Gulfstream Inquiries

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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.

[pucknut]

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

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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.

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"

[jms62]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by jms62

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

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

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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

Happy Birthday to you.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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"

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

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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

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.

[Alabama Stakes]

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.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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.

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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.

Why do stewards talk to jockeys during an inquiry if their actions are a non factor? I understand they want to know what happened but doesn't it seem kind of pointless if all you are looking at is the horses actions and are not even looking at what the jockey did?

[Aly-Sheba]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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.

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

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba

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.

[Kitan]

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?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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

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.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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"

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?