Well, i am getting what I deserve.
the non-DQ cost me five figures.
The head on that I was looking at showed the 8 horse, Tourist, completely and unequivocally slam into the 7 horse, A Lot, coming out of the gate and A Lot promptly lost A Lot of lengths. Did I not see it right? There was clearly harsh contact and the contact clearly cost more lengths than the margin of victory......am I missing something?
If you are allowed to molest other horses like that, why doesn\'t every outside horse just slam into the horse inside of it? If it is a freebie, why not take it?
Again, what am i missing?
New York is extremely discouraging. Only a very troubled masochist would go back for more.
I think the answer to your question actually has two parts. Bill Mott & Grade 1.
Enough said.
Bayern changed all the rules with respect to the start of the race.
I had zero money on A Lot and have money still pending on Tourist\'s win. I believe he should have been Dairy Queen\'d.
Agree what occurred pales in comparison to Bayern
KK4510 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the answer to your question actually has
> two parts. Bill Mott & Grade 1.
> Enough said.
so Bill Mott is allowed to commit infractions in Grade I races? Horse would have been DQ\'ed if the race was Grade II or if the trainer were different?
Fairmount1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bayern changed all the rules with respect to the
> start of the race.
>
> I had zero money on A Lot and have money still
> pending on Tourist\'s win. I believe he should
> have been Dairy Queen\'d.
What was announced at the track? The stewards thought there was enough to call for an inquiry. Did they explain the decision? The DRF chart described what happened as Tourist plowed into A Lot.
It seems like a crazy standard that a horse is allowed to plow into another and it is acceptable behavior. At some point, doesnt that imperil safety of horse and rider?
If the race had been decided by a head, I think Tourist comes down. That it was open space, the stewards judged that since the infraction occurred at the start of the race, there was ample time for A Lot to recover. The non-call cost me money but I\'d rather the stewards let a race like this stand than make a winner based on what could have been.
Yep. That\'s bullshit.
At some point in time, someone decided to call it \"race riding\". It\'s really cheating but, in the words of Danny Dalton, \"Corruption is why we win.\"
That\'s why they have disqualifications. It\'s the penalty for committing an infraction. If it were enforced I bet you\'d have fewer incidents.
What I saw is the horses on the inside came out at the same time Tourist came in SLIGHTLY.
You guys need to watch with a more critical eye and stop wishing for half the races to have DQ tainted results.
If you really watch the head on, you\'ll see it was King Kresa coming out at the start, causing everyone to bunch up.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I saw is the horses on the inside came out
> at the same time Tourist came in SLIGHTLY.
>
> You guys need to watch with a more critical eye
> and stop wishing for half the races to have DQ
> tainted results.
>
> If you really watch the head on, you\'ll see it was
> King Kresa coming out at the start, causing
> everyone to bunch up.
Slightly? You\'re serious?
Yes, the #1 AND the #2 came out at the start. Saying Tourist came in \"slightly\" is just plain ridiculous. He came over a full path, 4 strides out of the gate, and slammed into the #7.
You can talk all you want about the inside 2 horses coming out. That had NOTHING to do with the #8 coming in a full path, into the lane of the #7 horse, and CLEARLY makes substantial contact with the #7.
I\'m not a DQ fan, but if you want to stop the cowboy antics out of the gate you need to start DQing the offenders.
I didn\'t have a dime on the race.
I suspect the stewards saw it the same way I did, that the pressure from the inside made the \'modest\' left turn look a lot worse than it really was.
Tried to look at the \'stewards corner\' on NYRA but getting a \'page not found\'.
From NYRA Steward\'s Decisions:
Stewards inquiry and jockey objection from the 2nd place finisher #7 A lot (Javier Castellano) against #8 Tourist (Joel Rosario) for alleged inference leaving the gate. The #1 King Kreesa (Irad Ortiz) broke out and the #8 Tourist broke in causing crowding leaving the starting gate. After viewing all video angles and speaking to the riders involved in the judgment of the Stewards no further action was warranted.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I saw is the horses on the inside came out
> at the same time Tourist came in SLIGHTLY.
>
> You guys need to watch with a more critical eye
> and stop wishing for half the races to have DQ
> tainted results.
>
> If you really watch the head on, you\'ll see it was
> King Kresa coming out at the start, causing
> everyone to bunch up.
I went back and watched the head on again.
Preliminary comment -- the head on is at a bad/strange angle, so it is possible that what one is seeing is distorted by the angle.
From the head on that I saw, the 7 (A Lot) came over to his left and moved into the 6 lane, the 8 (Tourist) came over across the empty 7 lane, crashed (or plowed if you prefer the chart caller terminology) into A Lot IN THE 6 lane and pushed A Lot into the 5 lane at which point he was met by resistance from the other horses having no place to go (and then squeezing back and losing time and space). At that point, Tourist had come over from the 8 lane to the 5 lane, I find unlikely to be relevant to the Stewards\' inquiry and the Jockey objection what was happening inside the 5 lane.
