Originally Posted by Hawk

Trying to "right" the path of where a mount goes on their own accord I suspect is more precarious in the very early stages of a race as the rate of acceleration abruptly takes place. In that light, I would be inclined to be more forgiving of Martin than of Coa.

In regards to Coa, how should the stewards view the case before them. Should they be as a jury and takes the facts of the case/race in front of them or should they consider the antics of late and pass judgment with a enough already decision meant to "reel in" his shenanigans?

After watching the race I almost think they felt the need to do something with Coa and threw Martin in to obfuscate a singling out of Coa.

In the end, who knows.

Originally Posted by Hawk

Trying to "right" the path of where a mount goes on their own accord I suspect is more precarious in the very early stages of a race as the rate of acceleration abruptly takes place. In that light, I would be inclined to be more forgiving of Martin than of Coa.

In regards to Coa, how should the stewards view the case before them. Should they be as a jury and takes the facts of the case/race in front of them or should they consider the antics of late and pass judgment with a enough already decision meant to "reel in" his shenanigans?

After watching the race I almost think they felt the need to do something with Coa and threw Martin in to obfuscate a singling out of Coa.
In the end, who knows.

Originally Posted by paisjpq

actually it does not matter what coa perceived...there is no situation in which it is okay to put horses and riders at risk for injury to settle a score.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Why would it be acceptable to allow incorrect decisions to be made on a daily basis? How long would you keep your job if you made incorrect decisions on a daily basis? Think about how you would feel if you got taken down in the last leg of a big carryover pick 6 because the stewards made an incorrect decision and they took half a million dollars out of your pocket?

Originally Posted by GPK

Hawk, isn't that part of their job though? To rightfully determine the the culprit and punish them accordingly. To feel like they are singling someone out should not even enter their minds in a case like this.

Originally Posted by whodey17

If you are on a train and someone pushes you and you feel threatned then yes you have the right to protect yourself. I believe this is called self-defense. I am not a lawyer, but I think that holds up pretty well if one can prove they acted to a perceived threat to their person.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but it appeared you came in looking for a fight and I think you recognized it, as you changed your post. Let me ask you, say you owned the horse Coa was riding, would you let him ride your horse again? Now say you owned the horse Martin was on. Would you let him ride it again?

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Absolutely, and that's part of what made today's decision wrong.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Just out of curiosity, considering Coa put your horse's life in danger as well as Martin and the horse he was on, as well as whoever was behind him, why would you allow him back on. Don't you think stuff like this needs to stop, or someone will get killed? This 10 day slap on the wrist isn't going to get the job done.

Originally Posted by Grits

BTW, one can get exceedingly wired about what they see, no matter whether its 1 time or 27 times. With all of this knowledge though, one still cannot prove that which they cannot see.....not you, nor I, nor anyone else knows whether this began in the jocks room, at the start, or at the blind spot on the video.

Hawk is looking at this from a better standpoint, one that is not showing bias. Bias can cloud our judgement making us less acceptable to ALL facts or views.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I haven't read the second page of this post, but in watching Chicago racing I've found that at Arlington they are way more likely to take a horse down than at Hawthorne.

For what it's worth, I've seen way more questionable calls at Arlington than Hawthorne. Not even sure, out of ignorance, if the stewards are the same in any number, but calls at Arlington are questionable more often then I'd like to remember.

Originally Posted by GPK

Grits...I am a huge Coa fan...and have made that clear many times on here in the past...so I am not being biased here at all. What he did was wrong, dangerous and he deserves more than 10 days. To put other jockeys and their horses in harms way, DELIBERATELY was uncalled for...whether it was something that stemmed from an incident in the jockeys room or not.

Eibar was wrong...and the stewards plainly f*cked up.

Originally Posted by whodey17

One thing that has bugged my about Stewards is that they will allow for much more bumping in 2 year old races than older horse races. That is something I dont understand.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Because 2YOs are usually pretty green and often erratic and harder to control. If you watch a lot of head-ons of 2YO races you see a lot of crazy behavoir that you don't see in races for older horses.

Originally Posted by whodey17

27 times. Doesnt matter what we see with our eyes. Only matters what Coa perceived. Coa thought Martin did something wrong. Coa was angered and felt the need to retaliate. It is perception vs reality. But reprimanding one and not the other is not the answer. Obviously Coa felt he was threatened. Doesnt really matter what anything else thinks.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

What did Martin do though? I have watched it over and over and I don't see it.

Originally Posted by whodey17

That is true. So you are saying that the stewards allow for the "greenness" of the horses when they are 2. That does make sense.

Originally Posted by whodey17

Why is Coa wrong but not Martin? How do we know that Martin didn't do what he did on purpose?

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Now that I've read the second page, this is AWSUMZ!

I perceive that you are being a troll, so therefore I am very well within my limits (according to your logic) in demanding that you lay down at the wire in the center of the track of the next quarter horse race at Portland Meadows.

Makes sense, eh? Because I perceived a deliberate action intended to harm my internet wellbeing.

And no, I won't give you the pleasure of being trampled by 4000N1Y claimers at Hawthorne. 2500N1Y claimer quarter horses at PM will have to do.

At the risk of validating ANYTHING PG1985 says, this may be the worst logic I've ever seen on this forum.

Originally Posted by GPK

You can clearly tell that Martin is trying to right the path of his horse. Where as Coa plainly looks directly over his left shoulder...sees Eddie there...and moves his mount in on him towards the rail.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Within reason. A Mott 2YO ducked out badly on the backstretch of a grass race last summer, and badly interfered with two horses, and was justifiably taken down. It's a judgement call.

Originally Posted by whodey17

Yes you can tell that while watching the head on re-play. But put yourself in Coa's shoes. Maybe he didnt see it that way. It is easy to play armchair QB.

Originally Posted by GPK

But...these guys are professionals. They do this for a living. They are trusted to make the right decisions out there. For their safety...for the safety of their horse...for the safety of other jocks. Being on a 1,000lb animal at 30mph is NOT the place to be taking retaliation...

Stupid, stupid decision by Coa....and again, I am an admitted fan as I have had great luck with him in the past. This incident does shed a new light on him for me though.

Originally Posted by whodey17

Again it is perception vs reality. It is a philosophical debate. If a man pushes you causing you to fall back what do you do. Did the man push you because he wanted to cause you harm, or did he push you because you were about to get hit by a car. You have to find out why one acted before you decide what to do. If the man pushed you so you wouldnt get hit by a car you would say thanks. If he pushed you because he was mad at you then you may want to defend yourself.

Originally Posted by whodey17

But put yourself in Coa's shoes. Maybe he didnt see it that way.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I think you are kind of missing the point. It's not Coa's job to decide if Martin did it on purpose or not. That is what the stewards are there for. His job is to ride his horse. Thats it. Not to be a revenge seeker in the middle of the race. I really don't care how Coa saw it.

Let me throw this out there. What if what Coa did caused Martin to fall and he and the horse were badly injured, maybe killed. How would he explain it, or anyone else for that matter.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Well, again, having not even once watched the race you have no idea what happened.

So how are you able to talk about "perception" during the race when Martin obviously forced Coa to check in a manner that was 100%/360 degrees/COMPLETELY POLAR OPPOSITE of what Coa later did to him, WHEN YOU NEVER EVEN WATCHED IT ONCE?

Wait, to the rest of us that is evidence that you are NOT able to talk about it.

But, when all logic and reality fails, feel free to keep firing away.