Santa Anita Race 7 DQ - Page 2

SniperSB23 · #21 01-25-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Honu,I am fine with taking this horse down,but they need to do the same with all the other incidents like this(they do not....they call them minor,or they say it didn't change the outcome of the race.)This is not done consistently at all.Right away,the guys on T.V. said they would leave it alone.Now exactly why would they say that??Well,it's because they see this situation left alone quite often.They need to start being consistent.Sometimes they say the best horse won,and they let this go(dead horse was fouled etc.)Rarely, they do what they did yesterday(take down the obviously best horse,because that horse fouled a horse who was gunna come 4th-7th.)I think they are highly subjective,and need to take one of these options,and stick to it.Either you are highly interested in who the best horse was(an overlook a foul that didn't cost somebody a top 3 placing,)or you call any foul(regardless of who the best horse in the race was.)Do one or the other.They aren't doing one or the other.They are doing both.

One of the announcers though freely admitted he never wants them to take a horse down. Not saying that it was the right call, I think it could have gone either way, but that announcer not wanting him to come down shouldn't really be used to build your case.

SCUDSBROTHER · #22 01-25-2007, 03:23 PM

I also am tired of them talking to the jocks involved.You have such a difference in the ability to b.s. in the situation.Guys like Bailey and Gomez seem to be able to talk stewards into anything.I rarely see some riders get any break at all from the stewards.For instance,when Espinoza is the one who fouls,I rarely see that guy get out of it.They really seem to despise that guy.Again,all subjective stuff(language/argumentative skills etc.)

Honu · #23 01-25-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Honu,I am fine with taking this horse down,but they need to do the same with all the other incidents like this(they do not....they call them minor,or they say it didn't change the outcome of the race.)This is not done consistently at all.Right away,the guys on T.V. said they would leave it alone.Now exactly why would they say that??Well,it's because they see this situation left alone quite often.They need to start being consistent.Sometimes they say the best horse won,and they let this go(dead horse was fouled etc.)Rarely, they do what they did yesterday(take down the obviously best horse,because that horse fouled a horse who was gunna come 4th-7th.)I think they are highly subjective,and need to take one of these options,and stick to it.Either you are highly interested in who the best horse was(an overlook a foul that didn't cost somebody a top 3 placing,)or you call any foul(regardless of who the best horse in the race was.)Do one or the other.They aren't doing one or the other.They are doing both.

I understand your frustration.

Left Bank · #24 01-25-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu

Failure to maintain a straight course and impedeing another horses forward progress are 2 reasons that the winner came down. Pretty simple.

The horse he impeded was going BACKWARDS and was in no way going to affect the outcome of the race!!

#25 01-25-2007, 06:15 PM

The human element will never change. Hell Zito was pissed 2 weeks ago at gulfstream,but... Happens all the time in Life period. It is what it is. Sometimes we're left to suck on it. Does not make it right but its been that way for along time......

Rudeboyelvis · #26 01-25-2007, 06:21 PM

agreed that the 7 washed out. The fact that the 8 got into the 6 which was glareing from the rear view and which subsequently caused the incident, is inexcusible. Not only did the ignore the facts, they awarded the perp with a win. My guess is that they dropped the best horse out of the money because they didn't want to deal explaining a 4 mil carryover.

For whatever logic that my bring....Clearly big money had a voice in it...

SCUDSBROTHER · #27 01-25-2007, 06:25 PM

There is some bad blood etc, between one of the stewards,and Paasch.So much so that the steward in question looked down to see how Paasch reacted when it was announced that the horse was coming down.He told Paasch that he remembered him from 20 years earlier(when Paasch had an argument with a security guard.)This thing has gotten pretty ugly.

#28 01-25-2007, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

agreed that the 7 washed out. The fact that the 8 got into the 6 which was glareing from the rear view and which subsequently caused the incident, is inexcusible. Not only did the ignore the facts, they awarded the perp with a win. My guess is that they dropped the best horse out of the money because they didn't want to deal explaining a 4 mil carryover.

For whatever logic that my bring....Clearly big money had a voice in it...

The way i'm reading this is that you're insinuating the stewards took $$$. Absolutely ridiculous.

SCUDSBROTHER · #29 01-25-2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

agreed that the 7 washed out. The fact that the 8 got into the 6 which was glareing from the rear view and which subsequently caused the incident, is inexcusible. Not only did the ignore the facts, they awarded the perp with a win. My guess is that they dropped the best horse out of the money because they didn't want to deal explaining a 4 mil carryover.

For whatever logic that my bring....Clearly big money had a voice in it...

Believe it or not........no carryover,even if the longshot had stayed up.

Rudeboyelvis · #30 01-25-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

The way i'm reading this is that you're insinuating the stewards took $$$. Absolutely ridiculous.

