Saratoga 5th - No DQ?

Originally Posted by CSC

Have you watched him on turf? I recognize the difference in surfaces but that is minutia in the discussion of a patient ride and a panicked one.

So Bridgmohan panicked? That's good to know.

The way his horse was moving if he had waited then he more than likely would have to pull the reins and that is almost certain death in a dirt race at that point in the race.

In a turf ROUTE it's a completely different story.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

So Bridgmohan panicked? That's good to know.

The way his horse was moving if he had waited then he more than likely would have to pull the reins and that is almost certain death in a dirt race at that point in the race.

In a turf ROUTE it's a completely different story.

The horse was going to win, I think we all know he was on the best horse this race. It was unnecessary for him to take the chance he took, let me ask you if the stewards sided on a DQ and you had a bet on him, I bet you would not be so complimentary of him then. He got away with one, okay it's a good ride. This time.

[CSC]

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but they somehow decided to take down the #4 Laylaben in the 1st race yesterday. Yes, the horse drifted out in the stretch, however with what they have been letting thus far in the meet this DQ was surprising.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by CSC

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but they somehow decided to take down the #4 Laylaben in the 1st race yesterday. Yes, the horse drifted out in the stretch, however with what they have been letting thus far in the meet this DQ was surprising.

It was actually discussed briefly in the playalong thread from yesterday.

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37932

[CSC]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

It was actually discussed briefly in the playalong thread from yesterday.

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37932

I see there was a brief discussion on it, if you watch the replay of the race in this thread and then watch the replay of the 1st yesterday, I'm sure there would be more than a little head scratching going on with this decision. I didn't have a bet on the race, but considering there was no contact with the 3rd horse and that maybe he was 50/50 to get up anyway, I don't agree with the call. To me the #4 would have won regardless. I'm sure someone will argue that it may have affected the 2nd place finish, yes I may agree there; however from what I have noticed not only in N.Y but in So Cal, they rarely seem to take exacta and tri bettors into account, I can recall a Bejarano horse staying up on an obvious foul because the horse that was interfered with was apparantly falling back even though his horse caused a chain reaction on the 2nd place horse that was gaining, there was no regard for the horse that was fouled when indeed he may have figured into the tri or super.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by CSC

I see there was a brief discussion on it, if you watch the replay of the race in this thread and then watch the replay of the 1st yesterday, I'm sure there would be more than a little head scratching going on with this decision. I didn't have a bet on the race, but considering there was no contact with the 3rd horse and that maybe he was 50/50 to get up anyway, I don't agree with the call. To me the #4 would have won regardless. I'm sure someone will argue that it may have affected the 2nd place finish, yes I may agree there; however from what I have noticed not only in N.Y but in So Cal, they rarely seem to take exacta and tri bettors into account, I can recall a Bejarano horse staying up on an obvious foul because the horse that was interfered with was apparantly falling back even though his horse caused a chain reaction on the 2nd place horse that was gaining, there was no regard for the horse that was fouled when indeed he may have figured into the tri or super.

It would have been interesting what decision the stewards would have made had the third place finisher won the place photo rather than losing it. Since she only missed second by a nose, I think it's hard to argue with any sense of certainty that Laylaben drifting did not impact that horse's ability to achieve a maximum placing.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

It would have been interesting what decision the stewards would have made had the third place finisher won the place photo rather than losing it. Since she only missed second by a nose, I think it's hard to argue with any sense of certainty that Laylaben drifting did not impact that horse's ability to achieve a maximum placing.

This is a good point, however I find it interesting that stewards in general fall back on the horse interferred with was falling back and thus a DQ is not warranted. Either way it comes down to a judgment, to me if a horse is bumped hard, it inevitiably may have a significant effect on his or her performance, just because a horse doesn't run on after being bumped hard doesn't mean it could not have achieved a better placing if it hadn't. A horse could have been disinterested, nicked or knocked off stride when bumped and as I cited in the Bejarano case, the stewards guessed the horse was fading regardless and it wouldn't have figured into exotics, to me if the horse wasn't bumped it would have achieved a better placing. There doesn't seem to be any consistency with stewards lately.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

The horse that was impeded was beaten a nose for 2nd. It's not hard to figure out their decision ... two things have to happen, 1.) a foul has to take place 2.) that foul has to cost a horse a chance at a better placing.

Like Rupert said - it's a little like pass interference in football. If the contact is significant - but the ball flies 15 yards over the recievers head and lands way out of bounds - it's no flag.