Sword Dancer: ? for the board

[SoCalMan2]

Just out of curiosity, is there anybody paying attention here who believes that the 5th place finisher should NOT have been disqualified and placed either 6th or 7th?

[jimbo66]

SoCal,

I think the horse should have been DQed from 5th to 6th.   That said, the jockey didn\'t object and I don\'t remember a trainer objection being upheld

That is one incident.

As for the four star Dave, I badly needed the 7.   My meet deficit would be half of what it is now with that DQ.   But it wasn\'t a bad call.  Before the deci on was made, I gave it a 10 percent chance of being a DQ.   There is a long recent history of these gate infractions not being enforced.   Why would u think this one would?   This was nowhere near as bad as Bayern and not within a mile of the ridiculous Delaware handicap race where i\'m a chatterbox crushed the entires field including the 2nd place horse, and didn\'t come down.

Gate infractions are seldom enforced.

Not sure why.   But u can\'t be surprised, blame the local stewards, or be surprised.  It is pretty standard across the board and doesn\'t seem like it is changing.

Jim

[TGJB]

\"Wasn\'t a bad call\" and \"history of these gate infractions not being enforced\" are not the same thing. The problem is either the rule or the interpretation, but those were clearly infractions that either did or could have affected the outcome.

[TempletonPeck]

SoCalMan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can anybody figure out what they are saying in
> their published decision on the Sword Dancer?
> Here is a link to it --
>
> https://www.nyra.com/saratoga/racing/stewards-deci
> sions/aug-27-2016

Boy, they didn\'t really elaborate much, did they?

\"After viewing the available video angles and speaking to the riders involved it was determined by the stewards that no action was warranted.\" That\'s the entirety of the \'meat\' of their decision - IOW,\"We thought at it, and decided we should do nothing.\"

Then they cite 3 rules, of which this one appears to me to clearly be the one that applies:

\"The Stewards also consider whether the offending jockey acted in a willful or careless manner while interfering with another horse or jockey, for which the interferer may be disqualified, i.e., placed last or unplaced in the order of finish. For example, if an offending jockey acts in a dangerous manner, exhibits extremely improper riding or impedes several horses, the Stewards may disqualify the offending horse without regard to the specific effect of the foul on the order of finish.\"

[SoCalMan2]

jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SoCal,
>
> I think the horse should have been DQed from 5th
> to 6th.   That said, the jockey didn\'t object and
> I don\'t remember a trainer objection being upheld
>
> That is one incident.
>
> As for the four star Dave, I badly needed the 7.  
> My meet deficit would be half of what it is now
> with that DQ.   But it wasn\'t a bad call.  Before
> the deci on was made, I gave it a 10 percent
> chance of being a DQ.   There is a long recent
> history of these gate infractions not being
> enforced.   Why would u think this one would?  
> This was nowhere near as bad as Bayern and not
> within a mile of the ridiculous Delaware handicap
> race where i\'m a chatterbox crushed the entires
> field including the 2nd place horse, and didn\'t
> come down.
>
> Gate infractions are seldom enforced.
>
> Not sure why.   But u can\'t be surprised, blame
> the local stewards, or be surprised.  It is pretty
> standard across the board and doesn\'t seem like it
> is changing.
>
> Jim

I do not recall the exact race, but one of the 2yo colt stakes races had a completely ridiculous DQ.  Other posters here have complained about it. So we are already up to three incredible incidents without breaking a sweat.

As to the 4stardave -- you may be explaining the truth, but shouldn\'t that find its way into the Stewards\' published decision?  They didn\'t say a higher standard applies to the start that was not attained in this case.  Rather, they said the problems were equally the fault of the 1 and the 8, so they were not disqualifying the 8.

Although I think they have their facts completely wrong, even if you grant them their facts, how does the 1 committing a foul against the 2 justify letting the 8 off for committing a foul against the 7?  Just on its face, saying something so ridiculous should call into question what flavor of oatmeal is in these guys\' skulls.

On the Sword Dancer, the question before us, I challenge anybody to read their decision and figure out what they are saying. They might not be sentient.  I am guessing that no human writes these decisions -- seems they are the product of some weird malfunctioning machine. I would love to see an announcer trying to explain these decisions to the crowd over the PA.

[SoCalMan2]

Steward\'s Decisions
Sat, August 27, 2016

Race #10 - Trainers objection #3 Roman Approval (Florent Geroux) the 6th place finisher against #5 Inordinate (Aaron Gryder) the 5th place finisher for possible interference at the top of the stretch. After viewing the available video angles and speaking to the riders involved it was determined by the stewards that no action was warranted. Order of finish 6-2-4-1

With regard to interference, New York is a "Category 2" state, meaning that Commission rules provide that if the interferer is guilty of causing interference and such interference in the judgment of the Stewards has altered the finish of the race, then the interferer is placed behind the offended horse.

The Stewards consider whether the riders of the horse or horses that are offended continue to give effort to the finish of the race.

