Done till Spa. F horse racing

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Fair enough. My point, though it appears to have been missed, is that you are making the case to enforce an arbitrary penalty on a horse that did something literally every single horse does in its position over a sloppy track on the one day the world is watching. In stunned silence. This is no admission of " we've seen worse allowed to stand". WoW was admittedly stopping. MS slid, not "drifted" in front of a stopping horse - thus The winning horse gets placed 17th. That doesn't help anyone. Right or Wrong.

I don’t think it was arbitrary at all. It was a judgement call and one thing I have not seen is anyone dispute the fact that the winner interfered with those two horses. I think that in a situation like this, you have to break it down to one or two questions:

1. Did he interfere with the other horse? If you answer no, end of story. If you answer yes, you move on to question two.

2. Did he cost the horse he interfered with a placing? If you answer no, end of story. If you answer yes, you have no choice but to place him behind that horse.

I also don’t think you can say every other horse would do that. He was the only one that I saw do it today. Those other horses weren’t sliding out. Also, his jockey didn’t say anything about the horse losing his footing. He talked about the horse reacting to the noise of the crowd and that being the cause of him getting out. For me, track condition isn’t a reasonable excuse.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Actually, before MS did his dance, WOW bumped LRT, who bumped Bode, who bumped Improbable, as he was trying to create seam to run through.

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by philcski

The 18 also claimed foul.

Which was publically acknowledged only about 4 hours after the race? Why not immediately?

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

Actually, before MS did his dance, WOW bumped LRT, who bumped Bode, who bumped Improbable, as he was trying to create seam to run through.

Glad I wasn’t the only one to notice this. Not downplaying the sequence of events, but if the 1 doesn’t try and force his way into space, the chain reaction doesn’t occur.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don’t think it was arbitrary at all. It was a judgement call and one thing I have not seen is anyone dispute the fact that the winner interfered with those two horses. I think that in a situation like this, you have to break it down to one or two questions:

1. Did he interfere with the other horse? If you answer no, end of story. If you answer yes, you move on to question two.

2. Did he cost the horse he interfered with a placing? If you answer no, end of story. If you answer yes, you have no choice but to place him behind that horse.

I also don’t think you can say every other horse would do that. He was the only one that I saw do it today. Those other horses weren’t sliding out. Also, his jockey didn’t say anything about the horse losing his footing. He talked about the horse reacting to the noise of the crowd and that being the cause of him getting out. For me, track condition isn’t a reasonable excuse.

This is the only two questions that matter, and the answer is unequivocally yes to both. Forget about the winner. That is not the question at hand, even if you think he was bulletproof to win after that (I don't, but doesn't matter.) It's the interference that caused the other two to finish in lower positions than they would have had this not happened. Easy DQ.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I hadn't seen this video in slow motion. After seeing this, I can see why they took him down. I still need to watch some more video. But after seeing this one, I think the decision is understandable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jwy9m9oDg0

[ADJMK]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I hadn't seen this video in slow motion. After seeing this, I can see why they took him down. I still need to watch some more video. But after seeing this one, I think the decision is understandable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jwy9m9oDg0

All three of these yahoos were emphatic that there should be no disqualification while they were waiting for the decision and reviewing the replays. The horse gets taken down and suddenly they change their tune ?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ADJMK

All three of these yahoos were emphatic that there should be no disqualification while they were waiting for the decision and reviewing the replays. The horse gets taken down and suddenly they change their tune ?

