curious ruling by the stewards - Kee 5th

[deltagulf]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I had no play involved here and in fact was rooting for people whom I knew played the 10, but Life Lesson impeded Dan's Pride THREE different times down the stretch while drifting out 5 paths.

I'm surprised there is a debate. And I will bring up the topic with Tony Black this week. I'll have KY head steward John Veitch on if people want...

yea besides tony i would like to hear from john veitch on the show.
it would be great.

[swedejxn]

Well.... I was one of those on Life Lesson (Steve's reference) and when those two crossed the line I knew I had lost the place money... But honestly if that horse was "intimidated" from that far away it seems a little fishy to me.

[Scav]

HE NEVER touched the friggin horse, he was a LENGTH CLEAR of the friggin hanger. You people need to get your eyes checked in regards to BUMPING.

And Steve, that intimidation rule is BUILT INTO ALMOST EVERY STATE, and it CONSISTENTLY happens ALL THE TIME. Every race in California, if someone is going to close on the outside, you drift out to make your horse more competitive.

Also, if drifting was a problem at Keeneland, then they could take EVERY WINNER down at Keeneland because not 1 single jockey wanted ANY PART of the first 4 paths. every single horse that was on the lead coming for home went into the 5 path or greater.

There is no changing any of our minds on this, but as far as I am concerned, if you are a length clear, you can drift 10 paths

the simple question should have been asked by these boneheads, 'Would Dan's Pride have won if it wasn't for Life Lesson drifting out?'

It was a great acting job by Kent jerking the horses head, he saw the horse drifting out.

By the way Steve, how come if this is guaranteed a foul, there wasn't a INQUIRY, and it was just an objection? It is so blantantly obvious but the stewards didn't put the light on.

[pmacdaddy]

I think the 10 most definitely interfered enough to cost the #4 sole second place finish. If not forced to check, the #4 likely doesn't win the race IMO, but also doesn't share second place purse money.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by pmacdaddy

I think the 10 most definitely interfered enough to cost the #4 sole second place finish. If not forced to check, the #4 doesn't win the race IMO, but also doesn't share second place purse money.

Worded this way, I guess it is correct, NOW, it needs to be explained that way though. If this was the reasoning, I guess I can understand it.

I had a measly $1 p3 ticket going in this race for a total of $27, and it wouldn't have hit, so financially it didn't hurt me, I care about ridiculous take downs for when I have $200 on the horse....

[Scav]

I know I just said this, but with this being so obvious, where was the inquiry light?

You know what though, this is all good, because when Life Lesson does run back in a MSW any time soon at 3/5, he is a complete play against and will do so with both fists, he bore out real bad and was dead tired down the stretch, there wasn't much in the race from what I can tell either.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

As someone who made a nice win bet on Life Lesson I'm pretty surprised there is even a discussion about this. Usually when you can see live, from the pan shot that a horse is drifting out badly it's never a good sign. The head on only confirms it further. The stewards had no choice. They made the correct decision IMO. I'm sure there will be plenty of time to bitch about bad DQ's, I just don't feel like this is one of them.

I agree, looked like a no brainer DQ to me. I couldn't believe how long it took them to make the decision.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

This is what's beautiful about the whole thing.

A horse drifts significantly in the stretch, impedes the path of another horse, bumping it twice AND

there are people here arguing that nothing happened

because

the pan shot didn't show anything

wtf is the pan shot supposed to show?

WATCH THE HEADON, doofus

this was a NO BRAINER takedown

In this case the head on didnt tell the story. Watch the pan shot. The 10 NEVER came into contact or was that close to interfering. The 10 was clear the whole way. Desormeaux should get an academy award. Was a horrible call.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Scav,

You have to got to be kidding with this... The performance of Life Lesson in the KEE 5th WAS THE VERY DEFINITION of a foul... It couldn't have been more obvious, and calling the decision 'curious' only encourages the notion in gullible players' heads that the stewards sometimes have an agenda. As TFM suggested, the pan is meaningless and denying a horse their path is a foul regardless of contact.


