Given the varying opinions on this board, I don't think there was anything "easy" about this one. And when that's the case, they should err on the side of leaving the horse up.

nothing anyone can say will make me think this horse should have stayed up, i have watched the replay multiple times as well as the head on, bafferts horse was the best horse AND WAS BUMPED AND DRIFTED INTO.

Fine, that's your opinion; it doesn't make the rest of ours any less valid.

I didn't see the race either, but I'll always root for the 15 dollar horse to stay up over the 70 cent chalk.

Actually, the winner was a $32 horse.

yeah, 15 to 1

The really amazing thing here is that lost amidst the whining over a 3:5 shot that didn't deserve to get put up was a genuine foul that was commited in the other baby race yet also resulted in a no-call. I guess the posters here agree with the stewards aound the country who place way more emphasis on incidental stretch contact than they do on legitimate rough stuff that happens at earlier stages of the races.

Or else they don't really watch the races.

I wish I could say that the fact that it was a 3/5 shot didn't affect my judgement, but it does. I guess I'll never be a steward.

Much easier to make calls late than early.
Early in the race an outcome is much less certain than it
is late. Therefore it only seems logical if the Stewards make
a call before the turn home, and easier in the stretch, it better
be an egregious act.

You referring to the horse getting pinched on the rail going into the turn?

Let me echo that last point: anyone who hasn't seen the race and, more specifically the HEADON, really shouldn't be commenting on it. Not that actually watching the race would do much good in most cases.

I saw the replay show tonight, and obviously a number of horses had trouble on the turn. Without the benefit of the head-on, it was hard to discern who committed the foul that you are talking about? The two horses that seemed to benefit most from the trouble finished 5th and 7th.

Yes, Shrewd tightened things up considerably on the eventual winner, who was between horses, and the 4th place finisher, Cribnote, who was on the rail, bore the brunt of it. It was clear from the stewards view, at least to me, but it was a tough spot to make an absolute call. To be honest, I thought Shrewd, who finished third, would come down.

I think there is a certain amount of leniancy in 2YO races but I could be wrong.

post of the year!

Thanks for the answer.

On your point about incidental contact in the stretch versus rough stuff elsewhere, isn't part of the problem the poor camera angles that the stewards have to look at when the contact occurs on or near the turn. There was a race a week or so ago at Monmouth where Joe Bravo tried to come up the inside nearing the half-mile pole and got absolutely shut off. He claimed foul, and it appeared that the winner came over on him. However, it was hard to say that with certainty because of the angle of the replay available. (It'd be nice if they had that blimp shot for inquiries.)

I would like to do some sort of test:

Show a race to 1/2 the stewards from the best tracks
involving an "altercation" between two horses
without knowing knowing the finish. Ask them
if either horse should be moved, and if so which
horse.

Show the same race to the other 1/2 asking the
same question except the finish is known and the
prices are known.

I wonder how different the decisions
would be using races that might be considered
easy, to races that might
be considered difficult.

This would be an integral part of the
Pgardn Steward training program
run and sactioned by Morton.

That's fiction. You would know that if ya saw the head-on. I don't mean to be rude, but it's total bullshit. Look, the Baffert filly is running straight as can be, and Gomez has to make a quick right turn with her to avoid running into the winners back right end. It's not some act. If he doesn't move her then one or both of the horses are going down. See, I had no idea what the winner paid, or what the Baffert went off at. I just looked at the situation this guy brought up. No doubt, we are programed to try to beat chalk, and half of these guys are against taking her down due simply to that bias. As far as the other race goes(the one Andy said should of been a d.q.,) I didn't see any of these races live. If somebody had started a thread about that race, then maybe I would have looked at that race,too. I don't understand how some people are saying this Baffert filly did something wrong in the stretch. WTF are you talking about. She is running straight as a string when this horse forces her rider to have to pull her to her right. That change in direction (considering the late shrinking margin of loss) was enough to cost her the race. Hey,the winner is tired. If she is forced to stay straight, then she has to be corrected, and would have loss. It's a better gamble to let her lug out(and not lose momentum.) That's how she won. She wasn't forced to stay straight. She,therefore, forced someone else (who was running straight) to have to pay the price for her not being forced to run straight. Look, she is coming out, and someone is going to have to be corrected. Either he takes her up, and the Baffert horse gets up, or he allows her to come out, and the Baffert horse has to be the one to change direction. The latter took place. The former should have taken place. This is mainly a case of guys on here being biased against the chalk(I didn't even know who the chalk was.)

I believe it matters. Young inexperienced horses will bobble and veer a little more often due to the fact they are doing something they have never done or have not done often. They probably have not stretched out, exerted maximum effort and run in front of a cheering crowd very often. That being said if they commit an egregious foul or severely interfere they should me taken down. IMO all factors must be taken into consideration including the conditions. In other sports the referee or umpire will call a game differently if they are calling a game for 8 year old kids vs high school aged children.

Looking at the head-on, Its beyond shocking to me that NYRA stewards left the winner up in the 2nd race.

There were two incidents in the stretch - neither were that major.

#1: The winner came out multiple paths under left handed whiping from Alan Garcia - it caused Gomez to have to stop riding briefly and veer out to avoid catching heels.

#2: The winner comes out again in the very late stages and herds the 2nd place horse.


The second incident is horse racing - let them come together and fight it out late...contact or not. That is what the sport is all about.

The first incident was an obvious foul and it was very intentional. It also could have led to a dangerous situation if Gomez hadn't reacted as well or if Garcia's mount had drifted over any sharper.

However, an obvious and intentional foul that could have led to a dangerous situation should only result in a DQ if it had an impact on the outcome of the race.

In this instance, that was a tough call. The 2nd place finisher made late ground on the winner to cut the final margin to only a neck.

If you favor a DQ you believe the foul at the 1/8th pole cost 2nd place a neck or more.

If you oppose a DQ you believe the foul didn't cost 2nd a neck.

I could see that one going either way myself. In NYRA though, I'd have bet anything that was a takedown.

It looked like Townie's Dream was coming over on Shrewd and wasn't clear.

Prado might have chickened a bit by veering in a little (causing the trouble of the two horses to his inside) but if he catches Townie's Dreams' heals he could get dropped.

Because of the camera angle its tough to tell how much at fault Espinoza was on TD or if Prado just overreacted.

I'm not so sure TD would have stayed up had he hit the board. Prado always seems to get the benefit of the doubt.

The whole point of matter is that the two best minds in racing DrugS and I completely disgree..Hence, it's a tough call either way and as they say in the movies "that's that"