LUIS SAEZ SUSPENDED FOR 15 DAYS!!!!

[DGroundhog]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

There is zero evidence of racial discrimination here, and extensive evidence of both prior misconduct by Saez and dishonest conduct by Saez and his lawyers in this proceeding.

15 days is perfectly justified.

I would also point to those accusations of 'prior misconduct' as evidence of prior bias by stewards. It's not like CD stewards are a shining example of diversity.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by DGroundhog

I would also point to those accusations of 'prior misconduct' as evidence of prior bias by stewards. It's not like CD stewards are a shining example of diversity.

The prior suspensions were appealable if the evidence didn't support them.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

If they were going to DQ every jockey who won the Derby who wasn't white then there would have been one heck of a lot of DQs going all the way back to the 1870s.

To think that there is no racism in horse racing is naïve. Much has been written on why black jockeys disappeared from racing.

Here is one example called "The Lost History of Black Jockeys":

https://www.amren.com/news/2009/06/the_lost_histor/

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by highnote

To think that there is no racism in horse racing is naïve. Much has been written on why black jockeys disappeared from racing.

Here is one example called "The Lost History of Black Jockeys":

https://www.amren.com/news/2009/06/the_lost_histor/

Care to point out where I said there was no racism in horse racing either now or in the 19th Century.


But if somebody claims that Saez came down because he's non-white then that person needs to explain how it is that none of the other non-white jockeys who have won the race over the last 144 years were taken down, or why the only other jockey to be awarded the victory via DQ was Hispanic whereas the jockey who came down was white. If racism was the answer to everything then Dancer's Image would have stayed up and they'd have buried the drug test results.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Care to point out where I said there was no racism in horse racing either now or in the 19th Century.


But if somebody claims that Saez came down because he's non-white then that person needs to explain how it is that none of the other non-white jockeys who have won the race over the last 144 years were taken down, or why the only other jockey to be awarded the victory via DQ was Hispanic whereas the jockey who came down was white. If racism was the answer to everything then Dancer's Image would have stayed up and they'd have buried the drug test results.

Care to point out where I said you said there was racism?

[Tom]

This thread needs to be DQ'd.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by highnote

To think that there is no racism in horse racing is naïve. Much has been written on why black jockeys disappeared from racing.

Here is one example called "The Lost History of Black Jockeys":

https://www.amren.com/news/2009/06/the_lost_histor/

Nobody is claiming there is no racism in racing. There is no evidence of racism in his case unless you claim that there is just because the jockey is Latino.

[Raider]

Originally Posted by Tom

This thread needs to be DQ'd.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Nobody is claiming there is no racism in racing. There is no evidence of racism in his case unless you claim that there is just because the jockey is Latino.

Agreed.

[NY BRED]

As it appears this thread may still be live, one continual problem I have with CD is an owner must accept the final ruling of the steward(s). for the
Kentucky Derby which does not apply to any other races on "Derby" day, or for that matter, and other races during the meet, and/or any other Track in America.

Frankly, I was unaware of this ruling until this year.


Why would any owner risk running their horses in the Derby based upon this
debacle?


Placing your horse in a Breeders Cup race can produce substantial income and status, especially when you elect to breed your champion.

Equally important is the fact your horse is almost seven months older when competing in those events, and hopefully less prone to injury.

Most importantly, you have the ability to question to speak/question or, if necessary litigate your case, presuming you did not waive your rights as is the case in The Kentucky Derby.

Then again you can always cash you losing CD ticket for 10.00 and party all night.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by NY BRED

As it appears this thread may still be live, one continual problem I have with CD is an owner must accept the final ruling of the steward(s). for the
Kentucky Derby which does not apply to any other races on "Derby" day, or for that matter, and other races during the meet, and/or any other Track in America.

Frankly, I was unaware of this ruling until this year.


Why would any owner risk running their horses in the Derby based upon this
debacle?


Placing your horse in a Breeders Cup race can produce substantial income and status, especially when you elect to breed your champion.

Equally important is the fact your horse is almost seven months older when competing in those events, and hopefully less prone to injury.

Most importantly, you have the ability to question to speak/question or, if necessary litigate your case, presuming you did not waive your rights as is the case in The Kentucky Derby.

Then again you can always cash you losing CD ticket for 10.00 and party all night.

These horses are owned by savvy rich people. If Kentucky's rules were a problem they wouldn't run or would use their significant influence to get them changed.

The last thing owners actually want is to have their purse money tied up while race results get litigated. The KY rule reflects that. Finality has value for everyone.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Tom

This thread needs to be DQ'd.

So does a certain poster, obviously...another troll...like this board needs any more...we're all full at the moment.

And people say the reputation system here is broken? I think not. It actually works quite well, for my purposes.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

So does a certain poster, obviously...another troll...like this board needs any more...we're all full at the moment.

And people say the reputation system here is broken? I think not. It actually works quite well, for my purposes.

So I noticed. You scored 105!

[bpiets]

it appears that this is all old news and the rules that were applied always have been there for them to be applied...but as a trainer or more implyed , the rules were not applied because many a trainer or owner or jock did not apply themselveslves to do so.....that just mrans many a gambler betting horses were out of pocket and others won a bonus in every race where a ligit foul would have been called....and not just graded races or high priced stakes / allowance / two year old races etc....

[bpiets]

besides...time to move on to the Belmont and other upcoming races that may put a few dollars into our pockets, better mine than yours........and for those interested on doing followups should wait till Mr & Mrs. West go about thier attempts as they are the persons who are sending messages to all the other owners / trainers / jocks / administrators of the rules and regulations track side / gov. agencies who make up the laws governing the lawful running of horse racing in thier states and nation at large etc etc.......put the issues aside and give members a break with some input that is insightful etc But new news...