the take down of the 10 horse was the most ridiculous one I\'ve seen at any venue ever...if you are 2 lengths in front, take one step to the inside, and have the 3 horses behind you barely bump...that takes you down? Ridiculous judgement, exceptionally poor replay on the \"why\" (headlong angle does not indicate how far in front the 10 was)...Trevor, nice politics, but come on...CA stewards - get a f*****g clue.
Please - someone out in CA - tell me I\'m wrong here & why.
I\'m not in SoCal. Just watched the replays -- pan and head-on -- on calracing.com.
Disclaimer: I had 0.00 invested in the race.
Very strange ruling by the stews here. This is what I saw:
About 60 yards from the wire, the 10 horse -- outside, in at least the 5-path -- drifts in slightly on the 9 horse but then straightens right back up. Meanwhile, the 5 is drifting out and IMO is the main reason the 8 horse has to steady -- nowhere to go with the 9 to his right and the 5 crowding him.
The stewards had several possible courses of action here that would have at least made a little sense:
1. Rule that no one was cost a placing by the contact, and leave the result stand the way they crossed the finish line: 10-9-5-8. These are fairly green horses and leaving things alone would have made the most sense.
-or-
2. DQ the 10 and place him 2nd for his slight interference with the 9 (a ticky-tack call, but not unprecedented in SoCal nor elsewhere).
-or-
3. DQ the 5 and place him 4th for his obvious interference with the 8.
-or-
4. Double DQ combining options 2 and 3. New order: 9-10-8-5.
But no, being stewards and therefore selectively blind and devoid of logic, they DQ the 10 for a slight drift and place him in 4th behind the 8, completely ignoring the actions of the 5, who ended up putting the crunch on the 8 horse after clearly having enough of Nakatani\'s left-handed whip.
Shanahan, I share your disgust. Sloppy work by the stewards, doubly so with grades stakes money and placings on the line.
i hit the race and used both the 9 and the 5 BUT I thought that the 5 was tiring badly and directly affected the 8 being squeezed. The steward problem runs from coast to coast. They do get most of them right, but they should have left this one alone. OR at least taken the 5 down and place him behind the 8.
You have it right on Rick.
Either leave it alone or if you must, drop the 10 back to second. Anything else is ridiculous.
Not that it\'s a big deal but I disagree with these posts and thought the stewards did the right thing given the spot they were in.
The 8 horse was the one that was interferred with and to put the 10 down to 2nd wouldn\'t have allowed the 8 to get into the show spot which he might have had be not had to check. Putting the 10 down to 4th was the only thing that allowed the 8 to get put up. I suppose taking the 5 down would have allowed the 8 to get put up as well but I didn\'t think the bear out on the 5 was as bad as the mutiple infractions by the 10.
The 10 orginally forced the 9 very wide on the turn and then when the 9 tried to come down on the inside, the 10 came down and forced him into the other horses. My experience with the Cali stewards has been that when multiple infractions occur, they take the horse down.
It wasn\'t an easy call but I thought they did the right thing.
I got taken down in that race. I was going to post something about the DQ last night, but when I didn\'t see anyone else complain, I assumed I was too biased to comment. I\'m glad I\'m not alone in thinking the DQ was a bad decision.
If you look at the head on, it appears like the 10 caused a foul.
At first, he was drifing out. So the jockey on the 9 made a decision to go inside him instead of outside of him. Then when the jockey on the 10 started whipping right handed the 10 started coming in. At the same time, the other two horse inside the 9 and 10 started coming out making things even tighter for the 9. At a certain point, there was some bumping and it appears that the 10 caused part of it by drifting in. However, when you look at the pan shot, it does appear that the 10 was still clear of the 9 at that point and it was actually the 9 coming in looking for racing room and the other horses coming out that caused the bumping. You can certainly argue that the 10 caused it all with all his drifing, but IMO he was still clear at the time. Poor DQ in my opinion.
Stewards are a lot like politicians. They make me feel like a bunch of incompetent morons have more control over my destiny than I feel comfortable with. Am I allowed to register as a libertarian at the racetrack?
I\'d also like to argue that the theory of probability is probably full of crap. I\'ve been playing horses for a little over 30 years. There\'s no way I\'ve been DQ\'d into a winner as often as I\'ve been taken down. It\'s not even close. I\'d have to live to 120 and go on a favorable run just to break even. The universe is clearly out to get me. ;-)
In my opinion---and 5 was my key, so the DQ helped me---they should have left the 10 up.
However, if they took the 10 down, they should have also taken the 5 down.
I saw it this way: stewards did a great job. Watch the replay, and watch where the horses move in the paths.
The 9 cut inside the 10 at the head of the stretch (into the opening), the 10 immediately and clearly comes over several paths into the 9, pushing it into the 8 and 5 - the 8 gets squeezed out behind between 9 and 5 and has to pull up to avoid clipping heels. The two inside horses don\'t move out at all.
The 10 continues to lay on the 9. The 10 needs to be out of there.
Good job by the stewards.
I agree with covelj70 and sighthound that the stewards did the right thing.
One thing that always amuses me as I watch stewards (not just at Del Mar) considering a DQ is that they\'re not watching a split screen with the the pan view and the head-on view synchronized. In the digital age, how hard can that be to implement?
Another thing that amuses me when I watch head-on replays from Del Mar is that there is a young woman standing in an observation tower, almost directly in front of the camera, as the horses enter the far turn. What she is supposed to be adding to the proceedings, besides giving someone a cushy job, is beyond me.
