Another Confusing Decision from the NY Stewards

[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.

[Grits]

Incorrect decisions are and will continue to be made as long as horses are running year-round on the North American continent.

Do I find it acceptable, no can't say that I do. Do I find it probable, yes, due to the number of races run and human error being fallible. Baseball umpires make errors-bad calls, as do other referees in sports. The difference being, their calls can be challenged. Stewards, rarely are.

As far as your pick 6 question, I know it is heartbreaking, as a friend had the only live ticket late one afternoon in Saratoga, wherein he would've taken down the entire pool, but for the fact that his final selection was dqed by the stewards.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Why would it be acceptable to allow incorrect decisions to be made on a daily basis? How long would you keep your job if you made incorrect decisions on a daily basis? Think about how you would feel if you got taken down in the last leg of a big carryover pick 6 because the stewards made an incorrect decision and they took half a million dollars out of your pocket?

[whodey17]

Stewards have a hard job. For the most part, I think they do a fine job at race tracks all over the USA.

[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 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 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?

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Hawk

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.

If you had spelled obfuscate with a " ph " I could have gotten even.

The rest makes a lot of sense to me. You have to wonder if they had punished him for his other actions if he might not have done what he did Sunday.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Hawk

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.

Hawk, isn't that part of their job though? To rightfully determine the the culprit and punish them accordingly. To feel like they are singling someone out should not even enter their minds in a case like this.

[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.

[Left Bank]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Why would it be acceptable to allow incorrect decisions to be made on a daily basis? How long would you keep your job if you made incorrect decisions on a daily basis? Think about how you would feel if you got taken down in the last leg of a big carryover pick 6 because the stewards made an incorrect decision and they took half a million dollars out of your pocket?

Weathermen make incorrect decisions and predictions daily.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by GPK

Hawk, isn't that part of their job though? To rightfully determine the the culprit and punish them accordingly. To feel like they are singling someone out should not even enter their minds in a case like this.

Absolutely, and that's part of what made today's decision wrong.