Gulfstream Inquiries

[ateamstupid]

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.

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.

[Pants II]

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.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Pants II

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.

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.

[Pants II]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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.

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.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Pants II

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.

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.

[Indian Charlie]

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.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

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.

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-

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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-

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.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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-

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.