6/21: Late P4's.. ('Action Stabs')

[Kasept]

For some juice going into tonight's show, P4 action off yesterday's CD hit.. Hope everyone enjoyed the P6 coverage on "DT" and "ATR".. Was a very fun afternoon/evening... Hope everyone did well...


BELMONT

6: 4-5-8-9
7: 1-4
8: 1e-2-3-4-7
9: 6

4x2x5x1 = $40

P4 pays $126.00


CHURCHILL

6: 5-6
7: 5-7-9-10
8: 1-2-4
9: 1-10 (6 as DD cover or P3 inclusion)

P4: 2x4x3x2 = $48


HOLLYWOOD

5: 1-3-4-7
6: 3-6
7: 3-4-7
8: 1-11

4x2x3x2 = $48


Good luck!
Steve

[BellaGena Stable]

I am going to play along with you today @ Belmont and most likely Hollywood. Good luck. Thanks as always

[jms62]

I went

3,4,5,8/1,2,3,4/1,4,7/6,8 for 96.00 at Belmont

[SentToStud]

I am NOT a fan of the 8th race DQ at Belmont. Had a nice win wager on the 6. Didn't think the 7 was going by. Life goes on but ...

[BellaGena Stable]

I know we have the 6 in this for the PICK 4 but with these odds do u have any suggestions for ex-tri?

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I am NOT a fan of the 8th race DQ at Belmont. Had a nice win wager on the 6. Didn't think the 7 was going by. Life goes on but ...

I think the stewards need to get a bit more consistent. There have been at least 2 cases in the BEL meet where a jockey has purposely steered his mount steadily outward during the stretch run, forcing a competitor out and costing the latter the race. If you're gonna DQ when a horse comes out suddenly in the path of another, or if a horse doesn't keep an absolute straight path in the lane (as was the case with the bug that got taken down from 2nd in that turf race) then you need to take the cases above down as well.

This isn't the NBA. It's not about flopping

[ninetoone]

tough break on the 6, it's a bad feeling when you have a horse at a price and the objection/inquiry sign lights up.

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

Nice little hit Steve!

Better than, A sharp stick in the eye!

[Bigsmc]

5 minute handicapping action stab at the Holly P4:

R5: 1,7
R6: 3,7,10 - Had the 6 in and tossed him for the 7....rats....next.
R7: 3,4,5,6
R8: 3,9

$48

GL

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I am NOT a fan of the 8th race DQ at Belmont. Had a nice win wager on the 6. Didn't think the 7 was going by. Life goes on but ...

I agree with you.

[declansharbor]

After watching the head on, I respectfully disagree. This coming from someone who was rooting the 6 home for my DD.

[whodey17]

I didnt have the 6 in race 8 as part of my pick 4. I did have the 7 so my opinion might be a little biased. But I think they 6 bumped the 7 hard enough to cause the 7 to switch leads. The 7 was closing a little and looked as if he was going to go on by the 6. But, I agree that the Stewards need to be a little more consistant.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Under intense right handed whipping---on a horse who was simply never going to lose that lead late---coming out of a slow early-very fast late run grass race---he came out and brushed with Prado about five yards before the wire.

IMO, the call was nothing short of disgraceful....but hey, I'm only trying to be objective...as I did need the 6 pretty bad as well.

The 9 horse in the second race wiped out just about everything to his inside in race #2...and stayed up...but hey, that foul happened at a stage of the race where trouble is actually signficant.

[zippyneedsawin]

I've seen worse incidents where the horse didn't come down.. I'm surprised the #6 was DQ'd... and this from someone who had the 7 and not the 6 at all.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I feel no less bitter about it this morning.

The Shug horse who got put up, is a certified hanger with 4 seconds in his last five races, and would have needed to run a sub-6 final 1/16th to get up.

The rider on the horse who was taken down made every effort humanly possible to keep him straight...and the very mild incident (which happened right on top of the wire) had no impact on the outcome...nor even the margin of victory IMO.

This was also very different than what happened in the nightcap on Wed., when a desperate jockey, went to strong left-handed whipping on a tired horse, to try and gain an advantage on an oncoming closer.

By disqualifying the 6, it was simply a showing of the stewards punishing the betting public.

If you watch race #2, the #9 horse wiped out several horses to his inside leaving the gate. He was left up. I guess if you eliminate horses through the very early stages of the races, no problem. However, if your horse drifts out, while the rider is making every effort to keep him straight...even costing his horse momentum to do so...you get DQ'd.

There is major flawed logic there.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

If you watch race #2, the #9 horse wiped out several horses to his inside leaving the gate. He was left up. I guess if you eliminate horses through the very early stages of the races, no problem. However, if your horse drifts out, while the rider is making every effort to keep him straight...even costing his horse momentum to do so...you get DQ'd.

There is major flawed logic there.

I know this is going to sound insane but is it possible what happened yesterday in the second race was an actual mistake made by the stewards? They looked at the head-on for a long time and a bunch of us were discussing what we thought the outcome would be. At first glance I thought there was no way that the 9 would stay up. Then I noticed they were paying particular attention to the pan view of the start. My opinion started to sway because the outside horse, who I took for the 9, was so far clear of the others that it appeared the jockey on the 7 took up unnecessarily. My opinion changed and I felt that the number would stay. After a few minutes of abuse from my friends, it was posted official. They were amazed and I felt smart. I bet you are saying to yourself, wait you moron, the 9 actually wasn't the outside horse the 1A was the outside horse, which is what I realized last night when watching the replay on FSNY. After watching it some more on racereplays.com the 9 was not in view until well after the start, but the stewards never let it roll that far. They were looking at the first few jumps and that was basically it. Is it possible they were focusing on the 1A, seeing he was well clear of the trouble, mistakenly took him for the 9 as I did, and dismissed the foul? I think we all agree that they aren’t the brightest bulbs on the marquee, it you get my drift.

Otherwise I cannot come up with a reason why the 9 would've stayed.