Had a heated discussion with someone at the track yesterday while watching all of the replay angles.
Does Money Multiplier beat Flintshire yesterday if he doesn\'t get stopped?
Perhaps my 2-6 tap out ticket is skewing my opinion.
Good Luck,
Joe B
Joe,
I\'ll weigh in as we had that very discussion in the back yard yesterday after the race. IMHO they could have gone around 3 more times and MM would never have caught him. We\'ll see who the Euro\'s bring over for the BC but I wouldn\'t bet any other North American turf horse against this one and I said that back in June. A 22.51 last 1/4 going 12 furlongs!
I hope your over stating the TAP OUT exacta? You\'ve been around too long to tap out on a $19 exacta trying to beat a monster!
Good luck,
Frank D.
Hi Frank:
If MM doesn\'t get stopped on the turn Flintshire has to catch him.
Thought $19 was a steal in that field.
Despite the rough day at the windows, a great day of racing.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I\'ll agree with you on 2 points, the tough day at the windows and a great day of racing :)
Guys wasnt MM on the rail around the turn then got off it as Flintshire slipped by simultaneously with the rabbit getting out of the way to let Flintshire through? Coincidence or a set up? I swear it was the latter. Roman Approvals objection seems to confirm this a little....
Not sure why more people aren\'t talking about this. Closest thing I\'ve seen to race fixing at a track like Saratoga in a long time. When Gryder looks over to open up a lane and in turn crushes a foe, how is this not frowned on??? Watched replay several times and MM def gives Flintshire a race if Javier makes move around turn and opens up.
Think the rabbit cost Lady Eli as hot pace set up deep closer who won.
My personal opinion is that had Gryder stayed on the rail, Javier Castellano could
have yanked on the reins, made a hard right turn to the widest lane, and still run
away from MM and the rest of this overmatched field. Possibly the only way to have
made this race interesting would have been to have Flintshire carry 130 pounds and
those days are gone.
Its a Chad, Chad world and the biggest challenge now is to keep this guy happy until
his throwdown with the Euros at Santa Anita, where Flintshire suffered his only NA
defeat.
As to the use of the rabbit, Juddmonte has done it before, most notably with Bullet
Train, who used to assure an honest pace for the great Frankel.
Hard to call a race \"fixed\" when the favorite, who laid over the field on paper and
during the running, ended up prevailing.
APny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure why more people aren\'t talking about
> this. Closest thing I\'ve seen to race fixing at a
> track like Saratoga in a long time. When Gryder
> looks over to open up a lane and in turn crushes a
> foe, how is this not frowned on??? Watched replay
> several times and MM def gives Flintshire a race
> if Javier makes move around turn and opens up.
>
Gryder\'s flat-out herding is well-beyond the pale, and anything but subtle.
Look forward to a set of stewards who should/would call this kind of the
thing the way it should be called, and damn the consequences.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My personal opinion is that had Gryder stayed on
> the rail, Javier Castellano could
> have yanked on the reins, made a hard right turn
> to the widest lane, and still run
> away from MM and the rest of this overmatched
> field. Possibly the only way to have
> made this race interesting would have been to have
> Flintshire carry 130 pounds and
> those days are gone.
>
> Its a Chad, Chad world and the biggest challenge
> now is to keep this guy happy until
> his throwdown with the Euros at Santa Anita, where
> Flintshire suffered his only NA
> defeat.
>
> As to the use of the rabbit, Juddmonte has done it
> before, most notably with Bullet
> Train, who used to assure an honest pace for the
> great Frankel.
>
> Hard to call a race \"fixed\" when the favorite, who
> laid over the field on paper and
> during the running, ended up prevailing.
Hi Richie:
Always respect your opinion but anyone who thinks that Flintshire beats MM in a cleanly run race Saturday and if Gryder doesn\'t let him through is spending a few too many nights on the rooftop bar.
Good Luck,
Joe B
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My personal opinion is that had Gryder stayed on
> the rail, Javier Castellano could
> have yanked on the reins, made a hard right turn
> to the widest lane, and still run
> away from MM and the rest of this overmatched
> field. Possibly the only way to have
> made this race interesting would have been to have
> Flintshire carry 130 pounds and
> those days are gone.
>
> Its a Chad, Chad world and the biggest challenge
> now is to keep this guy happy until
> his throwdown with the Euros at Santa Anita, where
> Flintshire suffered his only NA
> defeat.
>
> As to the use of the rabbit, Juddmonte has done it
> before, most notably with Bullet
> Train, who used to assure an honest pace for the
> great Frankel.
>
> Hard to call a race \"fixed\" when the favorite, who
> laid over the field on paper and
> during the running, ended up prevailing.
Flintshire may have been able to make that right turn and still run away, To me, the point is that he should\'ve had to.
I think running a rabbit is not very sporting, but what Gryder did goes beyond that. He intentionally ruined the chances of another horse, and simultaneously made it much more likely that a horse of his choosing would win - and no amount of handicapping could have resulted in a prediction he\'d behave that way. I see no meaningful difference between what he did and any other kind of race fixing.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My personal opinion is that had Gryder stayed on
> the rail, Javier Castellano could
> have yanked on the reins, made a hard right turn
> to the widest lane, and still run
> away from MM and the rest of this overmatched
> field. Possibly the only way to have
> made this race interesting would have been to have
> Flintshire carry 130 pounds and
> those days are gone.
>
> Its a Chad, Chad world and the biggest challenge
> now is to keep this guy happy until
> his throwdown with the Euros at Santa Anita, where
> Flintshire suffered his only NA
> defeat.
>
> As to the use of the rabbit, Juddmonte has done it
> before, most notably with Bullet
> Train, who used to assure an honest pace for the
> great Frankel.
>
> Hard to call a race \"fixed\" when the favorite, who
> laid over the field on paper and
> during the running, ended up prevailing.
Predictive outcomes shouldn\'t determine the legality of questionable tactics. Within seconds of the conclusion of the race, I heard from respected observers on two coasts asking, \"Did you see that?\" We worry about all sorts of flaws and foibles that negatively affect the perception of the sport, so why is it not reasonable to question this? The poor saps who foolishly wagered on Gryder\'s horse still deserved his best effort to win, and perhaps they got it, but it would be comforting to know that some form of authority is at least posting a belated inquiry, even if behind closed doors.
Joe B,
I guess I spent those nights on the rooftop bar with Richie B as well. MM never beats Flintshire that day or any other day.
Another possible viewpoint?
That the figures aren\'t representing the significant advantage Flintshire has on every other North American turf horse. He looked like a toss two back on TG and looked vulnerable Saturday. He won two back only running about 100 yards and beating a number of horses who looked \"as fast\".
Jim
That last is no small point. If a horse is not running to win, at the very least he shouldn\'t be a separate betting interest. This came up in last year\'s Diana, when the rabbit almost won. We shouldn\'t have to guess.
Moose,
It\'s not just the \"poor saps\" who bet on Gryder\'s horse and deserved a fairly run race. Anyone who bet ANY OTHER horse than Flintshire deserved the same. I did not bet the race, but personally, if I bet ANYONE other than Flint, I\'d have been pissed.
TheBull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moose,
>
> It\'s not just the \"poor saps\" who bet on Gryder\'s
> horse and deserved a fairly run race. Anyone who
> bet ANY OTHER horse than Flintshire deserved the
> same. I did not bet the race, but personally, if I
> bet ANYONE other than Flint, I\'d have been pissed.
True, Bull. I should have prefaced it by saying, \"at the very least\"...., but yes, it obviously affected others. My only skin in the race was the obvious single on Flintshire in horizontals, which went for naught, anyway.
hey all
I very rarely weigh in on these debates (on this board or anywhere else) because one\'s views are understandably influenced by how one played the race and passions tend to run so high on these issues but...
....to criticize how Gryder rode the race without criticizing how Johnny V rode the race is a tough one for me.