The Stewards also consider whether the offending jockey acted in a willful or careless manner while interfering with another horse or jockey, for which the interferer may be disqualified, i.e., placed last or unplaced in the order of finish. For example, if an offending jockey acts in a dangerous manner, exhibits extremely improper riding or impedes several horses, the Stewards may disqualify the offending horse without regard to the specific effect of the foul on the order of finish.

For more information, see Commission rule 4035.2 ("Riding foul penalized

[BitPlayer]

The last 3 paragraphs are just boilerplate that appears to be included in every decision.  Humorously, with respect to the Rainha de Bateria objection in the Diana (July 23), they didn\'t even bother with writing a paragraph of their own.  It\'s just the boilerplate.

With respect to the Fourstardave, Andy Serling said on Saratoga Live that, based on his experience with NYRA stewards, he would be shocked if there was a DQ.  Tom Amoss said the result would be the same in Kentucky.

[TheBull]

Thanks for the response Jim. No, we are in agreement about Johnny V. Not sure how much focusing on Flintshire optimized HIS horse\'s trip. However, I am sure that in HIS mind, he was doing, what he felt, gave his horse the best chance. Gryder\'s decisions, on the otherhand, were directly made to benefit another horse\'s chances. I know where you are coming from, and no, I obviously don\'t know for a fact that Johnny V wasn\'t just out to screw Flintshire.

To me, it isn\'t on the same level because nothing Johnny V did (even if he was out to screw Flint) put horses and riders in danger the way Gryder\'s garbage antics did. At the top of the lane, in a bunched field, to intentionally take a right hand turn into other horses is egregious and reckless. You\'re an owner too, and I am sure you have some close friends in the game (jocks, trainers, agents) as do I, so I know you understand. It goes beyond winning/losing bets sometimes.

[SoCalMan2]

BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The last 3 paragraphs are just boilerplate that
> appears to be included in every decision.
> Humorously, with respect to the Rainha de Bateria
> objection in the Diana (July 23), they didn\'t even
> bother with writing a paragraph of their own.
> It\'s just the boilerplate.
>
> With respect to the Fourstardave, Andy Serling
> said on Saratoga Live that, based on his
> experience with NYRA stewards, he would be shocked
> if there was a DQ.  Tom Amoss said the result
> would be the same in Kentucky.


No offense intended, but as to what you say Serling says, why can\'t that be read to mean - people with experience with the NYRA Stewards know that they are idiots so they expect them to do idiotic things? Not sure that helps matters. Not sure the relevance of Tom Amoss\'s view of what they would do or say in Kentucky, but at least in Kentucky they revoke Stewards licenses (see John Veitch). Would be nice if New York adopted that practice and put it into use.

I am curious why people are defending these idiots? Nobody is coming to Travis Stone\'s defense and he is hardly guilty of bad intent (only incompetence). These Stewards in the best case are incompetent and could easily be worse.

[TempletonPeck]

Timely find, it seems in PA they\'re willing to overturn a stewards\' decision, at least once in a blue moon:

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/reversed-pennsylvania-officials-overturn-stewards-disqualification-parx/

[covelj70]

All very well said. Thanks!

[Bet Twice]

Maybe I\'m naive but I just don\'t see the intention behind Gryders ride.  What I see is him drifting as he rounds the corner, which Flintshire immediately starts to take advantage of, and then Grdyer looks over to see Flintshire quickly gaining on his inside and rather than slam into him lets him through.  While the situation certainly benefited Flintshire, and can understand the assumption on conspiracy, it seems a bit of a stretch to think they could time it that perfectly.

[SoCalMan2]

Bet Twice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe I\'m naive but I just don\'t see the intention
> behind Gryders ride.  What I see is him drifting
> as he rounds the corner, which Flintshire
> immediately starts to take advantage of, and then
> Grdyer looks over to see Flintshire quickly
> gaining on his inside and rather than slam into
> him lets him through.  While the situation
> certainly benefited Flintshire, and can understand
> the assumption on conspiracy, it seems a bit of a
> stretch to think they could time it that
> perfectly.

Here is how the DRF chart caller saw it --

http://www1.drf.com/drfPDFChartRacesIndexAction.do?TRK=SAR&CTY=USA&DATE=20160827&RN=10

The guy is knocking the ball out of the park this meet.

[Niall]

Crying over spilled milk I am, but the irony is aggravating me. Better than I can explain, read the Bloodhorse article about the appeal of the non-dq in this race. Basically, even if not coupled in wagering, for the purposes of interference they can be treated as though they were coupled, I think. The irony for me is that I was all over Creator in the Belmont and cashed nothing. My only win was the double with this escort. Wouldnt have mattered that much to me, but significant to to others. Just wished it didnt happen...

Thanks to whoever for sharing those photos of the backyard crew. I now know who is who when I attend the seminars. Mostly great discussion on here, has helped me tremendously with my handicapping, if not my betting. Thanks to all. I\'ll be looking at the KY Downs races this weekend. 130k msw for real!! Has to be an opportunity there, no???

Best to all

[Silver Charm]

I was the first person to point this mess out. And while I would not use the word \"fixed\" I certainly think the word \"scripted\" is accurate.