This was reminiscent of the BC Classic from 2 years ago. The #1 horse, who finished 2nd, was compromised along with 2 others at the start of this race. I am gobsmacked that Paulick said she "dominated." Well, yeah, after taking out 3 others at the start.
Do they have a view from the blimp to help with my decision making before I chatter?
Curious if you ever saw this one...... http://www.tvg2.com/breederscup/
Before I view your link stark I apologize for my cell phone typing whatever it feels like typing in lieu of what I actually typed. Sheesh.
He agrees with you.....
Andy Serling @andyserling 3h3 hours ago
Can we get a DQ in the Delaware Handicap....please?
Contact!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtSfaPXh7ww
The front view was dramatic enough. While I agree that IAC was the best in the race, she bodyslammed the three horses inside of her so hard that that they went sideways. One or more of the riders could have lost their seats.
Since one of the main reasons stewards may disqualify a horse is to enforce safe riding, IMHO this decision kind of ignored safety. :(
98 Beyer for Fletcher & Carolyn Gray homebred I'm a Chatterbox
No way. Sorry I cannot say IAC should have been taken down at all. Maybe if the 3 had placed 2nd, but not the 1. I will say that the bumping seemed to be going on a bit further from the break than the BC Classic though it seemed everyone was bumping including the 6, but other than that its incidental contact post break and I thought ICA was the worst for wear afterwards and then rallied. The 1 seemed to come out of it with no problems at all.
Quote from: Man o Taz on July 18, 2016, 02:25:03 PM
No way. Sorry I cannot say IAC should have been taken down at all. Maybe if the 3 had placed 2nd, but not the 1. I will say that the bumping seemed to be going on a bit further from the break than the BC Classic though it seemed everyone was bumping including the 6, but other than that its incidental contact post break and I thought ICA was the worst for wear afterwards and then rallied. The 1 seemed to come out of it with no problems at all.
Just because I'm a Chatterbox was affected by the bumping doesn't, in and of itself, mean there should be no change. The bumping was her own fault. It's a judgement call and she was, much the best. The stewards used similar logic when crafting their explanation which was that since the winner was affected, no change would be made. I don't have a real problem with her not coming down, but that explanation is utter nonsense. All the stewards had to say was that the incident did not alter the placings. Whether or not I'm a Chatterbox was compromised by it is totally irrelevant.
I think she should have come down. There is a big difference between bumping
and wiping out 3 horses the first 100 yards of the race
http://www.drf.com/news/stewards-say-they-began-del-cap-inquiry-prior-jockeys-objection (http://www.drf.com/news/stewards-say-they-began-del-cap-inquiry-prior-jockeys-objection)
I think she should have come down also, but these messy starts are pretty well open to interpretation. I thought Bayern should have come down as well (and that one was less aggregious than this imo) and many would disagree with me.
Quote from: peeptoad on July 19, 2016, 03:55:14 AM
http://www.drf.com/news/stewards-say-they-began-del-cap-inquiry-prior-jockeys-objection (http://www.drf.com/news/stewards-say-they-began-del-cap-inquiry-prior-jockeys-objection)
I think she should have come down also, but these messy starts are pretty well open to interpretation. I thought Bayern should have come down as well (and that one was less aggregious than this imo) and many would disagree with me.
I certainly get the logic behind anyone who thinks she should have come down, I just think it is really hard to take a horse down for something at the start of a 10f race. As for the BC Classic, I bet on Bayern and absolutely loved him that day. Had Chromie been able to get second I would have hit both the tri and the super. I still did okay with a win bet on Bayern. There were a lot of subtexts to that race--both the favorite and the main pace rival being hindered, Baffert being perceived as a puppet master, etc.--but I always thought the stewards did the right thing. The worst two dq's I ever saw were in the 1971 Woodward and the 1994 Big 'Cap. Had both Belmonte, in the former, and Solis, in the latter, just stayed down and ridden their horses rather than trying for an Oscar Award, their horses would have obtained their maximum placings. The winners were much, much the best in those races. Of course both incidents occurred in the stretch.
I think the stewards made the right call
i didn't bet the race,but i watched the replay
Quote from: curtis on July 18, 2016, 07:15:02 PM
Just because I'm a Chatterbox was affected by the bumping doesn't, in and of itself, mean there should be no change. The bumping was her own fault. It's a judgement call and she was, much the best. The stewards used similar logic when crafting their explanation which was that since the winner was affected, no change would be made. I don't have a real problem with her not coming down, but that explanation is utter nonsense. All the stewards had to say was that the incident did not alter the placings. Whether or not I'm a Chatterbox was compromised by it is totally irrelevant.
You are right and I agree if you cause the problem and are adversely affected that is a non-issue since you caused the problem. I did not mean to suggest that that was the reason that she should not be taken down. And this is actually part of the reason why I do not think that Bayern intentionally cut in on Shared Belief in the BC Classic despite many of the conspiracy theories out there. Bayern was wiped out of the Preakness Stakes because of a bump. The last thing the connections want to do is risk a similar incident in the BC Classic. So they would avoid contact at all costs. This shows how the contact does not always benefit the horse misbehaving. And, as you note, the explanation is sadly quite unprofessional.