Johnny V. race rode Flintshire from the first steps out of the gate. He was trying to box him in down the backside and prevent him from getting outside in the clear until the far turn by which time Flintshire was hopelessly buried inside (so Johnny race rode very effectively)
Now, to anyone who wants to say race riding is different than what Gryder did, I would highlight that this strategy did not give his horse the best chance to win the race. There was no reasonable expectation that he was going to win this race by staying back next to him early and matching turn of foot with Flintshire late and he knows this. His only chance would have been to get first run on Flintshire and open up a big lead on him at the top of the stretch to see if he could force Flintshire to move early. By boxing him in as long as he did, he absolutely compromised his chances for whatever reason he choose to go after Flintshire. Anyone who watched the NBC telecast heard Chad call this point out immediately after the race.
As an aside, I fully agree with Steve Byk\'s and JB\'s points that rabbits should run as a coupled entry but either way, to only focus on the Gryder ride and not the Johnny V ride isn\'t looking at the whole picture in this one
full disclosure as to my bias is that my only play in the race was singling Flintshire in the pick 6 and pick 4.
Hi Jimbo:
Then I think I need to start joining you guys. I\'m not seeing anything clearly as of late.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
NYRA is run like a business now, and coupled entries mean shorter fields and
the possibility of purse money only runners, both of which negatively affect
the bottom line.
In days of old, coupled entries were required when there was any common
ownership or runners were being saddled by one trainer, and the understanding
was that this was to protect the betting public.
Someone with a better reputation for sobriety can help me with this, but I do
seem to recall instances where a foul committed by a lower placed part of an
entry resulted in the DQ of a higher placed entrymate. Hypothetically, if
Gryder\'s actions were egregious, and contributed to Flintshire\'s victory,
maybe the stewards would have put both (hypothetically coupled) Juddmonte
runners behind the Maker horse (Joe you still would not have had the
exacta)(all Juddmonte turfers who need firm ground and Lasix immediately moved
to Woodbine).
Other possibilities:
a) Gryder stays on the rail; Flintshire leaps over him and draws off.
b) Castellano swings Flintshire four wide going into the far turn and draws
off, JB has to give another jumbo #.
This is a brilliant racehorse, whose brilliance is diminished by the lack of
competition he has faced in his NYRA races. Flintshire is a
Nureyev/Baryshnikov on a stage with some amateur rap video dancers.
Richie Rooftop*
----------------
* Never been in a (the?) rooftop bar in Saratoga. Didn\'t even know Saratoga
had a skyline. Now if you want to go to the rooftop at the Perfect Pint on W
45th Street....
I totally respect anything that Jim C posts here but really see this race differently. Flintshire could have tipped out at any time on the back side and went 5 wide and may have won for fun. Johhny V went overland and we know where Flintshire went. The wagering premise of this race was betting MM and hoping for a bad trip for Flintshire. Remember this is a horse that hasnt closed the deal in quite a few races, albeit overseas. If MM gets a good jump who knows. The Stewards Corner on the NYRA website is less than useless. There was an article in DRF that said the stewards talked to all involved. Any idea what it said? I hope Gryder gets the winter off. He\'s an anchor !!
I agree that a person can be influenced by their bets when comes the time to decide a case like this, so in the interest of full disclosure: I didn\'t bet a thin dime on the race.
As far as criticizing one ride or rider without criticizing the other, that\'s easy, watch:
Velazquez is a moron.
Gryder is a cheat.
I could print those sentences together, or not, and be right or wrong about either or both without any dependence on the other.
Johnny V may have ridden the race in a way that you felt did more to compromise Flintshire\'s chances than maximize his own, and you may even be right about that. That doesn\'t mean he cheated, it means he\'s stupid (or at least, that he made a poor decision on how to ride his horse).
Regardless of what Velazquez did though, Gryder (and this was very clearly visible, as others have pointed out) took an action specifically to maximize the chances of another horse winning without regard to his own chances.
The difference is intent. One may have intended to increase his own chances by decreasing the chances of another while hoping not to cause a corresponding decrease in his own chances, while the other never intended to attempt to win the race, only to maximize the chances of another winning.
