8 had zero chance of winning, but the 3 knocked him off stride EARLIER in the race also, probably not enough to get DQed, but that last cut off was probably the icing on the cake.

If you notice, when Durking was explaining the DQ today, he was talking about MUCH earlier in the stretch, and not that final cut off, he did not it was 'part of it'

That's what we all thought because that's what they were showing when Durkin was explaining it, which makes me feel even more strongly that it was an iffy DQ. There has been so much worse. This is why there needs to be a clear set of guidelines when it comes to the DQ's They should make one of the Stewards get on the track PA and explain what they saw rather than make Durkin do it. They owe it to the betting public.

http://www.racing.state.ny.us/racing/racing.home.htm


4039.10. Who may make objection.

Every objection must be made by the owner, trainer or jockey of some horse engaged in the race or by the officials of the course to the clerk of the scales or to one of the stewards, or an objection may be made by any one of the stewards.



4039.11. Objections to be in writing.

All objections except claims of interference during a race must be in writing signed by the objector.



4039.12. Leave required to withdraw objection.

An objection cannot be withdrawn without leave of the stewards.



4039.13. Liability for costs of inquiry.

All costs and expenses in relation to determining an objection or conducting an inquiry shall be paid by such person or persons and in such proportions as the stewards shall direct.



4039.14. Deposit may be forfeited.

Before considering an objection, the stewards may require a deposit of $ 25, which shall be forfeited if the objection is decided to be frivolous or vexatious.

I am all for the steward explaining. personally, I think there should be about 12 TOTAL stewards in the entire US. Put them on the West Coast, say Idaho or something in a room, Racign would start out there at 8 or 9am and end at midnight, have two shifts, and these people make ALL the decisions. I think this would be the only way for consistency.

She should have been left up -- without question in my mind.

Eric

To tell the public that they DQ'd Coa for the 2 bumps at the top of the stretch is crazy. I really believe that the horse was DQ'd because Coa was on it. IF it was Prado, JV or Gomez the case would have been that the horse was the best and he was clear, he just drifted in at the wire. The horse that ran second was ok and did not lose any placings. They would have given the jock a slap on the wrist and it would be over.

Interesting site. Thanks!

Very well said.

just read this thread again... makes me angry all over again! I want a refund! Its hard enough to pick a horse to win and have it win.. then the stewards have to fucl< with you like that!

That truly was the most ridiculous DQ I've ever seen, especially taken in context with what they've let stand at this meet. He was PULLING THE HORSE UP AT THE WIRE when the horse clipped heels. What a joke.

Then deal with I-bar directly instead of costing those who had a winning ticket...time for Mr.Coa to get a stern talking to by the stewards, his riding lately has been down right dangerous!

Makes you wonder if all the parking lot guys had the 8 to win on a slow Monday.

While the 3 was easily the best.....to not take him down would have been a great message......get your spurs and boots on guys. It is now Rodeo time.

PROBABLY kent knew that horse was 1/5 to come down....you cant ride like a freaken cowboy out there.

What is the point if the racing jurisdictions allow trainers and jockeys to appeal for months and months untill they want to take the suspension. If you get fined and/or suspended you should be allowed to appeal. However the appeal should take place within a reasonable amount of time (14 days should be enough, don't you think?) After that, if you are still found to be guilty, you should have to serve the days immediatly. Just my thoughts...

I agree w/ the appeal in reasonable amount of time, but why can't it be within a week of the race, since most jockeys will file an appeal if they are riding in a big stakes race coming up so they can still ride. Just my opinion.

Thanks for the info.

Because often you file an injunction with a real court which takes time. Blame our legal system not the stewards as they often have their hands tied. Of course having your hands tied shouldn't effect thier vision so much...

Not to revisit bad memories, but I though the race where Cannon Shell's horse was DQ'd towards the end of the Churchill meet was much worse than this one. And I've seen some real doozies in Florida, where the stewards seemingly exercise no discretion at all (and adhere to the "a foul is a foul" mantra, regardless of the impact on the outcome of a race).

