Rainbow 6

Tough beat to whomever had the 12 and got taken down by an unjust DQ.
At least he has a story to tell at partys

[tanner12oz]

Tough beat? That was a total scam...criminal...i mean seriously this sport is a joke at times

[philcski]

Horse came out 3 paths and stopped the 13 who was going by. I've seen worse left up and lesser taken down.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by tanner12oz

Tough beat? That was a total scam...criminal...i mean seriously this sport is a joke at times

That was the textbook definition of herding. There is no doubt the 13 would have gone by if the 12 didn't come out on him.

I have seen many mind boggling calls by stewards. This was not one of them.

[cmorioles]

Worse has not only stayed up recently at Gulfstream, there wasn't even an inquiry. People want consistency, but there is none.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Worse has not only stayed up recently at Gulfstream, there wasn't even an inquiry. People want consistency, but there is none.

I agree with you a 100% on that. I constantly complain about the stewards ignoring herding and often doing so without even an inquiry.

However, for someone to call it a scam, criminal and indict the sport is absurd to me. From a purely objective standpoint as to whether the DQ was justified, it seemed clear to me that it was.

Having said that, I want the same consistency from the stewards with regard to penalizing riders for herding as well. I am tired of seeing riders take tiring horses out to herd to try to prevent a horse from going by them and getting away with it.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by pointman

I agree with you a 100% on that. I constantly complain about the stewards ignoring herding and often doing so without even an inquiry.

However, for someone to call it a scam, criminal and indict the sport is absurd to me. From a purely objective standpoint as to whether the DQ was justified, it seemed clear to me that it was.

Having said that, I want the same consistency from the stewards with regard to penalizing riders for herding as well. I am tired of seeing riders take tiring horses out to herd to try to prevent a horse from going by them and getting away with it.

I agree, though I don't think it was a clear DQ. The 13 caused some of the trouble too.

This is what inconsistency does though, leads people to not trust that decisions are made for "pure" reasons. Based on recent history, that should not have been a DQ. So when it benefits the track, it is always going to look REALLY bad.

I don't think there was anything nefarious underfoot, for the record, but I understand why people do.

[Boomtowner]

I didn't have a dog in the fight, but don't think there should have been a DQ.

Bad day for the single ticket holder, good day for the track.

Oddly, the eventual winner, who went off at 39-1 paid $9k(for .50) less than the 15-1 horse who was dq'd would have paid in the P5.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Boomtowner

I didn't have a dog in the fight, but don't think there should have been a DQ.

Bad day for the single ticket holder, good day for the track.

Oddly, the eventual winner, who went off at 39-1 paid $9k(for .50) less than the 15-1 horse who was dq'd would have paid in the P5.

This leaves me confused as to where you believe the conspiracy lies. Is it the track to keep the rainbow six pool going?

Is it a bettor who had pounded the 13 in the pk5? Several bettors who conspired together?

A combination of all these mysterious people?

Lee Harvey Oswald?

[Boomtowner]

Originally Posted by pointman

This leaves me confused as to where you believe the conspiracy lies. Is it the track to keep the rainbow six pool going?

Is it a bettor who had pounded the 13 in the pk5? Several bettors who conspired together?

A combination of all these mysterious people?

Lee Harvey Oswald?

Sorry you got so confused. I think you are the one with all the conspiracy theories. I stated a few facts.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Boomtowner

Sorry you got so confused. I think you are the one with all the conspiracy theories. I stated a few facts.

If you didn't imply a conspiracy on the call, how were those "facts" relevant to your conclusion on whether the call was correct?

[Boomtowner]

Originally Posted by pointman

If you didn't imply a conspiracy on the call, how were those "facts" relevant to your conclusion on whether the call was correct?

The "facts" are not relevant to my conclusion on whether I though the call was good...your honor.

Originally Posted by Boomtowner

I didn't have a dog in the fight, but don't think there should have been a DQ.

Bad day for the single ticket holder, good day for the track.

Oddly, the eventual winner, who went off at 39-1 paid $9k(for .50) less than the 15-1 horse who was dq'd would have paid in the P5.

How is the Pick 5 that paid less is good for the track? The takeout is fixed regardless who wins.

However, having the Rainbow 6 carryover at 1.3 million is a good promotion for the track and was possibly the incentive for the DQ.

[Boomtowner]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

How is the Pick 5 that paid less is good for the track? The takeout is fixed regardless who wins.

However, having the Rainbow 6 carryover at 1.3 million is a good promotion for the track and was possibly the incentive for the DQ.

Again, I didn't say the P5 that paid less is good for the track. I said it was a bad day for the single ticket holder in the P6 and that was good for the track. I guess that last sentence could have been clearer, referring to the P5 instead of the P6.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

However, having the Rainbow 6 carryover at 1.3 million is a good promotion for the track and was possibly the incentive for the DQ.

It is also great for the bettors, except the one bettor who had the lone ticket.

Call it being politically correct.

[Unbridled90]

Unfortunately nothing is cut and dry when it comes to the stewards but how can anyone here say that it was the worst call ever after watching the head on? Come on people that horse needed to come down! Whether one person stands to cash big should have no bearing on it.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

Tough beat to whomever had the 12 and got taken down by an unjust DQ.

"Unjust"? May be termed a close call, controversial decision, whatever else, but it sure wasn't unjust. As Welsch said at the time, felt 50-50 and could be understood either way. Personally, I turned to a guy next to me while they were still 50 yards out and said the leader was coming down. I usually need the head on to see what happens in those cases, but could tell here Saez had carried Lopez out at least 3 paths. As CJ said, you hope for consistency in what they look at and how they adjudicate and the GP stewards have actually had a better winter than usual. Certainly feel awful for the ticket holder who has to absorb this kind of outcome, but the game has vagaries that test you constantly.

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart...22214USA12.pdf

According to the chartcaller this was the right call

If you bet the horse who finished 2nd and the chart reads "bothered rival stretch" for the winner and you lose by a neck and dont come down?

The conspiracy theory is ridiculous.

[South Beach Luv]

Couldn't find the head-on replay but this Trakus Aerial view is a good one if you haven't seen it, you can FF it.

http://tmedia.trakus.com/dsi/dsivide....wmv?WMCache=1

Originally Posted by Kasept

"Unjust"? May be termed a close call, controversial decision, whatever else, but it sure wasn't unjust. As Welsch said at the time, felt 50-50 and could be understood either way. Personally, I turned to a guy next to me while they were still 50 yards out and said the leader was coming down. I usually need the head on to see what happens in those cases, but could tell here Saez had carried Lopez out at least 3 paths. As CJ said, you hope for consistency in what they look at and how they adjudicate and the GP stewards have actually had a better winter than usual. Certainly feel awful for the ticket holder who has to absorb this kind of outcome, but the game has vagaries that test you constantly.

If its 50-50 and could be understood either way then why the take down? A disqualification should be based on indisputable evidence that Saez caused Lopez a placing. You can agree that worse infractions haven't been taken down in the past.

I tried to watch the head-on replay again on Twinspires but interestingly enough that's the only race where the head-on replay isn't available.