03/06/2011 12:32AM

Big ’Cap no DQ

Email

Stewards screwed up by not disqualifying the winner of the Santa Anita Handicap.

“Total bull-….,” one trainer said.

Stewards made the right call by letting the order of finish stand.

“If you’re unsure, don’t change it,” said another observer.

No middle ground allowed. Split decision? Majority rule.

Steward Kim Sawyer voted to disqualify the Big ’Cap winner for causing interference at the top of the stretch. Tom Ward and Scott Chaney voted to let the result stand.

By a 2-1 vote, the Big ’Cap was declared official 12 minutes after Game on Dude, Setsuko and Quindici Man finished one-two-three. Twirling Candy had an impossible trip and finished fifth. His coronation as best horse in America must wait for another day.

In the meantime, there will be plenty to debate.

At the top of the stretch in the Big ’Cap, there were three across the track – Game on Dude inside, Twirling Candy between, and Setsuko outside.

What happened next, and how stewards ruled, is the source of controversy.

It initially appeared Game on Dude drifted out under left-hand whipping, which squeezed Twirling Candy. He steadied and dropped out.

Setsuko, on the outside, got bumped hard in the chain reaction. He took all the worst of it. On that account, the three stewards agreed.

“We held (Setsuko) blameless, and he was clearly interfered with,” Chaney said. “So the question was, who’s to blame – the inside horse (Game on Dude) or the middle horse (Twirling Candy)?”

If the middle horse (Twirling Candy) was to blame, there could be no change because Twirling Candy finished behind Setsuko. But if stewards ruled it was winner Game on Dude that caused the interference, then he would have to come down.

“(Twirling Candy) initiated contact,” Chaney stated. “Our determination was (Game on Dude) maintained a straight course.”

That view was shared by Chaney and Ward, who said Twirling Candy came in and bumped first with Game on Dude. In their opinion, it was Twirling Candy that instigated it all. Game on Dude subsequently came back out, but Chaney said “it’s really Twirling Candy that caused the ping-ponging.”

Meanwhile, Sawyer held that Twirling Candy and Game on Dude were both at fault. She believed their mutual ricochet forced Twirling Candy to knock into Setsuko.

“Twirling Candy and (Game on Dude) I felt had equal contact, and (Setsuko) was the one that got bothered,” Sawyer said. “I think they came in, and out, equal amounts and they bumped into (Setsuko).”

Sawyer would have disqualified Game on Dude and placed him second, behind Setsuko. Twirling Candy, because he finished behind those two, would not be penalized.

Game on Dude’s trainer Bob Baffert reached stewards by phone while they debated. “They wouldn’t talk to me,” he said. Baffert was asked what he wanted to say to the stewards. “What did I want to say? I can’t remember.”

For better or worse, the 2011 Big ‘Cap is one few will ever forget.

Frank E. Kilroe recap

Fluke and Caracortado were separated by a head in the fastest turf mile of the meet (1:33.50). The difference was explained by winning jockey Rafael Bejarano.

“I stayed on the rail and waited,” he said. Bejarano kept Fluke ($7.40) fifth on the rail in the strung-out field. The outcome was decided by Bejarano’s decision at the quarter pole.

Rather than swing to the outside, Bejarano cut the corner with Fluke. That left only one option. He would have to rally inside horses in the stretch, scraping paint past tired rivals. That can be a tough spot.

On the far turn, jockey Joe Talamo had positioned Caracortado directly right behind Fluke. Into the stretch, Talamo swung Caracortado outside for a clear run.

That was the difference. When Caracortado swung outside, Fluke cut the corner and gained instant separation from his rival, at least two lengths.

Both horses finished. Fluke found a seam along the rail; Caracortado split horses outside. Caracortado had all the momentum, but Fluke would not let him by.

It was a good race by two good turf milers who are likely to meet again. Lost in the Kilroe shuffle was an outstanding comeback by Acclamation. He was hounded through an insane pace, stuck in to inside the eighth pole, and tired to fifth.

