SA race #1 DQ...
 

What exactly did the 6 do wrong there?

Corruption is big there......see Avatar.

Brutal call by idiot stewards

The stewards @ Santa Anita have made three or four of the absolute worst calls imaginable since the beginning of the year.
This one was flat out atrocious.
They shouldn't have the job if they are going to do stuff like this.
Here's the replay with a bunch of looks:

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...t-sa-on-6-9-17

Did the jock's whip touch the horse to the outside?

Wow. Really bad. Only thing that surprises me is I did not have the horse.

It is an absolutely terrible DQ, but I can see why it was done. By the book it may be the "correct" one. He came over just enough to make the 2 steady, which in turn may have cost the horse 3rd place. If the rule is like it is in most of the country, then the DQ can happen for costing the 2 a place. I don't agree with that rule or a lot of the DQs in general, but until the rules get rewritten issues like this will continue to happen.

If anyone should have come down, it was the horse on the outside in the pink silks (Mr Hinx). He definitely came in a little bit. All the winner did was come through on the rail and there was plenty of room. The horse who took up actually came in on the winner and made the rail really tight. When they first straightened away in the stretch, there was probably an 8 foot opening on the rail. The winner came through there. The horse who he supposedly fouled actually came in on him. That 8 foot opening ended up being around 4 feet. The horse in pink (Mr Hinx) on the far outside came over quite a bit. The horse who got disqualified probably ran the straightest line of the three horses. If anyone should have come down, it was Mr Hinx.

Beholder won.

See avatar. Inside hoss is Songbird.

What the hell is that reporter doing not asking Miller any follow-up questions about the DQ? I get that she's there to ask about Roy H, but once he gives you those kind of soundbites voluntarily, you have to dig a little deeper.

I know I trust a blurry screencap where you have no idea where the wire is over the official track photo.

They always swing wide on that turn crossing the dirt path and it's tough to judge the rail space because of the gap before the permanent rail. The outside horse definitely came in but it was the shifting out of the inside horse that caused the interference itself. Shouldn't have been a DQ anyways like I said but the reasons for the DQ itself is another argument...

I thought the same thing. Peter goes on a mini rant and she continues with the Roy H. questions.

The winner was in the 1 path the whole time. Did he come out a little bit? Yes, he came out maybe a foot. I don't think you can take a horse down for coming out a foot. The horse on the far outside started in the 4 path and he ended up in the 2 path. He came in at least 6-7 feet. So I think he is way more responsible for the incident than the winner.

You know where the finish line is in my photo...... mirror , you can see the rail. In the track fixed photo, there is no reference point. Ateam stupid....yes . And we all know they can put that line anywhere they want in that photo. I say again watch the replay and you will see that songbird won the bob. JD Bailey said it on the telecast, and he is never wrong. If you look at it with an open mind with no preconceived ideas that Beholder won just cause Larry " don't Collmus ,well call you" said so, you might see the light

The stewards' minutes are available and the egregious violation can now be known: "#6 Vending Machine stepped out slightly from his straight path..."

So the question "What exactly did the 6 do wrong there?" remains unanswered.

The stews watched the stretch drive head-on (both front & rear) in slow motion like I did and they determined the horse drifted out a path or so. Had Mr Winx been the only horse near the 6 in the stretch, it's a non call obviously. The 2 was being overtaken and the lane closed ever so slightly. Personally, I didn't feel as if the 2 horse was cost a placing by the misfortune, as he was slowly losing ground while heading into the stretch anyhow once the "real running" commenced.

The stewards were not claiming that the horse who got fouled would have had a chance of beating the first two finishers. They were claiming that the incident might have cost him 3rd place. If he would have held on for 3rd, there would have been no disqualification. But he ended up running 4th and he got beat for 3rd by half a head. The incident may have cost him 3rd. That is why there was a disqualification. But I still think they disqualified the wrong horse. I think Mr. Hinx came in quite a bit more than the winner came out.

What is interesting is that when you watch the head-on from the rear view, it looks like the incident is totally Mr. Hinx's fault. But when you watch it from the frontal head-on view, I can see what the stewards were thinking. From the frontal head-on view, it looks like the winner had more culpability for the incident than either the pan shot or the rear head-on view showed.