Gulfstream Inquiries
 

Stewards rulings as per the chart:

R4: THE STEWARDS CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY AND CLAIMS OF FOUL WERE LODGED AGAINST HOUSE RULES FROM THE RIDER AND TRAINER OF 'SHEER DRAMA CONCERNING THE STEADYING OF HER AT THE EIGHTH POLE AND AFTER REVIEWING THE FILMS THE STEWARDS CONCLUDED THAT THE OUTCOME WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALTERED AND MADE NO CHANGE

R11: THE RIDER OF ITSAKNOCKOUT LODGED AN OBJECTION AGAINST UPSTART CONCERNING THE STEADYING OF HIS MOUNT AT THE SIXTEENTH POLE AND AFTER REVIEWING THE FILMS THE STEWARDS CONCLUDED UPSTART HAD CONTINUED TO DRIFT OUT CAUSING ITSAKNOCKOUT TO BE CARRIED OUT AND STEADIED AND DISQUALIFIED UPSTART FROM FIRST AND PLACED HIM SECOND

R12: THE STEWARDS CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY CONCERNING THE BUMPING BETWEEN DREAMING OF GOLD AND DANISH DYNAFORMER IN MID-STRETCH AND AFTER REVIEWING THE FILMS CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS A MUTUAL EXCHANGE AND MADE NO CHANGE

No consistency, and the ruling of the race 12 completely baffles me :zz:

In dirt racing, horses go much faster early and decelerate sharply late.

Trouble early (out of the gate, and into and through the first quarter mile) is far more significant to a horses overall performance than trouble late (stretch-run) which comes while they're decelerating.

However, in regard to inquires and objections, trouble late is taken far more seriously. Most disqualifications happen in the stretch-run when horses are tiring, and their jockeys are resorting to race-riding tactics like brushing or herding.

Another unique thing about inquiries in horse racing, is that they run counter to officiating in most team sports. In sports like football, hockey, and perhaps even basketball -- players are allowed to get away with more in the late stages of a game. The idea being 'put the whistles away and let them play. No one paid to see the officials decide the outcome of games'

Personally, there's no consistency at all when you rule Race 11 a 'DQ' and Race 12 a 'no change'

In both instances, the horse who finished first came outward and initiated contact to try and gain an advantage.

The shame about Upstart's race was that It'saknockout was clearly not going to get by him.

Those were two of the most ridiculous back-to-back rulings you will ever see. The explanations say nothing. It's basically "Upstart was DQ'ed because he was DQ'ed" and calling what happened in the 12th a "mutual exchange" is laughable.

It's a shame, because that was a great card Gulfstream put on today, mostly overshadowed (in my eyes) by the incompetence of the stewards.

It's one of the many frustrations in a game that needs no more frustrations. I was singled to the 7 for a Pick 4 and Pick 5 score so I may be a bit biased but I think not. Yes, the 7 came in a bit in the last but the 8 appeared to come out multiple times and much more drastically, causing significant contact. In fact, if you watch the replay, it appears that as the 8 drifts out and makes significant contact with the 7 and as that happens the 7 switches leads, signifying that the bumping was drastic enough to alter the 7's chances to win or lose. Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe I'm not. But it's f*ing ridiculous when compared to the previous race. I actually thought the race deserved more of a DQ than the FOY. The explanation makes it even worse. The contact was nowhere near mutual. The 8 clearly came out more than the 7 came in. Clearly. This is an embarrassment to the game and such a fantastic card deserved a better ending!

The one word I think that explains it best is 'Pletcher'

Upstart was 'Pletcherized' known on the left coast as 'Baffertized'

Objectively, disagreed with both calls.

Subjectively, would like to thank the stewards for a $196 double to finish the day. :D

O

I've only read two of your posts and I already can't stand you.

Otis, don't take it personally. He hates it when the gods of good luck smile on someone else.

:D

I don't understand why the two calls are mutually inclusive.

However unpopular an opinion, I agreed with the take down of Upstart. To say that Itsaknockout "wouldn't have gotten to Upstart without interfenence" is insane and purely subjective. Ortiz drives Upstart, left handed, into Itsaknockout's path repeatedly, then after Saez checks, Ortiz goes right handed. Dead Giveaway. Jock knew what he was doing, tried to interfere with a coming horse, and got caught.

I just watched it, and I don't think it was unreasonable to take him down, though I'm not sure I would have.

Like you, seeing the jock go left handed to the whip would have been the main justification for taking him down.

He should definitely get days for that.

I thought it was also kind of funny that the other idiot (jock) went to the right handed whip.