No, the stewards didn't take the money. The powers at be definately had a responsibility to the major contributors (ie. Vegas) to insure "cooperation". Too many beans involved for a 47-1 to screw all those "investors" out of a piece of the pie...
The replay is clear; if you have access to the rear view, I'd suggest you take a look at it, if you're objective at all you will see what I'm saying. Thats all.

#31 01-25-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

No, the stewards didn't take the money. The powers at be definately had a responsibility to the major contributors (ie. Vegas) to insure "cooperation". Too many beans involved for a 47-1 to screw all those "investors" out of a piece of the pie...
The replay is clear; if you have access to the rear view, I'd suggest you take a look at it, if you'r objective at all you will see what I'm saying. Thats all.

That's a bunch of horseshit. Yeah someone call Mulder and Scully to figure this massive conspiracy out.

ceejay · #32 01-25-2007, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

The replay is clear; if you have access to the rear view, I'd suggest you take a look at it, if you're objective at all you will see what I'm saying. Thats all.

What did you see from the rear view?

FWIW, even though it helped my ticket I think the DQ was an absolute disgrace.

Rudeboyelvis · #33 01-25-2007, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

That's a bunch of horseshit. Yeah someone call Mulder and Scully to figure this massive conspiracy out.

So, I'm assuming you saw the rear view replay (clearly for the stewaward's point of view, which was clear to anyone watching the replay) and decent from an objective opinion?
Your choice...I ain't playin' SA NO MORE...you are inclined to your opinion, as am I...

Horseshit Indeed....They won't see a dime of my cash for the rest of this meet, my friend...GRL to you

Rudeboyelvis · #34 01-25-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceejay

What did you see from the rear view?

FWIW, even though it helped my ticket I think the DQ was an absolute disgrace.

The 8 (at first, which to be objective I looked at the 2 as they were both carrying black silks) reared left on the backstretch into the 6, which in turn caused the 6 to get into the 7 which was dead money anyhow, and caused the horse to clipped heels. At least that's what the pundints of the 7 have to say...The 7 was dead by all accounts....the 8 gets favored with the win ( after causing the infraction) and they send the 6 out of the money ( no call at all for that sort of DQ - much the best of the field, as ANYONE will attest to)

bullsh1t politics...don't listen to me...watch the replay as I've been saying since they took the horse down....

Rudeboyelvis · #35 01-25-2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Out of curiosity what does GRL stand for? Excuse my ignorance.

Good Racing Luck...and I'm done with this nonsense..onward to some decent handicapping for the M5 edit - saturday!

#36 01-25-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

So, I'm assuming you saw the rear view replay (clearly for the stewaward's point of view, which was clear to anyone watching the replay) and decent from an objective opinion?
Your choice...I ain't playin' SA NO MORE...you are inclined to your opinion, as am I...

Horseshit Indeed....They won't see a dime of my cash for the rest of this meet, my friend...GRL to you

You can't base a decision off the rear view only, unless you're hammered in a club and it's last call. I'm not trying to single you out, it's just that the game is full of conspiracy theorists and most of the time it's much ado about nothing.

I had some luck at SA today and none yesterday. I'll never stop playing a track because of a DQ. If I did i'd never play Arlington for the two times I got cornholed in the million. Cornholing is part of the game.

Good racing luck to you.

Rudeboyelvis · #37 01-25-2007, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

Cornholing is part of the game.

Good racing luck to you.

Yes it is..and one camera angle can definately prove a point...hence the NFL utilizing multiple camera angle replays to overturn a call.....I singled the Rear View because it clearly proves the point. PP, I respect and appreciate your participation to this board, and do not expect anyone with a decenting opinion to agree or disagree with my asscessment...only pointing out what I saw...

AeWingnut · #38 01-25-2007, 09:40 PM

I haven't seen this race. However, I've seen plenty. Overall I would say that odds seem to play into it. If you have a horse that is 45-1 and something short will get moved up - it almost always happens. I think they are going for popularity instead of justice.

and there is always someone that feels obligated to tell you to get out of the game if you can't handle these little annoyances.

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't award the horse the purse after some sort of appeal. It's happened before

Rudeboyelvis · #39 01-25-2007, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

I had some luck at SA today and none yesterday. I'll never stop playing a track because of a DQ.

Good racing luck to you.

I've had great luck @ SA too...almost had the P6 (5 of 6) the same day I hit the P6 monster @ AQU....nothing against SA,and to be honest will play day to day stakes there as the derby trail narrows... and will play the Sunshine millions this weekend...But I will NEVER play a big carryover there again...not that I'd had a 47-1 shot in my ticket...just don't care for the way they handled this...

Honu · #40 01-25-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmeastar

The horse he impeded was going BACKWARDS and was in no way going to affect the outcome of the race!!

So because the horse was slowing down that gives anyone in the field the right to take his running room away, or just drop over and shut him off ? , because well he was done anyway. Nope I dont subscribe to that , Id be a real biatch if I were in the steward stands.