The Worst DQ Ever

[Rupert Pupkin]

There was a disqualification on Saturday (Feb 13) in the 9th race at Golden Gate that is definitely one of the worst DQs of all time, if not the worst. They disqualified a horse that had nothing to do with the incident that occured. The horse was not involved in any way.

In a majority decision, the stewards disqualified a horse named Preemptory for an incident that occured going into the far turn. Here is what happened. There were three horses bumping each other going down the backstretch. Preemptory was not one of them. Preemptory was on the far outside and was nowhere near these three horses that are bumping each other. Going into the turn, the bumping got worse and a couple of the horses were severely impeded. When the incident occured, Preemptory was nowhere near any of these horses.

As I said, Preemptory was on the far outside. There was no evidence that he came in at all. Not only is there no clear evidence that he came in, even if he did come in, he is totally clear. If you watch the pan shot and hit the "freeze" button right when the incident happens, you will see that Preemptory is over 1 1/2 lengths clear of these horses.

So, not only is he totally clear, there isn't even any clear evidence that he drifted in. When horses hit the turn and they switch leads, they usually do slightly drift in. It is possible that he slightly drifted in. I can't tell you fir sure that he didn't. But there is certainly no conclusive evidence that he did. And even if there was, he is totally clear any way. This is clear on the pan shot. It's truly amazing that the stewards took this horse down. At least one of the stewards was smart enough to dissent.

There are plenty of DQs that are borderline calls. This was not a close call. This horse had no involvement in the incident. The 3 horses involved were bouncing off each other like pinballs well before the major incident occured.

By the way, you can watch the race for free (both the pan shot and the head-on) at calracing.com. Just go to "replays".

[The Indomitable DrugS]

It occured at a blind spot going into the turn. You can't tell if he was clear or not.

[blackthroatedwind]

It can't be worse than the Allemeuse DQ. That's not possible.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It occured at a blind spot going into the turn. You can't tell if he was clear or not.

So you agree with Rupert? If you can't tell if he was clear, you certainly can't tell that he impeded.

--Dunbar

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It occured at a blind spot going into the turn. You can't tell if he was clear or not.

Right. They deemed he is the one who tightened things up just as the turn broke ( 1/2 to 7/16ths? ). It's a likely, and reasonable, conclusion considering what took place immediately inside of him....but can't be proven.

I've seen a lot worse. It's not really a fair call but I would lay 10:1 he did commit the foul....but nobody can prove it conclusively.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

So you agree with Rupert? If you can't tell if he was clear, you certainly can't tell that he impeded.

--Dunbar

Honestly, his description is a distorted account of what really occurred, and if you can take your " Rupert Rocks " glasses off, and actually watch it, you will see that.

I agree with him that it wasn't completely fair to take the horse down....but to say there was no way he was involved is indefensible. The pan replay on Racereplays shows all the stewards films.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

When horses hit the turn and they switch leads, they usually do slightly drift in.

This might explain why so many jocks in the TWO path always seem to end up in the ONE path as they hit the turn --- and why so many horses get pinched on the rail.

I've always believed that horses are more apt to drift in upon changing leads as they straighten out turning for home. This is evident in the replays.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Honestly, his description is a distorted account of what really occurred, and if you can take your " Rupert Rocks " glasses off, and actually watch it, you will see that.

I agree with him that it wasn't completely fair to take the horse down....but to say there was no way he was involved is indefensible. The pan replay on Racereplays shows all the stewards films.

Okay, I watched it. I agree that it's hard to tell whether or not the horse was clear. It's a DQ based on circumstantial evidence. You never see contact between Preemptory and the inside horses and you can't tell if there room for Preemptory to move in front. You see a sharp reaction from the first inside horse, but you (meaning "I") can't tell if that reaction is caused by repeated contact with the 2nd inside horse or caused by Preemptory.

I'll concede that it's not the worst DQ ever.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I've seen a lot worse. It's not really a fair call but I would lay 10:1 he did commit the foul....but nobody can prove it conclusively.

Okay, I'll take the 10-1. Maybe we can find someone who filmed it from a blimp.

--Dunbar

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Okay, I'll take the 10-1. Maybe we can find someone who filmed it from a blimp.

--Dunbar

I wish we did.

Considering the horse inside Preemptory checked severely just as the turn broke, simultaneous to Preemptory moving from the five to two or three path, it seems like a very reasonable inference that a foul occurred. I am not saying I think that makes it a fair DQ.....but I would bet if you had a blimp shot you would see it was one. There is a big difference between the bumping that took place before this and the steady that took place after it.

I get the argument, and wish DQs were only based on what we know conclusively, but this isn't even in the bottom 50% of mediocre calls.