It's hard enough to pick a race winner it's tougher still to have one taken down
Like poker we seem to remember the bad beats inflicted on us more than we remember the bad beats we've inflicted
This was a bad beat for many reasons not to mention the breeding purse and derby point fall out
And the ruling on the 12th was just salt and lemon on the cut

Seriously? They're back-to-back decisions involving very similar circumstances by the same stewards. How can you not attempt to draw a parallel?

I think DQ'ing a horse for coming out one path like that in a race he won by 2 3/4 lengths is ridiculous in any case. However, it'd be a little easier to stomach if this was a country that took a hard line on herding. In the context of all the herding that is regularly dismissed without even an inquiry, Upstart's DQ was absolutely comical. And if Upstart comes down, the winner in the 12th has to as well. 100%. I don't know how any rational person could argue otherwise. Either they both stay up or they both get disqualified.

The only way stewards with functioning brain stems can come up with two different decisions in those races is if they're up there flipping coins.

I know it's all subjective but the head-on shows the inside horse initiated the contact.

Then the outside horse comes in slightly and then Upstart initiates contact with the 5.

And it's not that Upstart winning by 2 and change is impressive...they were crawling home. That should factor in as well.

How can you logically say a horse beaten multiple lengths with those closing fractions would've won the race if he wasn't bumped? With utmost certainty?

IMO it's a bad disqualification.

Intent, Joey. Period.

Ortiz purposely herded Upstart left-handed into Itsaknockout's path, bothered the horse, then causes the bothered horse to check, then went right-handed.
Caught dead to rights.

Zero intent in the 12th. Contreras was RIGHT HANDED, leading Danish Dynaformer away from Dreaming of Gold. Once Castellano leveled, there was mutual bumping as they we BOTH being ridden - if anything Castellano goes righthanded late and comes in a little on DD, but nothing that bothered the horse.

Correct call on both accounts-

The Track variant was a 23 - they were all crawling. Itsaknockout was coming and on even terms may have had something to say about the outcome. Why else would Ortiz interfere?
As I mentioned - They penalized Ortiz's intent for a bone-head move, and as IC said, would not be surprised if he gets days or at least a warning for.

Personally I wasn't impressed by anything in that race.

Which comes back to my initial point - why are ALL of these decisions mutually inclusive? They are all individual circumstances that need to be judged on their own merits.

It is silly to say that they were inconsistent because they took one down but had the same circumstance in the next race and left the horse up. Two totally different circumstances, two totally different dynamics.


It simply myopic to hold that opinion.

I respect your opinion but I disagree on all points. I think if stewards - who have proven themselves frighteningly incompetent across the board on basic infractions - are supposed to now start trying to decipher intent, we are only going to have more and more inexplicable DQs.

The only thing I give a good f*ck about as a bettor is did one horse's actions cost another horse a better placing. It's why House Rules should've gotten DQ'ed if Sheer Drama had lost 2nd in the Rampart. There is no galaxy in which Upstart's minimal interference cost Itsaknockout the win in the Fountain of Yourh. And once again, the significant contact in the 12th was initiated by the 8 both times.

When stewards view an inquiry, for the purpose of order of finish, the actions of the jockeys are rarely taken into consideration. We watch the horses.

One exception would be the first few jumps from the gate. We look for very quick correction if a horse doesn't break straight.

There's an old adage stewards have been known to say to jockeys. " The first jump is yours. The 2nd ours"

And that's why stewards are morons and are ruining the game.

That may be true in Northern California, but it is not everywhere else.

He may have. And at the time watching the race I was conditioned to accept Upstart was getting disqualified. It's the easy way out.

My disdain for stewards began at an early age when I discovered that a few of them bet on horse racing while on the job. They shouldn't be allowed to gamble on any horse race. It creates a bias.

So yeah my opinion is biased and my trust was ruined at an early age. Maybe it's changed...but naaaah. Humans don't change. Especially in a hard-headed sport like horse racing.

Which is why I don't like giving recommendations. The people in charge don't listen.

A simple solution would be "all-star" stewards for derby and bc prep races. But hell there will be 1000 excuses from the status quo as to why that would be a bad idea.

We've been conditioned to accept it or quit the game. They don't care either way really.

That sir, is the very definition of 'understatement'.

I quit betting on horses entirely due to, in order of importance:

1. Completely idiotic and imbecilic jockeys.
2. Completely idiotic and imbecilic stewards.
3. Shady and crooked trainers.

Happy Birthday to you.

Back in the mid 80s, I bet a cold exacta, I think at HP, Mint Leaf to Ice Stealer. Was paying really quite well, and Mint Leaf won the race by about eight lengths, with Ice Stealer in second.

The stewards put up an inquiry, for an incident on the first turn, where Mint Leaf came in maybe six inches and touched Ice Stealer.

Everyone in the crowd was shocked, and even booed, when they took the winner down for basically nothing.

