Top Flight at Aqueduct
 

Man, that stinks they took the 8 down because of the whip on Malibu Mint. The 8 was blowing by the 3 anyway. But in NY it is an automatic take down when the whip hits another horse.

Too bad that's not the case in California or else Bordonaro would have another stakes win to his name and would be the champion sprinter this year.

King, that was the first thing I thougt of. The 8 horse was the clear winner turning for home. He went on to win by like 4-no way, a whip on the nose causes a horse to lose 4 lengths.

There is NO rule that says it's an automatic takedown.

It was a flat out terrible call and I needed the winner. Just ridiculous.

Thanks for letting me know that BTW. I thought it was a rule. I thought it was a horrible call. No way way Malibut Mint was going to win.

Maybe, Maybe not--but I have seen horses get whipped in the nose and win. I am sure it is different. Malibu Mint got hit on the face about 100 yards from the line and was losing ground the entire time.

How about Malibu Mint was drifting out into the#8 . Is the jockey supposed to stop whipping. I think the 3 blind mice should have taken that into concideration..

I don't see how anyone can say a horse cannot lose 4 lenghts by gettin hit in the face with a whip. Heck, they prolly lose more than that. I wouldn't want to get hit with a whip in the face.

No. But whips are not for hitting other horses in the head. What's there to see ?

Game horses can rally back on.This horse running tomorrow(Tontine Too) looked beat in his last race,and came back on.Spooky Mulder looked beat last week,and came back on.She deserves the chance to rally back.I think the fact that you are close enough to be hit by an opposing jock's whip makes it hard to rule out a re-rally.I saw the race,and was expecting her to battle back.My guess(cuz we will never know) is that M MINT would have lost by a small margin (a half a length to a length.) I wouldn't rule out her re-rallying for the win there.Maybe that's why they made the change.I thought there was an auto DQ on it in New York.

Yeah, we all saw who really won the race. Unfortunately, an undeserving winner will get the reward.

Guess Mo Cuishle is a fraud.

There is NO rule!

By the way, at least an honorable mention for most hilarious internet post of the year to the poster who claimed getting hit by the whip could cost a horse four lengths.

Even my fish laughed at that one!

I just got in and watched the replays and was puzzled and confused as to this takedown.
This is just awful, and I mean incredibly terrible.
The only reason the inside horse was struck with the whip was because she bore into it.
Its unreasonable to take this horse down, just ridiculous and these stewards are the pits.
A jocky reaches back to hit his horse and the other horse bears into it and its a takedown when the inside horse was obviously done?

One other thing, I watched the replay of the first race and it sure looked to me as if the winner banged and collided with the Paragallo horse. YOu can clearly see contact and a hard bump. I wasn't watching races live today, can anyone tell me if there was an inquiry or objection in that race, and how the hell that horse could stay up and the winner of the feature could come down?

I had absolutely no money riding on either but I just can't understand the logic of dq'ing the winner of the Top Flight at all.

Dude, to quote Samuel L jackson that horse was deader than fried chicken.
Superimposing traits that you think a horse had into a dreamworld where reality is altered is not the way to watch and analyze races.
Malibu Mint was done, kaput, finito, dead. She bore out because that whats a lare percentage of tired horses do, and in the process of doing so was struck with the whip.
Why do I care if i didn't have money on it? because tomorrow it could be me or you who gets screwed.
These stewards are dreadful, and I mean incredibly inconsistent and awful.
I'm still stewing over Smockey Glacken being left up two saratoga'a ago after almost putting the Goldberg horse over the rail(i'm not exaggerating here, she almost caused a bad spill and they left her up).
These guys need to come out and explain to EVERYONE exactly what a foul is, and when the issue comes into play of whether or not the fouled horse was losing anyway comes into play.
This dq was a joke.

"While many believe that a whip to the face is automatic grounds for disqualification, that is not the case. The rules state that a horse should be disqualified "if a jockey willingly strikes another horse or jockey" with the whip. The Aqueduct stewards did not deem Garcia's actions as willful, but they did determine it cost Malibu Mint a chance to win."-DRF


THEY THOUGHT SHE HAD A CHANCE TO COME BACK.I GIVE HER SOME CHANCE TO COME BACK.NOT MUCH,BUT SOME.

