Gulfstream Inquiries

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?

[Rupert Pupkin]

First of all, as everyone has said, the stewards call in the 12th race (the maiden race) was unbelievable. It was a clear foul and there is a very good chance that it changed the order of finish. How they could take the horse down in the Fountain of Youth but not in the 12th race is mind-boggling.

With regards to what Vic is saying, I don't understand the outrage or the controversy. If you are either an owner or a bettor, if your horse is fouled and was probably cost a placing, you are going to expect the horse who fouled your horse to get disqualified. You are going to expect it regardless of whether the jockey on the horse who committed the foul was responsible for the incident.

For example, in that 12th race at Gulfstream (the maiden race), the inside horse came out a few lanes and fouled the outside horse. That horse should be disqualified. It is totally irrelevant whether the jockey was at fault. That horse should get disqualified either way. The jockey's actions are only relevant in deciding whether the jockey will be punished, and if so, what the punishment will be. It is irrelevant in deciding whether to disqualify the horse. In deciding whether or not to disqualify the horse, the only two things that should be relevant are whether there was a foul, and whether that foul likely cost the horse who was fouled a better placing. That is the way it should be.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

First of all, as everyone has said, the stewards call in the 12th race (the maiden race) was unbelievable. It was a clear foul and there is a very good chance that it changed the order of finish. How they could take the horse down in the Fountain of Youth but not in the 12th race is mind-boggling.

With regards to what Vic is saying, I don't understand the outrage or the controversy. If you are either an owner or a bettor, if your horse is fouled and was probably cost a placing, you are going to expect the horse who fouled your horse to get disqualified. You are going to expect it regardless of whether the jockey on the horse who committed the foul was responsible for the incident.

For example, in that 12th race at Gulfstream (the maiden race), the inside horse came out a few lanes and fouled the outside horse. That horse should be disqualified. It is totally irrelevant whether the jockey was at fault. That horse should get disqualified either way. The jockey's actions are only relevant in deciding whether the jockey will be punished, and if so, what the punishment will be. It is irrelevant in deciding whether to disqualify the horse. In deciding whether or not to disqualify the horse, the only two things that should be relevant are whether there was a foul, and whether that foul likely cost the horse who was fouled a better placing. That is the way it should be.

That's the way I read it, too. It makes sense to me.

[ironprospect]

I would wager money that if someone did a statistical study of disqualifications and the corresponding race of the DQ to its position on the card.

You would find statistically that there are by far fewer DQ's in the last race of the day, than any other on the card.

And the longer the card as a whole the fewer DQ's in the last race.

Why??

Because the governing bodies are wearing there hats and jackets, just waiting to get the hell out of work and go home. They are praying while the horses and the jocks come back past the outrider, that no claims foul.

Who are the fastest people to there cars and gone after the last.

The Judges because they have great parking spots, if not reserved and they are there very earlier for there long free lunch and because if you know who the Judges are they fly out the frelling door ASAP can make a race official.

Something that may get thoroughly looked at in the second last race, does so because they still gotta be there, whereas the same item in the nitecap rates hardly a second look because its there time.

I ain't saying it right, I'm saying that's the way it is

And if the Judges are forced to have to look at an incident in the last, you can bet your ass its not gonna be one of those ten minute inquiries. That light on the toteboard comes down as fast as it goes up.

Judges don't get overtime.

Appeals of Judges calls for DQ's get reviewed month's later and are not widely publicized. While there are no appeals for the calls the miss or let go.

Let's not bother mentioning Judges review process. College Professors who take bribes, screw around with their students, sell drugs to the student body, cheat on there taxes, wives etc and only work a couple of hours a day for 7 or eight month's a year look at a judges "tenure" and *hit there pants.

Of course this can all change IF you got a crew thats playing with there own money. Which is fodder for another episode

[Indian Charlie]

Frelling?

That's so like 2000

[ElPrado]

To me, a horse should come down if it impedes another horse.
I don't care if it bumps, bites, looks cross-eyed, pouts, knocks it over the inside rail, knocks it over the outside rail, crowds, starts bucking like it's in the National Finals rodeo, dances the hula, sings the national anthem, whatever. If the opposing horse is bothered, the horse doing the bothering should come down.

[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.

Originally Posted by jms62

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.

Disqualifications for whip violations are rare.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Disqualifications for whip violations are rare.

As rare as competent stewards....