DQ at Monmouth Race 3 on May 23

[Imriledup]

What ever happened to leaving them up if the incident 'doesn't affect the outcome'?

Do different jurisdictions have different rules? I don't get it. Why punish the bettors?

[KMS]

Originally Posted by Imriledup

What ever happened to leaving them up if the incident 'doesn't affect the outcome'?

Do different jurisdictions have different rules? I don't get it. Why punish the bettors?

Rest assured, if I had been betting, it would have gone the other way. I don't think I've ever had an inaquiry decided to my benefit.

[larman]

Had to be the worst ride Ive seen. Fine the incompetent Jockey,
dont punish the bettor!!!!!!!111

[whyhorseofcourse]

Seen it on TVG, the annoucer said "It was an awfully chalky start to the pick 4" . I was like WTF with a 19/1 shot winning. I can not believe they took that horse down.

[Imriledup]

They rewarded a 'slow' horse. The only reason the winner came over on that runner is because he ran by him. So, the 2nd place finisher 'benefitted' from being too slow to keep up to the first place finisher's stretch move.


Great job Monmouth.

[jballscalls]

Mr. B did not agree with the DQ

[saratoga guy]

I was doing an internet handicapping show and was commenting on the inquiry as the stews were looking at the tapes.

From the pan shot I commented that I probably wouldn't take the horse down. But since the second-place finisher didn't really quit, it would be a close call.

Then when I saw the head-on it became more apparent that the #4 completely took away the path of the #2.

If it was me I probably still would have left it alone -- but it was a coin-flip. I didn't view it as a "blown call". Either way wouldn't have surprised me.

[Imriledup]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

I was doing an internet handicapping show and was commenting on the inquiry as the stews were looking at the tapes.

From the pan shot I commented that I probably wouldn't take the horse down. But since the second-place finisher didn't really quit, it would be a close call.

Then when I saw the head-on it became more apparent that the #4 completely took away the path of the #2.

If it was me I probably still would have left it alone -- but it was a coin-flip. I didn't view it as a "blown call". Either way wouldn't have surprised me.

What path? didn't the leader run past the horse on the rail?

I guess my original question was does NJ have different rules regarding "costing a horse a placing" as far as DQs go? This horse who was 'bothered' was not cost a placing...he was bothered because he wasn't fast enough to keep up to the winner.

[saratoga guy]

Originally Posted by Imriledup

What path? didn't the leader run past the horse on the rail?

It's hard to make the case that the #4 was clear when he took away the path of the #2.

Originally Posted by Imriledup

I guess my original question was does NJ have different rules regarding "costing a horse a placing" as far as DQs go? This horse who was 'bothered' was not cost a placing...he was bothered because he wasn't fast enough to keep up to the winner.

I'm not sure what the NJ rules are -- whether or not they allow "stewards discretion". But even if they do -- one of the problems I have with "stewards discretion" is just a case like this. The #2 never quit. Horse do come back in the stretch. Stewards discretion should be used when the result is absolutely clear cut. Here, the #4 only pulled away after taking away the path of the #2 on the rail. And even then the #2 didn't quit.

As I said, I probably would have leaned slightly towards leaving it alone -- but I have no problem with the DQ decision. It was a coin-flip in my opinion and the stewards decision was more in line with my idea of "stewards discretion".

[saratoga guy]

It's also probably worth noting that the jock on the DQ'd horse was a 7-pound apprentice showing only seven rides this year.

The horse was in the middle of the lane when they turned for home and a more experienced jock might have been able to keep him running straight, thus avoiding the question altogether.

[menifee]

This was one of the worse DQ's I've seen. That horse was much the best. I didn't have any money on the race.

[Imriledup]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

It's hard to make the case that the #4 was clear when he took away the path of the #2.



I'm not sure what the NJ rules are -- whether or not they allow "stewards discretion". But even if they do -- one of the problems I have with "stewards discretion" is just a case like this. The #2 never quit. Horse do come back in the stretch. Stewards discretion should be used when the result is absolutely clear cut. Here, the #4 only pulled away after taking away the path of the #2 on the rail. And even then the #2 didn't quit.

As I said, I probably would have leaned slightly towards leaving it alone -- but I have no problem with the DQ decision. It was a coin-flip in my opinion and the stewards decision was more in line with my idea of "stewards discretion".

Wasn't the horse who eventually ended up in front BEHIND the inside horse entering the stretch? This wasn't a case of a frontrunner who was tiring while the inside horse was rallying up the rail, was it?

The horse who was supposedly bothered had the lead entering the stretch and then was passed.......that horse had every chance to 'match strides' with the horse on the outside for the entire first half of the lane and didn't do that. He was too slow to keep up.

If the inside horse was the better horse he wouldn't have let that other horse run past him.

[saratoga guy]

Originally Posted by Imriledup

Wasn't the horse who eventually ended up in front BEHIND the inside horse entering the stretch? This wasn't a case of a frontrunner who was tiring while the inside horse was rallying up the rail, was it?

Actually the #4 [on the outside] tried to go by at the quarter pole -- and was called as the leader -- but couldn't close the deal. They were about even as they entered the stretch. The #4 edged past at the 1/8th pole and then drifted in -- taking away the lane of the #2.

Originally Posted by Imriledup

The horse who was supposedly bothered had the lead entering the stretch and then was passed.......that horse had every chance to 'match strides' with the horse on the outside for the entire first half of the lane and didn't do that. He was too slow to keep up.

If the inside horse was the better horse he wouldn't have let that other horse run past him.

That's how it works sometimes -- a horse gets passed and then rallies in the stretch to win. Part of that equation is the horse gets passed! But there can't be a rally if the lane is taken away. If the front-runner is clear, that's good race-riding. In this case the front-runner wasn't quite clear.