Bailey's Apple Blossom Ride

[BitPlayer]

I had no money on the race and just saw it briefly on TV, but I was surprised that Bailey and Wild Spirit didn\'t get DQd to 3rd for the hip check they delivered to Star Parade at the top of the stretch.  Does Bailey ever get taken down?

[sheba87]

Oaklawn has different rules then the rest of the country.  At Oaklawn, if your horse swings wide and knocks another horse sideways at the top of the lane, then there is no foul.  If I were a jockey there I would duly note the new rules and use them to my advantage.

It is unfortunate that Bailey and Frankel play by different rules then everyone else.  Take Frankel down, he and Bailey suddenly quit showing up at your track.

The call was a joke.  Just for full disclosure, it cost me $1500.00.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Frankel and Bailey would sell their souls for a the right purse. The safetly of other riders is taking a backseat to J.D. lately. He\'s always done some things from a competitive standpoint, but I\'ve seen things in the last month that either indicate he\'s getting old and losing his perception or getting bold and getting away with it. Theres old jockeys and theres bold jockeys but theres few old bold ones so I think its the former. He made a crossover on a horse in the Hutchenson and almost caused a fall. He did the same in the New Orleans handicap. The Apple Blossum is just another example of it.

[P-Dub]

Ridiculous that Bailey wasn\'t taken down and also given days. Why do the stewards let this guy get away with this crap?

[Michael]

This makes me (once again) question whether or not inquiry\'s should affect pari-mutuel payoffs.  There simply is no consistency in the rulings from track2track or even day2day.
This is a perfect example, in the Apple Blossom, yes there was a definite foul, but it did not affect the order of finish, the horse is left up.
In the Santa Anita Derby, Rock Hard Ten drifts in an impedes a horse he was running away from, again, a foul, but again it in no way affected the order of finish.  In this case the horse was DQ\'d.
If either of the horses bothered in these 2 races wound up finishing 4th (instead of 3rd) I could understand disqualifications keeping the \"affect the horse\'s chance at a better placing\" part of the rules in mind.
If the aforementioned rule where not in place, I could understand both horses being DQ\'d.
Stewards make poor decisions all the time, and trainers, owners and jockeys have the right to appeal these decisions.
However, bettors, who as a whole are impacted financially even more than the connections, have no right to appeal.
And we wonder why this game has difficulty competing with casinos.

[Dr. Fager]

This is one reason why the officials and their rules are archaic.  Fouls should be subject to bifurcation.  Imperialism was impeded, and Flores ride on Rock Hard Ten subjected Imperialism and his rider V Espinoza to injury.  Imperialism was not going to either win or finish 2nd if Rock Hard Ten had kept a straight course.  The officials could leave the placing intact, and fine and/or subject the rider to days.  If necessary, the awarding of purses could be changed. There is no reason to change the placing and hurt the bettors.  One of the all time travesties was when Dr. Fager with Manny Ycaza won the Jersey Derby in 1967 by more than 6 lengths and was placed last for coming in on the first turn of the 1 1/8 mile race.  Ycaza then lost the mount on Dr. Fager to Braulio Baeza.  More recently, Megahertz won the Santa Ana H. on 3/27/04 at SA and was placed last, although she was clearly best.  It would have been more fair to simply fine and or give the rider Espinoza days without changing the order of finish.  The bettors were unfairly punished.



Post Edited (04-05-04 17:22)