A Saratoga Crime

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by Scav

the 3 was drifting in and Eibar was trying to correct it. He slightly bumps into into him once, and then a off stride bump, gets him straight and then completely cuts him off BEFORE the line.

My guess it that Eibar had to think he was clear, when he really wasn't, but again, I think that DQ was fairly straight forward

So....and I'm not being a dink. Do you think it was for rough/careless riding or do you honestly think the 8 had a chance to win?

[Scav]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

So....and I'm not being a dink. Do you think it was for rough/careless riding or do you honestly think the 8 had a chance to win?

8 had zero chance of winning, but the 3 knocked him off stride EARLIER in the race also, probably not enough to get DQed, but that last cut off was probably the icing on the cake.

If you notice, when Durking was explaining the DQ today, he was talking about MUCH earlier in the stretch, and not that final cut off, he did not it was 'part of it'

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by Scav

8 had zero chance of winning, but the 3 knocked him off stride EARLIER in the race also, probably not enough to get DQed, but that last cut off was probably the icing on the cake.

If you notice, when Durking was explaining the DQ today, he was talking about MUCH earlier in the stretch, and not that final cut off, he did not it was 'part of it'

That's what we all thought because that's what they were showing when Durkin was explaining it, which makes me feel even more strongly that it was an iffy DQ. There has been so much worse. This is why there needs to be a clear set of guidelines when it comes to the DQ's They should make one of the Stewards get on the track PA and explain what they saw rather than make Durkin do it. They owe it to the betting public.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

[/b]

That's what we all thought because that's what they were showing when Durkin was explaining it, which makes me feel even more strongly that it was an iffy DQ. There has been so much worse. This is why there needs to be a clear set of guidelines when it comes to the DQ's They should make one of the Stewards get on the track PA and explain what they saw rather than make Durkin do it. They owe it to the betting public.

I am all for the steward explaining. personally, I think there should be about 12 TOTAL stewards in the entire US. Put them on the West Coast, say Idaho or something in a room, Racign would start out there at 8 or 9am and end at midnight, have two shifts, and these people make ALL the decisions. I think this would be the only way for consistency.

[MaTH716]

To tell the public that they DQ'd Coa for the 2 bumps at the top of the stretch is crazy. I really believe that the horse was DQ'd because Coa was on it. IF it was Prado, JV or Gomez the case would have been that the horse was the best and he was clear, he just drifted in at the wire. The horse that ran second was ok and did not lose any placings. They would have given the jock a slap on the wrist and it would be over.

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Steve Crist's thoughts from his blog on drf.com, I agree 100%

---I've agreed with the stewards' decisions to leave up horses in a few borderline cases during the meet and they should have continued taking no action instead of disqualifying Victory for Sierra in Monday's fifth race. This was a case of sending a message to a jockey rather than doing the just thing.

Victory for Sierra had worn down Savasana and was past her in deep stretch when Coa, continuing needlessly to whip right handed, cut in front of the beaten Savasana, forcing her to clip heels. If the stewards want to warn, fine or suspend Coa for his overaggressiveness, fine, but don't send the message with the public's money and create an unfair official result. Victory for Sierra was best, had the race won, and Savasana was not going to miraculously rerally even if Coa had kept a straight path

Very well said.

[Antitrust32]

just read this thread again... makes me angry all over again! I want a refund! Its hard enough to pick a horse to win and have it win.. then the stewards have to fucl< with you like that!

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Steve Crist's thoughts from his blog on drf.com, I agree 100%

---I've agreed with the stewards' decisions to leave up horses in a few borderline cases during the meet and they should have continued taking no action instead of disqualifying Victory for Sierra in Monday's fifth race. This was a case of sending a message to a jockey rather than doing the just thing.

Victory for Sierra had worn down Savasana and was past her in deep stretch when Coa, continuing needlessly to whip right handed, cut in front of the beaten Savasana, forcing her to clip heels. If the stewards want to warn, fine or suspend Coa for his overaggressiveness, fine, but don't send the message with the public's money and create an unfair official result. Victory for Sierra was best, had the race won, and Savasana was not going to miraculously rerally even if Coa had kept a straight path

Then deal with I-bar directly instead of costing those who had a winning ticket...time for Mr.Coa to get a stern talking to by the stewards, his riding lately has been down right dangerous!

[ARyan]

Originally Posted by Hickory Hill Hoff

Then deal with I-bar directly instead of costing those who had a winning ticket...time for Mr.Coa to get a stern talking to by the stewards, his riding lately has been down right dangerous!

What is the point if the racing jurisdictions allow trainers and jockeys to appeal for months and months untill they want to take the suspension. If you get fined and/or suspended you should be allowed to appeal. However the appeal should take place within a reasonable amount of time (14 days should be enough, don't you think?) After that, if you are still found to be guilty, you should have to serve the days immediatly. Just my thoughts...

[Ronnie]

Makes you wonder if all the parking lot guys had the 8 to win on a slow Monday.

[gamblin4ever]

What about no steward inquiry unless the jockey claims foul.
just wondering