Acclamation, a Grade 1 winner, is back. He will be a California force in the spring-summer turf stakes.

Santa Anita Oaks recap

It sure was refreshing to hear a winning trainer offer objective, critical analysis after a Grade 1.

Turbulent Descent ($4) was fully extended to win the mile and a sixteenth Santa Anita Oaks, after which a candid Mike Puype crossed off the Kentucky Oaks from her list of objectives.

“She’s going to need to cut back in distance,” Puype said. “We were maxed out at a mile and a sixteenth today.” He said Turbulent Descent (4-for-5) was likely to aim toward one-turn races in New York including the Acorn at Belmont and Test at Saratoga.

The frank assessment by Puype makes sense. Turbulent Descent won the Oaks in a moderate 1:41.05 with a perfect trip behind a slow pace.

The grinding finish by runner-up Zazu was okay. She should run on. It was five and one-half lengths back to third place A Z Warrior, racing for the first time in four months. A Z Warrior also may aim for a sprint campaign later this spring in New York.

The filly distance division was shallow this winter; California’s leading Kentucky Oaks hope was out most of the season. She is Dan Hendricks-trained Rigoletta, winner of the Oak Leaf last fall and fifth in a good recent comeback sprint. Rigoletta will stretch out for her next start, expected to be March 12 the Grade 3 Honeybee Stakes at Oaklawn Park.
 