If those guys thought that cost her a chance to win, they had to be watching a different replay than I just did.
She was absolutely done.
This was a disgrace, and tomorrow it could be me or you.

and it really doesn't matter if the stewards feels the winner would have won regardless. just look at secretariats dq in the hopeful...or was it the champagne?

Coa had stopped her from coming out towards the other filly.I can understand him hitting her if she was moving over quickly at the time(he couldn't have been expected to know that she was gunna be there.)That was not the case.She wasn't moving laterally when she was hit.You should point some anger at the guy who caused this(Garcia.) I think he cost her a small shot to rally back on,but I see other horses cost horses a small chance for a better placing(all the time.)

Only way to take down the 8 horse is if the 3 horse finished 3rd. That is the only way.

Why would another horse have to pass Malibu Mint to make the DQ legit? I agree that Rahy's Appeal was the best horse in the race. I just don't understand your logic.

One could make the arguement that a whip to the nose could have costed the horse a 2nd place finish. This didnt happen so it doesnt matter--but if MM did finish third then I could understand the logic.

You have pet fish? Don't most guys grow out of that?

Blackthroat,

I benefited by the DQ in that it kept me alive in the P4 and ultimately won it. Felt like stealing (8k). I also had the reverse happen, so the racing gods even things out every so often. Yes the 8 was MTB, no doubt about it. I just got lucky today.

But for the record, I take it you know the NY rule on whip to the face. Does the NYRA or the NY Racing Officials have a site where you can view the rules for fouls and dq's ?

Thanks !!

NC Tony

LaBelle's story....
http://www.nyracing.com/aqueduct/stories/TopFlight.html

Based upon that NYRA release it seems it pretty straight forward that a whip to the face is an instant DQ. Coa says " I hate to win that way but the rules are the rules?"

So what is it. Steve can you clarify?

NC Tony

In the News today, it said unequivocally that it is not an automatic DQ.

"Whip interference is not an automatic reason for disqualification. It is up to the stewards' discretion"

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo...p-399089c.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/rah/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns

As you can see by Coa's quote here, those are the rules....so I think the question is still open as you have two different printed interpertations

Who care's anymore .....Anyway.

originally posted by Scudsbrother
"While many believe that a whip to the face is automatic grounds for disqualification, that is not the case. The rules state that a horse should be disqualified "if a jockey willingly strikes another horse or jockey" with the whip. The Aqueduct stewards did not deem Garcia's actions as willful, but they did determine it cost Malibu Mint a chance to win."-DRF

originally posted by Scudsbrother
HEY THOUGHT SHE HAD A CHANCE TO COME BACK.I GIVE HER SOME CHANCE TO COME BACK.NOT MUCH,BUT SOME.

Originally Posted by randallscott35
In the News today, it said unequivocally that it is not an automatic DQ.


Originally Posted by randallscott35
"Whip interference is not an automatic reason for disqualification. It is up to the stewards' discretion"

My useless comment:
Catching up on the reading from the weekend.
Man this reminds me so much of Snow Ridge's DQ a few years ago on Derby Day.

Rahy's Appeal's owner has appealed the DQ.
I didn't have a cent on the race, but the bettors who had RA got hosed.

Oh, could you imagine if they over turn this. Boy, I would be in a fit of rage of I had Rahy's Appeal.

Well,it is a foul.She wasn't moving over when he hit her.She had already done that.She was there,and for whetever reason ,he blew it,and whipped her hard.Now,whether she had any chance to come back on(if not hit) is the question.They may find that the stewards were wrong to think she had any shot to rally back on(if she wasn't hit.) The majority on here,think she had no shot to rally back,and so it is odd that 2 out of the 3 stewards would think she had a chance to win the race.I have seen too many horses rally back for me to say she had no shot.It probably didn't have an effect on the outcome of the race,but I don't know if they have to go by probably,or certainty.