Twirling Candy and the Stewards

[Niall]

As this has been a much discussed topic I thought I would grab some gas a throw it on the fire ... First, they made this official before even asking for Jockey input. 2nd, how can the stewards say that something that happens on the backside is less important On a horse that one sudden unexpected reaction can have many negative consequences. We have all seen a horse with a TON gets checked. loses momentum and then interest ... The stewards \"think\" it didnt cause him the 5 lengths he lost 5th position by. Thoughts? Any Glens Falls jog burgers out there? Safe home everyone and JB was always a pleasure talking to you and my friend Craig (who was at Siros with me - think The Grange) says hello ,,,

[miff]

Nial,

Not a good week for the \'three blind mice\'at the SPA and Del Mar.What is interesting about the three stewards inquiries(2 at spa, 1 at DM)is the inconsistency.At the SPA, they took a horse down for taking away a path and the next day they left one up for a similar infraction.In both cases, the horse fouled was NOT going to win anyway and no placing was lost.

At DM, if Twirling Candy \"dropped\" the other horse he comes down,otherwise, no way.I\'m a big proponent of leaving horses up when the infraction does not alter the outcome.Punish the rider, not the players.

Mike

[Niall]

I do get that in this case the decision did protect the greatest amount of players. I understand and applaud that. However, to say that it didnt alter the outcome is wrong, just as saying it DID alter the outcome would be wrong. Yes, it did not alter the Win ... Anyway from a wagering perspective, how would someone play this race Isnt it a classic sit this one out as there is NO value anywhere? Just redboarded the analysis and it says it all !! FYI the horse who was most affected by the bolt was the second choice ... Last week I had a group of friends pool and box the exacta in the Personal Ensign and played all x all hoping for something stupid to happen because somethimes it does. IMO a stupid way to lose money but it worked in this instance and they made some real $$$. Maybe there is a group just like them who played this race the same way. To me that was a really bad no call ... I see both sides but wish we could get a transcript of the discussion and the mindset behind it ...

[Leamas57]

A friend of mine thinks it\'s the Z syndrome. It helps the track/racing to have an undefeated horse and while it might have affect #4s chances to hit board, they were thinking legacy. I tend to find that argument compelling. It was clearly interference.

Leamas

[Silver Charm]

Del Mar Steward Scott Chaney on why Twirling Candy wasn\'t dq\'ed:


\"First of all, it happened five-eighths of a mile from the wire, which
makes a disqualification less likely. Number two, (Summer Movie) was
...beaten 6 3/4 lengths for fifth, so it would be very speculative to say
that he lost the 6 3/4 lengths for fifth ... on the backside. Lastly, in
our opinion it would have been an unjust result to disqualify a horse
that was much the best in order to help a horse that finished out of any
monetary placing.\"

[plasticman]

Actually, more people had at least 2 dollars to show on all the longshots, so, one big show plunger was protected and all the \'little guys\' who bet against him in the show pool were not.

What i don\'t get is the quickness of the offical. This was obviously a very unusual situation that called for a 15 minute inquiry. This thing was offical even before Del Mar resident Jenny Craig could get to the winners circle.

[miff]

Plastic,

Really the anti-conspiracy type, but believe the call was very political. I wonder what the call would have been if Twirling Candy was the horse that was bothered in the exact same way and then finished 5th with the winner being the horse that fouled.


Mike

[Caradoc]

The implicit reason in the first justification – that the farther an incident occurs from the finish should impact the disqualification analysis – has no basis in the CHRB rules that Chaney is obligated to enforce, or in logic for that matter.  It is telling that the Del Mar stewards have not used it as a reason in any disqualification determination in the last two years, maybe longer.  

The howler, however, is the second one: it would have been speculative to determine whether the incident cost Summer Movie a better placing.  The job of the stewards is to speculate, or put more accurately, to determine whether the incident cost Summer Movie a better placing.  That is the standard the stewards routinely use.  Their reports are available on the CHRB website.  See, for example, their decision regarding the first race on July 22nd of this year: No disqualification of Distorted Economy was warranted because, even though he crossed in front of Rauschenberg, the latter "was not cost the opportunity at a better placing."  It is not possible to reach that judgment without "speculating" on the effect the incident had on Rauschenberg.  Likewise, the stewards made the same determination regarding the seventh race on August 7th, that even though McKenzies Way crossed in front of Doughboy, the "results of this incident did not cost (Doughboy) a better placing." It is one thing for Chaney to argue that the incident did not cost Summer Movie a better placing, but in saying that it is speculative whether it did or not he is either being disingenuous, or ignorant of the reasons for his own written rulings.  Your choice.

