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 08-07-2010, 08:05 AM
johnny pinwheel johnny pinwheel is offline
Woodbine
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: saratoga ny
Posts: 986
Default

the other thing that puzzled me other than the non take down...was the the double payoff after the next race. pelican lake paid 18.20 and sotique paid 25.60...yet the double came back 114 and change..somebody made a big double play on those two horses. i hope it was not the stewards.....lol
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-07-2010, 08:15 AM
the_fat_man's Avatar
the_fat_man the_fat_man is offline
Atlantic City Race Course
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,676
Default

Maybe they arranged for that horse to get a clear rail run around the track. Doesn't win otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-07-2010, 08:18 AM
NoLuvForPletch NoLuvForPletch is offline
Hollywood Park
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel View Post
the other thing that puzzled me other than the non take down...was the the double payoff after the next race. pelican lake paid 18.20 and sotique paid 25.60...yet the double came back 114 and change..somebody made a big double play on those two horses. i hope it was not the stewards.....lol
wasn't PL like 5/2 m/l? the bigger question should be how in the hell did he go off at 8-1?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-07-2010, 12:55 PM
Linny's Avatar
Linny Linny is offline
Oaklawn
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 2,104
Default

The race in question was in NY and you'd be hard pressed to find a trainer in NY getting only $50/day. If the horse that was hit was prevented from making her best placing, it changed the outcome for them, even if she was not going to WIN.
__________________
RIP Monroe.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-07-2010, 01:26 PM
Rupert Pupkin Rupert Pupkin is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linny View Post
The race in question was in NY and you'd be hard pressed to find a trainer in NY getting only $50/day. If the horse that was hit was prevented from making her best placing, it changed the outcome for them, even if she was not going to WIN.
In this particular case, the incident did not appear to have cost the horse a placing. The horse that was fouled ran 4th and would not have run better than 4th even if the incident did not happen.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-07-2010, 01:49 PM
ateamstupid's Avatar
ateamstupid ateamstupid is offline
Super Mod.. and Super Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 13,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linny View Post
The race in question was in NY and you'd be hard pressed to find a trainer in NY getting only $50/day. If the horse that was hit was prevented from making her best placing, it changed the outcome for them, even if she was not going to WIN.
As DrugS has repeatedly said, she was 7 lengths behind third. She wasn't finishing any better than 4th. While I disagree with the decision, it didn't cost the 7 a placing.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-07-2010, 02:02 PM
Rupert Pupkin Rupert Pupkin is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ateamstupid View Post
As DrugS has repeatedly said, she was 7 lengths behind third. She wasn't finishing any better than 4th. While I disagree with the decision, it didn't cost the 7 a placing.
In football do you think they should call pass interference if the receiver was fouled but the ball was uncatchable? If not, why not?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-08-2010, 01:38 PM
Travis Stone's Avatar
Travis Stone Travis Stone is offline
Oaklawn
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 2,229
Default

Today's second race at LAD featured some young-guns who were clearly green. In the stretch, the eventual winner veered-in and interfered with the ultimate second place finisher. The winner was definitely the better horse, but was DQ'd for the infraction.

In one case it's DQing the obvious infraction, in the other it's not-DQing the obvious infraction because it affected the outcome.

I think both sides have legitimate arguments, but regardless, across the industry as a whole, the decisions should be consistent.
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 03:11 AM.


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