Belmont 7th

[jimbo66]

Boscsr

We are killing this issue.   But I dont need a chart caller, with his 2 eyes, telling me what my own 2 eyes saw.   I may prefer the medical opinion of a doctor over my own, but I can promise you that I see the races as well as rhe chart caller.

There was no mutual contact.  The winner came in multiple paths.  No way to sanely argue against that.

Whether it had to be a DQ or not, certainly debatable.  But no doubt WHO committed the foul, IF a foul was called.  

Jim

[Boscar Obarra]

On a scale of 1 to 10 this was a 3.  And I\'ve seen them leave up 10\'s

[plasticman]

BO, this is a good point and it really comes down to philosophy on what is a disqualifiable (hope that\'s a word!) offense.

If you really wanted to nitpick, I\'m sure you could theoretically make at least 1 dq per race in every race on every day, but would that really be a great idea?

If the standard was zero tolerance and any brush or bump at any point in the race was an automatic dq, is that the judging we would want as bettors? 10 minute inquiry for every race to decide where to place every runner who brushed another runner?

There needs to be a judging standard and while maybe the op\'s example would be a dq in another life at another track at another time, this brush or whatever you want to call it wasn\'t enough to pass the dq standard that these judges have set.

The bigger problem would be is if a similar situation DOES result in a dq a month from now by these same judges.

[jerry]

I did. I disagree with him.

[jerry]

I agree with most of what you\'re saying. Where I think this race is different is the last contact just before the wire. You can see Ortiz tug on the left rein and lean his body to the left to initiate enough contact to cause the other horse to check back. That, I think, is interference and cause for a DQ. The margin of victory was only a nose. I think it mattered.

[plasticman]

Maybe the judges just determined this was \'race riding\' and has been part of the game for centuries.

As a gambler, you can yell and scream \"MAKE THAT CHANGE\" but when judges alter results, they tend to keep altering results and more and more races down the line get tampered with. Forgetting about individual specific races for example, it really comes down to how quick do we want our judges to be with their trigger finger. Since i don\'t really trust politially appointed hacks to begin with, i\'d prefer they generally not tamper with physical results, a \'wrong dq\' is more damaging than not putting up a horse who physically lost.

With \'quick trigger finger\' judges, its only a matter of time before they rob your legit winner and pay someone else.

[jerry]

I was waiting for someone to use that term. I\'m sure that\'s why it\'s excused but I don\'t think it should be. You ride your own horse. You don\'t use your horse to block, impeded or herd other horses. I don\'t think horse racing should be about that but I\'ve been around long enough to know that it is. Cordero\'s ride on Codex in the 1980 Preakness stands out as the poster child for that kind of riding. And Gryder\'s gift to Flntshire is another example of, what I call, unfair racing. It\'s not the part of the game that I appreciate at all.

[jerry]

Then get better judges. I would have taken Ortiz down and given him days. It was deliberate interference.

[Boscar Obarra]

look at the 5th today 9/24 BEL   winner came out and bumped the placer late and not even a claim. we need to leave those alone, lest a DQ 5 times a day.

[Tavasco]

Mostly I agree with you. But how about an old fashioned beat down in the parking lot later to encourage safe riding. When they are again able to walk.

[Boscar Obarra]

yeah, if its deliberate, but a lot of it is just a result of 1200 lb animals running all out while tired

[jerry]

Usually is the case but in this case it was a steering problem.