I also got taken down in a down the hill race at SA when I had a win bet on the great Stormy But Valid.

She was at least two to three lengths clear of an incident near the top of the stretch, that she had absolutely nothing to do with. After an agonizingly long inquiry, yep, they took her down. She was three clear and ran a perfectly in her own lane race.

The crowd went apeshit for several minutes.

The only possible explanations were they had a vendetta against Mayberry/Siegels, or they threw the race.

It's true in all of California and pretty much every state I worked in when I was an announcer and worked with stewards.

The actions of the jockeys are scrutinized at film review the following morning.

when the stewards took local champ Concorde Bound down in a $100,000 sprint back when that was a lot of bread, it made my head spin. To send that purse out of town for some marginal meaningless ****, and take the Generazios down was the worst thing that could have possibly to New England racing.

How shady jockeys like Rene Riera and Mike Carrozella became stewards makes one wonder what the qualifications are for the job. Pinhead jockeys, over the hill race announcers, and other lazy good for nothings who know someone.

Except when Santa Anita is hosting a breeders cup?

Or is this adage moot if a disqualification would result in putting up a euro on dirt?

Or does Baffert trump all?

If what you are saying is true, (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then the take down of Upstart makes no sense on any explicable level.

I would find it near impossible to dismiss what a jock is doing on a horse and only focus on the horse itself - to the point of looking at the infraction from an unnatural perspective - especially when the majority of the time, it is the jock's actions that impact the horses reaction.

I'd guess that perhaps this is an unwritten rule, but in the case of the two take downs being discussed here, the jockey's actions validated the Stewards responses in both instances, and not the other way around.

When the film is being viewed. We look at the horses. Their paths, strides, clearance, momentum, position. For that part of the inquiry there is either a foul or there is not. If we determine a foul occurred we then decide was the fouled horse cost an opportunity at a better placing.

The horses " are where they are ". The jockey's actions, except sometimes in the first jump are a non-factor.

What if a jockey is doing everything in his or her power to stop his mount from impeding another horse? Yet that horse is bound and determined to race erratically crashing into a rival causing that horse to check very sharply. Should the stewards leave that " as is " because the rider was doing everything he could to avoid the incident? Of course not.

The actions of the jockeys are separate to the inquiry. They are reviewed the next morning in the stewards office.

You may not like or agree with that. But I can assure you that's the way the vast majority of stewards do it.

So if a horse is drifting and the jock is hitting him left handed and it is a close call whether he impeded another horse, the fact that he was causing his horse to drift has no impact on your decision? That is preposterous.

Some calls are close. Some are not. If a horse drifts into the path of a rival those horses are point of focus. Did the horse impede his rival to the extent that rival was cost the opportunity at a better placing? How the horse got to the point where the incident occurred irrelevant.

You're certainly entitled to think it's preposterous.

However that is how the process works.

I hope other Stewards have a different perspective.

Of course, jockey actions should have to play a part in the decision making process. They control the horse's action to a great extent.

Of course they control the horses actions. They are held accountable in film review.

What if they do their very best to control yet their horse doesn't respond and still fouls another horse? Should the stewards leave the result alone just because the jockey gave his best effort?

I know this is hard to grasp for the average horseplayer. I had to learn it myself. To separate.

However, that's the way it works.

That's why we get these farcical results and that is why stewards looked upon as morons at best and corrupt at worse. Results that threaten the perceived integrity of the sport. Status Quo is why racing is considered a dying sport.

Unfortunately that's too late for the bettors and their money. That's horrible actually.

I offered that question as a way of explaining what stewards look at while conducting an inquiry.

DTer's can respond however they see fit. Quizzically, vituperations, conspiracy theories, attacking integrity. Whatever.

None of those responses is productive. But if you must that's cool.

I'm trying to contribute by sharing how the stewarding process works. Nuts and bolts. Day to day protocol.

I'll say this again.

When viewing the replays from every possible angle. When it comes to placings. DQ or no DQ. Stewards are looking at the HORSES. What the jockey's are doing on those horses doesn't factor into the decision.

The jockey's actions are a separate consideration the next morning at film review.

I wish I knew how to make that more clear.

That's how it works.

If you think that's stupid. Of course you're entitled to that opinion.

That doesn't change how the process works.

It has nothing to do with late or not for the bettors.

Stewards have two separate decisions to make.

1.Was a fouled horse cost the opportunity for a better placing? That is decided immediately after the race.

2. Was the jockey careless or did he do his best to avoid the incident. Can the horse be blamed? That is decided the next morning.

Many times a horse can be disqualified and the jockey held blameless.

Many times a result can be left as is and the jockey sanctioned for a riding violation.

The two decisions are separate examinations.

I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp?