Gulfstream Inquiries

[Kitan]

Stewards rulings as per the chart:

R4: THE STEWARDS CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY AND CLAIMS OF FOUL WERE LODGED AGAINST HOUSE RULES FROM THE RIDER AND TRAINER OF 'SHEER DRAMA CONCERNING THE STEADYING OF HER AT THE EIGHTH POLE AND AFTER REVIEWING THE FILMS THE STEWARDS CONCLUDED THAT THE OUTCOME WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALTERED AND MADE NO CHANGE

R11: THE RIDER OF ITSAKNOCKOUT LODGED AN OBJECTION AGAINST UPSTART CONCERNING THE STEADYING OF HIS MOUNT AT THE SIXTEENTH POLE AND AFTER REVIEWING THE FILMS THE STEWARDS CONCLUDED UPSTART HAD CONTINUED TO DRIFT OUT CAUSING ITSAKNOCKOUT TO BE CARRIED OUT AND STEADIED AND DISQUALIFIED UPSTART FROM FIRST AND PLACED HIM SECOND

R12: THE STEWARDS CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY CONCERNING THE BUMPING BETWEEN DREAMING OF GOLD AND DANISH DYNAFORMER IN MID-STRETCH AND AFTER REVIEWING THE FILMS CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS A MUTUAL EXCHANGE AND MADE NO CHANGE

No consistency, and the ruling of the race 12 completely baffles me

[Calzone Lord]

In dirt racing, horses go much faster early and decelerate sharply late.

Trouble early (out of the gate, and into and through the first quarter mile) is far more significant to a horses overall performance than trouble late (stretch-run) which comes while they're decelerating.

However, in regard to inquires and objections, trouble late is taken far more seriously. Most disqualifications happen in the stretch-run when horses are tiring, and their jockeys are resorting to race-riding tactics like brushing or herding.

Another unique thing about inquiries in horse racing, is that they run counter to officiating in most team sports. In sports like football, hockey, and perhaps even basketball -- players are allowed to get away with more in the late stages of a game. The idea being 'put the whistles away and let them play. No one paid to see the officials decide the outcome of games'

Personally, there's no consistency at all when you rule Race 11 a 'DQ' and Race 12 a 'no change'

In both instances, the horse who finished first came outward and initiated contact to try and gain an advantage.

The shame about Upstart's race was that It'saknockout was clearly not going to get by him.

[ateamstupid]

Those were two of the most ridiculous back-to-back rulings you will ever see. The explanations say nothing. It's basically "Upstart was DQ'ed because he was DQ'ed" and calling what happened in the 12th a "mutual exchange" is laughable.

It's a shame, because that was a great card Gulfstream put on today, mostly overshadowed (in my eyes) by the incompetence of the stewards.

[LITF]

It's one of the many frustrations in a game that needs no more frustrations. I was singled to the 7 for a Pick 4 and Pick 5 score so I may be a bit biased but I think not. Yes, the 7 came in a bit in the last but the 8 appeared to come out multiple times and much more drastically, causing significant contact. In fact, if you watch the replay, it appears that as the 8 drifts out and makes significant contact with the 7 and as that happens the 7 switches leads, signifying that the bumping was drastic enough to alter the 7's chances to win or lose. Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe I'm not. But it's f*ing ridiculous when compared to the previous race. I actually thought the race deserved more of a DQ than the FOY. The explanation makes it even worse. The contact was nowhere near mutual. The 8 clearly came out more than the 7 came in. Clearly. This is an embarrassment to the game and such a fantastic card deserved a better ending!

[dellinger63]

The one word I think that explains it best is 'Pletcher'

Upstart was 'Pletcherized' known on the left coast as 'Baffertized'

[Easy Goer Otis]

Objectively, disagreed with both calls.

Subjectively, would like to thank the stewards for a $196 double to finish the day.

O

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Easy Goer Otis

Subjectively, would like to thank the stewards for a $196 double to finish the day.

I've only read two of your posts and I already can't stand you.