Disclosure...First, let me say that I have been a small time "licensed" (important word for this post) horse owner for 30 years. Secondly, I had Flintshire in my Pick 6 and Pick 4.
I have no problem with the art of strategizing with jockeys in the paddock in order to help the athlete (horse) achieve a goal to perform well and make some money. Trainers are the experts with knowledge of the athletes' health and psychological challenges. What I do not like, is to strategize with the intent of not caring if you hit the board or superfecta, but just to ride defensively in order to help the stablemate get the prize. This is a why I asked the "ethics" question in my post yesterday about Rabbits. I am a licensed professional that is closely monitored by two State Boards. I am required to take many hours of continuing ethics courses and each year "attest" that I completed these workshops. As a licensed horse owner, I would be willing to do the same in order to bring a higher degree of integrity to the business and for the protection of the betting public. The arrangement between Chad Brown and his two jockeys appears to be collusive and somewhat unethical. In addition, it would be more of an injustice if the jockeys equally split the $53,500 first place jock mount and fifth place $2000.00. Maybe the Racing Commission needs to let us know if, in fact, that happened.
Why are the stewards getting a free pass here?
The trainer of the horse that was interfered with claimed foul against the horse that did the interfering. It doesnt seem like anybody is questioning the fact that the rail horse interfered with the horse just outside of him. Why isn\'t Roman Approval entitled to move up with Gryder\'s horse moving down?
Fair disclosure -- I am still very much smarting over the Stewards Non-Call in the 4stardave. I still cannot understand how they can say they are disallowing the 7 horse\'s claim of foul against the 8 horse because the 1 horse fouled the 2 horse. It doesnt pass the redface test.
Why is the only steward to ever get punished for anything is John Veitch?
Shouldn\'t the stewards be subject to some form of censure or punishment if they completely blow a call (not bad judgment, getting something wrong I am talking about)? They get to DQ horses and their connections, but the stewards cannot be DQ\'ed. They should have to sit in the penalty box for a while. They might do a better job if that was hanging over their head.
A poster here mentioned one of the 2yo stakes were the DQ was completely ridiculous.
I cannot believe I am saying this, but it might be fair to say that the Stewards are having an even worse meet than the linemaker. I wouldnt have thought that was possible, but is there anybody who can defend their failure to DQ Gryder\'s horse? (BTW, I like Richie\'s point -- if an entry mate is run as a pick (basketball) for its other half and fouls somebody, shouldn\'t the whole entry suffer? If not, why not just enter lots of entry mates (goons) and just check all the competition every step of the way.....might be a cool new sport (not).
Sorry SoCalMan,
But NOBODY is having a worse meet than the linemaker. I am having my worst saratoga meet in 15 years and I am still doing better than Travis Stone.
The way he butchers the morning line, day after day after day, reminds me of being 14 years old and fumbling with bra straps (of the 1 or 2 girls who were too dumb to run far away from me......)
Point taken on stewards though.
Jim
Edit - Because RichieBee was tired of me (and others) whining about the hack that is Travis Stone, I took his advice last week and wrote a long email to NYRA, pointing out 15 egregious errors stone had made and also pointed out 4 errors that he made in the Friday card (I wrote the note before racing had begun).
Of course - no response from NYRA.....
Maybe the reply is in the mail.
To hell with Travis Stone and your Jersey bimbettes.
I\'m getting my butt kicked and you wanted to kiss me!!!!!
WTF could be worse?
I can tell you for a fact there\'s internal discussion at NYRA about the morning lines.
For the days races or for the pokeymon go dash for poke coins?
Jim, I rarely say this, but I could not disagree with you more in this case. Gryder\'s ride and Johnny V\'s ride could not have been more opposite, both in substance and most importantly, intent. When you race ride AGAINST the big favorite to box him in, the idea is by hurting his chances, you in turn are giving your mount a better chance. Whether or not that was the way to do it is up for debate I know, but the point remains, he rode the race which he thought benefitted HIS mount the most. His decisions were for the sake of his mount and their connections.
