|
|
08-08-2013, 03:55 PM
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,787
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stillriledup
It has to sting you that the rider of the runner up was Edgar "i always get in trouble" Prado and they rewarded him for yet another race where he got himself into a tough spot and had to take his horse up.
|
Actually it stings me more that Luis Saez went to the left-hand whip and opened the lane for Prado, then switched to the right-hand whip and kept flailing until the horse drifted into the very lane that Saez had helped to open in the first place. Prado didn't do anything wrong.
No fun being DQ'd on a 12/1 shot that probably would've won anyway, but them's the breaks. I wouldn't say it was a "no-brainer" but I thought it was the correct decision.
Last edited by RXB; 08-08-2013 at 03:57 PM.
Reason: corrected typo
|
|
|
08-08-2013, 04:10 PM
|
#17
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RXB
Actually it stings me more that Luis Saez went to the left-hand whip and opened the lane for Prado, then switched to the right-hand whip and kept flailing until the horse drifted into the very lane that Saez had helped to open in the first place. Prado didn't do anything wrong.
No fun being DQ'd on a 12/1 shot that probably would've won anyway, but them's the breaks. I wouldn't say it was a "no-brainer" but I thought it was the correct decision.
|
I'm of the mindset that a DQ is more often times, the wrong decision. At SRU downs, we let them race and we pay off the winners. You only would get taken down in a very extreme situation and this wasnt it.
Sorry about your DQ, it hurts to pick the winner at nice odds and not get paid.
|
|
|
08-08-2013, 04:49 PM
|
#18
|
Dead money
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 3,838
|
Without reading the whole thread just wondering how does it feel when the board goes blank?????? Welcome to my world
|
|
|
08-08-2013, 10:06 PM
|
#19
|
broken-down horseplayer
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Portland, OR area
Posts: 2,090
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckless
I had a vested interest in the outcome, keying Orino in both the Race 4-5 DD and Pick 3. I have been miserable since yesterday.
Having watched zillions of races over the years, as have many of us here on PA, I know one thing is just about 100% dead certain, and it is this:
When there is interference, even the slightest of bumping, that occurs very deep into the stretch, the offending party comes down. The closer the horses are to the finish line, it is even much more likely the perpetrator comes down. You could go to the bank on that.
There is always much less room for margin in the deep stretch than there is at the start of the race or down the backside.
While one might argue if a foul actually occurred, to me, sadly, it was a fait accompli that my horse was coming down.
Prado's horse at 3-5 or Orino being a longshot had absolutely nothing to do with the steward's decision.
|
I wish I shared your optimistic view of the steward's neutrality, but I don't. This race was a classic opportunity for the steward's to put dough back in more people's pockets for the churn. DQ'ing a horse like Orino simply encourages the jocks on beaten horses, especially heavy favorites, to stand up near the wire, and hopefully get put up on the inquiry/objection.
Watching the head on for the 3rd and 4th times on the low-res replay from TS, I still don't see enough for a DQ, and hardly enough for an inquiry. Looked like the chalk staggered on his own nearest the wire anyway, so there's no way he goes by the .
I've had my share of DQs, both deserved and undeserved, as well as being a beneficiary of having another horse DQ'ed and mine put up. But the whole process is such a farce and so inconsistent. And on some circuits, sometimes not always on the up and up.
Damn glad I didn't bet the on this race....
|
|
|
08-08-2013, 10:28 PM
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,242
|
You aren't seriously suggesting
dog race rules, are you?
You know humans aren't riding the dogs, right?
|
|
|
08-08-2013, 10:48 PM
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mukwonago, WI
Posts: 3,196
|
Had no intention of bringing this up, but the DQ cost me plenty.
My problem with the head-on view is that you can see the lawn mower lines, but the rail is not consistent with those, it weaves all the way down the stretch, so there was the illusion of a horse being cut off when in my opinion, the rail never really had enough room to begin with. Top it off with the winner scampering away as much the best. The was never going to get past the and certainly was not cost a better placing.
__________________
"I don't always frequent message boards, but when I do, I prefer PaceAdvantage."
|
|
|
08-08-2013, 10:56 PM
|
#22
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wisconsin
Had no intention of bringing this up, but the DQ cost me plenty.
My problem with the head-on view is that you can see the lawn mower lines, but the rail is not consistent with those, it weaves all the way down the stretch, so there was the illusion of a horse being cut off when in my opinion, the rail never really had enough room to begin with. Top it off with the winner scampering away as much the best. The was never going to get past the and certainly was not cost a better placing.
|
Not to mention that the shot they were using is not a direct head on shot, its really tricky watching tapes making decisions on pan shots, you need the direct head on, which they didnt have.
