NY Stews

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by iamthelurker

Your probably right, the real move was to get outside before Cornelio could put the lockdown on him. But I listen to the wonderful trips and traps, and I think this more applies to a bug rider focusing too much on saving ground .

PS. Grandstanding is cool and if it wins you a race, your the better rider. (sarcastic posters...bring it on).

We do know that bug riders, and especially the one in this case, marry themselves to the rail, seemingly sometimes for better or worse. We also know why this is. In general, people who ride bug riders put a lot of credence in weight ( you can't fool me ), which means there is also a non-coincidental likelihood that they use the sheets, thus ground loss is also very important to them. Riding bug riders and demanding they stay inside goes hand in hand.

First they gave us the bounce....now they give us this.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

We do know that bug riders, and especially the one in this case, marry themselves to the rail, seemingly sometimes for better or worse. We also know why this is. In general, people who ride bug riders put a lot of credence in weight ( you can't fool me ), which means there is also a non-coincidental likelihood that they use the sheets, thus ground loss is also very important to them. Riding bug riders and demanding they stay inside goes hand in hand.

First they gave us the bounce....now they give us this.

So the inside isn't the fastest way around?

[the_fat_man]

This is the kind of incident where competent stewards take action. I'm pretty confident that if this event took place @ WO, the 9 gets taken down. I'm aware of the arguments why the 9 is supposed to stay up: no contact; journeyman schooling an apprentice; etc.

But it's not exactly subtle that if the 9 doesn't take the 6's path TWICE, the 6 probably wins the race. I realize that the 9 was in the lead but the 9 should be required to keep some semblance of a straight path in the lane. Maybe taking the 6's path the 1st time wasn't intentional. Maybe this could've been overlooked. But coming in to take the 6's path AGAIN by Prado is clear intent on his part. And HE should be punished, not the 6 and those betting it. When stewards let things like this go; not really subtle things that cost horses wins; I tend to lose confidence in them. Not about their integrity but, rather, their ability to accurately access races.

As for Prado: he'll get his next time an 'accomplished' jock puts him in tight, causing him to wet his pants; an all too common occurrence the past few years.

[The Bid]

You're absolutely right Fat Man. Even If the stews make no dq, which in this case I think there is reason, they are supposed to light up the inquiry sign. We as bettors put our money through the window, I expect these guys to show up to work

To the poster who asked me how I know they didn't look.... They made it official in about 45 seconds and I called to complain like I do when they blow one in florida.

[Dahoss]

Bid, is it safe to assume you bet the 6 here? If so, would you still feel the same way if you bet the 9? Be honest....

[The Bid]

I bet the 6, yes, but I was over and under exactas for the same amount of money.

My main issue is the stewards not even flashing a light. They completely missed, or failed to think it mattered that the 9 took the 6's path twice inside the final 16th. We should expect, and hold our racing officials to an extremely high standard as players. We are vested each race, why should these guys be taking races off?

If the 9 would have been my bet I would have expected the same...Inquiry, and a possible DQ. The only thing I would have been thinking is....well its Prado against a bug, so I have a chance to stay up.

[Dahoss]

My point is not everyone thinks the 6 was impeded. I agree, they should have looked at it. But as a bettor I don't want these kind of horses DQ'd. I understand they should have looked at it. Again, I agree.

But no way the horse should have been DQ'd in my opinion. As a bettor I'm for less takedowns, especially in this instance where there is no contact and the jock on the horse that was supposedly fouled never checked. There are reasons for a DQ, but not this.