curious ruling by the stewards - Kee 5th

[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.

[AeWingnut]

Maybe I need to be clear. The intent of my post wasn't if the 10 should come down. It was why should the 9 be promoted to the win when he was not the one that was fouled.

I now understand in order to be placed behind the 4 the 10 had to also be placed behind the 9.

Like I said before.
for some silly reason I thought they would just give the 9 a dead heat with the 10 instead of the 4.

I have seen worse and it does seem to go the way of the odds.

[swedejxn]

Well.... I was one of those on Life Lesson (Steve's reference) and when those two crossed the line I knew I had lost the place money... But honestly if that horse was "intimidated" from that far away it seems a little fishy to me.

[Scav]

HE NEVER touched the friggin horse, he was a LENGTH CLEAR of the friggin hanger. You people need to get your eyes checked in regards to BUMPING.

And Steve, that intimidation rule is BUILT INTO ALMOST EVERY STATE, and it CONSISTENTLY happens ALL THE TIME. Every race in California, if someone is going to close on the outside, you drift out to make your horse more competitive.

Also, if drifting was a problem at Keeneland, then they could take EVERY WINNER down at Keeneland because not 1 single jockey wanted ANY PART of the first 4 paths. every single horse that was on the lead coming for home went into the 5 path or greater.

There is no changing any of our minds on this, but as far as I am concerned, if you are a length clear, you can drift 10 paths

the simple question should have been asked by these boneheads, 'Would Dan's Pride have won if it wasn't for Life Lesson drifting out?'

It was a great acting job by Kent jerking the horses head, he saw the horse drifting out.

By the way Steve, how come if this is guaranteed a foul, there wasn't a INQUIRY, and it was just an objection? It is so blantantly obvious but the stewards didn't put the light on.

[pmacdaddy]

I think the 10 most definitely interfered enough to cost the #4 sole second place finish. If not forced to check, the #4 likely doesn't win the race IMO, but also doesn't share second place purse money.

[Scav]

I know I just said this, but with this being so obvious, where was the inquiry light?

You know what though, this is all good, because when Life Lesson does run back in a MSW any time soon at 3/5, he is a complete play against and will do so with both fists, he bore out real bad and was dead tired down the stretch, there wasn't much in the race from what I can tell either.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

As someone who made a nice win bet on Life Lesson I'm pretty surprised there is even a discussion about this. Usually when you can see live, from the pan shot that a horse is drifting out badly it's never a good sign. The head on only confirms it further. The stewards had no choice. They made the correct decision IMO. I'm sure there will be plenty of time to bitch about bad DQ's, I just don't feel like this is one of them.

I agree, looked like a no brainer DQ to me. I couldn't believe how long it took them to make the decision.

[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.