I agree, the inside horse wasnt getting thru, especially with that jock who is scared of his own shadow, the front running horse is not obligated to move over.
|
|
|
08-09-2013, 12:12 AM
|
#23
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stillriledup
Not to mention that the shot they were using is not a direct head on shot, its really tricky watching tapes making decisions on pan shots, you need the direct head on, which they didnt have.
I agree, the inside horse wasnt getting thru, especially with that jock who is scared of his own shadow, the front running horse is not obligated to move over.
|
I think the DQ was ok, could have gone either way given the terrible view we get. The horse on the lead drifted out and did leave room for a horse to come through, then closed it off when the horse began to actually come through.
I was going to comment on this same thing, the head on isn't a real head on. It is a bad angle to make that kind of decision. Some day racing will enter the 21st century, probably around 2200.
|
|
|
08-09-2013, 12:35 AM
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,787
|
I suspect that the different turf rail settings can make it difficult to get a precise head-on view.
|
|
|
08-09-2013, 12:38 AM
|
#25
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RXB
I suspect that the different turf rail settings can make it difficult to get a precise head-on view.
|
I guess that depends how you define difficult. For racing, yes, but for anyone else it would be pretty damn easy.
|
|
|
08-09-2013, 12:52 AM
|
#26
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,202
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I guess that depends how you define difficult. For racing, yes, but for anyone else it would be pretty damn easy.
|
Yes racing is like Baseball, slow to evolve...... (its OK to be wrong).
__________________
I hate losing more than I love winning......
|
|
|
08-09-2013, 12:55 AM
|
#27
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,911
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder
Or, if the outbobs the 3-5 horse for second, do the stewards bother since the chalk can't win?
Went back and watched the replays, both side and head-on and still don't see enough cause for the DQ. Would have hated to have taken the 12-1 risk in the stretching out, and get doinked like that. Saratoga doesn't have a "racing lane" like a 5/8 mile harness track, now do they? As always, opinions vary from the players. Just another example of why the human judgement should be removed from the equation, and "dog race finish" rules adopted for the payouts. Let the inquires and objections be dealt with afterwards, and only affect the purse distribution...
|
If the fav loses 2nd, then I think it's an easy dq, however as it happened, it's tough to say the fav would have won
|
|
|
08-09-2013, 07:32 AM
|
#28
|
broken-down horseplayer
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Portland, OR area
Posts: 2,090
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantombridgejumpe
You aren't seriously suggesting dog race rules, are you?
You know humans aren't riding the dogs, right?
|
Yes. Yes I am.
The only argument I know of to "original finish equals tote payoffs" is the potential for larceny by rough race riding. I don't buy that, though I freely admit I'm not a jockey. It's way too dangerous to ride any more aggressively than the riders due today, IMHO, with clipping heels and breakdowns leading to horrific accidents within fractions of a second. Just the other night a female jockey in Australia was killed when her horse shied and threw her 200 meters from the finish - unfortunately, she was leading at the time and was trampled.
I believe the potential for the stewards to make the wrong call is MUCH higher than the potential for larceny. "Original finish equals tote payoffs" would be consistent. If there is a questionable result, then the stewards and/or jockeys could enforce rules for safe riding after the fact.
And speaking of Australia, at least when they have a protest (objection), the stewards interview the jockeys in public, unlike their American counterparts.
And yes, I know humans aren't riding the dogs. But of course humans are giving Fido a pep pill now and then, or a big bowl of water before the race...
|
|
|
08-09-2013, 07:50 AM
|
#29
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,242
|
So....
Same rules in NASCAR too?
|
|
|
08-09-2013, 02:38 PM
|
#30
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder
Yes. Yes I am.
The only argument I know of to "original finish equals tote payoffs" is the potential for larceny by rough race riding. I don't buy that, though I freely admit I'm not a jockey. It's way too dangerous to ride any more aggressively than the riders due today, IMHO, with clipping heels and breakdowns leading to horrific accidents within fractions of a second. Just the other night a female jockey in Australia was killed when her horse shied and threw her 200 meters from the finish - unfortunately, she was leading at the time and was trampled.
I believe the potential for the stewards to make the wrong call is MUCH higher than the potential for larceny. "Original finish equals tote payoffs" would be consistent. If there is a questionable result, then the stewards and/or jockeys could enforce rules for safe riding after the fact.
And speaking of Australia, at least when they have a protest (objection), the stewards interview the jockeys in public, unlike their American counterparts.
And yes, I know humans aren't riding the dogs. But of course humans are giving Fido a pep pill now and then, or a big bowl of water before the race...
|
This is a great point you've touched on. I think that judges essentially "pass the baton" to the horseplayer and put the burden on the players to "police" the riders to make sure they are riding in safe fashion instead of leaving the betting alone, and policing the sport out of the public eye.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|