Chuck, why do they have to involve the court system for on track occurances? Doesn't the stewards have final say as far as fines and suspensions? I just think the legal system is busy with enough with there own issues to deal with the fact if Eibar Coa should be suspended this week or not.

When is the last time a jockey appealed to court a suspension of 3 or 5 days for something like Coa did? He'd never win. The only thing that could happen is the days get postponed until after Saratoga. He'd still get days.

Because we have rights as citizens and not allowing them due process would violate those rights? I am not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night but I believe that the stewards are acting on behalf of a government/state agency when they hand down suspensions and fines and as such Jockeys and trainers have rights to appeal under most state laws which would supercede any racing rules. I may be way off and a real lawyer may have better insight bot this is how it has been explained to me.

You are just filing an injunction which is simply a stalling tactic in cases like these.

Jockeys do this all the time.

I agree, to a point. If the Stewards repersent the state, then can't the state have a arbitrator for Racing. I am sure he can do other arbitration cases as well, but if a racing case comes ups, it must get resovled in no less then 14 days. I understand that anything involving the state can be this simple, but to allow months and even years to go by with no resolution it is only hurting eveyone involved but the person who asked for the appeal.

I doubt that this is high on anyone priority list in state gov't.

What if the ruling was in error? Shouldn't the injured party have time to a fair and proper hearing? Why is it hurting anyone if a jockey is allowed to continue to ride/?

What about no steward inquiry unless the jockey claims foul.
just wondering

If it was an error, why wouldn't a state issued arbitrator be able to correct it in 14 days?

How long does the appeal process take in other sports? Arbitration in contract disputes in sports get wrapped up much quicker than these in racing.

With trainers the process may have to be a longer one, as I doubt any medication appeals can be done by a third party testing party within 14 days, but even that shouldn't go on for months and years.

Eibar Coa should be serving his days, he is danger out there right now, and how can you send a message to him now? My bet is he won't take his days till Aqueduct. Is that fair? What if, and I hope this doesn't happen, his reckless racing hurts another horse or jockey, or multiple horses and jockeys. What then? We just shrug it off as nothing when he takes his days for the preceding events at Aqueduct in December?

I am just saying, the process is flawed, and needs to be looked at...

huh..what does knowing the partners have to do with it... coa got crazy with the left handed whip and took room from the 8..totally good dq..and i would have had a better pick 4 with the three......

I thought the same thing but thought better to just let it go.

Because in our legal system nothing gets done in 14 days.

Do you really think giving a jockey a week's vacation will make him ride any differently when he comes back?

That statement (the one in bold) is not true. While there are procedings that take much longer, there are things that get wrapped up in 2 weeks. I don't understand what the problem is with this? If other professional sports can get these appeal processes wrapped up in a matter of days or few weeks, why can't horse racing?

If giving him a week vacation, or more isn't going to help, then why bother policing it at all? Why not let them all just run all over each other? Who cares who goes down and who gets hurt or worse?

That is exactly the wrong idea. You have to have a punishment, be it suspension and/or fine. If they can choose when to take their suspension, then you are right, it becomes just a vacation. That nulls any effect of the suspension. The suspension process for jockeys and trainers is flawed, and it needs reform. Can you not agree with that?

Andy summed the whole thing well on the seminar from Siros this morning. "Punish the Jockey, not the Bettors."

Agreed, but how do you punish him when he puts his suspensions on hold for months or years? Seems to me he is just waiting for a trip back to Venezuela. Take the days, see the family and friends back home, and come back like nothing ever happend. What a punishment...

I dont think that giving jockeys days does a damn thing regardless of when he takes them. It just hurts the people who ride the guy on a regular basis, takes money out of his agents and valets pockets and gives the guy a vacation. What they should do is have a sliding scale of fines with the amount getting bigger and bigger everytime he commits another offense. You want to get guys attention? Take money directly out of their pockets.

That would be fine by me. I would be for it. I think we finally came to an agreement.

and really punish "T"