Gryder\'s version of race riding was the complete opposite. He intentionally harmed his chances and the chances of others for the sole benefit of ANOTHER HORSE. Johnny V did what he thought was best for his horse, Gryder did what he thought was best for Flintshire. The two are not at all comparable.
Im surprised I havent read more about how incredibly dangerous it was. What if the other jock had went down and gotten paralyzed or worse? What if you owned the horse who got smashed and the horse went down? Fairness is important, but let\'s not forget how completely wreckless and unsafe it was too. Gryder has ALOT of explaining to do if Im in charge.
SoCalMan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are the stewards getting a free pass here?
Unfortunate answer: because none of us will quit betting NYRA over their failure to DQ/refund bets/take any other appropriate action in spots like this.
And FWIW, if you ask me what the appropriate steward\'s response for this is, I\'d say something like this: give Gryder and Brown each the rest of the year off, approximate what each of them earned on the race, fine them that much money, and refund all bets.
Thanks for the thoughts
just to clarify, my point is that he did not ride the race that gave his horse the best chance to win. I am arguing that his ride was focused on hurting the chances of Flintshire and not maximizing his own horses chances.
I don\'t agree with the ride that either Johnny or Gryder gave their mounts, I just don\'t think it\'s fair to criticize Gryder without criticizing Johnny.
of course, if you don\'t think Johnny did anything wrong, then there\'s nothing to criticize. Obviously that\'s not my position here but I understand that others may see if differently
thanks again for the thoughts
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can tell you for a fact there\'s internal
> discussion at NYRA about the morning lines.
Although I plead guilty to being a vocal complainer about the Morning Lines, I respectfully disagree with Jimbo66. I think it is a close call as to who is having a worse meet as between the Linemaker and the Stewards.
Also, I think the Stewards are in a position to do far worse damage than the linemaker can, no matter how bad he is.
Although I am quite unhappy about the Morning Line situation, I think there is no question that the problems with the stewards should be a higher priority.
Can anybody figure out what they are saying in their published decision on the Sword Dancer? Here is a link to it --
https://www.nyra.com/saratoga/racing/stewards-decisions/aug-27-2016
Maybe I am a poor reader or lacking in reasoning skills, but I cannot for the life of me understand what the reason is that they made the decision they made.
At least in the 4stardave, I could understand what they were saying -- it was pure Lewis Carroll, but at least it was comprehensible.
Just out of curiosity, is there anybody paying attention here who believes that the 5th place finisher should NOT have been disqualified and placed either 6th or 7th?
SoCal,
I think the horse should have been DQed from 5th to 6th. That said, the jockey didn\'t object and I don\'t remember a trainer objection being upheld
That is one incident.
As for the four star Dave, I badly needed the 7. My meet deficit would be half of what it is now with that DQ. But it wasn\'t a bad call. Before the deci on was made, I gave it a 10 percent chance of being a DQ. There is a long recent history of these gate infractions not being enforced. Why would u think this one would? This was nowhere near as bad as Bayern and not within a mile of the ridiculous Delaware handicap race where i\'m a chatterbox crushed the entires field including the 2nd place horse, and didn\'t come down.
Gate infractions are seldom enforced.
Not sure why. But u can\'t be surprised, blame the local stewards, or be surprised. It is pretty standard across the board and doesn\'t seem like it is changing.
Jim
\"Wasn\'t a bad call\" and \"history of these gate infractions not being enforced\" are not the same thing. The problem is either the rule or the interpretation, but those were clearly infractions that either did or could have affected the outcome.
SoCalMan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can anybody figure out what they are saying in
> their published decision on the Sword Dancer?
> Here is a link to it --
>
> https://www.nyra.com/saratoga/racing/stewards-deci
> sions/aug-27-2016
Boy, they didn\'t really elaborate much, did they?
