Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > Main Forum > The Paddock
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-23-2015, 02:42 PM
Pants II's Avatar
Pants II Pants II is offline
Arlington Park
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,458
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-23-2015, 06:42 PM
Rudeboyelvis Rudeboyelvis is offline
Belmont Park
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pants II View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-24-2015, 09:15 AM
Pants II's Avatar
Pants II Pants II is offline
Arlington Park
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-24-2015, 09:49 AM
Indian Charlie's Avatar
Indian Charlie Indian Charlie is offline
Goodwood
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 8,708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pants II View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-24-2015, 09:57 AM
Indian Charlie's Avatar
Indian Charlie Indian Charlie is offline
Goodwood
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 8,708
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.