Classic DQ -- Update: Overhead video unearthed

[saratogadew]

Originally Posted by Siena 16

California Stewards were never gonna DQ a Calif trainer like Baffert and move up a European. If Shared Belief finished 2nd, there would have been a DQ

and if cal chrome finished 2nd, what would the cali stewards do then? lol

[Indian Charlie]

They'd have dq'd chrome for hanging late in the race. Obviously

[LARHAGE]

That was an embarrassingly bad call, that horse eliminated half the field, looked like a Quarter Horse race at Los Alamitos.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by LARHAGE

That was an embarrassingly bad call, that horse eliminated half the field, looked like a Quarter Horse race at Los Alamitos.

Yes, it was, but we all knew he wasn't coming down.

I wouldn't have been surprised if there'd have been a second inquiry in that race as well.

That start was like a Sam who lite.

[Benny]

http://www.drf.com/news/bayern-survi...ins-bc-classic

She said the decision by the stewards was unanimous.

Ninety minutes after the race, the California Horse Racing Board released a statement from Chaney that said, in part, “The incident occurred in a part of the race where the horses interfered with were not cost the opportunity to place where they were reasonably expected to finish.”

WHAT ??? Shared belief was the favorite to win,how does that jive go ???

The CHRB Safety Rules

"We want your involvement in helping us develop methods that will ultimately result in longer, more productive careers for your horses, safer conditions for the riders and a positive public image for horse racing....."

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/racing_safety.html

The stewards rule on DQ, is so nice and general.

Rule Title
1543 Stewards to Determine Fouls and Extent of Disqualification.
Rule Text The stewards shall determine the extent of disqualification in cases of fouls or riding or drivinginfractions. They may place the offending horse behind such other horses as in their judgmentit interfered with, or they may place it las

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/query_rules_a..._argument=1543

The stewards at a BC venue should be from a variety of jurisdictions to prevent homer type decisions IMHO; like the other professional sports to keep everything on the up and up.
The jocks and trainers all know what they can get away with out of the gate,so they can demolish a field out of the gate but not have an incidental bump or brush late in a race; makes no sense.

Why not have a panel or group of citizens etc and view the start of the 2014 bc classic and give them options to vote on what is fair or not and see what the results are !

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by LARHAGE

That was an embarrassingly bad call, that horse eliminated half the field, looked like a Quarter Horse race at Los Alamitos.

Gross exaggeration of reality.

[parsixfarms]

What are the rules? Since the stewards have been given more discretion and not adjudicated these matters under "a foul is a foul" rule, I've always thought the rule was whether a horse was deprived a chance to achieve a maximum placing. (That certainly seemed to be the case with Shared Belief and, to a greater degree, Moreno given his style of running.) To state that they are viewing these matters under a "where they were reasonably expected to finish" standard is scary. Now the stewards are handicappers as well? On a day where one longshot after another outperformed where they were generally expected to finish, I don't want the stewards determining who are hopeless horses and which ones are not.

A couple of other thoughts: What Garcia did yesterday was essentially the same thing that Calvin Borel did in the 2013 Kentucky Oaks and that was generally panned as a bush-league move.

The California stewards suspended Victor Espinoza for his ride in the Awesome Again and leave this incident alone. Where's the consistency?

[Gate Dancer]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

What are the rules? Since the stewards have been given more discretion and not adjudicated these matters under "a foul is a foul" rule, I've always thought the rule was whether a horse was deprived a chance to achieve a maximum placing. (That certainly seemed to be the case with Shared Belief and, to a greater degree, Moreno given his style of running.) To state that they are viewing these matters under a "where they were reasonably expected to finish" standard is scary. Now the stewards are handicappers as well? On a day where one longshot after another outperformed where they were generally expected to finish, I don't want the stewards determining who are hopeless horses and which ones are not.

A couple of other thoughts: What Garcia did yesterday was essentially the same thing that Calvin Borel did in the 2013 Kentucky Oaks and that was generally panned as a bush-league move.

The California stewards suspended Victor Espinoza for his ride in the Awesome Again and leave this incident alone. Where's the consistency?

Agree with this totally.............didn't have a "dog in the fight' but hated to see this happen. Watched the head-on several times and just can't help but conclude that Bayern sawed off the 3 horses inside of him. That move greatly impacted the remainder of the race and most certainly denied Moreno any shot at all. I knew they would never take down Baffert but it certainly taints the victory, in my opinion. (as if that matters).

I hate hypotheticals but I pose this one: Trade Moreno for Bayern in the race positions and at the start of the race. Do you think they would have taken Moreno down? I can imagine Baffert himself getting on the phone to the stewards.............

But hey, I'm probably still bitter about the DQ in the 1984 BC Classic......

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

What are the rules? Since the stewards have been given more discretion and not adjudicated these matters under "a foul is a foul" rule, I've always thought the rule was whether a horse was deprived a chance to achieve a maximum placing. (That certainly seemed to be the case with Shared Belief and, to a greater degree, Moreno given his style of running.) To state that they are viewing these matters under a "where they were reasonably expected to finish" standard is scary. Now the stewards are handicappers as well? On a day where one longshot after another outperformed where they were generally expected to finish, I don't want the stewards determining who are hopeless horses and which ones are not.

A couple of other thoughts: What Garcia did yesterday was essentially the same thing that Calvin Borel did in the 2013 Kentucky Oaks and that was generally panned as a bush-league move.

The California stewards suspended Victor Espinoza for his ride in the Awesome Again and leave this incident alone. Where's the consistency?

The guiding rule in California regarding race riding.. Rule 1699. Chaney is quoting the rule: http://www.chrb.ca.gov/query_rules_a..._argument=1699

So difficult. Hard for me to be objective as Toast getting put up makes a big difference in my own results, but I was 100% expecting a DQ. The more I watch the replays, including the one from behind the gate, the more I get the non-call. Sawyer, Chaney & Ward have at least consistent in ignoring these incidents at the start. Arduous, frustrating end to the weekend.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The guiding rule in California regarding race riding.. Rule 1699. Chaney is quoting the rule: http://www.chrb.ca.gov/query_rules_a..._argument=1699

So difficult. Hard for me to be objective as Toast getting put up makes a big difference in my own results, but I was 100% expecting a DQ. The more I watch the replays, including the one from behind the gate, the more I get the non-call. Sawyer, Chaney & Ward have at least consistent in ignoring these incidents at the start. Arduous, frustrating end to the weekend.

Agree on the difficulty of being dispassionate regarding Toast of New York, but let's look at clauses (c) and (d) of the California rules :

(c) A horse which interferes with another and thereby causes any other horse to lose stride, ground or position, when such other horse is not at fault and when such interference occurs in a part of the race where the horse interfered with loses the opportunity to place where it might, in the opinion of the Stewards, be reasonably expected to finish, may be disqualified and placed behind the horse so interfered with. (d) Jockeys shall not ride carelessly, or willfully, so as to permit their mount to interfere with or impede any other horse.

Bayern's break clearly impeded at least three paths and more likely four paths from the break which would be interpretted as a violation of (c). More important however was that Garcia was clearly shoving for the lead and made little attempt to straighten the forward path of Bayern which was in violation of (d).

If Bayern had to correct course and straighten coming from the gates, you can be assured that he would not have been on the lead which would have compromised his chances in the race; in fact, everything there would have taken a completely different complexion.

As a result of an evaluation of (c) and (d) in addition to the consideration of Bayern potentially being course corrected, a disqualification was the proper call.