Another Confusing Decision from the NY Stewards

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Damn! I KNEW that. Thanks.

I don't disagree about getting into people's minds but we've all seen enough races to know that Coa's act was deliberate. Plus, Coa has a history.

Do you agree that Martin should sit, and what would you give Coa?

[GPK]

In no way do they deserve the same suspension. Coa's was a blantant as it gets. 100% retaliation. Like Andy said...they are clearly sending the wrong message here.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Hawk

Do you agree that Martin should sit, and what would you give Coa?

I am somewhat biased, as I find Coa's actions to be dangerously and frivolously out of line on an almost constant basis, and I also don't like a lot of riding I have seen this winter. So, my opinions are honestly stilted. However, I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion to make that he deliberately put Martin in very tight ( have you actually watched this head on ) specifically in the place that most EVERY rider knows is a video blind spot. Watch the head on...there is nobody else near them. So, to me, what he did supercedes everything else. I would have given him 30 days. But I also would have suspended him for putting Ponce in tight a day or two earlier. The stewards were correct that day not to take him down, as they were in another recent incident, but his continued right handed whipping that puts guys in tight inside is a dangerous tactic.

As for Martin, it's highly debatable that he should be suspended, as incidents like his happen on a daily basis, with no inquiries whatsoever. The stewards at racetracks all over the country somehow view what happens in the stretch as SIGNIFICANTLY different than occurances during the overall running of the race. To me this is wrong. But, to suddenly punish Martin when they never do in these situations is wrong. The simple fact is NOTHING would have been done to Martin had Coa not retaliated, so now they are punishing him because another guy went after him. That cannot be rationalized.

[whodey17]

I think equal punishment is justified. One cant retaliate if one isnt provoked.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by whodey17

I think equal punishment is justified. One cant retaliate if one isnt provoked.

How many times have you watched the head-on and pan shot from the race in question?

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

How many times have you watched the head-on and pan shot from the race in question?

27 times. Doesnt matter what we see with our eyes. Only matters what Coa perceived. Coa thought Martin did something wrong. Coa was angered and felt the need to retaliate. It is perception vs reality. But reprimanding one and not the other is not the answer. Obviously Coa felt he was threatened. Doesnt really matter what anything else thinks.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by whodey17

27 times.

You're entering a thread where an intelligent conversation is taking place and saying intentionally foolish things looking for a fight. That's known as trolling.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You're entering a thread where an intelligent conversation is taking place and saying intentionally foolish things looking for a fight. That's known as trolling.

Not at all. I just gave my opinion is all. You are the one that asked me a question. Why is my opinion seen as trolling and trying to find a fight?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by whodey17

27 times. Doesnt matter what we see with our eyes. Only matters what Coa perceived. Coa thought Martin did something wrong. Coa was angered and felt the need to retaliate. It is perception vs reality. But reprimanding one and not the other is not the answer. Obviously Coa felt he was threatened. Doesnt really matter what anything else thinks.

You decided to add to your original post and came up with this twisted logic?

So, by your logic, if a guy bumps me going onto a train, and I decide it was deliberate, I am well within my rights to push him onto the tracks when we exit. Why....because I felt threatened, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Or is it anything?

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You decided to add to your original post and came up with this twisted logic?

So, by your logic, if a guy bumps me going onto a train, and I decide it was deliberate, I am well within my rights to push him onto the tracks when we exit. Why....because I felt threatened, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Or is it anything?

If you are on a train and someone pushes you and you feel threatned then yes you have the right to protect yourself. I believe this is called self-defense. I am not a lawyer, but I think that holds up pretty well if one can prove they acted to a perceived threat to their person.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by whodey17

27 times. Doesnt matter what we see with our eyes. Only matters what Coa perceived. Coa thought Martin did something wrong. Coa was angered and felt the need to retaliate. It is perception vs reality. But reprimanding one and not the other is not the answer. Obviously Coa felt he was threatened. Doesnt really matter what anything else thinks.

actually it does not matter what coa perceived...there is no situation in which it is okay to put horses and riders at risk for injury to settle a score.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

actually it does not matter what coa perceived...there is no situation in which it is okay to put horses and riders at risk for injury to settle a score.