KY RULES OF RACING: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/TITLE810.HTM


Section 12. Fouls. A leading horse when clear is entitled to any part of the track. If a leading horse or any other horse in a race, swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause same, such shall be deemed a foul. If a jockey strikes another horse or jockey, it is a foul. If in the opinion of the stewards, a foul alters the finish of a race, any offending horses may be disqualified by the stewards.


Further, here is the definition of jockey responsibility for avoiding fouls if at all possible...

Section 13. Stewards to Determine Foul Riding. Every jockey shall be responsible for making his best effort to control and guide his mount in such a way as not to cause a foul. The stewards shall take cognizance of riding which results in a foul, irrespective of whether an objection is lodged. If in the opinion of the stewards, a foul is committed as a result of a jockey not making his best effort to control and guide his mount to avoid a foul, whether intentionally or through carelessness or incompetence, the jockey may be penalized at the discretion of the stewards.

You dont think that stewards at times have agendas? Come on Steve...you cant be that gullible. Watch the pan shot...the 10 did not interfere with the 4. Sure he came out a bit, but was clear. If stewards around the country make the same call as yesterday there are going to be a ton more dq's and a lot of pissed off bettors. Was a horrendous call.

Back to the stewards thing. Go back to the race at SA which I pm'd you about which I assume you didnt watch because you never commented on it. Was much worse than yesterday, but the stewards in cali (who apparently dont have an agenda...you know...like taking down an owner who has sued them and become a huge pain in their ass, and might bring them some heat) left the horse up.

To say that stewards dont at times have agendas is gullible, borderline dumb. Go ask Chris Paasch if the stewards dont have agendas or dont hold grudges.

[Riot]

Oh, what the heck, I"ll pile on too. I had $25 WPS on the 10, and I agree it was a clearcut, easy call to DQ. I suspected it would happen as soon as 10 crossed the line (thought to myself, "geesh, won't win this one, either!" )

Nobody ever said there was bumping. The 10 clearly, repeatedly, came over in front of the other horse, causing that horse to have to alter it's path.

I don't know why it took so long, I suspect they were figuring out what they would have to do with the 9.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Scav

I know I just said this, but with this being so obvious, where was the inquiry light?

Maybe because Kent made the objection about four seconds after they hit the wire?

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by Mumtaz

Nobody ever said there was bumping.

TFM did.

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

A horse drifts significantly in the stretch, impedes the path of another horse, bumping it twice AND

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

TFM did.

Ah, well, I disagree, FM <g> Just didn't see that on the head-on. I was worried about the 4 clipping heels twice with the 10, though, as the 10 came over.

That said, I didn't win a thing all day, either. Always 1 horse away. Weird. But a good (as in interesting) day of racing.

[Payson Dave]

Originally Posted by Mumtaz

.... I didn't win a thing all day.....

Are you using an online wagering account??
Are you able to get a bet in within 5-10 minutes to post?

[hockey2315]

You need to watch the replay again, Scav. The 10 bumped the 4 like 3 times. I'm surprised it took them that long to take him down. I bet the 9 and was kind of pissed about the DH- I could've really lucked out.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

You need to watch the replay again, Scav. The 10 bumped the 4 like 3 times. I'm surprised it took them that long to take him down. I bet the 9 and was kind of pissed about the DH- I could've really lucked out.

I must be blind, I've watched that replay several times and I cannot see a single instance where they bumped.

[AeWingnut]

What have I done...

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I must be blind, I've watched that replay several times and I cannot see a single instance where they bumped.

You watch the head-on? They bumped at least once and the 10 came out on him 2 other times and may have made contact.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

You watch the head-on? They bumped at least once and the 10 came out on him 2 other times and may have made contact.

no, try not watching the head-on, its misleading. they never touch.

[hockey2315]

Wouldn't the head-on be a better angle?