is clearly evident from the screen grabs.

Meanwhile, Antonio in Venice is clearly inside the front runner early and outside of the frontrunner exiting the turn. What more evidence can one possibly supply as to where the foul occurred and who committed the infraction?

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by davew

I agree with ruling. Looking at the cultivation lines, Brick Ambush came in 2-3 feet nearing top of stretch before cleared. Luckily no horses clipped heals and/or caused a chain reaction crash.

You asked for the harrow count and have ignored the actual data. Do you realize how many paths three feet would entail - or better, how many harrow rows?

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by cj

In all my years watching racing, I've never once heard the term pressure used to explain a DQ until this one.

The reason one never heard the word "pressure" used was that a new (and different) word was needed to avoid the herding discussion.

Little did I realize that stewarding training experience clarifies that herding is just fine but pressure is outside the rules. Those sporting the steward title must be exposed to some amazing video training seminars.

Why not share that information with us - you remember us? Owners, trainers, bettors? (Answer : Because this training is complete bull feathers.)

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by davew

When the tractors go around the track, they are pulling an implement which is attached to their drawbar. Whatever they were using (cultivator or harrow) left parallel lines in the track. Those lines are a little lower than surrounding stuff but are basically the same distance from the rail all the way around the turn. If you watch the horses feet, you can see it moved in 'lines' making it closer to the rail.

You see those lines all the time unless it was a sloppy track that has been 'sealed', or a second/third lap on longer race.


Vic, roughly what percentage of stewards are ex-jockeys? I could see their experience determining if a horse did something on its own or from jockey urging would be helpful.

Quite a few. I'd say maybe 25 to 35%.

I've never worked with one who I didn't think brought a lot to the table.

It's like the NFL analysts who are almost all ex-players.

No matter how much a guy like me may "think" he knows.

There's no substitute for being in the game.

Thanks for explaining cultivation lines.

They play a very big role. I just always called them lines from the harrow.

Tracks that don't present that edge I would sometimes simply put my pen on the screen and leave it stationary. Kinda serves the same visual purpose.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

The reason one never heard the word "pressure" used was that a new (and different) word was needed to avoid the herding discussion.

Little did I realize that stewarding training experience clarifies that herding is just fine but pressure is outside the rules. Those sporting the steward title must be exposed to some amazing video training seminars.

Why not share that information with us - you remember us? Owners, trainers, bettors? (Answer : Because this training is complete bull feathers.)

Herding is 100% a foul and watched for by all Stewards.

It's just pressure from a different side.

Imminently less dangerous than horses pinched back on the rail because for them there's nowhere to go to get out.

As for the training of Stewards. I stand by my previous take that most are highly trained and very competent.

You can't judge all MLB umpires by watching Angel Hernandez.

Just like you can't bunch all Stewards because some make bad decisions.

I look at replays 100% from an unbiased eye.

I've been called an apologist for Stewards. I don't think that's fair just because I agree with them most of the time.

I agree most of the time. Because they get it right the VAST majority of the time.

[the little guy]

Seems to me something important is being missed while endless posts are being written about a call that pretty much everyone sees as completely wrong. How were the three Stewards unanimous in making this call ( this is according to the Gaming Commission release )? How did all three see a call the same way that maybe 5% of the rest of the world see it? You don't have to be a mathematical wizard to know that's problematic.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by davew

When the tractors go around the track, they are pulling an implement which is attached to their drawbar. Whatever they were using (cultivator or harrow) left parallel lines in the track. Those lines are a little lower than surrounding stuff but are basically the same distance from the rail all the way around the turn. If you watch the horses feet, you can see it moved in 'lines' making it closer to the rail.

You see those lines all the time unless it was a sloppy track that has been 'sealed', or a second/third lap on longer race.


Vic, roughly what percentage of stewards are ex-jockeys? I could see their experience determining if a horse did something on its own or from jockey urging would be helpful.

Here's another aspect of film watching by Stewards that I'm sure most people don't realize.

Other than at the start where the rule we tell riders is the first jump is yours the second ours. So you better correct immediately.

For all other inquiries/objections the actions of the riders are completely meaningless.

We watch the race as though the horses don't even have jockeys on their back. We look for did a horse maintain a straight path with sufficient clearance or not?

Was a horse's progress impeded by a rival and did that cost him a chance at a better placing or not.

A good example of that is Maximum Security's DQ in the Derby. He clearly shied/ducked away from something passing the quarter pole. It's a move that no competent jockey, especially at the level, would ever make. It was equally dangerous for Saez as it was for the impeded horses.

Yes he got days but IMO that was a CYA move by the CD Stewards who were already dealing with a massive shit storm and didn't need to make it way worse by absolving him. Regular allowance race on a regular day he NEVER gets suspended.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Seems to me something important is being missed while endless posts are being written about a call that pretty much everyone sees as completely wrong. How were the three Stewards unanimous in making this call ( this is according to the Gaming Commission release )? How did all three see a call the same way that maybe 5% of the rest of the world see it? You don't have to be a mathematical wizard to know that's problematic.