I thought the same thing. At first I thought it was a terrible call. But I hadn't seen this angle in slow motion. When you see this angle in slow-mo, it makes it much tougher to fault the stewards' decision. I think once Bailey and crew saw this video, they realized the stewards' decision was defensible.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I hadn't seen this video in slow motion. After seeing this, I can see why they took him down. I still need to watch some more video. But after seeing this one, I think the decision is understandable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jwy9m9oDg0

This slo-mo shows even more clearly how Long Range Toddy had to check:

https://twitter.com/NBCSports/status...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

This slo-mo shows even more clearly how Long Range Toddy had to check:

https://twitter.com/NBCSports/status...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Yes, but Long Range Toddy was probably done any way. He was already fading. He finished 16th. If it wasn't for the incident where does he finish? If he wouldn't have come in the top 5, then you can't disqualify the winner. You can only DQ a horse if he costs another horse a better placing in the money. I think the only horse that MS could have or should have been DQ'd for fouling would be War of Will.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, but Long Range Toddy was probably done any way. He was already fading. He finished 16th. If it wasn't for the incident where does he finish? If he wouldn't have come in the top 5, then you can't disqualify the winner. You can only DQ a horse if he costs another horse a better placing in the money. I think the only horse that MS could have or should have been DQ'd for fouling would be War of Will.

It's pretty hard to guess where Long Range Toddy would have finished, but Jon Court thought he had plenty of horse left and plenty of momentum:

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...m_jockeys_123#

If you don't trust Court's opinion, then look at this video--there's no sign (to me at least) that Long Range Toddy is fading. He's right up there with those chasing Maximum Security until the incident. And after the incident he's 5-6 lengths behind. There's no question he lost all chance because of the incident.

https://twitter.com/CarsoniPH/status...28240144457730

[Gate Dancer]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

It's pretty hard to guess where Long Range Toddy would have finished, but Jon Court thought he had plenty of horse left and plenty of momentum:

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...m_jockeys_123#

If you don't trust Court's opinion, then look at this video--there's no sign (to me at least) that Long Range Toddy is fading. He's right up there with those chasing Maximum Security until the incident. And after the incident he's 5-6 lengths behind. There's no question he lost all chance because of the incident.

https://twitter.com/CarsoniPH/status...28240144457730

It's hard to convince me that LRT had plenty left. Watch his Arkansas Derby and see how he finished that race when it looked like he was in prime position..............

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

It's pretty hard to guess where Long Range Toddy would have finished, but Jon Court thought he had plenty of horse left and plenty of momentum:

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...m_jockeys_123#

If you don't trust Court's opinion, then look at this video--there's no sign (to me at least) that Long Range Toddy is fading. He's right up there with those chasing Maximum Security until the incident. And after the incident he's 5-6 lengths behind. There's no question he lost all chance because of the incident.

https://twitter.com/CarsoniPH/status...28240144457730

LRT definitely checked pretty hard and was much further back after the incident. But it looked like he was already being passed on both sides. Don't get me wrong. I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that he couldn't have run 5th if he hadn't checked hard. But I would say it is very unlikely.

[ADJMK]

Didn't see the inquiry sign when the 3 horse on Friday almost ran Pletcher's horse off the course right out of the gate.
If Pratt doesn't claim foul ,when he even states on TV that he really wasn't bothered, I bet the stewards wouldn't have even looked at the race.

[Cpt.Bodgit]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don’t think it was arbitrary at all. It was a judgement call and one thing I have not seen is anyone dispute the fact that the winner interfered with those two horses. I think that in a situation like this, you have to break it down to one or two questions:

1. Did he interfere with the other horse? If you answer no, end of story. If you answer yes, you move on to question two.

2. Did he cost the horse he interfered with a placing? If you answer no, end of story. If you answer yes, you have no choice but to place him behind that horse.

I also don’t think you can say every other horse would do that. He was the only one that I saw do it today. Those other horses weren’t sliding out. Also, his jockey didn’t say anything about the horse losing his footing. He talked about the horse reacting to the noise of the crowd and that being the cause of him getting out. For me, track condition isn’t a reasonable excuse.

I think the frustration comes in where there is no consistency from race to race let alone from track to track with stewards. Horses get left up ALL THE TIME for doing this "because the 2nd place finisher wasn't affected". This was the case yesterday as Country House was never going by.

I don't have a problem with the DQ because he went 5 paths out. But i'll have a problem when they leave up a horse at Belmont today for doing the same thing "because the 2nd place finisher wasn't affected". Then on Friday they will taken them down. Zero and I mean zero consistency.