\"After viewing the available video angles and speaking to the riders involved it was determined by the stewards that no action was warranted.\" That\'s the entirety of the \'meat\' of their decision - IOW,\"We thought at it, and decided we should do nothing.\"
Then they cite 3 rules, of which this one appears to me to clearly be the one that applies:
\"The Stewards also consider whether the offending jockey acted in a willful or careless manner while interfering with another horse or jockey, for which the interferer may be disqualified, i.e., placed last or unplaced in the order of finish. For example, if an offending jockey acts in a dangerous manner, exhibits extremely improper riding or impedes several horses, the Stewards may disqualify the offending horse without regard to the specific effect of the foul on the order of finish.\"
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SoCal,
>
> I think the horse should have been DQed from 5th
> to 6th. That said, the jockey didn\'t object and
> I don\'t remember a trainer objection being upheld
>
> That is one incident.
>
> As for the four star Dave, I badly needed the 7.
> My meet deficit would be half of what it is now
> with that DQ. But it wasn\'t a bad call. Before
> the deci on was made, I gave it a 10 percent
> chance of being a DQ. There is a long recent
> history of these gate infractions not being
> enforced. Why would u think this one would?
> This was nowhere near as bad as Bayern and not
> within a mile of the ridiculous Delaware handicap
> race where i\'m a chatterbox crushed the entires
> field including the 2nd place horse, and didn\'t
> come down.
>
> Gate infractions are seldom enforced.
>
> Not sure why. But u can\'t be surprised, blame
> the local stewards, or be surprised. It is pretty
> standard across the board and doesn\'t seem like it
> is changing.
>
> Jim
I do not recall the exact race, but one of the 2yo colt stakes races had a completely ridiculous DQ. Other posters here have complained about it. So we are already up to three incredible incidents without breaking a sweat.
As to the 4stardave -- you may be explaining the truth, but shouldn\'t that find its way into the Stewards\' published decision? They didn\'t say a higher standard applies to the start that was not attained in this case. Rather, they said the problems were equally the fault of the 1 and the 8, so they were not disqualifying the 8.
Although I think they have their facts completely wrong, even if you grant them their facts, how does the 1 committing a foul against the 2 justify letting the 8 off for committing a foul against the 7? Just on its face, saying something so ridiculous should call into question what flavor of oatmeal is in these guys\' skulls.
On the Sword Dancer, the question before us, I challenge anybody to read their decision and figure out what they are saying. They might not be sentient. I am guessing that no human writes these decisions -- seems they are the product of some weird malfunctioning machine. I would love to see an announcer trying to explain these decisions to the crowd over the PA.
Steward\'s Decisions
Sat, August 27, 2016
Race #10 - Trainers objection #3 Roman Approval (Florent Geroux) the 6th place finisher against #5 Inordinate (Aaron Gryder) the 5th place finisher for possible interference at the top of the stretch. After viewing the available video angles and speaking to the riders involved it was determined by the stewards that no action was warranted. Order of finish 6-2-4-1
With regard to interference, New York is a "Category 2" state, meaning that Commission rules provide that if the interferer is guilty of causing interference and such interference in the judgment of the Stewards has altered the finish of the race, then the interferer is placed behind the offended horse.
The Stewards consider whether the riders of the horse or horses that are offended continue to give effort to the finish of the race.
The Stewards also consider whether the offending jockey acted in a willful or careless manner while interfering with another horse or jockey, for which the interferer may be disqualified, i.e., placed last or unplaced in the order of finish. For example, if an offending jockey acts in a dangerous manner, exhibits extremely improper riding or impedes several horses, the Stewards may disqualify the offending horse without regard to the specific effect of the foul on the order of finish.
For more information, see Commission rule 4035.2 ("Riding foul penalized
The last 3 paragraphs are just boilerplate that appears to be included in every decision. Humorously, with respect to the Rainha de Bateria objection in the Diana (July 23), they didn\'t even bother with writing a paragraph of their own. It\'s just the boilerplate.
With respect to the Fourstardave, Andy Serling said on Saratoga Live that, based on his experience with NYRA stewards, he would be shocked if there was a DQ. Tom Amoss said the result would be the same in Kentucky.
Thanks for the response Jim. No, we are in agreement about Johnny V. Not sure how much focusing on Flintshire optimized HIS horse\'s trip. However, I am sure that in HIS mind, he was doing, what he felt, gave his horse the best chance. Gryder\'s decisions, on the otherhand, were directly made to benefit another horse\'s chances. I know where you are coming from, and no, I obviously don\'t know for a fact that Johnny V wasn\'t just out to screw Flintshire.
To me, it isn\'t on the same level because nothing Johnny V did (even if he was out to screw Flint) put horses and riders in danger the way Gryder\'s garbage antics did. At the top of the lane, in a bunched field, to intentionally take a right hand turn into other horses is egregious and reckless. You\'re an owner too, and I am sure you have some close friends in the game (jocks, trainers, agents) as do I, so I know you understand. It goes beyond winning/losing bets sometimes.
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The last 3 paragraphs are just boilerplate that
> appears to be included in every decision.
> Humorously, with respect to the Rainha de Bateria
> objection in the Diana (July 23), they didn\'t even
> bother with writing a paragraph of their own.
> It\'s just the boilerplate.
>
> With respect to the Fourstardave, Andy Serling
> said on Saratoga Live that, based on his
> experience with NYRA stewards, he would be shocked
> if there was a DQ. Tom Amoss said the result
> would be the same in Kentucky.
No offense intended, but as to what you say Serling says, why can\'t that be read to mean - people with experience with the NYRA Stewards know that they are idiots so they expect them to do idiotic things? Not sure that helps matters. Not sure the relevance of Tom Amoss\'s view of what they would do or say in Kentucky, but at least in Kentucky they revoke Stewards licenses (see John Veitch). Would be nice if New York adopted that practice and put it into use.
I am curious why people are defending these idiots? Nobody is coming to Travis Stone\'s defense and he is hardly guilty of bad intent (only incompetence). These Stewards in the best case are incompetent and could easily be worse.
Timely find, it seems in PA they\'re willing to overturn a stewards\' decision, at least once in a blue moon:
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/reversed-pennsylvania-officials-overturn-stewards-disqualification-parx/
All very well said. Thanks!
Maybe I\'m naive but I just don\'t see the intention behind Gryders ride. What I see is him drifting as he rounds the corner, which Flintshire immediately starts to take advantage of, and then Grdyer looks over to see Flintshire quickly gaining on his inside and rather than slam into him lets him through. While the situation certainly benefited Flintshire, and can understand the assumption on conspiracy, it seems a bit of a stretch to think they could time it that perfectly.
Bet Twice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe I\'m naive but I just don\'t see the intention
> behind Gryders ride. What I see is him drifting
> as he rounds the corner, which Flintshire
> immediately starts to take advantage of, and then
> Grdyer looks over to see Flintshire quickly
> gaining on his inside and rather than slam into
> him lets him through. While the situation
> certainly benefited Flintshire, and can understand
> the assumption on conspiracy, it seems a bit of a
> stretch to think they could time it that
> perfectly.
Here is how the DRF chart caller saw it --
http://www1.drf.com/drfPDFChartRacesIndexAction.do?TRK=SAR&CTY=USA&DATE=20160827&RN=10
The guy is knocking the ball out of the park this meet.
Crying over spilled milk I am, but the irony is aggravating me. Better than I can explain, read the Bloodhorse article about the appeal of the non-dq in this race. Basically, even if not coupled in wagering, for the purposes of interference they can be treated as though they were coupled, I think. The irony for me is that I was all over Creator in the Belmont and cashed nothing. My only win was the double with this escort. Wouldnt have mattered that much to me, but significant to to others. Just wished it didnt happen...
Thanks to whoever for sharing those photos of the backyard crew. I now know who is who when I attend the seminars. Mostly great discussion on here, has helped me tremendously with my handicapping, if not my betting. Thanks to all. I\'ll be looking at the KY Downs races this weekend. 130k msw for real!! Has to be an opportunity there, no???
Best to all
I was the first person to point this mess out. And while I would not use the word \"fixed\" I certainly think the word \"scripted\" is accurate.