I agree with that 100%. This is why Coa was suspended. But Coa acted because he felt he was threatened. Not saying it is right or wrong. Just saying what I believe he could have been thinking.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

actually it does not matter what coa perceived...there is no situation in which it is okay to put horses and riders at risk for injury to settle a score.

Exactly... if he needs to settle it, he can wait until after he has dismounted. It's unbelievable that there are people who believe it to be acceptable for him to retaliate. I don't care if Martin hit him over the head with a sledgehammer... he has no right to put other horses and riders in danger.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by whodey17

27 times. Doesnt matter what we see with our eyes. Only matters what Coa perceived. Coa thought Martin did something wrong. Coa was angered and felt the need to retaliate. It is perception vs reality. But reprimanding one and not the other is not the answer. Obviously Coa felt he was threatened. Doesnt really matter what anything else thinks.

Now that I've read the second page, this is AWSUMZ!

I perceive that you are being a troll, so therefore I am very well within my limits (according to your logic) in demanding that you lay down at the wire in the center of the track of the next quarter horse race at Portland Meadows.

Makes sense, eh? Because I perceived a deliberate action intended to harm my internet wellbeing.

And no, I won't give you the pleasure of being trampled by 4000N1Y claimers at Hawthorne. 2500N1Y claimer quarter horses at PM will have to do.

At the risk of validating ANYTHING PG1985 says, this may be the worst logic I've ever seen on this forum.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Now that I've read the second page, this is AWSUMZ!

I perceive that you are being a troll, so therefore I am very well within my limits (according to your logic) in demanding that you lay down at the wire in the center of the track of the next quarter horse race at Portland Meadows.

Makes sense, eh? Because I perceived a deliberate action intended to harm my internet wellbeing.

And no, I won't give you the pleasure of being trampled by 4000N1Y claimers at Hawthorne. 2500N1Y claimer quarter horses at PM will have to do.

At the risk of validating ANYTHING PG1985 says, this may be the worst logic I've ever seen on this forum.

Again it is perception vs reality. It is a philosophical debate. If a man pushes you causing you to fall back what do you do. Did the man push you because he wanted to cause you harm, or did he push you because you were about to get hit by a car. You have to find out why one acted before you decide what to do. If the man pushed you so you wouldnt get hit by a car you would say thanks. If he pushed you because he was mad at you then you may want to defend yourself.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I will translate this post....... I have watched it zero times.


I'm pretty good, huh?

Very very good I may say. Of course I didnt watch it. I dont need to watch it. Doesnt matter what I think.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I will translate this one as well.

Of course I didn't watch it. I don't need to watch it to troll. I am looking for an arguement.


I can also translate dogs barking as well. It's a skill.

No arguement at all. I am happy to let this lie. Again, it is only my opinion. But people keep asking me questions and I answer. I want someone to tell me why I am not entitled to my opinion on the topic.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by whodey17

I think equal punishment is justified. One cant retaliate if one isnt provoked.

The "provocation" was just a typical incident that occurs as horses gain fotting and position early. Martin's actions did not appear intentinal at all, Coa's did.

[milliam]

Coa almost put Leparoux over the hedge twice at saratoga and it looked totally on purpose.

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The stewards at racetracks all over the country somehow view what happens in the stretch as SIGNIFICANTLY different than occurances during the overall running of the race. To me this is wrong. But, to suddenly punish Martin when they never do in these situations is wrong. The simple fact is NOTHING would have been done to Martin had Coa not retaliated, so now they are punishing him because another guy went after him. That cannot be rationalized.

Trying to "right" the path of where a mount goes on their own accord I suspect is more precarious in the very early stages of a race as the rate of acceleration abruptly takes place. In that light, I would be inclined to be more forgiving of Martin than of Coa.

In regards to Coa, how should the stewards view the case before them. Should they be as a jury and takes the facts of the case/race in front of them or should they consider the antics of late and pass judgment with a enough already decision meant to "reel in" his shenanigans?

After watching the race I almost think they felt the need to do something with Coa and threw Martin in to obfuscate a singling out of Coa.

In the end, who knows.