curious ruling by the stewards - Kee 5th

[Scav]

Originally Posted by -BT-

I agree i thought the #10 had some lengths on him, no reason or excuse why Kent didn't wheel his horse inside and go from there, the way Kent was working on his horse he knew he wasn't on a winner down the lane, but my oh my what claim of fouls can do for a jock. Anyone also see the way he eyeballed Lezcano when they crossed the wire, he lookedat him as though Lezcano chopped him off at the legs or something

needless to say i had both the 4 and 10 in that race as the 2nd leg of my pk3 ticket (in which Ruthy completed in the last leg) would have been much better off getting a $15+ horse then catching a $5 DH

just my opinion

by the way, how the hell are ya kings? hows the weather in PITT?

-bt-

More so, where the hell have you been?

This is exactly what I saw, it was all for an acadamy award....

[-BT-]

Originally Posted by Scav

More so, where the hell have you been?

This is exactly what I saw, it was all for an acadamy award....

Savalicious—Scavareno—Scavenger , how goes it?
Yeah your boy Kent D. cost me some coin on that race.

I had to take a little “sabbatical” from the racing industry, my new job doesn’t afford me to listen to Byk or watch races at work anymore. So I was kind of handcuffed to weekends only, but for the most part I’ve been on the shelf since the new year.

Let me know what kind of plans you got for the summer, I’m trying to put a Right Coast (Saratoga) Left Coast (Del Mar) weekend/ week trips together, and hell maybe even a trip to the windy city again. Hope all is well

-bt-

[Pedigree Ann]

Aside from the argument about whether a foul took place or not...,

Once they decided to DQ the 10, she had to be placed behind the 4. Behind the 4, means in this case, behind the dead-heat. The 9 got lucky. What would you prefer, that the 10 is placed second behind the 4, and the 9 demoted to third? That's even more unfair.

Haven't you ever seen a horse DQed from a win for fouling a horse who finished 3rd, 4th, 5th..., promoting the second finisher to the win, despite not being bothered? Happened in the first BC Fillies Juvenile - Fran's Valentine knocked a couple of horses going no-where out of the way to get through, was DQed to 10th, giving the win to Outstandingly. Just the way the rule works.

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Aside from the argument about whether a foul took place or not...,

Once they decided to DQ the 10, she had to be placed behind the 4. Behind the 4, means in this case, behind the dead-heat. The 9 got lucky. What would you prefer, that the 10 is placed second behind the 4, and the 9 demoted to third? That's even more unfair.
Haven't you ever seen a horse DQed from a win for fouling a horse who finished 3rd, 4th, 5th..., promoting the second finisher to the win, despite not being bothered? Happened in the first BC Fillies Juvenile - Fran's Valentine knocked a couple of horses going no-where out of the way to get through, was DQed to 10th, giving the win to Outstandingly. Just the way the rule works.

for some reason I had it in my head that the 10 would be placed 2nd and the 9 would have been in a dead heat with the 10 instead of the 4. The 9 would neither be penalized or rewarded.

I agree that horse didn't keep a straight course and should come down. The only thing I thought should have happened was the 4 should have moved up.

I understand it is impossible to move the 10 behind the 4 and not behind the 9.

[Kasept]

Scav,

You have to got to be kidding with this... The performance of Life Lesson in the KEE 5th WAS THE VERY DEFINITION of a foul... It couldn't have been more obvious, and calling the decision 'curious' only encourages the notion in gullible players' heads that the stewards sometimes have an agenda. As TFM suggested, the pan is meaningless and denying a horse their path is a foul regardless of contact.


KY RULES OF RACING: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/TITLE810.HTM


Section 12. Fouls. A leading horse when clear is entitled to any part of the track. If a leading horse or any other horse in a race, swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause same, such shall be deemed a foul. If a jockey strikes another horse or jockey, it is a foul. If in the opinion of the stewards, a foul alters the finish of a race, any offending horses may be disqualified by the stewards.


Further, here is the definition of jockey responsibility for avoiding fouls if at all possible...

