Labor Day -- 7th at Saratoga -- Inquiry

[Socalman3]

Am curious views of this non-DQ.

Would appear there is no issue that Alvarado\'s filly bodyslammed the other filly.  The only question was that the fouled filly was looking like an also ran and ended up an also ran.  Is the rule that no matter how egregious the foul, if the horse fouled wasn\'t going to do anything, then no change? She probably lost a placing, but not a significant placing.

if the fouled filly could have finished 4th or better, then this would have been an egregious non-call.

Am I looking at this wrong?

[hooper]

This is the statement the Stewards attach to their decisions.

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.

[Socalman3]

hooper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the statement the Stewards attach to their
> decisions.
>
> 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.

Thank you.  This strikes me as an insane rule.  It is not the stewards fault with a rule like that.  What does \"altered the finish of the race\" mean? A bad foul pretty much alters the finish of the race -- maybe not in a meaningful way for purse money or betting results - but the finish is pretty much altered.  

And, how do they take into consideration if the jockey perseveres or not? That just seems like a recipe for disaster to me.  What if the horse was injured by the foul or the jockey wanted to ride carefully because he did not know if the horse was injured or not? What if the horse went down -- no foul because the jockey did not persevere? It seems a crazy thing to consider if the foul was flagrant and capable of injuring the offended horse.


The foul in question here was blatant and flagrant - but it did not appear to be the jockey\'s fault -- the jockey seemed to do his best to avoid committing the foul but the horse had a mind of its own.

[hooper]

Official release.


Race 7 - Stewards’ inquiry and Jockey’s objection into the stretch run. In the vicinity of the 1/8th pole, #2 Lovestruck (Junior Alvarado) comes out into the #6 Mrs Frankel (Dylan Davis). After reviewing the video and speaking to the riders involved, the stewards did not believe the incident cost the #6 a placing. The race was made official as is 2-5-9-1.

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.

[Molesap]

Well obviously Davis, the rider of Mrs Frankel disagreed because he lodged an objection. And the chart callers really didn\'t seem to agree either - I have appended the relevant chart notes below. Not sure how the stewards can make the judgment that the incident did not cost the horse a better placing. Once Lovestruck came out and knocked into Mrs Frankel, she seemed to lose any interest, but it is not like she was backing up at the time. She stopped after she got hit and still was a little over 2 lengths off the bottom slot in the trifecta at the wire. How can you say that the bump cost her less than two lengths? To some extent, I would be fine with this type of decision if it was consistently made, but it seems arbitrarily enforced. I think in many ways if they broadcasted EVERYTHING that went into the steward\'s decision live it would help with transparency, but I suspect that those of use still regularly handicapping would likely quit after the first exchange - but I gigress. I think it was a bad call and was surprised she did not come down, especially given some of the other horses they have DQ’d during the meet.

From DRF Chart:
 â€œLOVESTRUCK… was aggressively maneuvered farther to the outside deep into the furlong grounds, on a mission to attain path four and better racing room, made hard contact with MRS FRANKEL, herself coming in with the rider applying some stick work from the right side, muscled her way into the coveted path at the expense of the aforementioned rival…”

MRSFRANKEL (IRE) made it into the pocket nearing the end of the homestretch, eyed the front runners within striking distance, went approximately four wide into the lane, began to shift into a tighter fit along its path when fed some right side pressure in the furlong grounds just as the top one was herself getting steered towards her, lost any remaining interest after bumping soundly with that opponent in the vicinity of the eighth pole.

[Socalman3]

Molesap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well obviously Davis, the rider of Mrs Frankel
> disagreed because he lodged an objection. And the
> chart callers really didn\'t seem to agree either -
> I have appended the relevant chart notes below.
> Not sure how the stewards can make the judgment
> that the incident did not cost the horse a better
> placing. Once Lovestruck came out and knocked into
> Mrs Frankel, she seemed to lose any interest, but
> it is not like she was backing up at the time. She
> stopped after she got hit and still was a little
> over 2 lengths off the bottom slot in the trifecta
> at the wire. How can you say that the bump cost
> her less than two lengths? To some extent, I would
> be fine with this type of decision if it was
> consistently made, but it seems arbitrarily
> enforced. I think in many ways if they broadcasted
> EVERYTHING that went into the steward\'s decision
> live it would help with transparency, but I
> suspect that those of use still regularly
> handicapping would likely quit after the first
> exchange - but I gigress. I think it was a bad
> call and was surprised she did not come down,
> especially given some of the other horses they
> have DQ’d during the meet.
>
> From DRF Chart:
>  â€œLOVESTRUCK… was aggressively maneuvered
> farther to the outside deep into the furlong
> grounds, on a mission to attain path four and
> better racing room, made hard contact with MRS
> FRANKEL, herself coming in with the rider applying
> some stick work from the right side, muscled her
> way into the coveted path at the expense of the
> aforementioned rival…”
>
> MRSFRANKEL (IRE) made it into the pocket nearing
> the end of the homestretch, eyed the front runners
> within striking distance, went approximately four
> wide into the lane, began to shift into a tighter
> fit along its path when fed some right side
> pressure in the furlong grounds just as the top
> one was herself getting steered towards her, lost
> any remaining interest after bumping soundly with
> that opponent in the vicinity of the eighth pole.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I really think the problem here is the rule.
I assume other jurisdictions have a better rules than this, no?  I just do not see the justification for rule that permits a horse that commits a flagrant foul to stay up.