I could have written a similar post about being DQed out of more wins than being put up, but I won\'t blame it on that evil universe....in fact, I take a lot of pride in making the statement, because it indicates I\'m a pretty good handicapper to be picking so many win and place horses....NO?
Think about it, horses trying to get to the wire are far more likely to cause trouble than slow rats bringing up the rear. They are tiring, drifting, charging through holes etc.
So getting DQed is a sign of your picking the right horse and should make you feel good about life. Then, when you do get put up on that rare occasion, you\'ll feel double good.
the 9 first tried to go outside the winner, and that one drifted out, then inside, and he drifted in. two minor infractions yes, but enough to affect the outcome (a nose).
the 10 bothered the 9, and that trouble impacted the 8. the 10 has to come down here.
I think you put the 8 in front of the 5 as well. the 5 came out a few paths, and might have had as much to do with the 8\'s traffic as the 9 (via the 10).
hate to see tough luck dq\'s like this, but the best way to avoid a tough luck dq is to run straight.
Problem that you guys/gals may be missing is that a similar incident will happen soon and they will leave the horse up.Steward inconsistency is a concern for me.
Mike
covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not that it\'s a big deal but I disagree with these
> posts and thought the stewards did the right thing
> given the spot they were in.
>
> The 8 horse was the one that was interferred with
> and to put the 10 down to 2nd wouldn\'t have
> allowed the 8 to get into the show spot which he
> might have had be not had to check.[u[/u]
Putting the 10 down to 4th was the only thing that allowed the
> 8 to get put up. I suppose taking the 5 down
> would have allowed the 8 to get put up as well but
> I didn\'t think the bear out on the 5 was as bad as
> the mutiple infractions by the 10.
>
> The 10 orginally forced the 9 very wide on the
> turn and then when the 9 tried to come down on the
> inside, the 10 came down and forced him into the
> other horses. My experience with the Cali
> stewards has been that when multiple infractions
> occur, they take the horse down.
>
> It wasn\'t an easy call but I thought they did the
> right thing.
Covel,
The 8 is bearing out and caused some of that intereference. He wasn\'t blameless.
Getting squeezed out of 3rd money when you caused some of the intereference is just. To put the winner dowm further than second is a bigger injustice than the 8 not getting 3rd money.
Good points. Easy call imo. Anyone who\'s complaining about this dq should stop betting on Victor Espinoza.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Problem that you guys/gals may be missing is that
> a similar incident will happen soon and they will
> leave the horse up.Steward inconsistency is a
> concern for me.
>
> Mike
Check out this example of leaving the horse up..
Del Mar on saturday in the 7th race..The 10 horse drifted out on the #4 horse clearly causing him problems on the turn while he was making a big move into contention and they left the 10 up. They did not even call an inquiry, the jockey had to post the objection.
You clearly have a better attitude on life than I do. ;-)
I was thinking about what you said and think you have a good point. For example, favorites win a higher percentage of the time than they finish second. So my guess would be that they get DQ\'d more often than they get put up. It could be that my unbalanced DQ results are a sign of good handicapping, but it sure feels like the universe is out to get me . ;-)
>Problem that you guys/gals may be missing is that a similar incident will happen soon and they will leave the horse up.Steward inconsistency is a concern for me. <
Exactly.
I watched both the Pan and Head On about 15 times and I\'m still not sure if one, two, or no horses should have been DQ\'d and which one(s). I\'m not even sure who made contact first. It\'s clear the most inside horse was coming out through much of the stretch and forcing the other out towards the 9 also.
My best guess is that the major contact occurred because the rider of the 9 reacted out of fear of getting squeezed and not because of actual contact.
The very fact that a bunch of people here and on TV disagree with the decision says something.
There are actually three problems.
1. When you use the standard \"impacted the outcome\" you can get into some very subjective areas upon which unbiased and experienced observers will often disagree.
2. Even if the standards are very clear, sometimes the evidence of whose fault it was is not clear.
3. The standards are not consistent from day to day and race to race even at the same track, let alone different tracks.
What ever happened to the standard that they allow the riders/horses to get away with more in Stakes like yesterday\'s race? LOL
IMO, the default value should be to do nothing unless the evidence of a foul, whose fault it was, and that it impacted the outcome are all very clear. They have to get all these marginal decisions out of the hands of the stewards. My suggestion is far from perfect, but the stewards are too imperfect and inconsistent for anything else to work better.
Just to be clear, I personally thought it was pretty obvious the 9 was better than the 10. However, there are loads of races where I think drifting and brushing horses (sometimes even intentionally) inhibit the rally of a closer and allow the inferior horse to win without a DQ. It wasn\'t a lot of money to me, but it gets a bit frustrating to have to deal with the inconsistencies.
Not enough to take him down, now Espinoza gets suspended? I love politics..
Riders beef after Best Pal disqualification
By JAY PRIVMAN
DEL MAR, Calif. - When the Best Pal Stakes was made official on Sunday at Del Mar following a lengthy inquiry, it was all over but for the shouting. And the fighting.
Boos emanated from the stands from those who disagreed that Kelly Leak should have been disqualified from victory in favor of Azul Leon, and jockey Victor Espinoza, the rider of Kelly Leak, got into a scrap with Rafael Bejarano, the rider of Azul Leon, in the jockeys\' room after the race.
On Monday afternoon, Del Mar\'s three stewards suspended Espinoza three days for careless riding. But a hearing regarding the fight, and possible penalties resulting from that, will not be held until Wednesday morning, according to Tom Ward, one of the stewards. Del Mar is closed on Tuesday.