Catty Madeline
 

someone please explain that one to me. How does she say up in the last at Belmont?


I had ZERO wagering interest in that race.

I think the guys on TVG said it best. She was the best horse in the race, why punish the owners, trainer, and bettors. Let the stewards deal with the jockey later on.

This is how it should be. Grant it, with the qestionable calls in the last week or so, its is hard to believe the stewards actually used logic.

do stewerts drink while working?
 

can you please explain to me how in the world they knock down admiral bird saturday
but keep up catty madeline sunday?
she knocked spa prinecess into the 5th eow of stands with one swoop
im telling you
they get worse and worse
and the baddest thing of them all is they dont have to explain there actions to any fan at all
i wonder how much they had on catty today?
and please,
dont have someone tell me they dont bet
theres so many ways to do it without anyone knowing it
what a disgrace they make this wonderfull sport

so it's ok to punish the owners, trainer and bettors of Spa Princess? She was clearly knocked over 2-3 paths.

if she's not the best horse then they're not really being punished. . .

Was she given a fair chance to prove she was the best horse?

Again...Im just asking, as I had nothing invested in the race.

Either did I. . . but just in general, I'd like the stewards to take a hands-off approach.

Like to hear from some others on this too.

I could argue that this decision, standing alone, was fair.

Viewed in the context of the DQs of Proud Spell and Admiral Bird in the last week, this decision was laughable. I'm not sure that Spa Princess had the opportunity to prove that she was the third best horse in the race (as the bumping certainly could have cost her the length she was beaten for third), and the difference for the owners between third and fourth is $2,300.

Does this mean the horse is going to be denied the good hay? Sorry Thebby I couldn't help myself

I had a small exacta 1-6 and I hated to see the 6 bounce off the 1. but I knew the stewards weren't going to touch it. They seem to be fairly consistant. The 9 and 10 weren't affected, the 1 had every chance to get it back together, 6 was the best horse, what could they do?

If they did what they did in the Admiral Bird DQ the other day, the 6 should have been DQ'd and placed fourth. I don't see how you can reconcile these two decisions.

I'm only defending today's call. I didn't see Birds.

No, a part-owner of the horse was talking to a friend of mine before the race, and they intend to point her to the NYS Stallion Series race at Saratoga for her next start. With $150K on the line, I'm sure Spa Princess will still get "the good hay" (whatever that is in Ubillo's barn) for the next few weeks.

Proud Spell's race was laughable.

Eventually one of the Desert Warrior's will get his first black type. Could be her.

There is a website that has insight into what stewards look at and how they make decisions. I'll get it and post later.
Remember rules differ from track to track.

Stewards are NOT allowed to wager in the state of NY as well as many other juristictions.

The best horse in the race won the race. That being said the decision to keep this one on top is absurd. The stewards in New York are consistently inconsistent with their decisions.

The Admiral Bird DQ was a joke. I walked away from the tv at CD to watch the live race, came back to check the prices, to find out he'd been DQ'd. Was 5 deep in the p6, and didn't have the 11. Had the rest, of course. :mad:

Posters, however, are apparently allowed to drink.

I couldn't agree more but apparently was in the minority yesterday.....

It is kind of hard to believe a runner can just blind side one next to her and bull through like that. The jock had nowhere else to go and he was probably surprised it stood.

Is that nice?

Rodrigo is a friend of mine. I assume you know him.

By the way, I don't see how you can compare this to the Admiral Bird DQ, where there was a blanket finish, and this seemed like a good no-call.

Kind of an irresponsible statement by the TVG (I didn't hear them myself, so I will take your word on this), I don't think we are asking the Stews to punish anybody. Just get it right.

As GPK said, there were other owners, trainers and horses being bet on in the race.

Just get it right and be consistent. That's not too much to ask is it?

I thought it was a decent no call because it didn't impact the outcome - however, Margah basically made his own room and should get fined for that ride.

Margah rode like he was on bumper cars at an amusement park instead of race horses at Belmont in three different turf races yesterday. His ride on the 4th place finisher in the 5th race was textbook careless riding.

The stewards are taking the "it didn't impact the outcome" piece of their duty too far. There are far too many instance of this excuse being used. And the stewards can't state with certainty whether outcomes would be unaffected in a lot of these no-calls.

Take a look at Bemont's 7th on 5/24. In the stewards opinion, the outcome was not impacted. The 3rd, 4th,5th and 6th finishers were all close together and it is impossible to say the outcome was not impacted.

I suppose until a rider gets slammed head first into the rail while having a chance to win, my take on this is going to be pretty moot.

Terrible ride by Maragh. Absolutely TERRIBLE!!! If he waits a second or so, the hole OPENS WIDE for him.

I think this horse needs to come down because not only does Maragh come out BUMPING the other horse, which would've been a good NO CALL, he also lays into her immediately after that, effectively fouling her TWICE.

Nice to see an interest in races (albeit a limited one). If this continues, perhaps the stewards will start feeling some of the pressure and get a bit more consistent.

As I said in an earlier post, viewed as an isolated incident, I don't have that much of a problem with yesterday's no-call.

