Another Confusing Decision from the NY Stewards
 

For those of you not familiar, in Sunday's second race, Eddie Martin's mount Light Classic came in on the backstretch causing Eibar Coa's mount Laurentide Ice to be forced to check. As the field entered the turn in this six furlong race Eibar Coa seemingly deliberately forced Martin in tight, in the blind spot, where he was forced to check out. As there were no horses close to these two at the time, and considering the earlier incident and Coa's history of aggressiveness, it is hard not to consider this act deliberate.

Today the stewards suspended both riders for ten days, apparently equating the actions of both men, as equal punishment can mean little else. Now, perhaps Martin's actions were deliberate, though we see horses forced to check in the early stages of many races, and action is almost never taken. However, to punish the retaliator equally, in my opinion sends a very dangerous message to the riders. Any rider who deliberatly retaliates on the racetrack not only jeopardizes himself and the other rider, he jeopardizes both horses and the horses and riders behind them, as well as nephariously altering the outcome of the race in which hundreds of thousands of dollars are wagered. How the stewards could view any in race retaliation as anything other than a very serious matter defies all logic.

This is not the first time the NY stewards have completely misunderstood a situation of this kind. Last winter, when Espinoza and Fragoso engaged in a virtual racetrack fistfight, and the stewards never even had an inquiry despite one of the combatants finishing third, both riders were handed thirty day suspension, despite one clearly going after the other after an early race " incident ". To me these stewards simply do not understand what is going on during races and are equivalent menaces to any overly aggressive rider. Had Eddie Martin, and his mount gone down, would they still have handed out equal punishments? If the answer is no then today's ruling makes absolutely no sense. Actions, and not results, are what should determine penalties.

Good post. I couldn't agree more.

Martin claimed foul against Coa citing interference approaching the turn. The stewards took no action letting Laurentide Ice stay in the show position.

The chart of the race states that Light Classic (Martin up) was "bumped into the rail on the turn, was taken up and dropped back"

Not sure why the stewards didn't take any action on the objection since it was very obvious that Coa crowded Light Classic and Martin into the rail.

The larger issue is the stewards.

Accountability. Competence. And much more. The tracks are not open enough concerning stewards. Reminds me of boxing sometimes, and how the judges are picked. No accountability. No reviewing the reviewers, all in all, not good for racing because of the lack of openness. They just seem to hide.

After years of strange calls, I'm always wondering what qualifications you need to be a steward. Are they the same ones to be a dishwasher at Applebees?

I couldn't agree more. Nobody has any say over them and anyone who complains is dismissed as a disgruntled bettor.

In defense of the New York stewards,they do way better of a job than California stewards,HANDS DOWN!!! The decisions that have been made out there in the past are far worse than ANY of those made in New York,IMO!

The Cali stewards do indeed take the cake.

I have got on my soapbox about this before so I will spare everyone the details. But what goes on in the stewards stand pretty much regardless of jurisdiction is frightening. Some dont know the rules, some misinterpret them, some do both. I have been told things by stewards that would floor you. That is not to say that there aren't some really good ones but in general the level of stewardship in our country is quite low.

Correct decisions and incorrect decisions are made each day by stewards reviewing races. We'll be pleased with some, irrate with others.

The greater problem to me, here, in this particular case, is one of culpability, neither jockey admitting his actions as wrongful and dangerous.

It is not unlike two 3rd graders before the principal whining,

"he did it,"

"did not, he did it first"

"did not."

Both get detention, as in this particular incident. Problem is . . . its a much greater risk, a far more possibly disastrous outcome, when your weapon is a 1200 lb animal.

I would imagine a stewards job more difficult when and if this occurs.

I meant to post about this on Sunday...and forgot. There was actually an inquiry into the race...but Coa stayed up (for 3rd). But I remember the head on replay and it was painfully obvious that Coa retaliated for an earlier incident in the race. It was incredibly foolish and very dangerous as well...and I am a Coa fan.

I haven't looked anywhere, but what are the results of the wreckless riding?? Suspensions??

Out of curiousity which tracks should we focus on are getting a 'fair' ruling in your opinion? I agree with you and I would rather focus on putting my money into those tracks. Perfect example was today at Santa Anita, the 6 horse in the 7th was a must to come down, a must, and they ruled that way

The suspensions are in my post.

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?

That is a tricky question. Remember that there are three stewards in each booth. 2 morons can cancel out one good guy. It is not like every call is botched but the lack of any standards or formal training makes me believe that the situation is not getting any better.

