:tro:

absolutely the jocks behavior should be scrutinized when there's a claim of foul. it's not as tho they are often-times innocent bystanders. a horses behavior is quite often a result of the jocks behavior.
yes, they should face separate punishment when they're deemed to have ridden carelessly, but they should be under a microscope at the time of foul claim.
an enlightening conversation for sure.

That's what we love about you Vic. You probably don't even know that statement is condescending and insults the intelligence of quite a few people on this board. It is quite easy to understand the process that you are explaining to us. I would say nearly everyone on this board understands what you are saying. When we say it is nonsensical to not look at the operator of the vehicle (in this case the horse) as part of the process you come back with a comment that we don't understand the process. We understand the process and are pointing out the process is horrible and sticking with a broken process simply because that has been the way it has been done would get you fired in 500 out of 500 Forturne 500 companies. Now please don't insult my intelligence again on how I don't understand the process.

'I know this is hard to grasp for the average horseplayer.'

you mean, like that...

The only thing i've grasped from this thread is how useless track stewards can be in determining outcomes.

Realistically, in a race situation like what happened in the FOY, people who bet on either of the two horses involved are going to feel screwed, depending on the way the decision goes.

In this instance, it seems pretty clear that the jockey on Upstart was being a douchebag and was the cause of the problem.

Did he cost the second place finisher a placing? It's probably less than 50% likely he did, but then again, we are talking about a horse making only his third start, so who knows for sure.

If I had the ability to make a ruling, I'd have kept Upstart as the winner.

I'd fine and suspend the jockey severely.

I'd refund wagers on the runnerup. That way nobody gets screwed completely over, and hopefully it makes those tiny brained morons think twice about using such tactics.

Congrats. You've swept in and have taken trolling to a whole new stratospheric level.

This "Average Horseplayer" hasn't wagered more than 50 bucks in California since Hollywood Park closed and I have doubts as to whether I'll ever play the circuit regularly, ever again. Thankfully, I now understand the "stewards process" there, all too well.

You play a game of semantics, saying the same thing over and over in a different way to troll the thread. Hope you got a good chuckle out of insulting the very people that keep this "sport" afloat. You're a fine ambassador.

Truth be told these message boards ruined Vic. It's like a tragic comedy.

I'm not going to tell him. :D

Did you stop playing California because you couldn't hear me call the races anymore? :)

But what if a jockey hits another horse with his whip, don't you have to look at his actions?

Absolutely. I didn't think of that. Excellent catch.

Aren't you the one that compared zenyatta to Secretariat, spectacular bid, Dr. Fager, native dancer and silky Sullivan in a race?

I compared Azeri to Personal Ensign, Lady's Secret and Ruffian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c5wlX42_Ms

I stand corrected

To me, the issue is not solely about the DQ in the FOY. As Indian Charlie mentioned, either way the decision went there would have been discontent. I personally don't believe it should have been a DQ, but clearly others think it should have been. My issue is with how it relates to the subsequent race. Whether or not one race should set a precedent for future events is another discussion, but in this instance the two races are "mutually inclusive" because there is no reasonable explanation for there to be a DQ in one and not the other. The issue is that there is NO consistency between rulings not only at tracks across the continent, but even at one track on the same day! If you make the DQ in the FOY, you HAVE to make the DQ in the following race. Yes, the two incidents are separate and should have no bearing on the other, but I really fail to see how you can not DQ both, or leave both up, and the explanations given really show the incompetence. Unless I'm mistaken, we aren't gambling with Monopoly money. The risk of winning/losing is already a fine margin, so how can we as bettors be willing to place such hard-earned cash on an outcome that could be questioned, reasonably or unreasonably, and have that outcome potentially and unfairly taken away from us?

First of all, as everyone has said, the stewards call in the 12th race (the maiden race) was unbelievable. It was a clear foul and there is a very good chance that it changed the order of finish. How they could take the horse down in the Fountain of Youth but not in the 12th race is mind-boggling.

With regards to what Vic is saying, I don't understand the outrage or the controversy. If you are either an owner or a bettor, if your horse is fouled and was probably cost a placing, you are going to expect the horse who fouled your horse to get disqualified. You are going to expect it regardless of whether the jockey on the horse who committed the foul was responsible for the incident.

For example, in that 12th race at Gulfstream (the maiden race), the inside horse came out a few lanes and fouled the outside horse. That horse should be disqualified. It is totally irrelevant whether the jockey was at fault. That horse should get disqualified either way. The jockey's actions are only relevant in deciding whether the jockey will be punished, and if so, what the punishment will be. It is irrelevant in deciding whether to disqualify the horse. In deciding whether or not to disqualify the horse, the only two things that should be relevant are whether there was a foul, and whether that foul likely cost the horse who was fouled a better placing. That is the way it should be.

Nice Catch? AYFKU? It completely blows up your argument and cements the rest of ours as valid. How you can be a steward and not have that scenario on the tip of your tongue is mind boggling.

Disqualifications for whip violations are rare.

As rare as competent stewards....

That's the way I read it, too. It makes sense to me.

I would wager money that if someone did a statistical study of disqualifications and the corresponding race of the DQ to its position on the card.

You would find statistically that there are by far fewer DQ's in the last race of the day, than any other on the card.

And the longer the card as a whole the fewer DQ's in the last race.

Why??

Because the governing bodies are wearing there hats and jackets, just waiting to get the hell out of work and go home. They are praying while the horses and the jocks come back past the outrider, that no claims foul.

Who are the fastest people to there cars and gone after the last.

The Judges because they have great parking spots, if not reserved and they are there very earlier for there long free lunch and because if you know who the Judges are they fly out the frelling door ASAP can make a race official.

Something that may get thoroughly looked at in the second last race, does so because they still gotta be there, whereas the same item in the nitecap rates hardly a second look because its there time.

I ain't saying it right, I'm saying that's the way it is

And if the Judges are forced to have to look at an incident in the last, you can bet your ass its not gonna be one of those ten minute inquiries. That light on the toteboard comes down as fast as it goes up.

Judges don't get overtime.

Appeals of Judges calls for DQ's get reviewed month's later and are not widely publicized. While there are no appeals for the calls the miss or let go.

Let's not bother mentioning Judges review process. College Professors who take bribes, screw around with their students, sell drugs to the student body, cheat on there taxes, wives etc and only work a couple of hours a day for 7 or eight month's a year look at a judges "tenure" and *hit there pants.

Of course this can all change IF you got a crew thats playing with there own money. Which is fodder for another episode