Section 13. Stewards to Determine Foul Riding. Every jockey shall be responsible for making his best effort to control and guide his mount in such a way as not to cause a foul. The stewards shall take cognizance of riding which results in a foul, irrespective of whether an objection is lodged. If in the opinion of the stewards, a foul is committed as a result of a jockey not making his best effort to control and guide his mount to avoid a foul, whether intentionally or through carelessness or incompetence, the jockey may be penalized at the discretion of the stewards.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Scav,

You have to got to be kidding with this... The performance of Life Lesson in the KEE 5th WAS THE VERY DEFINITION of a foul... It couldn't have been more obvious, and calling the decision 'curious' only encourages the notion in gullible players' heads that the stewards sometimes have an agenda. As TFM suggested, the pan is meaningless and denying a horse their path is a foul regardless of contact.


KY RULES OF RACING: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/TITLE810.HTM


Section 12. Fouls. A leading horse when clear is entitled to any part of the track. If a leading horse or any other horse in a race, swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause same, such shall be deemed a foul. If a jockey strikes another horse or jockey, it is a foul. If in the opinion of the stewards, a foul alters the finish of a race, any offending horses may be disqualified by the stewards.


Further, here is the definition of jockey responsibility for avoiding fouls if at all possible...

Section 13. Stewards to Determine Foul Riding. Every jockey shall be responsible for making his best effort to control and guide his mount in such a way as not to cause a foul. The stewards shall take cognizance of riding which results in a foul, irrespective of whether an objection is lodged. If in the opinion of the stewards, a foul is committed as a result of a jockey not making his best effort to control and guide his mount to avoid a foul, whether intentionally or through carelessness or incompetence, the jockey may be penalized at the discretion of the stewards.

It happens every day at every track and is not called a foul. That rule is wonderfully written and universally ignored by Stewards. Intimidation is a HUGE part of the game. Ask Tony Black if he has ever changed paths with a leader to intimidate. ALL THE TIME should be his answer, because the good ones do it all the time.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

It happens every day at every track and is not called a foul. That rule is wonderfully written and universally ignored by Stewards. Intimidation is a HUGE part of the game. Ask Tony Black if he has ever changed paths with a leader to intimidate. ALL THE TIME should be his answer, because the good ones do it all the time.

I had no play involved here and in fact was rooting for people whom I knew played the 10, but Life Lesson impeded Dan's Pride THREE different times down the stretch while drifting out 5 paths.

I'm surprised there is a debate. And I will bring up the topic with Tony Black this week. I'll have KY head steward John Veitch on if people want...

[ddthetide]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I had no play involved here and in fact was rooting for people whom I knew played the 10, but Life Lesson impeded Dan's Pride THREE different times down the stretch while drifting out 5 paths.

I'm surprised there is a debate. And I will bring up the topic with Tony Black this week. I'll have KY head steward John Veitch on if people want...

get tony a heads up so he can see the replay. it will be interesting to hear his view of it.
the 5th race was the first i watched all day and had no play.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I had no play involved here and in fact was rooting for people whom I knew played the 10, but Life Lesson impeded Dan's Pride THREE different times down the stretch while drifting out 5 paths.

I'm surprised there is a debate. And I will bring up the topic with Tony Black this week. I'll have KY head steward John Veitch on if people want...

I had no play involved also.

[deltagulf]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I had no play involved here and in fact was rooting for people whom I knew played the 10, but Life Lesson impeded Dan's Pride THREE different times down the stretch while drifting out 5 paths.

I'm surprised there is a debate. And I will bring up the topic with Tony Black this week. I'll have KY head steward John Veitch on if people want...

yea besides tony i would like to hear from john veitch on the show.
it would be great.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

It happens every day at every track and is not called a foul. That rule is wonderfully written and universally ignored by Stewards. Intimidation is a HUGE part of the game. Ask Tony Black if he has ever changed paths with a leader to intimidate. ALL THE TIME should be his answer, because the good ones do it all the time.

exactly, I had no dog in this hunt but I was surprised by this takedown.
I have been on the receiving end of much more egregious fouls at Keeneland and they did nothing. In addition to any grandstanding by the jockey, I think what might have helped to sell this one was at one point the horses head recoils, almost like when they get hit by another riders whip.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Scav,

You have to got to be kidding with this... The performance of Life Lesson in the KEE 5th WAS THE VERY DEFINITION of a foul... It couldn't have been more obvious, and calling the decision 'curious' only encourages the notion in gullible players' heads that the stewards sometimes have an agenda. As TFM suggested, the pan is meaningless and denying a horse their path is a foul regardless of contact.