From what I've read they suspended Martin because 'he should have known Coa was inside of him" and Coa for "deliberately making things tight on Martin entering the far turn". They imply that Coa's move was deliberate and Martin lacking spacial forethought. Tough, in a way, to declare the intent in the jock's mind and therefore the equal justice.

Nefarious is with an f, by the by.

Damn! I KNEW that. Thanks.

I don't disagree about getting into people's minds but we've all seen enough races to know that Coa's act was deliberate. Plus, Coa has a history.

Sorry Andy...read through it very briefly and missed that part.

Thanks..

Do you agree that Martin should sit, and what would you give Coa?

I realize some folks like their jockeys as aggressive as possible figuring they can force a win by sheer force of jerkdom. Well as far as Coa's behavior if I were the owner of the horse he rode I wouldn't care that he got up to 3rd. I'd demand he be dropped and if he got mad I'd let him know I don't appreciate 2 men engaging in 1200 lb p*ssing contests when my animal's involved. Horses are in a precarious situation anytime they run anywhere. How does he know someone might not fall or strain something? Put a foot down awkwardly? There's acceptable risk and there's the jockey causing a problem. This isn't pushing a horse to win a head bob, it's road rage on horseback.

Losing enough mounts from owners expressing displeasure would sure have an impact if stewards refused to do their jobs properly wouldn't it? If you as an owner got smoke blown up your butt about it and yelled 'I don't care who started it, you don't pull that crap on my horse!' at least maybe their agent will tell em if they don't knock it off he can't get them work. And not just for a 30 day suspension either. You'd be the elephant that didn't forget unless he proved he was willing to cut it out.

In no way do they deserve the same suspension. Coa's was a blantant as it gets. 100% retaliation. Like Andy said...they are clearly sending the wrong message here.

I am somewhat biased, as I find Coa's actions to be dangerously and frivolously out of line on an almost constant basis, and I also don't like a lot of riding I have seen this winter. So, my opinions are honestly stilted. However, I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion to make that he deliberately put Martin in very tight ( have you actually watched this head on ) specifically in the place that most EVERY rider knows is a video blind spot. Watch the head on...there is nobody else near them. So, to me, what he did supercedes everything else. I would have given him 30 days. But I also would have suspended him for putting Ponce in tight a day or two earlier. The stewards were correct that day not to take him down, as they were in another recent incident, but his continued right handed whipping that puts guys in tight inside is a dangerous tactic.

As for Martin, it's highly debatable that he should be suspended, as incidents like his happen on a daily basis, with no inquiries whatsoever. The stewards at racetracks all over the country somehow view what happens in the stretch as SIGNIFICANTLY different than occurances during the overall running of the race. To me this is wrong. But, to suddenly punish Martin when they never do in these situations is wrong. The simple fact is NOTHING would have been done to Martin had Coa not retaliated, so now they are punishing him because another guy went after him. That cannot be rationalized.

I think equal punishment is justified. One cant retaliate if one isnt provoked.

Incorrect decisions are and will continue to be made as long as horses are running year-round on the North American continent.

Do I find it acceptable, no can't say that I do. Do I find it probable, yes, due to the number of races run and human error being fallible. Baseball umpires make errors-bad calls, as do other referees in sports. The difference being, their calls can be challenged. Stewards, rarely are.

As far as your pick 6 question, I know it is heartbreaking, as a friend had the only live ticket late one afternoon in Saratoga, wherein he would've taken down the entire pool, but for the fact that his final selection was dqed by the stewards.

Stewards have a hard job. For the most part, I think they do a fine job at race tracks all over the USA.

How many times have you watched the head-on and pan shot from the race in question?

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.

You're entering a thread where an intelligent conversation is taking place and saying intentionally foolish things looking for a fight. That's known as trolling.

Very very good I may say. Of course I didnt watch it. I dont need to watch it. Doesnt matter what I think.

Not at all. I just gave my opinion is all. You are the one that asked me a question. Why is my opinion seen as trolling and trying to find a fight?

You decided to add to your original post and came up with this twisted logic?

So, by your logic, if a guy bumps me going onto a train, and I decide it was deliberate, I am well within my rights to push him onto the tracks when we exit. Why....because I felt threatened, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Or is it anything?

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.

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.

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.

No arguement at all. I am happy to let this lie. Again, it is only my opinion. But people keep asking me questions and I answer. I want someone to tell me why I am not entitled to my opinion on the topic.