That's so wrong. You're supposed to be his friend and build him up.

Scav.....you're hanging out with the wrong guys ( and not reading enough ).

Ok, I have to stop things there. Since when is it hard to find action in the non-350 lb. category at Saratoga?

its not, but GPK proceeded to try and alter my focus from the racing form to 350lb woman that HE wanted....He was trying to throw the handsome young buck to do the dirty work so they he can try and use his old man charm to seal the deal on minimum effort. I didn't fall for it.

I....................































THUD!

What happened after that race was ridiculous. There is always an outrider with a walkie-talkie at the same spot on the track. Aside from a breakdown or other incident, they are there for the sole purpose of relaying any claim of foul. If you ever wondered how it can be that races are posted official before the horses all return to be unsaddled it is because they have all passed the designated outrider on their return from the gallop out. That's how it's supposed to work anyway.

Maybe the stewards mistakenly thought this happened but then again, what were they looking at during the race? It seemed pretty clear that there was some action in there. The stewards should be fined or otherwise disciplined as should the outrider.

:mad:

What exactly did the stewards do that you know is wrong?

:cool: ::rolleyes: ;)

They are responsible for the race. From the time thay go on the track to the time the weigh out is done. That includes a reasonable time frame to allow for an objection, which they did not do. If they screwed up and thought the horses had passed the deignated outrider, they should be fined. If they didn't bother to see if that happened, they should be fined more. It really doesn't matter one bit if it would have been a valid foul claim. There were two photos in the race so it wasn't super quick. Either they screwed up or Garcia lied and maybe figured there'd be an inquiry.

:{>: :{>: :{>:

You're making an awful lot of assumptions to have such an absolute opinion.

Races aren't made official after the weigh out any more in most cases. How do you know exactly how it works between the outriders and the stewards?

Maybe the stewards are responsible. But for you to be so absolute without knowing anything close to any of the facts seems a little puzzling.

What's so puzzling? Yeah, I know they don't wait for the weigh out. They DO wait to "clear" the race of objection in the manner I described.

Aside from you doubting my knowledge, perhaps you can tell me how it could be possible to do it any other way?

The facts? Really now, what exactly are the facts? That is aside from either Garcia lying or the stewards screwing up.

I don't doubt your knowledge, I know it helps you to think it's personal, I think you are jumping to conclusions without anything close to all the facts. You seem to think this is a black and white, or either/or, stuation and I don't.

I never said it is impossible the stewards didn't screw up, but unlike you I am not ready to pin blame on people based on scattered information coming, essentially, from a jockey.

My best guess is the stewards reviewed the incident as the race was going on, decided it was not worthy of further review ( whether any of us agree or disagree with this decision is irrelevent ), and made the race official when they didn't hear from the outriders. I don't know for sure that an outrider was negligent, though perhaps he was, just as I don't know that the stewards were negligent, though perhaps they were. I just don't know. You seem to. How exactly I'm not sure.

What I see far too often on the internet is people jumping to semi-hysterical conclusions based on, at best, a shred of evidence. Now, I don't lump you in this category at all....but in this instance that's what I think you are doing. That doesn't mean I discount the possibility that you are right. I just don't see your comments as fair considering the lack of information.

No, I don't take it personal. When I read things like, "...you don't know..." I just take it in the spirit offered, whatever that may be.

Do this... the next time you go to the track and there is a jockey objection that goes up before the riders return, ask yourself, "How did that happen?"

Huh? Are you suggesting I don't understand how jockey objections are relayed?

Now that's funny. Thanks for reading my posts.

Let's just say I know for a fact that no outrider was chosen to take an objection. I also know it as fact that someone connected with the track advised the stewards prior to the race ending that they better look at that incident. And finally, it is a fact that there is an inquiry into what actually happened in the Stewards room.

All I know is, bet white tie next time out because that was an impressive run after that serious of a check.

I see a lot of " I know for a fact " posts on the internet.....and most are a friend of a friend of a friend told my brother's gym teacher's paperboy's father's ex-boss's bartender.;)

I'll find out if they're looking into it....but actually in this case I assume it's true.

I do look forward to betting against White Tie at 2:5 next time. I didn't like how he hung late in the race.

I will add that it seems unlikely that anybody associated with the track " advised the stewards prior to the race ending that they better look at that incident. "

The race took just over a minute, on the most hectic and crowded day of the year, and even if this wasn't an unlikely event in general, it seems particularly ridiculous that it would have happened Saturday.