KY RULES OF RACING: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/TITLE810.HTM


Section 12. Fouls. A leading horse when clear is entitled to any part of the track. If a leading horse or any other horse in a race, swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause same, such shall be deemed a foul. If a jockey strikes another horse or jockey, it is a foul. If in the opinion of the stewards, a foul alters the finish of a race, any offending horses may be disqualified by the stewards.

Further, here is the definition of jockey responsibility for avoiding fouls if at all possible...

Section 13. Stewards to Determine Foul Riding. Every jockey shall be responsible for making his best effort to control and guide his mount in such a way as not to cause a foul. The stewards shall take cognizance of riding which results in a foul, irrespective of whether an objection is lodged. If in the opinion of the stewards, a foul is committed as a result of a jockey not making his best effort to control and guide his mount to avoid a foul, whether intentionally or through carelessness or incompetence, the jockey may be penalized at the discretion of the stewards.

Stewards have written rules that they follow????

So you have strict definitions of what constitutes a "Foul", but complete Steward's discretion as to what would create a "Disqualification".

Which kind of leaves us back at square one, doesn't it?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by golfer

Stewards have written rules that they follow????

So you have strict definitions of what constitutes a "Foul", but complete Steward's discretion as to what would create a "Disqualification".

Which kind of leaves us back at square one, doesn't it?

No.. not exactly. That's why there are three of them in the stand. Ideally, the majority will 'rule' on decisions via their understanding of the definitions as measured through their view of an incident.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Scav,

You have to got to be kidding with this... The performance of Life Lesson in the KEE 5th WAS THE VERY DEFINITION of a foul... It couldn't have been more obvious, and calling the decision 'curious' only encourages the notion in gullible players' heads that the stewards sometimes have an agenda. As TFM suggested, the pan is meaningless and denying a horse their path is a foul regardless of contact.


KY RULES OF RACING: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/TITLE810.HTM


Section 12. Fouls. A leading horse when clear is entitled to any part of the track. If a leading horse or any other horse in a race, swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause same, such shall be deemed a foul. If a jockey strikes another horse or jockey, it is a foul. If in the opinion of the stewards, a foul alters the finish of a race, any offending horses may be disqualified by the stewards.


Further, here is the definition of jockey responsibility for avoiding fouls if at all possible...

Section 13. Stewards to Determine Foul Riding. Every jockey shall be responsible for making his best effort to control and guide his mount in such a way as not to cause a foul. The stewards shall take cognizance of riding which results in a foul, irrespective of whether an objection is lodged. If in the opinion of the stewards, a foul is committed as a result of a jockey not making his best effort to control and guide his mount to avoid a foul, whether intentionally or through carelessness or incompetence, the jockey may be penalized at the discretion of the stewards.

You dont think that stewards at times have agendas? Come on Steve...you cant be that gullible. Watch the pan shot...the 10 did not interfere with the 4. Sure he came out a bit, but was clear. If stewards around the country make the same call as yesterday there are going to be a ton more dq's and a lot of pissed off bettors. Was a horrendous call.

Back to the stewards thing. Go back to the race at SA which I pm'd you about which I assume you didnt watch because you never commented on it. Was much worse than yesterday, but the stewards in cali (who apparently dont have an agenda...you know...like taking down an owner who has sued them and become a huge pain in their ass, and might bring them some heat) left the horse up.

To say that stewards dont at times have agendas is gullible, borderline dumb. Go ask Chris Paasch if the stewards dont have agendas or dont hold grudges.