luresdouble More than 1 year ago
Stewards absolutely made the correct call. You do not take down a horse unless it is clearly evident that they initiated an infraction, and the tape indicates that Game on Dude's troubles were the result of being sideswiped from slightly behind by Twirling Candy. Setsuko also was not blameless as the stewards claim. Espinoza clearly leaned him in on Twirling Candy at the top of the stretch, attempting to cut the corner and intimidate him, Twirling Candy then shied to the inside and then struck Game on Dude, effectively sideswiping him which led to the pinball effect. At the sixteenth pole Setsuko was actually in the lead and Espinoza then attempted his second act of intimidation by slowly and steadily attempting to ride Game on Dude in toward the rail. The best horse won and the interference was all initiated by Setsuko and Twirling Candy. When a horse gets sideswiped like Game on Dude did they usually do not just recover their balance in a single stride or two, anyone who has ever actually ridden a horse knows that. I know because I used to outride at Santa Anita and Hollywood Park. Correct no call was made.
wood More than 1 year ago
You have to watch the head-on view. The first bump was minor, Twirling Candy's right side on Setsuko's left. That sends Twirling Candy to his left, toward Game on Dude, and then they bump. When Twirling Candy and Game on Dude first bump, it completely knocks Game on Dude off balance, he loses his legs right out from under him. So Game on Dude corrects to his right to get his feet back, and that's when Game on Dude really smashes into Twirling Candy hard. So who's fault was it? The horse who started some minor bumping. Or the horse that got bumped, but then totally smashes into the horse that bumped it. I think it was Twirling Candy's. Rosario is trying to sqeeze threw a hole and there was one there, but once he makes contact with Game on Dude, because he was bouncing off Setsuko, its his fault. Game on Dude clearly smashes into Twirling Candy a lot harder, but Game on Dude did not start the bumping.
Dave More than 1 year ago
The stewards (two of them, anyway) got it right. Twirling Candy made first contact, started the demolition derby himself. Everything else is academic.
Del More than 1 year ago
It's kind of interesting that last year in the Santa Anita Derby, Lookin at Lucky was cut off by Who's Up, which was ridden by Espinoza. Baffert received the short end of the stick on that one. This year it's Espinoza who got the raw deal. Who's Up wasn't a serious contender in that race and finished well back. Baffert couldn't be compensated on that one. I feel the stewards made it up to him. Problem is Setsuko is the innocent player and would have won the race if not for getting injured. That horse is a runner. Watch him in last years Santa Anita Derby, it was on April 3. You can see the replay on Calracing.com.
tony More than 1 year ago
However they finish on the track that is the way it should stand ... The stewards could still their jobs and hand out fines/days for infractions as they do now for out-of-the-money situations, and we would not have this situation. It gives the sport a bad feel. A 12-minute inquiry is ridiculous.
SamG More than 1 year ago
I thought it was a very tough call. Even if it was wrong, saying it was a horrible call or "the worst call ever" is an overeaction. I saw it the same as TonyTonto ... How much whipping had to do with it I'm not sure but I think it's time to get rid of the whips. Too many times horses interfere while trying to get away from the whip and I'm sure the whipping turns off some would-be fans. Getting rid of them would be some instant good publicity for a sport that sorely needs it.
J.C. Conway More than 1 year ago
Didn't have a dime bet, but anyone says Game on Dude drifted out either had a bet on another horse or needs their eyes examined. All three horses were in unison around the turn and the centdf horse ran into the hind quarter of Game on Dude. Don't look at the horses, look at the track and their feet. The center horse came in on the hind quarter of Game on Dude. Simple as that.
Del More than 1 year ago
A picture doesn't lie. Sutherland came out two lanes. Use the paved portion along the rail as a reference. The stewards were simply wrong.
Gene F. More than 1 year ago
if you watch the slow-mo head on frame by frame, the very first contact is where Setsuko comes in slightly and hits Twirling Candy on the shoulder ... just a split second after that ... Twirling Candy in and clearly bumps Game on Dude's hind quarters which causes Game on Dude to turn right as if knocked off balance and then bumped hard with Twirling Candy and Setsuko. Many times horses are carried wide entering the stretch and as long as no one checks all is good ... it was a rough few seconds but I have seen a lot worse in 40 years that didn't even get a stewards' inquiry ... maybe only a jock's objection and they seldom win those ... just my opinion but it wasn't the worst call I've seen ... not by a long shot.
philly More than 1 year ago
Game on Dude changing paths at a critical moment (instructions to whip left-handed only) initiated the contact. Trevor had it right, stewards got it totally wrong. We'll never know if Twirling Candy had enough in the tank as he never got a chance after being pinballed. It was a debacle and the decision a disgrace. Thank God for the athletic ability of Joel Rosario and Twirling Candy for not going down ...
