DQ or no DQ you be the judge

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Horse racing is state regulated legalized gambling. The stewards are state officials appointed pursuant to state law. The bettors are entitled to stewards who are accountable to state officials.

Unless they want to hold betless exhibitions, this is non - negotiable.

Just curious since you follow the subject so closely.I do not follow the subject at all. Can you give us an example of the type of discipline the stewards have faced in a past incident from state officials, that demonstrates exactly how accountable they are. I am just curious how seriously the state official take there job of overseeing the actions of the stewards. I like to know our tax dollars are good for something. Something tells me that a set of stewards set up by the Breeders Cup and held accountable to the Breeders Cup would be far more unbiased and just than a set of local stewards anywhere.

By the way anything is negotiable. I am sure if the criterion for Califonia getting the Breeders Cup was Califonia(or any other state) having to use Breeders Cup appointed Stewards for the Breeders Cup races, it would take all of 7 seconds for that to be signed into law.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Just curious since you follow the subject so closely.I do not follow the subject at all. Can you give us an example of the type of discipline the stewards have faced in a past incident from state officials, that demonstrates exactly how accountable they are. I am just curious how seriously the state official take there job of overseeing the actions of the stewards. I like to know our tax dollars are good for something. Something tells me that a set of stewards set up by the Breeders Cup and held accountable to the Breeders Cup would be far more unbiased and just than a set of local stewards anywhere.

By the way anything is negotiable. I am sure if the criterion for Califonia getting the Breeders Cup was Califonia(or any other state) having to use Breeders Cup appointed Stewards for the Breeders Cup races, it would take all of 7 seconds for that to be signed into law.

If your implication is the accountability is theoretical and not actual, I agree.

But no way will any state give up the power to appoint the people who regulate gaming. That is a fundamental aspect of why we have legal gaming in the first place.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I don't care because it's not really here nor there. He spent the bulk of his career in New York and basically defamed the California stewards and falsely accused them of inconsistency on national television, when EVERYONE here (not just me) who goes to tracks in California agrees they called this one the same way they always do it.

Except that EVERYONE in CA doesn't agree ( I spoke to one yesterday, for instance ).

Just stop with your silly and inaccurate absolutes.

[Mineshaft]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Except that EVERYONE in CA doesn't agree ( I spoke to one yesterday, for instance ).

Just stop with your silly and inaccurate absolutes.

This thread is about if you believed there should be a DQ or not? If yall 2 want to argue about how long Mig was in Cali go start another thread about that. Stick to the subject at hand you got it ?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Mineshaft

This thread is about if you believed there should be a DQ or not? If yall 2 want to argue about how long Mig was in Cali go start another thread about that. Stick to the subject at hand you got it ?

I agree. Not one of Serling's posts talks about the the DQ (or not) its all crying over spilled milk, who cares when Mig rode in Cal, it has nothing to do with anything, least of all, this thread.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Maybe this point of view is not "appropriate", but I think a big part of the controversy is that Shared Belief was the FAVORITE and Moreno was the other quality speed.

Had Bayern played bumper cars with Prayer for Relief and Majestic Harbor, many of the people now saying he should have been DQ'd would not have as strong a view....

It's hard to come up with a better rule.

Something like a rule that only goes into effect when a horse bumps a top 5 public choice out of the gate sounds good in internet land(to some) but it would be hard to get right. Then you still have to include things like 20-1 shots who figure to be a huge pace factor. It's difficult to get a rule that really covers it without ending up back where we already are.

I may be biased, because I did bet Bayern and Tonalist and Social Inclusion to win.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

It's hard to come up with a better rule.

Something like a rule that only goes into effect when a horse bumps a top 5 public choice out of the gate sounds good in internet land(to some) but it would be hard to get right. Then you still have to include things like 20-1 shots who figure to be a huge pace factor. It's difficult to get a rule that really covers it without ending up back where we already are.

I may be biased, because I did bet Bayern and Tonalist and Social Inclusion to win.

I think the public choice stuff is some sort of a factor as its more likely that a favorite would have "gained more lengths" or a "higher placing" than a 50-1 shot and this is where handicapping comes in. Also, if we are going down this road, we also could consider how the interference affected the race shape.
If a steward wants to make the best possible decisions he or she can, isn't it a good idea to be an expert on the handicapping process and knowing the horses and their talents inside and out? I mean, it can't hurt to be an expert handicapper, right?

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

I think the public choice stuff is some sort of a factor as its more likely that a favorite would have "gained more lengths" or a "higher placing" than a 50-1 shot and this is where handicapping comes in. Also, if we are going down this road, we also could consider how the interference affected the race shape.
If a steward wants to make the best possible decisions he or she can, isn't it a good idea to be an expert on the handicapping process and knowing the horses and their talents inside and out? I mean, it can't hurt to be an expert handicapper, right?

I agree.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Oh, come on. What does Baffert have to hide? His jockey did all he could to straighten out the horse, for heaven's sake. Haven't you guys been listening to Cj?

Honestly, I was leaning towards CJ's take. I Think more damage was done when the outside horses came in and he is correct in saying you cannot punish Bayern for that. If I did not see that press conference posted by dark horse, I would not be so suspicious. But after what Baffert pulled with his other horse in Shared Belief's prior race, and seeing him muzzle Garcia, it seems to me that this was probably planned(looking for a little edge getting a jump on Moreno) knowing that the stewards do not take horses down in this situation. Obviously, he had no way of anticipating how much it would affect the other horses. I am still waiting for someone to give me a rational explanation on why he wanted to muzzle Garcia. He obviously was covering something up.