I think the answer to that is two fold. 1) Brook Hawkins was in Aruba. 2) Fill in Stewards can be very intimidated by the regular full time guys.

This reeks of Baeza pressuring the other two.

Also, in most stands if it's truly 2-1. The 1 will relent and say screw it. Let's go with unanimous. Less paperwork in the minutes. Less tough questions to be asked.

I think it's a total cop-out. But I've seen it happen many times.

Less so in Ca. But it's happened there as well.

[cj]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Seems to me something important is being missed while endless posts are being written about a call that pretty much everyone sees as completely wrong. How were the three Stewards unanimous in making this call ( this is according to the Gaming Commission release )? How did all three see a call the same way that maybe 5% of the rest of the world see it? You don't have to be a mathematical wizard to know that's problematic.

Bingo.

[davew]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Taking the video evidence submitted earlier in this thread with the field early in the turn and exiting the turn, you can get a pretty clear view of the action.

The red lines count five harrow lines from Brick Ambush down to the rail.

You can see that the approximately 50 harrow lines are consistent in both images.

Translation #1 : Brick Ambush had a consistent arc through the entire turn from image to image.

Translation #2 : That is not applying any pressure to the inside horses which is clearly evident from the screen grabs.

Meanwhile, Antonio in Venice is clearly inside the front runner early and outside of the frontrunner exiting the turn. What more evidence can one possibly supply as to where the foul occurred and who committed the infraction?

I did not say count them, I suggested following them and the front feet when they make contact while watching the replay. The screen grabs you have are after contact. Brick Ambush came in and then returned out between the quarter pole and 3/16th pole. It is true that the rear end contact made Brick Ambush move in on the front.

I disagree with rulings at GP on 12/29/23 in race 3. The stewards said 5 Cantaro made contact while pushing through hole that was not there. 4 Portofino made contact in stretch a couple times after initial contact by 5. When 5 made its move on rail nearing the top of stretch, there was room for it as 4 had drifted out leaving room near the rail. I would have DQ'd 4 behind 5.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by davew

I did not say count them, I suggested following them and the front feet when they make contact while watching the replay. The screen grabs you have are after contact. Brick Ambush came in and then returned out between the quarter pole and 3/16th pole. It is true that the rear end contact made Brick Ambush move in on the front.

I disagree with rulings at GP on 12/29/23 in race 3. The stewards said 5 Cantaro made contact while pushing through hole that was not there. 4 Portofino made contact in stretch a couple times after initial contact by 5. When 5 made its move on rail nearing the top of stretch, there was room for it as 4 had drifted out leaving room near the rail. I would have DQ'd 4 behind 5.

So, are you saying the DQ of was correct?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

What's a cultivation line?

I think its been explained by another poster.
I just call them "harrow lines"
Quite frankly, while they can be sort of a guide to determine a horse's path, in my view, the hoof prints are the most telling
For turf races, it becomes more of a challenge.
I like you idea of using a pen or other straight instrument to use as a guide.
Preface. Often, race commentators talk about the actions taken by the rider. For example. "see, he's using a left handed whip here. At this point the horse moves to the right."
As a Steward, does this and other actions taken by a jockey go into your decision making process?

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by thespaah

I think its been explained by another poster.
I just call them "harrow lines"
Quite frankly, while they can be sort of a guide to determine a horse's path, in my view, the hoof prints are the most telling
For turf races, it becomes more of a challenge.
I like you idea of using a pen or other straight instrument to use as a guide.
Preface. Often, race commentators talk about the actions taken by the rider. For example. "see, he's using a left handed whip here. At this point the horse moves to the right."
As a Steward, does this and other actions taken by a jockey go into your decision making process?

Not for the purposes of placings. We look at the horses as though they don't have jockeys on their backs.

You're either sufficiently clear or you're not.

You're either cost an opportunity for a better placing or not.

Actions of the jockeys are addressed the next morning at film review.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Not for the purposes of placings. We look at the horses as though they don't have jockeys on their backs.

You're either sufficiently clear or you're not.

You're either cost an opportunity for a better placing or not.

Actions of the jockeys are addressed the next morning at film review.

December 16th, 2023, 6:54pm : "As a Steward who never rode I always valued speaking to the riders. Of course I expect them to advocate for their cause. However, I would often look at things from a different perspective based on what they'd say."

January 8th, 2024, 11:01pm : "We look at the horses as though they don't have jockeys on their backs. You're either sufficiently clear or you're not."

Meanwhile, you had the temerity to refer to my posting as nonsense.

Weak stewardship emerges where there is an inability to employ critical thinking skills and adjudicate rules consistently and in accordance with the rules of racing.