Did I just see a criminally stupid DQ at the Big A? Yes I did.
Anyone watching the head on can clearly see BOTH horses responsible for the bumping. If anything the #1, put up, did more to cause it.
Morons. (I had no skin in the game)
The 1 came out a bit. No contact. A few strides later the 8 came in and almost unseated the jock. Had to come down.
not how i read it. The 1 floats the 8 wide at the 1/4. no prob. The 8 stays ex wide, with about 5 paths between him and the 1 .
The 1 decides to come OUT 4 paths so he\'s now right on top of the 8, in his face, didn\'t make contact but damn near did.
At that point they separate a bit, and then it looks like the 1 comes out some AGAIN! , and the 8 comes in a bit more, causing contact.
If the 1 keeps anything like a straight path , this never happens. The stewards are brain dead.
so the logic here is, If i bob and weave around your face, and at some point you head butt me, who is to blame?
Just another flaw in AQU racing and on a completely subjective note - looked like the jockeys have a grudge going, not much to do with the sport of Kings. To the tune of the Bon Jovi classic - They all give the sport a bad name. Or should we charge the horses?
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so the logic here is, If i bob and weave around
> your face, and at some point you head butt me, who
> is to blame?
If I head butt you, I am to blame. I don\'t get to
crunch your skull just because you are pissing me off.
Also: all the bobbing and weaving in the world doesn\'t
knock me off my back feet, the way the #8 did to the #1.
This was the easiest DQ I\'ve seen in 5 years.
Boscar I don\'t think that was even close..supposed to come down in my opinion at least
listen , I didn\'t say it was an easy call. That\'s why the stews blew it. If any finesse in the decision making process is required, you\'ll never get it from those guys.
He bump 1, take down. Simple.
I watched it again, saw the same thing. If you can watch the head on and not see that the 1 was equally at fault, then there\'s nothing I can do for you.
PS I guess pushing out the 8 from the 3 path to the 8 path at the top of stretch was just race riding, although I give you that the 8 might have been bearing out and the 1 was just being neighborly.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I watched it again, saw the same thing. If you
> can watch the head on and not see that the 1 was
> equally at fault, then there\'s nothing I can do
> for you.
Please watch one more time and answer me this:
At what point did the #1 horse do anything that
knocked the #8 off of his back feet, the way #8
did to the #1.
This is crucial in the stews decision making process,
I suspect. That head butt was clearly over the line.
The excellent chart caller for NYRA did a good job of describing the events, pretty much echoing my observations.
Partial comment on Thunderbumms:
\"coming close to, but not initiating any contact with HANGRY, began to drift outward once more a sixteenth down the road, bumped soundly with the unofficial winner before he could deliver a second left handed shot, backed away in the final stages.\"
I note he says bumped WITH and not BY the winner. I also note the \'drift outward one more\' which I\'ve already described.
The point is , the 1 insinuated himself into the path/proximity of the 8 at every opportunity, even though there was plenty of racetrack available, finally getting what he asked for.
I\'d have left the winner up .
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I note he says bumped WITH and not BY the winner.
> I also note the \'drift outward one more\' which
> I\'ve already described.
Neither of these things actually happened. Watch the head
on replay.
The #1 is running perfectly straight -- if only for a
second or two -- when the #8 darts in and clobbers him. You
can\'t miss it.
Also: this concept of a horse \"deserving\" some sort of contact
is kind of silly. These are 1200 lb. animals going 35 MPH, not
1st graders settling a playground dispute.
if that wasn\'t a DQ situation, nothing is, clear as day
Boscar,
Sorry to be blunt, but your post is about as far off base as anything I have ever seen on this board.
I needed the 8. For a decent multi-race score.
The DQ of the 8 was the EASIEST decision I have ever seen in racing. That was one of the most vicious bumps I have seen. The 1 was literally sent reeling.
The float was completely irrelevant. The drift by the 1 earlier in the stretch was completely irrelevant. Didn\'t impede the 1 at all.
A 99.99% DQ. There are 50/50 calls and 60/40 calls all the time with the stewards. And I feel like I lose most of them (don\'t all us gamblers feel that way). But I would have sold my ticket for 5 cents on the dollar after I saw the head on.
Rob
I\'d have been disappointed if anyone agreed.
From a guy that primarily bets CA tracks and generally thinks NY stewards are too quick to DQ: nothing else should ever happen in this spot, really obvious DQ.
I\'ll assume there must be at least a few that agree with me but are embarrassed to say so. Who can blame them.
Boscar,
Probably not. You happen to pick the most egregious foul in recent memory....
If you want to see what a shaky call looks like, take a look at Gulfstream Park\'s last race. No skin in the game for me, but no inquiry, a jockey objection and a very marginal take down. Can\'t say an awful call, but surely marginal.
Rob