[Indian Charlie]

Otis, don't take it personally. He hates it when the gods of good luck smile on someone else.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Otis, don't take it personally. He hates it when the gods of good luck smile on someone else.

[Rudeboyelvis]

I don't understand why the two calls are mutually inclusive.

However unpopular an opinion, I agreed with the take down of Upstart. To say that Itsaknockout "wouldn't have gotten to Upstart without interfenence" is insane and purely subjective. Ortiz drives Upstart, left handed, into Itsaknockout's path repeatedly, then after Saez checks, Ortiz goes right handed. Dead Giveaway. Jock knew what he was doing, tried to interfere with a coming horse, and got caught.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I don't understand why the two calls are mutually inclusive.

However unpopular an opinion, I agreed with the take down of Upstart. To say that Itsaknockout "wouldn't have gotten to Upstart without interfenence" is insane and purely subjective. Ortiz drives Upstart, left handed, into Itsaknockout's path repeatedly, then after Saez checks, Ortiz goes right handed. Dead Giveaway. Jock knew what he was doing, tried to interfere with a coming horse, and got caught.

I just watched it, and I don't think it was unreasonable to take him down, though I'm not sure I would have.

Like you, seeing the jock go left handed to the whip would have been the main justification for taking him down.

He should definitely get days for that.

I thought it was also kind of funny that the other idiot (jock) went to the right handed whip.

[pucknut]

It's hard enough to pick a race winner it's tougher still to have one taken down
Like poker we seem to remember the bad beats inflicted on us more than we remember the bad beats we've inflicted
This was a bad beat for many reasons not to mention the breeding purse and derby point fall out
And the ruling on the 12th was just salt and lemon on the cut

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I don't understand why the two calls are mutually inclusive.

However unpopular an opinion, I agreed with the take down of Upstart. To say that Itsaknockout "wouldn't have gotten to Upstart without interfenence" is insane and purely subjective. Ortiz drives Upstart, left handed, into Itsaknockout's path repeatedly, then after Saez checks, Ortiz goes right handed. Dead Giveaway. Jock knew what he was doing, tried to interfere with a coming horse, and got caught.

Seriously? They're back-to-back decisions involving very similar circumstances by the same stewards. How can you not attempt to draw a parallel?

I think DQ'ing a horse for coming out one path like that in a race he won by 2 3/4 lengths is ridiculous in any case. However, it'd be a little easier to stomach if this was a country that took a hard line on herding. In the context of all the herding that is regularly dismissed without even an inquiry, Upstart's DQ was absolutely comical. And if Upstart comes down, the winner in the 12th has to as well. 100%. I don't know how any rational person could argue otherwise. Either they both stay up or they both get disqualified.

The only way stewards with functioning brain stems can come up with two different decisions in those races is if they're up there flipping coins.

[Pants II]

I know it's all subjective but the head-on shows the inside horse initiated the contact.

Then the outside horse comes in slightly and then Upstart initiates contact with the 5.

And it's not that Upstart winning by 2 and change is impressive...they were crawling home. That should factor in as well.

How can you logically say a horse beaten multiple lengths with those closing fractions would've won the race if he wasn't bumped? With utmost certainty?

IMO it's a bad disqualification.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Seriously? They're back-to-back decisions involving very similar circumstances by the same stewards. How can you not attempt to draw a parallel?

I think DQ'ing a horse for coming out one path like that in a race he won by 2 3/4 lengths is ridiculous in any case. However, it'd be a little easier to stomach if this was a country that took a hard line on herding. In the context of all the herding that is regularly dismissed without even an inquiry, Upstart's DQ was absolutely comical. And if Upstart comes down, the winner in the 12th has to as well. 100%. I don't know how any rational person could argue otherwise. Either they both stay up or they both get disqualified.

The only way stewards with functioning brain stems can come up with two different decisions in those races is if they're up there flipping coins.

Intent, Joey. Period.

Ortiz purposely herded Upstart left-handed into Itsaknockout's path, bothered the horse, then causes the bothered horse to check, then went right-handed.
Caught dead to rights.

