the big ass carryover at belmont thread

[infield_line]

on the pan shot the 9 is well past him.... damn it...

[-BT-]

Originally Posted by infield_line

on the pan shot the 9 is well past him.... damn it...

the more and more i look at it the more it looks like coa sells it. Coa's horse was not going to be the winner the 11 and 1 were flying late. The stewards should really remove their heads from their ass and actaully wake up


-bt-

[parsixfarms]

In the interest of full parimutuel disclosure, the DQ of Admiral Bird cost me the pic-6 today (and it was compounded by the fact that one of the two others I used in the 5th was Bethpage Black, who missed second by a head). After watching this decision, and the Proud Spell and Les Antiques decisions from the past week, I have no idea what is and what is not a foul in NY racing anymore.

[infield_line]

but respect he may need keep his thoughts to himself.

really a bogus decision though in a rough and tumble blanket finish, not even close to a DQ event

I/L

[blackthroatedwind]

It seemed like a fair DQ to me. I guess you could say the driving rain might have been a mitigating factor but he fouled Doc n Roll. I know someone who was DQ'd out of the Pick-6 who feels similarly. He fouled the horse and may have cost it second.

Personally I would rather worry about handicapping than fretting over steward's decisions. It's something people will never agree with.

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It seemed like a fair DQ to me. I guess you could say the driving rain might have been a mitigating factor but he fouled Doc n Roll. I know someone who was DQ'd out of the Pick-6 who feels similarly. He fouled the horse and may have cost it second.

Personally I would rather worry about handicapping than fretting over steward's decisions. It's something people will never agree with.

I wouldn't disagree with you if the stewards would communicate exactly that "because there was a foul here (cue telestrator) and because he cost a horse a placing here (shows on monitor)" The 9 was DQ'd.

There just seems like a complete lack of consistency with the rulings which is made worse only because of the Marcel Marceau communication style.

The Proud Spell DQ raised the ire of many for similar reasons only a week previous. If you don't tell the fans what your ruling on when their pockets are fleeced outrage is the only reaction that makes sense.

You are probably right in your interpretation but many New York horses have done more and been punished less.

[the_fat_man]

I think BTW's point is that if the stewards stand in your way of success in the game then your game isn't strong enough. If the .300 hitter can hit .300 in spite of having a few hits taken away by bad calls by umpires, then a few bad calls by the stewards shouldn't really matter in the long run.

And really, this is what it's all about. There were plenty of good plays yesterday at BEL. I mean, Can't Buy Love was 8:5.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It seemed like a fair DQ to me. I guess you could say the driving rain might have been a mitigating factor but he fouled Doc n Roll. I know someone who was DQ'd out of the Pick-6 who feels similarly. He fouled the horse and may have cost it second.

Personally I would rather worry about handicapping than fretting over steward's decisions. It's something people will never agree with.

I'm not saying it was the worst DQ ever. Was there a slight bump, yes. But it happened exactly five strides from the wire. Could it have cost Tagg's horse second money, possibly, but Admiral Bird had beaten him to punch when they were abreast in midstretch, so I have less sympathy on that one. (Of course, if either of Gyarmati's horses ran second, resulting in a "put up" in the pic-6, I'm sure that I would have been thrilled to see them take the horse down.)

Over the years, you sit at an OTB facility and every time there is contact, you hear people say, "That horse should come down," and they frequently have no idea what they are talking about. My point was that, over time, I have thought that I can watch an inquiry and have a pretty good idea of what the stewards are going to do (that is, what is a foul and what is not). These calls the past week have been so inconsistent that I find it hard to discern what they are looking for. And whether you think the stewards do a good job or not, the repeated refrain on this thread is at the heart of what frustrates people: there is no transparency and no accountability. (No written explanation as to why the horse was taken down or not, and no indication as to what stewards voted what way. If Doc 'n Roll had finished second, would there have been a DQ?)

Let's just hope that we have another Saratoga meet, like last year's, where they are non-factors.