[freddymo]

Every track should have a "Johnny LaRue's Crane Shot" for such situations

[Indian Charlie]

How are there even blind spots in the first place?

Just how much more would another camera or two cost?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Just how much more would another camera or two cost?

I'm not excusing it but it costs a lot more than you think.

[Rupert Pupkin]

If you watch it from the regular pan shot and you hit the "freeze" (or pause) button right as the horse starts to take up, you will see that Preemptory is at least 1 1/2 lengths clear at that point.

With regard to whether Preemptory came in at all, I don't think there is any clear evidence from the head-on shot that he even came in. He may have slightly come in, but it's not conclusive. If he came in, I don't think he came in more than a foot (until well after the incident).

He obviously came in after the incident. He's obviously not going to go five-wide around the turn with nobody (except the winner) inside of him.

I think the main incident was simply a continuation of the bumping that had been going on between the 3 horses going down the backstretch. There was bumping between the 1a, the 1, and the 5 before they went into the turn. When they went into the turn, it got much worse and that was when the main incident occured. The 1a had been leaning in and bumping the 1 all down the backstretch. Then on the turn they end up bumping really hard. To me, all the evidence sows that the 1a, who was getting and bumping the 1 before the main incident was the culprit.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Every track should have a "Johnny LaRue's Crane Shot" for such situations

I don't know why Guy Cabalerro was always giving LaRue a hard time about the crane shots.

For those of you who don't know what we're talking about, we're talking about SCTV (which was just as funny as the old Saturday Night Live IMO).

[blackthroatedwind]

You're correct....there is no conclusive evidence and I think it was a poor choice to DQ the horse.

The rest is conjecture, be it on your part, the stewards part, or mine.

There will, sadly, most likely be a worse call somewhere this week.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You're correct....there is no conclusive evidence and I think it was a poor choice to DQ the horse.

The rest is conjecture, be it on your part, the stewards part, or mine.

There will, sadly, most likely be a worse call somewhere this week.

There was a call in NY about 2-3 years ago that I could never figure out. It was a 2 horse race coming down the stretch. The winner sligtly came in on the runner-up but it was nothing major and he beat him by 2 lengths or so. The incident positively did not affect the order of finish. It would have been one thing if the horse who was slightly impeded ended up running 3rd. Then the stewards could have said that the winner may have cost the other horse 2nd place. But this was not the case. The horse who was slighlty fouled by the winner ran 2nd and the incident positively had no effect on the order of finish. I wish I could remember the race and the horses involved but I can't. Can you remember that race from my description? It was definiely one of the worst calls ever.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You're correct....there is no conclusive evidence and I think it was a poor choice to DQ the horse.

The rest is conjecture, be it on your part, the stewards part, or mine.

There will, sadly, most likely be a worse call somewhere this week.

Get rid of 30% of the races and it gets less expensive to equip the industry correctly? Golden Gate having races is the problem not the equipment they dont have nor should EVER get.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm not excusing it but it costs a lot more than you think.

I have a pretty good idea.

In the grand schemes of things however, it's not that much.

[blackthroatedwind]

One of the most inane DQs I ever saw involved a DQ from second. It cost me a measly $100, but it was so outlandish that I called the stewards at the involved track, and actually got confirmation they didn't know what they were looking at.

The winner was clear, but as the field rolled into the stretch, there were three horses abreast following him. The inside horse came out sharply, bumping the middle horse, who in turn bumped the outside horse. The inside horse finished 4th, the middle horse 2nd, and the outside horse 3rd. They DQed the second horse. It was madness.

So, I asked the steward, did he not realize the inside horse caused the whole thing....and he agreed. But, he said the middle horse then fouled the horse outside of him...and thus the DQ. I then asked if he realized the middle horse was not responsible, and he said he did, but he still fouled the outside horse.

I kid you not.

That man is no longer a steward.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

One of the most inane DQs I ever saw involved a DQ from second. It cost me a measly $100, but it was so outlandish that I called the stewards at the involved track, and actually got confirmation they didn't know what they were looking at.

The winner was clear, but as the field rolled into the stretch, there were three horses abreast following him. The inside horse came out sharply, bumping the middle horse, who in turn bumped the outside horse. The inside horse finished 4th, the middle horse 2nd, and the outside horse 3rd. They DQed the second horse. It was madness.

So, I asked the steward, did he not realize the inside horse caused the whole thing....and he agreed. But, he said the middle horse then fouled the horse outside of him...and thus the DQ. I then asked if he realized the middle horse was not responsible, and he said he did, but he still fouled the outside horse.

I kid you not.

That man is no longer a steward.

Some of the stewards are just completely incompetent. It's incredible. I'm glad the guy that made the call you're talking about is no longer a steward.