Zero intent in the 12th. Contreras was RIGHT HANDED, leading Danish Dynaformer away from Dreaming of Gold. Once Castellano leveled, there was mutual bumping as they we BOTH being ridden - if anything Castellano goes righthanded late and comes in a little on DD, but nothing that bothered the horse.

Correct call on both accounts-

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Pants II

I know it's all subjective but the head-on shows the inside horse initiated the contact.

Then the outside horse comes in slightly and then Upstart initiates contact with the 5.

And it's not that Upstart winning by 2 and change is impressive...they were crawling home. That should factor in as well.

How can you logically say a horse beaten multiple lengths with those closing fractions would've won the race if he wasn't bumped? With utmost certainty?

IMO it's a bad disqualification.

The Track variant was a 23 - they were all crawling. Itsaknockout was coming and on even terms may have had something to say about the outcome. Why else would Ortiz interfere?
As I mentioned - They penalized Ortiz's intent for a bone-head move, and as IC said, would not be surprised if he gets days or at least a warning for.

Personally I wasn't impressed by anything in that race.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Intent, Joey. Period.

Ortiz purposely herded Upstart left-handed into Itsaknockout's path, bothered the horse, then causes the bothered horse to check, then went right-handed.
Caught dead to rights.

Zero intent in the 12th. Contreras was RIGHT HANDED, leading Danish Dynaformer away from Dreaming of Gold. Once Castellano leveled, there was mutual bumping as they we BOTH being ridden - if anything Castellano goes righthanded late and comes in a little on DD, but nothing that bothered the horse.

Correct call on both accounts-

Which comes back to my initial point - why are ALL of these decisions mutually inclusive? They are all individual circumstances that need to be judged on their own merits.

It is silly to say that they were inconsistent because they took one down but had the same circumstance in the next race and left the horse up. Two totally different circumstances, two totally different dynamics.


It simply myopic to hold that opinion.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Intent, Joey. Period.

Ortiz purposely herded Upstart left-handed into Itsaknockout's path, bothered the horse, then causes the bothered horse to check, then went right-handed.
Caught dead to rights.

Zero intent in the 12th. Contreras was RIGHT HANDED, leading Danish Dynaformer away from Dreaming of Gold. Once Castellano leveled, there was mutual bumping as they we BOTH being ridden - if anything Castellano goes righthanded late and comes in a little on DD, but nothing that bothered the horse.

Correct call on both accounts-

I respect your opinion but I disagree on all points. I think if stewards - who have proven themselves frighteningly incompetent across the board on basic infractions - are supposed to now start trying to decipher intent, we are only going to have more and more inexplicable DQs.

The only thing I give a good f*ck about as a bettor is did one horse's actions cost another horse a better placing. It's why House Rules should've gotten DQ'ed if Sheer Drama had lost 2nd in the Rampart. There is no galaxy in which Upstart's minimal interference cost Itsaknockout the win in the Fountain of Yourh. And once again, the significant contact in the 12th was initiated by the 8 both times.

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I just watched it, and I don't think it was unreasonable to take him down, though I'm not sure I would have.

Like you, seeing the jock go left handed to the whip would have been the main justification for taking him down.

He should definitely get days for that.

I thought it was also kind of funny that the other idiot (jock) went to the right handed whip.

When stewards view an inquiry, for the purpose of order of finish, the actions of the jockeys are rarely taken into consideration. We watch the horses.

One exception would be the first few jumps from the gate. We look for very quick correction if a horse doesn't break straight.

There's an old adage stewards have been known to say to jockeys. " The first jump is yours. The 2nd ours"

[jms62]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

When stewards view an inquiry, for the purpose of order of finish, the actions of the jockeys are rarely taken into consideration. We watch the horses.

One exception would be the first few jumps from the gate. We look for very quick correction if a horse doesn't break straight.

There's an old adage stewards have been known to say to jockeys. " The first jump is yours. The 2nd ours"

And that's why stewards are morons and are ruining the game.