Arlington Million

[Rick B.]

Fairmount1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For those that say it was obvious, watch the pan
> again.  Was The Apache extending his lead in the
> last two to three strides when they were clear of
> each other or not?  Was it because Garcia quit
> riding?  

Let\'s correct a couple of things, first:

1. Real Solution and The Apache were clear of the
rest of the field...but not each other. Once The
Apache initiated contact, there was pretty much
*continuous* contact between the two all the way
out to the 6 or 7 path.

2. Garcia never quit riding; he simply changed to
survival mode so he and his mount didn\'t get knocked
on their asses.

(This is why the stewards *also* look at the head-on
shot...not just the pan.)

What the pan *does* show it that Real Solution did
get in front of The Apache ever so briefly...you then
have to switch to the head on to see that RS spent
the remainder of the race dealing with getting mugged
by his rival.

Yes, the Illinois stews can be as bad as any of the
others, but this one was pretty much a slam dunk.

And yes, Ken Ramsey can be obnoxious, but I don\'t see
how that has anything to do with getting a race outcome
adjudicated correctly.

[billk5300s]

I made a play on The Apache and of course I\'m not happy about the DQ but I can see why they took the horse down.  This was my second DQ of a horse at AP in two weeks and 5 since May, 2 at Churchill, one at Belmont.  Having some bad racing luck lately because 3 of those DQ\'s killed me in gimmicks, all of the winners were over 5-1.

Here is my 2 cents for whatever it\'s worth.  The problem with DQ\'s is the human element.  Most of us can say we\'ve seen worse let stand when we get DQ\'d.  Here\'s my suggestion.  Let all results stand for the betters but suspend the jockey\'s and adjust the purse awards for horses that would have been DQ\'d.  This way you\'ll have consistency for the bettor and leave human judgement calls out of wagering.  Sometimes we may get burned but I\'d rather have an absolute than a judgement call when my money is on the line.

[P-Dub]

billk5300s Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------1.

> Here is my 2 cents for whatever it\'s worth.  The
> problem with DQ\'s is the human element.  Most of
> us can say we\'ve seen worse let stand when we get
> DQ\'d.  Here\'s my suggestion.  Let all results
> stand for the betters but suspend the jockey\'s and
> adjust the purse awards for horses that would have
> been DQ\'d.  This way you\'ll have consistency for
> the bettor and leave human judgement calls out of
> wagering.  Sometimes we may get burned but I\'d
> rather have an absolute than a judgement call when
> my money is on the line.

You don\'t think connections bet on races??  What happens in a lowly claiming race, when the wager exceeds any winnings from the purse??  

Sports is littered with judgment calls. This idea isn\'t a good one on many levels.