My problem is that when the Proud Spell DQ (alleged foul had no impact on the likely outcome of the race), the Admiral Bird DQ (borderline foul may have had an impact on Doc N Roll's chance to finish third), and yesterday's no-call (where bumping may have had an impact on Spa Princess's chance to finish third) are all viewed together, yesterday's decision makes no sense.

I fail to see how the fact that there was a blanket finish in the Admiral Bird race - and this one did not have a close finish - has any relevance if the standard being applied is whether the "fouled" horse had a fair opportunity to achieve a maximum placing - as the contact likely impacted Spa Princess's ability to finish third (for which she was beaten about one length). For that matter, there was no blanket finish in the Mother Goose, while there was a photo in the Les Antiques race in which repeated contact caused by the winner was ingored.

well said and i totally agree.

The blanket finish is relevent in that a bumping incident could well have caused the victim to have lost a position. I can understand the argument against yesterday's no-call, even though I agree with the steward's decision in this case, but not the one Friday. I think taking Les Antiques down would have been a VERY bad call and really think they got that one right. The Mother Goose? Debatable for sure.

Honestly, and I am not trying to demean your arguments, I guess overall I just care less than most people. That doesn't make me right, or my position the right one, I just think people tend to overemphasize steward's decisions of all kinds while ignoring far more relevent and important issues. I don't think you do this....but most do.

You then condone a horse going from the 5 or 6 path and SQUEEZING a horse that's on the rail? So much so, that the horse repeatedly HITS the rail as a result. That race was a joke. Castellano is repeatedly allowed to get away with **** like this.

Doc N Roll was definitely finishing 2nd if he's not impeded.

As a practical matter, there are periods when focus comes to certain aspects of the sport. Over the years, I have viewed the stewards in NY as making more appropriate decisions than their counterparts elsewhere (particularly in FL and KY, where I have seen what I thought to be phantom fouls result in takedowns). That's why the events of the past 10 days have been so baffling.

As a horseplayer, I think that, like anything, the "good calls" and "bad calls" tend to even out. I got taken down from the pic-6 with Admiral Bird on Friday, but was the beneficiary for a fairly comparable amount of money when Raw Silk was (wrongly, IMO) DQ'd at Aqueduct last fall. The problem is that, at a time when racing has enough problems to worry about, we really need consistent adjudication of these matters, for inconsistency breeds questions of integrity and the like (which I am not raising).

You may know the answer to this question which a friend and me were discussing yesterday. With the holiday period, and the high-pressure Saratoga meet around the corner, were any of the "regular" stewards on vacation, with alternate stewards sitting in for them this past week? I recall that, when DRF used to publish the charts in the Form on a daily basis, the identity of the stewards was published as part of an introductory section before the chart for the first race, along with such information as weather, how long the meet ran, etc. This information is not currently part of any charts of which I am aware. At least if this was published, it might create better accountability, or at least a perception of it. (It's like the equivalent in basketball, which I officiate, where some referees call a "tighter" whistle than others - and the players and coaches know it. Human nature being what it is, I assume the stewards, as a collection of persons, are probably the same.)

Nobody ever said anything about any of the regular stewards being on vacation but I guess it's possible.

Everybody wants decisions to be uniformed but the problem lies in its context.. This thread is composed of 5 or 6 well informed knowledgible racing minds accurately and cogently making sensible cases for DQ's and Non calls.. All of you folks have seen ten of thousands of races and are well versed yet .. The Fat Man BTW DrugS and thebby etc all differ in there adjudication.. Think about it we have been discussing this for days and with unlimited replay time.. These folks need to make a decision and move on in 5 minutes TOPS.. My point is simple no matter how hard you try to get stewards to be accountable and prefect they just cant because so much of these decisions are subjective.. I guess sometimes it will work out for you and sometimes you are going to get hurt eitherway as long as the folks doing the deciding are competitent I guess you have to let it go when it works against you and cheer when it works in your favor..

Unless The Fat Man is available to judge every objection and inquiry??lol

Four possible outcomes in a given race:

1) right horse and wins

2) right horse but loses --stewards, bad trip, etc.

3) wrong horse and loses

4) wrong horse BUT wins --stewards, good trip, etc.


However, increased 'interest' in the decisions of the stewards can only help in the long run as it makes the process a bit more public.

Okay. I bet Ms Holden and needed her for a huge score this day. While she didnt deserve to win the race as she had every chance and just wasnt good enough, I still think Levine's horse should have come down based on 3 prior takedowns within 2 week's of this race, a la Admiral Bird being the most noteworthy.

Ms Holden runs back tomorrow at Saratoga in the last race. The race is scheduled for turf but will probably come off. I still think she may run.

Thoughts on betting her back?

Tim, I'm just not sure what kinda price she will be. Sure to take some action and go off a little lower than her 5-1ML. I like Intoxicatingbeauty coming out of that race. Appears to be a couple with some speed in there and it should set up well for her.

Anyways...it's all probably moot, as I can't imagine they would be back on the turf tomorrow.

It's already off - only race that's staying on is the feature.