Del Mar Online Racing Community
Chat about horses, racing, and the industry.
Talked to a rep at 5 Dimes yesterday afternoon and she told me there were three LARGE MAX wagers placed (offshore - doesn't affect the payoffs, but there is a limit on wagers placed at Beulah) on all others to show in that Beulah race.
They traced the wagers and she said,
"Vince, it didn't matter if that horse ran straight as an arrow the whole race - the stewards were taking him down no matter what."
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
Avatar: My cuzin Isaac Murphy - a jock I'm tying to emulate in character and winning percentage - almost 47% lifetime.
Probably a good time to warn you that Vince makes up 117% of the stuff he posts in here
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading."
-- Thomas Jefferson
And the other 83% are complete fabrications.
Thanks Vinny.Its refreshing to have solid reporters/posters here in our beloved forum. Well done.
The company running the North American pools did that, the Aussie totes and bookmakers all had 'place' (top 3 betting) on the race.
I should know, I was at Flemington that day.
Finally got a chance to look at this race from all angles.
Wow. What a great piece of tape. I must have watched it for 15 minutes. Here are some thoughts. IMO this was a very difficult call. Not even close to a "horrendous" DQ. Not even close.
Here are a few things to consider. First and I think the most important thing is #1 is ENTITLED to a clear an unobstructed path. From the gate and all the way though the better part of the 1st quarter mile he had that path. Passing the half mile pole that path no longer existed. Why? Because horses crossed over into that path? Or because he wasn't fast enough or ridden aggressively enough to maintain that position? In this case it think it's a little of both. There's a saying stewards use with the riders. " Get in or get out" The rider of #1 broke that cardinal rule by not committing to go all out for his position when he had the opportunity. Which is fine if you don't think you can get there. However if you don't go for it you must take hold and back out. He chose neither and put himself and his horse in an intimidating spot where nothing good was going to happen. Was it all his fault. Definitely not. There was clear and present pressure coming from his outside. Pressure that most assuredly was initiated by #6. Horses will naturally ease toward the inside when racing straight down the backstretch. Especially when there's a space between them. They'll "fill the hole" so to speak. #6 does this by coming from and outside position to the "tight" 3 path. This puts the rider on #5 in an impossible position. He's already totally "up in there" and must now deal with #6 making things tight. He must hope his horse is manageable and not shying from outside pressure and by far most importantly he must try to maintain his path and not drop #1. The jockey on #5 did a masterful job. A lesser ride and I think #1 goes down.
So what to do? I would have voted to allow the original order of finish to stand. No change. But believe me it would not have been an easy decision. Factors into that choice would be the margin of victory. The amount of lengths #1 finished behind and how many lengths it was from him to the next position at the finish.
I read the owners of the DQ'ed horse were very upset. They should be. At their jockey. What he did was extremely foolish and totally unnecessary. The horse seemed kind enough and easy to ride. Unless he was lugging in very badly, which I don't think he was based on a right handed stick approaching the quarter pole, there was absolutely no reason to make things that tight at any point. He HAS to know where he is and how much he has under him at all times. He keeps his horse in the four path until he clears into the far turn. He wins by only 10 or 11 and nobody is talking about this race. Terrible, terrible ride!
The suggestion there was corruption or collusion between the track and the stewards is utter nonsense.
As I said before I would have voted "as is". However, I couldn't at all fault a fellow judge that voted to DQ.
How much was wagered in the show pool?
$30,000. $28,000 of which was bet on #6.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests