I hope I was the only TG user to lose as a result of the DQ of We All Love Aleyna in the 6th at Del Mar today. While the DQ was surprising, the rationale the stewards gave for it and its application to this race was stunning.
As the horses came into the stretch, Cozy Guy on the rail and General Fox to his immediate outside contended for the lead. Plenty of Heat was making a sweeping move in about the four path and WALA was bottled up behind horses. As the horses made their way down the stretch – and this is indisputable based on the replay – GF begin to drift out under left-handed whipping. As WALA was attempting to split GF on his inside and POH on his outside, GF and WALA clipped heels, and GF lost his momentum. WALA went on to win the race, POH finished second, CG finished third. GF finished seventh.
The justification given for the DQ in the post-race video analysis was that WALA "went for a hole that wasn't there" (Trevor Denman's exact words), created contact with GF and caused that one to lose his action, meriting a DQ. Now, I have been going to the track for over thirty years and this is the first time I have seen a DQ for a foul committed from behind. Stewards should be very reluctant to disqualify on this basis in any event. When two horses make contact, one behind the other, how can stewards confidently assign responsibility for which horse initiated the contact? And why should it matter? Even so, it had no application in this case: WALA maintained a straight course in the three path from the head of the stretch until the point of contact. By contrast, GF drifted out from the two path into WALA's path and initiated the contact with WALA. This is also evident from the fact (also observable on the reply) that as a result of the drifting, GF forced WALA out to bump with POH.
We all have been on the short end of DQ's but this one was so irrational it causes me to question the basic competence of the Del Mar stewards.
Post Edited (07-28-04 21:09)
It was an absolutely pathetic call.
First of all, the only reason the hole was not there is becasue the damn horse that got fouled moved into it.
If I am a Del Mar jockey, the stewards have now given me carte blanche to move into holes when a horse is steaming up from behind. Hole? What hole? It wasn\'t there, when I drifted into it Mr. Steward, honest.
I have absolutely no idea what the hell they were looking at, but it cost me a nice score.
Since when does Trevor D editorialize on behalf of the stewards? They did cover their respective butts, however, by placing WALA 7th and not second. Otherwise their argument that the infraction was against the hoss in front wouldn\'t hold water, like it matters. Curious too is the fact that the eventual winner was the big chalk in the double despite being a distant third choice in the win pool.
Post Edited (07-29-04 07:34)
I\'m pretty sure Trevor clears with the stewards exactly what he\'s going to say. I was at the track one day when he opened his mike too early and those in attendance could hear the end of his conversation with the stewards just before he announced their decision to the crowd.
Had both in the Pick 4 fortunately. But watched the replay closely and I concur with yor opinion. The fron runner went to the left hand and drifted (he was tired and going backwards) causing the initial contact. The #5 got a free ride at that point on the rail and WALA (#4 I think) ran him down. To me, the plaicng of any horse was absolutley not affected and, therefore, no foul shoul be enforced. If anyone had been affected adversely it was WALA #4 who won anyway.
You need to watch again, the horse he clipped had just taken the lead so I doubt very much he was tiring.