Aqueduct race 9 today

[philcski]

I had no interest in the race, but that was among the worst DQ's I've ever seen. The 3/5 favorite absolutely should not have been taken down. I switched channels after the race and didn't realize it was taken down until now when I saw it on a twitter.

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by philcski

I had no interest in the race, but that was among the worst DQ's I've ever seen. The 3/5 favorite absolutely should not have been taken down. I switched channels after the race and didn't realize it was taken down until now when I saw it on a twitter.

I missed the race live, I've just seen the replay, I can see what they must have been looking at. But, I agree the DQ was a joke.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by philcski

I had no interest in the race, but that was among the worst DQ's I've ever seen. The 3/5 favorite absolutely should not have been taken down. I switched channels after the race and didn't realize it was taken down until now when I saw it on a twitter.

I agree.. it was total inconsisent with there previous mindset. IF this is a new leaf they had better be turning it frequently

[NTamm1215]

I thought for a second when I saw the actual DQ that Gales had snuck into the stewards' booth and exacted some revenge on his nemeses Dominguez and Rice.

All kidding aside it was a horrendous DQ and by my calculations it was the second time in about a month (they took down a heavy fave trained by Levine in early November) that was incredibly inconsistent.

NT

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I thought for a second when I saw the actual DQ that Gales had snuck into the stewards' booth and exacted some revenge on his nemeses Dominguez and Rice.

All kidding aside it was a horrendous DQ and by my calculations it was the second time in about a month (they took down a heavy fave trained by Levine in early November) that was incredibly inconsistent.

NT

People who I have immense respect for and understand the game to a level I don't feel the DQ was correct.. I still dont see it but recognize that if they suggest the DQ was OK that there is a lot of validity to it?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by freddymo

People who I have immense respect for and understand the game to a level I don't feel the DQ was correct.. I still dont see it but recognize that if they suggest the DQ was OK that there is a lot of validity to it?

the key is the cosistency of the dq's

once the stewards pick and choose who they want to stay up and who they want to take down on close calls you may as well bring in the circus clowns

all kidding aside today's dq was correct

[dellinger63]

it doesn't matter IMO. I love 3/5's taken down. But when Rice's horse got back, they removed the saddle like they were OJ trying to hide a knife only he was in Cali and this was NYC.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I thought for a second when I saw the actual DQ that Gales had snuck into the stewards' booth and exacted some revenge on his nemeses Dominguez and Rice.

All kidding aside it was a horrendous DQ and by my calculations it was the second time in about a month (they took down a heavy fave trained by Levine in early November) that was incredibly inconsistent.

NT

Originally Posted by freddymo

I agree.. it was total inconsisent with there previous mindset. IF this is a new leaf they had better be turning it frequently

Agreed- consistency is all we're asking for, across all jurisdictions. In KY they let the jocks get away with murder, in NY I've seen times where a horse has been taken down without contact. This was a case where there should have been no change, end of story. The favorite should have stayed up. It sets a bad precedent to allow stewards to make changes with as little contact/impact on the race as this.

[MisterB]

That was disgraceful to say the least.

[Gander]

I thought it was a horrible DQ. The horse who ran 2nd simply hung like a chandelier with every chance to get by and still couldnt. It was a brilliant ride by Ramon and he got screwed badly.

I think their rational was the very, very slight margin of victory.

[docicu3]

Disclosure bias prior to comment.....had the 6 for a tidy sum.



I thought the idea was to identify and reverse outcomes that were influenced by a foul. Did not the 8 make contact with the 6, albeit not the hardest contact, causing the 6 to lose ground as a challenge to the lead was occurring. The 6 loses some fraction of a length as a consequence of the contact and is coming again at the wire to lose by a nose which implies the ground lost cost the horse the placing.

I think sometimes we see horses collide that are obvious fouls but the placing is upheld because the offender was going to win regardless of the foul and that is seen as inconsistent because an obvious foul goes unpunished but the idea is to figure out whether the foul cost the horse a placing. I agree it's a very tough call to decide how much a foul cost a horse but this one had to cost at least a head making the take down reasonable.

If I am interpreting the spirit of the rules wrongly please explain....

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by docicu3

Disclosure bias prior to comment.....had the 6 for a tidy sum.



I thought the idea was to identify and reverse outcomes that were influenced by a foul. Did not the 8 make contact with the 6, albeit not the hardest contact, causing the 6 to lose ground as a challenge to the lead was occurring. The 6 loses some fraction of a length as a consequence of the contact and is coming again at the wire to lose by a nose which implies the ground lost cost the horse the placing.

I think sometimes we see horses collide that are obvious fouls but the placing is upheld because the offender was going to win regardless of the foul and that is seen as inconsistent because an obvious foul goes unpunished but the idea is to figure out whether the foul cost the horse a placing. I agree it's a very tough call to decide how much a foul cost a horse but this one had to cost at least a head making the take down reasonable.