GunBow More than 1 year ago
I thought that Game on Dude did come out slightly on the turn, but there wasn't contact. The first contact was between Twirling Candy and Setsuko. Twirling Candy then drifted in, bumping Game on Dude. Then, it gets murky. There is no question in my mind that after being bumped by Twirling Candy, Game on Dude came back into Twirling Candy. Call it a "correction" or adjustment" or "overcompensation," but after being bumped by Twirling Candy, Game on Dude veered sharply to his right, even turning his head that way, while drifting back out into Twirling Candy who then bumped a faultless Setsuko. As Game on Dude was drifitng out into Twirling Candy (who himself was drifting right), Chantal was whipping Game on Dude left handed, something which visually did not help Game on Dude's case. So, I agree Twirling Candy initiated the contact with Game on Dude, but does that then allow Game on Dude to "adjust" to such a degree that he smacks into Twirling Candy so hard that it knocks him into Setsuko? Frankly, I don't know the rules well enough. Bejarano was the difference in the Kilroe. Fluke and Caracortado are nice milers, as is third-place finisher Jeranimo. For those that think Sidney's Candy would have spanked these horses in the Kilroe, you are either underestimating these three very good turf horses or overrating Sidney. The Santa Anita Oaks was a solid race, and I can't disagree with Puype's decision to keep Turbulent Descent at a mile or seven furlongs. As for Zazu, the nine furlongs of the Kentucky Oaks is probably stretching things, but I think she has earned the opportunity. I loved her gallop out. Finally, how about (Sunday winner) Misremembered? I know it was a perfect set-up for him, but he still looked fantastic, and he is already proven at the Grade 1 level at a classic distance. In my opinion, Baffert has the two best handicap horses on the West Coast in Game on Dude and Misremembered.
Gene F. More than 1 year ago
I agree ... Setsuko definitely made first contact looking at the head-on ...
erv More than 1 year ago
The only bad thing was Baffert calling the stewards during the review. Watch the tapes, talk to the jockeys. The trainers need not stick their two cents in.
Avatar More than 1 year ago
In agreement with Keith and Big Tony here ... Sutherland was far from clear of Twirling Candy when she veered out near the head of the stretch. The one positive on what I consider to be the worst running (in terms of safety and result) of the Big 'Cap is that despite the collective ineptitude of riding by Sutherland, Rosario and Espinoza there were no fatalities. I've seen "more professional" close-quarter riding .. by bug boys ... at Los Alamitos and Fairplex than was demonstrated at Santa Anita Saturday by (the three jockeys). Had these three ridden safely, there would have been no "pinball" event.
PTWoodman More than 1 year ago
I selected Setsuko to win the Big Cap (in a contest), so you can guess how I feel about the results. It is not that easy to select a horse at those odds (25.90-1) and choose to place him on top. "We held (Setsuko) blameless, and he was clearly interfered with,” Chaney said. “So the question was, who’s to blame – the inside horse (Game on Dude) or the middle horse (Twirling Candy)?” How about both? That is, both Game on Dude and Twirling Candy? What prevents them from making a logical decision like that? I listen to Scott Chaney often enough on the HRTV steward-related interviews to get a sense of how the stewards at Santa Anita operate. It seems to me that they are too often guilty of misinterpretation when they attempt to decide the psychological effect on the horse(s) when bumping and intimidation occurs during a race. They ride a "slippery slope" when they try to quantify the effects in terms of "hypothetical placement." The mental workings of horses are no less easy to understand than that of the human being. Years ago when the "Rules of Racing" (American Racing Manual) were adhered to a little more strictly by most stewards, there was much less controversy. My contention is that there was less "grumbling and disagreement" from the racing public, too. The ARM clearly defined "racing paths" and interference in easily understood terms. On our roads, cars routinely are running red traffic lights as frequently as they once traversed through yellow ones. Similarly, where horses were once disqualified for "taking the clearly defined paths of others" they are now permitted to "bump and knock each other" off stride with absolute immunity. Just as everything else in life changes, so has the permissive attitude with regard to what qualifies as "interference" by the majority of stewards throughout the land. In my opinion stewards (in most jurisdictions) have made their lives a lot more complicated and pressure-filled than they need be. I suggest everyone review what constitutes the rules in their respective jurisdictions. It seems to me that the racing industry as a whole could begin to fulfill its desire to promote the sport by clearly defining and refining a nationally consistent set of racing rules. We the fans of this great sport (who pay the way) deserve no less.
Jon Mills More than 1 year ago