That is the problem when you let stuff go. People can take shots. That is why you have to enforce the rules no matter what the situation is and there probably needs to be more clarity and universal rules for these situations. This type of behavior if intentional can be extremely dangerous.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Honestly, I was leaning towards CJ's take. I Think more damage was done when the outside horses came in and he is correct in saying you cannot punish Bayern for that. If I did not see that press conference posted by dark horse, I would not be so suspicious. But after what Baffert pulled with his other horse in Shared Belief's prior race, and seeing him muzzle Garcia, it seems to me that this was probably planned(looking for a little edge getting a jump on Moreno) knowing that the stewards do not take horses down in this situation. Obviously, he had no way of anticipating how much it would affect the other horses. I am still waiting for someone to give me a rational explanation on why he wanted to muzzle Garcia. He obviously was covering something up.

That is the problem when you let stuff go. People can take shots. That is why you have to enforce the rules no matter what the situation is and there probably needs to be more clarity and universal rules for these situations. This type of behavior if intentional can be extremely dangerous.

Victor would never throw bob under the bus, but i wonder if he floated SB out wide like that per instructions.

Also, a way to think about SB getting floated out very wide in the previous race, why would Victor, on his own, intentionally lose much ground in Turn 1? He's not that smart.

I'm sure its pretty easy to see what the precedent is for Baffert and riders and if he gives out instructions and is a control freak, or he's likely to tell Garcia and Espinoza nothing at all except good luck.

I can't imagine that guy is just giving legs up and saying nothing, but i'm sure its easy to find out if you ask some jocks, off the record, who have ridden for Baffert.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Victor would never throw bob under the bus, but i wonder if he floated SB out wide like that per instructions.

Also, a way to think about SB getting floated out very wide in the previous race, why would Victor, on his own, intentionally lose much ground in Turn 1? He's not that smart.

I'm sure its pretty easy to see what the precedent is for Baffert and riders and if he gives out instructions and is a control freak, or he's likely to tell Garcia and Espinoza nothing at all except good luck.

I can't imagine that guy is just giving legs up and saying nothing, but i'm sure its easy to find out if you ask some jocks, off the record, who have ridden for Baffert.

Stretch Armstrong type reach. Espinoza had plenty of reasons that had nothing to do with Baffert in wanting to see Shared Belief lose. Here are two:

1) California
2) Chrome.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

Stretch Armstrong type reach. Espinoza had plenty of reasons that had nothing to do with Baffert in wanting to see Shared Belief lose. Here are two:

1) California
2) Chrome.

It might be a reach, but only insiders and jocks who have ridden for Baffert know if he's ever given out those types of instructions. Its entirely possible VE was on his own, i'm not privy to know what BB tells his jocks before races.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by cj

Stretch Armstrong type reach. Espinoza had plenty of reasons that had nothing to do with Baffert in wanting to see Shared Belief lose. Here are two:

1) California
2) Chrome.

Then there's the other side of the conspiracy coin - Baffert.

Would he sacrifice lesser lights Sky Kingdom and Fed Biz
for potentially bigger gains down the road?

It was pretty obvious that Fed Biz wasn't the same
horse after his exertions against Shared Belief.

Pawns in the chess game?

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

I may be biased, because I did bet Bayern and Tonalist and Social Inclusion to win.

Shared Belief

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

It might be a reach, but only insiders and jocks who have ridden for Baffert know if he's ever given out those types of instructions. Its entirely possible VE was on his own, i'm not privy to know what BB tells his jocks before races.

It is anyone's guess what Victor Espinoza's instructions were prior to the Awesome Again Stakes (when he carried Social Inclusion way out).

I do not think that in the Breeders Cup Classic, that Baffert would have instructed a bump-n-run strategy. He's got a top speed horse, and he has confidence in his horse. Trying that BS would be very risky in terms of knocking his own horse (Bayern) out as well. I think he was prepared to give it his best shot in the Classic vs. Moreno up front and make Shared Belief prove that he could beat Grade I runners.

Speculation in the Classic itself seems silly.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Shared Belief



It is anyone's guess what Victor Espinoza's instructions were prior to the Awesome Again Stakes (when he carried Social Inclusion way out).

I do not think that in the Breeders Cup Classic, that Baffert would have instructed a bump-n-run strategy. He's got a top speed horse, and he has confidence in his horse. Trying that BS would be very risky in terms of knocking his own horse (Bayern) out as well. I think he was prepared to give it his best shot in the Classic vs. Moreno up front and make Social Inclusion prove that he could beat Grade I runners.

Speculation in the Classic itself seems silly.

But he could have told the guy get the horse out as fast as possible and start angling over immediately. I can't imagine he's going to instruct the guy to crash into horses on purpose, but telling the guy to angle over immediately is a more believable scenario, if he told him anything at all.

Is it possible that Baffert would have said absolutely nothing at all to Garcia and just said good luck? Mike Smith would know, he's ridden the BCC for Baffert on a speed horse, he knows what goes on in those little paddock talks.