2/20 (TAM): Tampa Bay Breeders Cup

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I would've taken him down. I realize there was no contact, but you shouldn't be able to drift over seven paths in deep stretch, win by a nose and stay up.

While I agree with your conclusion again if you read the rule, contact is never mentioned. If the race was a 10 claimer the winner would have been taken down in a heartbeat.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

While I agree with your conclusion again if you read the rule, contact is never mentioned. If the race was a 10 claimer the winner would have been taken down in a heartbeat.

I know, I'm referring to what DrugS said about contact.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I know, I'm referring to what DrugS said about contact.

(5) If a horse or jockey jostles another horse, the aggressor shall be disqualified, unless the jostle was wholly caused by the fault of some other horse or jockey or had no impact upon the outcome of the race.

Section of the rules dealing with contact though this is the FL rule which may be worded different in NY

[randallscott35]

I think the horse should've come down. I've seen plenty of no contact takedowns.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

I think the horse should've come down. I've seen plenty of no contact takedowns.

And the problem is that if the same thing happens in a maiden race next Friday, the winner will come down and there is no explaination from the stewards. They should be forced to make public a document regarding every inquiry or claim of foul with the rule stated in the case of a takedown or the reasoning behind a no call. This is a easily accomplished solution to a tricky problem in the perception issue of racing. While there will always be disagreements in judgement situations it would at the very least force some accountability in the stewards stand, make them actually know what rules they are supposed to be enforcing and add transparency to the process while costing nothing more than ink and paper. Naturally this will never happen.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I know, I'm referring to what DrugS said about contact.

I thought he was 80% to come down after seeing the up-top head on angle, I wanted him to come down so I could cash my double, according to the rules he should have come down.

As a bettor though, my stance is F' the F'ing rules. It's a desperate finish - let them play.

I'm not quite one of those guys like DRF's Dick Jeradi who believes there should never be a takedown for any reason - only jockey fines and purse redistributions ... but, I would say I disagree with most takedowns.

The fact is that the most worthless and meaningless trouble that can occur to a horse in a race happens in the late stages when the horses are all decelerating. Yet, a slight foul there is going to result in a DQ.

Horses who get fouled in an earlier and far, far, far more important stage of the race often run so poorly that these fouls get a pass because the assumption is they performed so poorly that the foul didn't matter. You pretty much have to dislodge the rider from his mount for a takedown to occur at some places...unless it happens in deep stretch.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I thought he was 80% to come down after seeing the up-top head on angle, I wanted him to come down so I could cash my double, according to the rules he should have come down.

As a bettor though, my stance is F' the F'ing rules. It's a desperate finish - let them play.

I'm not quite one of those guys like DRF's Dick Jeradi who believes there should never be a takedown for any reason - only jockey fines and purse redistributions ... but, I would say I disagree with most takedowns.

The fact is that the most worthless and meaningless trouble that can occur to a horse in a race happens in the late stages when the horses are all decelerating. Yet, a slight foul there is going to result in a DQ.

Horses who get fouled in an earlier and far, far, far more important stage of the race often run so poorly that these fouls get a pass because the assumption is they performed so poorly that the foul didn't matter. You pretty much have to dislodge the rider from his mount for a takedown to occur at some places...unless it happens in deep stretch.

A lot of what you said is true but the idea that jockeys would police themselves (which is what would have to happen in the land of no DQ's) is crazy. The white elephant in the room that everyone either ignores or simply isnt aware of is that in many jurisdictions the stewards themselves dont know or understand the rules properly and the facade of stewards accreditation makes this problem even worse. There are some people who have completed the Stewards accredadition program who simply arent bright enough to understand the rules or would have a hard time reading the rulebook, let alone comprehend it.

The problem isnt the rules, it is the inconsistent application of them.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I agree that a lot of these decisions are inconsistent.

I also wish they'd consistantly take fewer horses down.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I agree that a lot of these decisions are inconsistent.

I also wish they'd consistantly take fewer horses down.

This a misnomer. I see just as many not taken down who should as the other way around. All the horseplayer wants is consistency.

[AeWingnut]

Stewards are the final word. They don't have to go by photos they don't have to follow their rules. I think we've all seen how inconsistant they are and some of the crazy things that happen over the years.