Just think about it for a minute.

It's not my job to comfort the afflicted, but the afflict the comforted:D

HUNG LATE? YOUR SERIOUS! First time out, the horse is cut off, loses 3 to 4 lengths and then comes on in the stretch and loses by a length and change. Forget about hanging late. The horse just showed you, first time out what kind of heart he was. You are right, at 2/5 it is no bet. But to bet against him? Well that is just plain foolish. :zz: All due respect. :D

Think what you want. I certainly understand being a skeptic. There are alot of I know for a fact folks on the board. It is unusual. And I should keep some things to myself which I will work harder to do. So thanks for helping get in check. No one will acknowledge that it happened. But consider the connections. Consider that they are an outfit highly regarded and respected both in the stands and on the back stretch. It isn't that unusual. I used to believe everything I heard on the back side. Even the rumor that "blood was gushing from BB's quarter crack" which apparently wasn't true. But I will stop. I am just outraged by injustice and incompetence. And there was alot of both at Belmont that day. LOL, speak to any of the women who had to hit the john.
I just hope they publicize their investigation and clarification. The public needs to know the sport monitors itself. Especially when they are watching on these big days. I know, I know. Foolish hope.

He ran OK. He had some trouble and was probably best. You obviously have a personal involvement with this horse because of the trainer and your judgement on a lot of matters involving him is severely clouded.

You should watch the race a couple more times. A lot of things went well for him.

The problem is that the scattered info from the jockey got broadcast on ESPN giving off the perception that an injustice was done. It would be a very good time for the NYRA to offer an explanation of what happened and if there was any fault on their end to apologize for it and say what measures are put in place to assure it won't happen again. Such a simple task but instead they'd rather leave people pissed off at them for a perceived injustice when it may be as simple as that the jockey was full of sh!t.

Hang on a second. This incident happened early on the biggest racing day of the last four years. There has been no racing since. Let's wait a couple more days before we condemn NYRA for doing nothing about this.

i had the 6/and the 4 in pick 3s.. it really wasnt a question the stewards not allowing an objection....if it was worthy of an inquiry..then the objection would hold some value.. i really think this whole thing is getting out of hand
the 4/6 had the problem in the turn. the 7 did nothing wrong..in the lane it was really not much.. 13 race card and the best horse won.. let it go

We're all ignoring the most important lesson of Saturday's race: It's confirmed, Tiz It is a complete and utter chandelier.

Sounds fair. What did you think of the non-DQ a couple Saturdays back... Santulli's Monastic Spring? The race where the Daily News guy banged on the Stewards' box door and was told to go away.

If Jerry Bossert banged on your door you would probably tell him to go away as well.

That was a tough call. I felt, if anything, the second horse herded the winner out in midstretch, causing him to bear out, and if anyone should have come down it was the second finisher. Personally, I didn't think anyone should come down....but I can see why some people would disagree.

The problem is the question of herding....and I generally disagree with how stewards see this. I think it's an eggregious foul and many don't.

I'm willing to give them a few day but at the same time it seems like the attitude on here is that it wasn't a big deal. I think anytime something questionable happens in the sport on a major network it is a big deal since the last thing you want is people afraid to wager their money cause of the perception it is fixed. This is the sort of thing that everyone should be pushing to have addressed even if it is as simple as to say the jockey was talking out his ass. And for the record I wasn't cashing on that race either way so it's not like this is sour grapes.

With all do respect, many people did think it was a big deal. Even people who did not bet on the race voiced some displeasure at what went down. As far as mainstream America goes, I personally don't think that they were watching the 2nd at Belmont on ESPN, and if they were I don't think this one incident will change their perception of the sport. The people (that I percieve) that you are talking about are still going to make there 3-5 bets a year (Derby, Preakness,Belmont, etc.), whether they think the sport is legit or not.

Four posibilities {1} The jockey never made a claim of foul. which we are led to think did hapen.{2} No outrider available. {3}the outrider wouldnt accept the claim. {4} the steward wouldnt accept the claim. Why wouldnt the track investigate this? If the jockey is making a false claim make him the scapegoat otherwise its all on the track. If the objection was at least flashed up on the board I could accept what happened. Is this just another way of telling the bettors we owe you nothing.

Where he should have been has no bearing on the fact that he WAS there. He was crushed, lost 6 lengths and still missed by a 1 1/4 lengths.

The 6 should have come down. They were taking them down left and right at Keeneland for infractions not even close to that.