Double DQ at CD yesterday

[Blueskies]

Any group opinion on the double DQ yesterday in the last at CD?  Looked like the 8 should’ve stayed up to me?

[Silver Charm]

I had 8. Came in super late. Like last 15 yards. Wasn\'t changing outcome. Did probably come over a solid path. Surprising to say the least

[Socalman3]

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had 8. Came in super late. Like last 15 yards.
> Wasn\'t changing outcome. Did probably come over a
> solid path. Surprising to say the least


Depends on what the rule is.  The whole stretch run, there were horses banging into each other.  Earlier in the stretch, the horse that was moved up from third to first was the aggressor.

I do not believe that any of the aggression affected the final outcome, so if that is a metric the rule requires, I do not think anybody should have come down.  The horses finished in the same positions they would have finished in the absence of any contact.  Also, not sure what you are supposed to do when there are multiple incidents in one stretch run...again, i do not think any of them affected a placing, but multiple infractions occurred with different culpable parties and victims.

In terms of the affair a few jumps from the wire, I wouldn\'t have taken either down and especially would not have taken the outside horse down.  

The hole was there and the horse was not going through.  Again, this depends on the definition of the rule....in my view, if there is a hole...the horse either needs to go through it or not....not really fair for a horse to require horses ahead of it to maintain positions so the hole is always there whether he goes through it or not.  

But, this comes down to the rule...if you are required to continuously maintain the hole, then a foul happened.  Again, it did not make a horse lose a position.  In terms of closing the hole, the inside horse did more of the closing.  In my view, the outside horse was reacting to the inside horse barreling towards it and was really just trying to protect himself.  If I were the outside horse and the rules are the way they apparently are in Kentucky, I would have claimed foul against the inside horse.  He only came over because the inside horse was menacing him.  if the inside horse had done nothing and the outside horse came over as much as he did, the hole still would have been there.  

Unfortunately, I cannot really tell what the call should have been because I do not know what rules the stewards are applying.

One thing I will say about these same stewards -- I posted after the Breeders Cup about an absolutely egregious foul that was not called.  No question a foul and no question a placing was lost.  Best I can tell is they didnt care because it would have a 4th place horse being placed 8th.  The 8th place horse had no motivation to claim foul because prize money between 7th and 8th is the same.  However, people who had the 1-2-3-5 superfecta got totally cheated.  Also, 5th place horse should have gotten benefit of moving up to 4th but couldn\'t really claim foul because it was 8th place horse that was fouled.  This was in the Turf Sprint and was not widely seen because Stormy Liberal and World of Trouble were so far ahead of the main body of the field.  Nobody responded when I posted, but I would be curious about peoples\' views.  Is the superfecta bettor just not protected by the rules as much as win place and show bettors?

[jma11473]

Double DQ kept the carryover alive. Nuff said.

[Blueskies]

Frustrating to have the winner and get a nice ticket taken down- wish there was a totally non partisan “federal” decision maker that saw all jurisdictions in the same way!

[Socalman3]

Blueskies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frustrating to have the winner and get a nice
> ticket taken down- wish there was a totally non
> partisan “federal” decision maker that saw all
> jurisdictions in the same way!


One thing that frustrates me is that the stewards don’t post in writing the rationale for their actions. If they were required to do that, I suspect they would be a lot more careful because the indelible written word can be very embarrassing if it is ridiculous. Back in the day, the print version of the DRF (broadsheet printed in hightstown NJ) used to have a stewards ruling section and you could learn a lot from reading that section. Alas, that has gone the way of shoeboards. I feel like I get less info now than I used to.

[Ace]

It was very frustrating I had strong opinion on the 7 horse and played him heavily to place since there were two obvious horses and he was sinch to finish at leest second. He gets DQ\'d and placed third. I was robbed.