I am not even sure this a \"new topic\" anymore...what the F***? These people now have made the decision based on - at least today - that a horse interfered with could not have \"placed higher\"...hello? Anyone comment on the last race today? This was the latest most outrageous decision.
The reasoning is so inconsistent it makes me sick...so long CA betting!
Between the last race today and the feature on Friday night, these guys are on a real roll. I had the 7 in the pick 4 so I wanted it to stand up but I thought for sure it was coming down. I was really surprised.
I disagree - Right call even though I had the #2. Clearly the #4 had the race won and the interference near the wire, where Espinoza took a hold did not cost him a better placing. I have walked away many times scratching my head trying to make sense of the Cali stewards, but this call in addition the DQ on Friday should be a model going forward.
By the way, I was also on the wrong end of the Inquiry on Friday.
I don\'t think the #4 \"clearly\" had the race won and even if he did, the horse definitely drifted out in the last 1/16th and the rider made no attempt to correct the horse, I have to think a dq was in order here (by the way, had no money on either horse).
Shan:
I\'ve been at it for about 35 years, and without having kept track of such
things,I am pretty comfortable saying that the \"put ups\" and \"take downs\"
have pretty much evened out over the course of my wagering career.
Stewards\' decisions, like the numerous inexplicable rides given by jockeys,
like the equipment changes which never seem to get announced, like the instances
where you\'ve had a winning bet turned into a refund when the part of an entry
you never really cared about gets scratched, are variables over which we have
very little control.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of all races contested over the
course of year are affected by a stewards take down/put up. Another interesting
query is what percentage of races in which there is an inquiry do stewards take
action?
Strange that you are bailing on California racing, which has become the
wagering venue of choice in Living Room Downs. Reasons:
1) The Friday night cards from Hollywood (post time 10:00 PM Eastern) are a
great way to end the work week and begin the weekend.
2) TVG (which provides the video feed for Living Room Downs) does not show the
tracks I would prefer to bet on, Churchill and Fair Grounds,as Racing\'s arcane
and self defeating gerrymandering of simo signals and wagering access continues.
3) Aqueduct, Philly and Hawthorne racing (featured on TVG, along with Turf
Paradise) are, as Walt \"Clyde\" Frazier might say,\"dismal and abysmal\".
To jump threads, for those who are encouraged by Slots in Maryland, my feeling
is that Slots will allow Racing to survive, but will not signal the return of
quality racing to Pimlico and Laurel. My opinion is that increased purses at
tracks in Pennsylvania and at Delaware Park have really done nothing to improve
the quality of Racing in those venues.
No decision for me but I favor leaving horses up when the infraction is \"insufficient\" to change the outcome of the placings.The winner was clearly going to win anyway imo, when he ducked out into the path of the 2 horse who had to check.
Fine the jockey for not keeping a straight course,leave the bettors alone in instances like this.
Mike
And if more of us could actually bet these tracks we might actually care.
Ca stewards have cost me houses and cars on their decisions, many of them unexplainable. Worst. Stewards. Ever.
You need to get Dish Network...
Fine the jockey
With respect to art of handicapping.The monetary penalty pondered
by the rider.The ground loss calculated,the momentary lack of reinsmanship
an incalculable detriment in the art of handicapping.
With Respect,
mjs
Xichi--
I know the options are out there, but why should I as a consumer have to go
through additional effort/expense to be able to participate in Racing?
Racing should be making the extra effort to reach out to me (and you), and not
vice versa.
\"Racing should be making the extra effort to reach out to me (and you), and not
vice versa\"
Bee,
You are way to wise for the empty suits!The idea of getting live racing into every possible home for free or at at a very nominal fee would be far from the mind of a clueless empty suit racing exec.
Most Casinos go all out to lure every type of player with comps etc. Racing wants to charge you to gamble your money with a takeout that is very difficult to overcome and nickle and dime you to park, enter and eat.
There are some venues doing things for big bettors but generally speaking,the average player is treated very poorly by the game. No worries though, surely Wal-dope(NTRA head) has a handle on all of the very important player issues and will convey them to the racetracks as soon as his racetrack \"Code of Conduct\" thing is resolved.
Mike
Reminds me a bit imo of the old joke about the two guys with Bagel Carts on 14th St . One Guy selling them for .15 Cents and the other for $ 1,500 Dollars and after a week the 1st guy sold out his bagels everyday says to the second guy who hasn\'t a single sale - Why don\'t you lower your prices ? The second guy says back - Why should I lower my prices , your knocking yourself out with all the business and all I have to do is sell one !
How about the non-call in the San Pasqual yesterday?
Watched it several times on Calracing.com
Tough call. Cowboy Cal drifts out several paths down the stretch with Well Armed just behind. Well Armed never got close enough to where he had to check hard to avoid contact, although he obviously had the path he was going to take taken away from him.
I don\'t think it was an obvious DQ. I could see it going either way. Personally, I would have taken the horse down. Gryder shouldn\'t have to risk his life shoving his horse through a path that was being taken away, then check his horse hard to make it obvious. He did check so that his horse wouldn\'t run up Cowboy Cal.
Do you think that the connections had anything to do with this?? Meaning that the Cal stewards don\'t want to piss him (Pletcher) off by taking his horse down in a Gr. 2 race, hoping he brings horses back out to California.
A portion of the winnings for the winner goes to Charity
I think that was the deciding factor.
I guess thats funny?
MD Anderson Cancer Institute.
Look it up!
Nice of the connections.