Plasticman:

Chaney spoke to your question in the San Diego Union Tribune:

\"Given the fact that (Espinoza, rider of Summer Movie) was not exactly eager to talk to us\" -- he immediately consulted with the connections of Summer Movie after dismounting -- \"we went ahead and made a decision," Chaney said. "We made the decision before we talked to him. We're not just going to wait an undue amount of time. Our opinion is that if an inquiry is going on and we've asked to talk to both jockeys, they're going to take time. We didn't know how long he was going to stand there and talk to the trainer. We're not going to wait a crazy amount of time if it doesn't seem that important to them.  It was pretty obvious what happened in this case and we did talk to both jockeys afterward. And frankly their comments would have had no influence in terms of the decision."

Given the embarrassing nature of what he revealed in his comments, Chaney may need a press agent.  Among other things.

[plasticman]

Wow, this is bad. So the bettors need the jockey to be \'in the mood\' to tell the stewards that he got clobbered? I don\'t get why they would need to talk to the jock, i mean, the video doesn\'t lie but a jockey could theoretically lie or embellish how bad the interference was. If there was a different jock on the fouled horse, like a Chris McCarron or Jerry Bailey and they immediately talked to the judges and said my horse was moving well, got his leg clipped, got mad, ran off with me and was unmanageable the rest of the way, i think that might have swayed them. The jock could have made a compelling case that he was full of run and the interference made his horse mad and the mad horse \'pulled\' too hard and tired himself out.

[P-Dub]

plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, this is bad. So the bettors need the jockey
> to be \'in the mood\' to tell the stewards that he
> got clobbered? I don\'t get why they would need to
> talk to the jock, i mean, the video doesn\'t lie
> but a jockey could theoretically lie or embellish
> how bad the interference was. If there was a
> different jock on the fouled horse, like a Chris
> McCarron or Jerry Bailey and they immediately
> talked to the judges and said my horse was moving
> well, got his leg clipped, got mad, ran off with
> me and was unmanageable the rest of the way, i
> think that might have swayed them. The jock could
> have made a compelling case that he was full of
> run and the interference made his horse mad and
> the mad horse \'pulled\' too hard and tired himself
> out.


So the stewards have to believe every last thing a jockey tells them?

[SoCalMan2]

plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, more people had at least 2 dollars to
> show on all the longshots, so, one big show
> plunger was protected and all the \'little guys\'
> who bet against him in the show pool were not.
>
> What i don\'t get is the quickness of the offical.
> This was obviously a very unusual situation that
> called for a 15 minute inquiry. This thing was
> offical even before Del Mar resident Jenny Craig
> could get to the winners circle.


Agree 100% on the quickness issue.  What was the rush and what were they afraid of -- if they thought about it they might have to face a hard decision?  Has anybody ever heard of Stewards being criticized for taking too long to make a tough decision?  Usually the controversy over a call is whether or not the Stewards made a good call or a bad call -- rarely do people think that they just didn\'t care enough to take the time to do the job. Oy

[TGJB]

Agree with most said on this string, though I didn\'t see the race in question. If you want to see a real screwy one, take a look at the 3yo filly grass stake at Mth on Saturday. The filly that was second put another into the rail around the turn, she actually bounced off it and backed up through the field. You could see it clearly from the stewards angles, which they showed several times-- then they left her up. No idea why-- they could not possiblt determine if the filly who was eliminated was going to get a piece from where she was at the point she was fouled.

As far as I know, the rule in other states (affect the outcome) is different than in NY (a foul is a foul), but they appear to be now acting in NY as if the foul has to affect the outcome.

[Niall]

As I mentioned in my original post, the TG Analysis says it all ... a good M/L makes for a bad betting race ... The Kings English translation is \"sit this one out\"! There isnt a player alive making money betting races like this long term ... A DQ would have been a painful lesson to those who had to play, and as my Dad used to say \"This is going to hurt, but someday you\'ll thank me\" ...