The Paulick Report article on the subject includes the text of the DQ rule for uncoupled stablemates:
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/owner-stews-rabbits-actions-sword-dancer-files-appeal/
From David Grening via Dan Illman\'s DRF blog:
\"The stewards did not issue any fines or suspensions to any of the parties involved. Braulio Baeza Jr. the steward for NYRA, said he did receive several complaints from other trainers who watched the race. The stewards said they called Gryder, Castellano and Brown in separately for interviews Sunday morning. Both Gryder and Castellano told the stewards that Flintshire clipped heels with Inordinate at the top of the stretch, causing Gryder to look back and then get out of the way to avoid being clipped again. The stewards said that Brown told them it was not the plan to have Flintshire come through on the rail.\"
http://www.drf.com/blogs/some-travers-day-reflections
This is bullshit. It wasn\'t just Gryder. Even Ortiz gave up his rail position to Flintshire and in doing so ran up on the heels of those now in front of him and had to check repeatedly. He still closed gamely.
At what point do we realize we\'re just a bunch of hopeless patsies? NYRA doesn\'t even bother with the appearance of due diligence. They\'re laughing at us.
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At what point do we realize we\'re just a bunch of
> hopeless patsies? NYRA doesn\'t even bother with
> the appearance of due diligence. They\'re laughing
> at us.
Jerry what I suggest is that you, and others dissatisfied with NYRA, do the
following (it is not the first time I have suggested this):
Write a letter (email) to NYRA, attention Chris Kay, on Tuesday. The letter
should say that over the holiday weekend you wagered
merrier) at [name tracks other than Saratoga]. Attach mutuel tickets or a report
from your ADW showing the dollars wagered. Go on to say that this is money you
would have wagered at Saratoga if it were not for [incompetent stewards]
[name your favorite gripe with NYRA]. Or say that you have opened a NYRA Bets
account, but will not fund it until changes are made or at least discussed.
You have to hit NYRA where it hurts. You have to explain with specificity why you
are hitting them. I am convinced this is the only way to get NYRA to pay
attention. I know that HANA has advocated \"buycotting\" certain tracks
(specifically, diverting handle to tracks with lower takeout). If NYRA sees
steadily decreasing handle, and gets lots of correspondence with the message I
have described above, I believe progress is possible.
I am sure that NYRA is aware of the groundswell of dissatisfaction with the
stewards\' failure to take any action with regards to the Sword Dancer
shenanigans, but until it hurts their bottom line I am fairly certain NYRA will
not address the problem.
So Ortiz was part of the conspiracy too? Give me a break. Sometimes the best horse wins.
Conspiracy? Maybe. Maybe not. But watch the replay and explain to me why Ortiz, who is a smart rider, would surrender his position to Flintshire to no advantage to himself, having to check repeatedly afterwards while still having a ton of horse? Reread the race chart summary. I\'m not the only one who saw it that way.
Rich, I would if I thought Kay cared. I don\'t. He\'s a career upper level management butterfly and NYRA won\'t be his last flower.
You implied Ortiz intentionally gave up the rail to benefit Flinthsire which would be the definition of conspiracy. I see Ortiz stuck behind Gryder and try to swing out to go wide only to have another horse cutoff that option, causing him to steady.
While at the same time Flintshire nosed his way inside of him and Ortiz gave clearance. It all seemed a little accommodating for would be rivals. I didn\'t bet the race so it makes no difference to me.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can tell you for a fact there\'s internal
> discussion at NYRA about the morning lines.
Looks like nothing good came from that internal discussion.
This has got to be the only business in America where the purveyors hold their customers in such extreme disdain. People think the airlines treat their customers badly. That ain\'t nothing compared to how the NYRA treats its customers. If the airlines were as bad as the NYRA, we would see all the airline CEOs lined up in front of congress tomorrow. Unfortunately, nobody cares about horseracing (they just say then don\'t go).
If we customers weren\'t so addicted to the sport, it would go out of business so fast it would make everybody\'s head spin.