If I am interpreting the spirit of the rules wrongly please explain....

I think the issue is that they "assume" that without the contact the 6 would have won. You really can't assume anything in this game. It is also wrong to assume that when a horse goes on to win by open lengths that he should stay up, even with the slightest of contact, since we don't truly know what effect it had on his impeded rival. Add into the mix the "herding" contingent and the bottom line is that is way to much subjective judgements being allowed to alter the placings and truly effect the bettor. The only thing the stewards accomplished yesterday was allowing the favorite to take home a check for 10K and then come back at 2/5 in 3 weeks to score at this level again, earning his 30K. Meanwhile the money it cost the bettors in the Win Pool, Double Pool, Exacta Pool, Triple Pool, Super Pool, Pick 3 Pool, Pick 4 Pool, Pick 6 Pool probably threatens 100K, and they can't get that back.

And that might have just about been the lamest DQ I have ever seen. The contact the 8 made with the 6 wouldn't have knocked me off stride.

[docicu3]

And that might have just about been the lamest DQ I have ever seen. The contact the 8 made with the 6 wouldn't have knocked me off stride.[/quote]


Doesn't the 6 immediately lose a length after the contact, only to come on a second time to lose by a nose. I agree it wasn't much of a bump but it sure looked like that minimal contact was enough to immediately change the 6's velocity which he recovers from and is closing at the wire.

How else could the stews justify the reversal?

Unless you want to say Bravo sold the bump for more than it was on Ramon and subtly choked the horse down, the 6 was affected by the bump how little, is open to debate, but because the 6 loses by a nose it's relevant IMO.

This is why NYRA should take a page out of California's playbook and explain DQ's to the public as they are enforced so you can at least understand why they do what they do.....

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by docicu3

Doesn't the 6 immediately lose a length after the contact, only to come on a second time to lose by a nose. I agree it wasn't much of a bump but it sure looked like that minimal contact was enough to immediately change the 6's velocity which he recovers from and is closing at the wire.

How else could the stews justify the reversal?

Unless you want to say Bravo sold the bump for more than it was on Ramon and subtly choked the horse down, the 6 was affected by the bump how little, is open to debate, but because the 6 loses by a nose it's relevant IMO.

This is why NYRA should take a page out of California's playbook and explain DQ's to the public as they are enforced so you can at least understand why they do what they do.....

My point is that you cannot assume the 6 wins the race. The 8 may have pulled himself up because the challenger had wilted? Maybe the 8 stays on better through the wire if the 6 was engaged the whole way?

There is bumping like that in every race. If a bump like that occurs on the backside they never even look at it, right? What is the difference where the bump occurs? But there is a difference in just about everyone's eyes (with the exception of Andy who finds those gems as bad trips and hammers them next time).

Anyhow, I have no vested interest in the race but found the Dq to be much more costly to the bettor than anyone, but why should this be different than anything else that goes on?

[gales0678]

they couldn't leave this horse up after they took down kmc horse on sunday

that would have been the worst outcome

either leave both up or take both down , they couldn't leave this one up yesterday after the dq on sunday it would have been terrible inconsistent

also dominguez has to go back to the right hand withthe whip , terrible job only using his left hand in the stretch drive

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by gales0678

they couldn't leave this horse up after they took down kmc horse on sunday

that would have been the worst outcome

either leave both up or take both down , they couldn't leave this one up yesterday after the dq on sunday it would have been terrible inconsistent

also dominguez has to go back to the right hand withthe whip , terrible job only using his left hand in the stretch drive

the 6 horse came in 3 or 4 paths himself to get where he was.

[MisterB]

Originally Posted by gales0678

they couldn't leave this horse up after they took down kmc horse on sunday

that would have been the worst outcome

either leave both up or take both down , they couldn't leave this one up yesterday after the dq on sunday it would have been terrible inconsistent

also dominguez has to go back to the right hand withthe whip , terrible job only using his left hand in the stretch drive

So bad calls are ok? This was disgraceful. I'd love to know what Andy,Byk, Haskins, have to say. Maybe I watched the wrong race

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by gales0678

they couldn't leave this horse up after they took down kmc horse on sunday

that would have been the worst outcome

either leave both up or take both down , they couldn't leave this one up yesterday after the dq on sunday it would have been terrible inconsistent

also dominguez has to go back to the right hand withthe whip , terrible job only using his left hand in the stretch drive

Not for anything Gales, I thought that Ramon had the whip in his right hand, but the horse was getting out anyway. I'll have to watch it again when I get home.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Not for anything Gales, I thought that Ramon had the whip in his right hand, but the horse was getting out anyway. I'll have to watch it again when I get home.

Just watched it again Marty. Ramon hit him a total of 4 times in the lane. Two at the top of the stretch left handed and then twice between the 1/16 pole and the wire right handed. When he initially started to drift he changed the stick to the other hand, he didn't constantly hit him left handed. He did nothing wrong.