Secondary comment -- the gate was situated in such a way that they used only the outside six stalls in the starting gate. As far as I could tell, they located the gate so that the 1 gate lane was actually 3 path on the oval. If this race had had its full compliment of 9 horses, the gate would have had to have been situated in a completely different way. It seemed that since they only had 6 horses, they decided to use only the outside six stalls of the gate and then some Einstein decided the best location for the gate was as close to the outside rail as possible. While I can understand such gate placement/configuration in races that start on a turn (e.g. 10 furlongs at Belmont), it seems to me like a very weird gate placement for the race in question. I suspect there is some starting gate placement arcana that I am unaware of at play -- but as an uninformed viewer it seems possible that the gate placement could have encouraged the mayhem that followed. You could imagine that the 1 horse just wants to run a straight path....but in this case, that path is the 3 path....the outside horses, already further outside than they should have been in a 6 horse field want to save ground -- so the gate placement does appear to be a recipe for trouble, but again, I am no expert on gate placement, so maybe there are other considerations going on that are also important.
Now with all this -- the Stewards thought that there was some reason to call for an inquiry and the jockey on the 7 thought there was some reason to claim foul agains the 8. At that point, it seems to me the logical course would be for the Stewards to speak with all involved and watch the replays to see if the contact was SLIGHT or SIGNIFICANT. Now, I respect Boscar Obarra a lot. He says the contact was slight. The DRF chart caller (who, by the way, I think has been doing a great job this meet) did not think the contact was significant (hence mentioning the contact and using the word plow). So, it appears a question that could be reasonably open for debate.
Here is what I want to know -- how did the debate go? It seems clear contact happened and clear that it happened in a lane where the 8 could not be viewed as an innocent. The only question seems to me was how bad was the contact. From my view, it looked dangerous and like a horse could have fallen down. Maybe others disagree. Should the stewards have come out with a comment that although there was contact in a location where the 8 horse was the guilty party, the contact was not viewed as significant or dangerous? The issue cost me a lot of money, so I am obviously slanted here, but it seems to me there are some safety questions. Is it possible that Rosario could be at risk for a penalty for dangerous riding? If yes, then shouldn\'t the horse have come down? Is the guy on this board who said that standards are different for Bill Mott horses in Grade 1s right? I note that this horse had tried Grade 1 races 7 times previous to this one for Mott and failed in all 7. While I do not think that this is a relevant consideration, some people on this board think it was at play.
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From NYRA Steward\'s Decisions:
>
> Stewards inquiry and jockey objection from the 2nd
> place finisher #7 A lot (Javier Castellano)
> against #8 Tourist (Joel Rosario) for alleged
> inference leaving the gate. The #1 King Kreesa
> (Irad Ortiz) broke out and the #8 Tourist broke in
> causing crowding leaving the starting gate. After
> viewing all video angles and speaking to the
> riders involved in the judgment of the Stewards no
> further action was warranted.
Only saw these posts after I posted an opus. The one horse started in path 3 (lane 1) due to starting gate placement. He came out very briefly into lane 2 (path 4) before straightening out. What the one did, did not impact the outside two horses. To blame what happened between the two outside horses on the rail horse (who was put into the 3 path by the starting gate placement) seems ludicrous to me. Really depressing. If they said they did not think what happened between the 7 and 8 was dangerous or significant, that would be one thing -- but to say the 1 horse caused crowding seems really out there to me. If the gate had been placed so that the 1 lane was the 1 path instead of the 3 path, what would they have said?
Watch the replay of the Saratoga Special. Yes there was a infraction but at the finish the horses involved were many lengths back, apparently how close the finish does not determine take downs. But who was the trainer of the dq horse.
KK4510 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Watch the replay of the Saratoga Special. Yes
> there was a infraction but at the finish the
> horses involved were many lengths back, apparently
> how close the finish does not determine take
> downs. But who was the trainer of the dq horse.
thank you for posting this -- I went and watched this replay. Had nothing bet on the race, didn\'t know anything about it.
To my view, while there was some rough riding amongst three horses,,,,,there was always an open path maintained and it was hard to say which horse did what as none of the three in question maintained straight paths. To me, that was a more questionable DQ than a DQ yesterday would have been. Also, these are 2yos who normally run greenly early in their careers.
I do not like what I am about to say -- but maybe you are right in this case -- they favored Todd Pletcher over Horacio DePaz and that maybe they felt more comfortable altering the result of a GII than they would for a GI. I hope I am wrong, but I understand what you are saying after reviewing this one.
You are clearly right that the margins at the end are not relevant in light of this DQ.
KK4510 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Watch the replay of the Saratoga Special. Yes
> there was a infraction but at the finish the
> horses involved were many lengths back, apparently
> how close the finish does not determine take
> downs. But who was the trainer of the dq horse.
Interesting tidbit -- the DePaz horse that was DQ\'ed resulted in Show payoffs being longer than Place payoffs in a five horse race. I wonder if there would have been a negative show pool if they have left the 2-5 in a 5 horse field stay on the board? OY -- this one really smells fishy.
At least it does remind me of listening to race results on the radio -- whenever a place or show payoff would be suspicious, after reading out the prices, the announcer would say \"prices okay\" meaning, yes even though show is more than place, that is what happened. Love hearing the \"prices okay\" -- it meant people were paying attention.
Bridgejumpers got screwed in this race.
This story was told to me by my father who was a lifelong horseplayer. Back in the 50\'s, when Calumet Farms ruled horse racing, they sent a horse out west named Miz Clementine to run in a big stake race. She won the race and was dq. Mrs Markey, owner of Calumet, vowed to never race again in California and she never did. Goes to show the power of big stables.