Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis
I don't understand why the two calls are mutually inclusive.
However unpopular an opinion, I agreed with the take down of Upstart. To say that Itsaknockout "wouldn't have gotten to Upstart without interfenence" is insane and purely subjective. Ortiz drives Upstart, left handed, into Itsaknockout's path repeatedly, then after Saez checks, Ortiz goes right handed. Dead Giveaway. Jock knew what he was doing, tried to interfere with a coming horse, and got caught.
|
Seriously? They're back-to-back decisions involving very similar circumstances by the same stewards. How can you not attempt to draw a parallel?
I think DQ'ing a horse for coming out one path like that in a race he won by 2 3/4 lengths is ridiculous in any case. However, it'd be a little easier to stomach if this was a country that took a hard line on herding. In the context of all the herding that is regularly dismissed without even an inquiry, Upstart's DQ was absolutely comical. And if Upstart comes down, the winner in the 12th has to as well. 100%. I don't know how any rational person could argue otherwise. Either they both stay up or they both get disqualified.
The only way stewards with functioning brain stems can come up with two different decisions in those races is if they're up there flipping coins.