NY Stews

[The Bid]

I bet the 6, yes, but I was over and under exactas for the same amount of money.

My main issue is the stewards not even flashing a light. They completely missed, or failed to think it mattered that the 9 took the 6's path twice inside the final 16th. We should expect, and hold our racing officials to an extremely high standard as players. We are vested each race, why should these guys be taking races off?

If the 9 would have been my bet I would have expected the same...Inquiry, and a possible DQ. The only thing I would have been thinking is....well its Prado against a bug, so I have a chance to stay up.

[Dahoss]

My point is not everyone thinks the 6 was impeded. I agree, they should have looked at it. But as a bettor I don't want these kind of horses DQ'd. I understand they should have looked at it. Again, I agree.

But no way the horse should have been DQ'd in my opinion. As a bettor I'm for less takedowns, especially in this instance where there is no contact and the jock on the horse that was supposedly fouled never checked. There are reasons for a DQ, but not this.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

My point is not everyone thinks the 6 was impeded. I agree, they should have looked at it. But as a bettor I don't want these kind of horses DQ'd. I understand they should have looked at it. Again, I agree.

But no way the horse should have been DQ'd in my opinion. As a bettor I'm for less takedowns, especially in this instance where there is no contact and the jock on the horse that was supposedly fouled never checked. There are reasons for a DQ, but not this.

This was exactly my point as well. If a player thinks they were treated unfairly because there was no DQ then that's understandable. However, this would have been a TERRIBLE disqualification if there had been one.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

However, this would have been a TERRIBLE disqualification if there had been one.

This would've been a terrible DQ given the way the game is stewarded presently in the States. It's about what the player is conditioned to accepting. This is why this S h i t is allowed to go on.

In terms of the race itself, however, this would've been a justified DQ. Racing is not about a horse being allowed to take the path of it's main competitor repeatedly. The 6 was not allowed a clear and fair run to the wire. Why not? Just because the 9 is in the lead doesn't mean it has ubiquitous right of way. This isn't Roller Derby.

[AeWingnut]

Sunday Break

[The Bid]

I think the players were treated unfairly because the stewards didn't even bother to blink that light. Why should we as players have to shrug our shoulders and move on to the next race. There is too much shoulder shrugging in racing, not enough accountability. Not at sales, not with owner trainer relations, nowhere in this game is there accountability and there should be.

The life at ten fiasco.....Players should have recieved their money back. I don't care if they send it a year from now, theres noway that horse should have ran. We have a trainer/jock/vet/stews system of check and balances and who is left holding the bag..... You and I, the guys who put it through the window. We accept this because its just racing? Things like that happen? Im sorry but thats total bullshit, stewards have a job to do and they need to do it or start flipping burgers.

I don't think this would have been a terrible DQ. In fact I think there should have been a DQ.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by The Bid

I don't think this would have been a terrible DQ. In fact I think there should have been a DQ.

You think there should have been a DQ because you bet the 6. You're biased. It's understandable, but doesn't make it right.

You're right, as bettors we do take a lot of crap and it's not right. This is a bad example to use though. No one took anything on the chin here. The better horse won.