Concerning the Santa Anita Handicap, I want to begin by stating that I am located in Kentucky and happened to drop by a (local) track in order to place a wager that singled Fluke in the pick three and daily double. Therefore, by holding a winning ticket no matter the outcome, I feel that I can be most objective. In my 40-plus years of being a bettor, I cannot recall the total disbelief and disgust of a crowd that I witnessed (after the race was official). Most certainly, I have witnessed dozens of horses taken down for instances of much more meager circumstances. Horrible, just horrible! Although I will continue to participate, the number of days and the amount that I wager will be much more limited. And, racetrack officials, owners, wonder why attendance, wagering, etc. is down. Here is a perfect example and wake-up call.
Rick More than 1 year ago
You don't get to float a horse out on the turn into another horse and then claim you were in your own path after the chain reaction you cause almost drops another jock. That is why the stewards' decision was flat out wrong. And if Sutherland doesn't get days for continuing to whip left-handed (and only avoiding an epic tragedy by virtue of her luck and Rosario's balance), I wouldn't blame the other jocks if they refused to ride until the stewards were replaced. Espinoza was rightfully livid in his postrace comments.
Steve T More than 1 year ago
Glad to see all the New York (fans) doing what they do best, whining about racing in California. Give it a rest, if you don't like it go elsewhere.
Johnny Bwell More than 1 year ago
Seeing the Big 'Cap was real irritating to me. Setsuko injured his left front leg because of the contact and nothing changes. It makes no sense. The stewards are running a popularity contest, IMO. I don't bet California anymore and the Big 'Cap was a good reminder why.
TonyTonto More than 1 year ago
I saw this a bit differently than many viewers. As they came out of the turn into the stretch, Twirling Candy came out ever so slightly, making slight contact with Setsuko. From this contact, he came in and made slight contact with Game on Dude (who may also have come out slightly). This contact caused Game on Dude to come back out and then push Twirling Candy back into Setsuko. From there, TC was pinballed and the other two kept running. Setsuko took the lead after the incident and then was passed back by Game on Dude. So I think Twirling Candy initiated his own problems. And as he was rank early in the race and was not going to win. Setsuko may have been least lucky but he had every chance to win the race after the incident and did not. In fact, Game on Dude seems to almost fall so it's not like he got off without any challenge. Since I did not have money on the race, I feel like my viewpoint is less biased than some. I think the stewards got it right by putting Game on Dude behind Twirling Candy would have been unfair. Setsuko still had a chance to win and did not.
morton erskine More than 1 year ago
Baffert has no business trying to talk to the stewards unless they want to talk to him.
Rolo More than 1 year ago
This ... decision by Scott Chaney and Tom Ward is ludicrous. Had the roles of Setsuko and Game on Dude been reversed, Setsuko would have been taken down immediately and Baffert's horse declared the winner. This was nothing but pure politics and Santa Anita management should be ashamed. View the equally ridiculous call made on the take down of Powerscourt in the 2004 Breeders Cup Turf he never touched a horse but was taken down for crossing the path of Kissin 'Kris. Europeans were aghast at that blantly biased call. That horrible call has now been supplanted by the decision to leave Game on Dude declared the winner in the Santa Anita Handicap. The loud chorus of boos was for the lack of decency and sense of fair play and sportsmanship.
LarrY D More than 1 year ago
While I understand the winner of the Santa Anita Handicap (should be) determined on the track, and not in the stewards' booth , the Stewards got this one wrong. The winner did not stay in his path into the the stretch turn and put the favorite in tight quarters between horses. Then when the jckey of the winner hit her horse left handed, it further encroached outward into the favorite and smacked other horse not once but twice . After 12 minutes of repeated views of the incident on the monitor, I thought that the sewards were reluctantly going to place the winner behind the favorite. It became evident after numerous replays that the winner mugged and mauled his way through the top of the stretch and a disqualification was unavoidable. This was the worst non-call i can remember in my 30 years of attending the races.
David A. More than 1 year ago
This is one case where the head-on shot doesn't tell the full story. You can clearly see that Game on Dude was the first horse to turn sideways, and the pan shot shows that Twirling Candy made contact with his flank, just as Chantal Sutherland said post-race. Setsuko didn't help things by putting Twirling Candy in close quarters and continuing to drift in throughout the stretch run, but he was not at fault. Really, the bottom line is that Twirling Candy didn't lose the race because of the bumping incident. He lost the race around the first turn when he just looked upset with being in behind horses. You can't get a mile and a quarter when you lose your cool in the first half-mile.
moe More than 1 year ago
Espinoza's horse came in on Twirling Candy to try to squeeze him off. Twirling Candy then bumped into Game on Dude, almost causing him to go down. This caused Game on Dude to turn sideways knocking Twirling Candy back into Setsuko. Setsuko also came in on Game On Dude later in the stretch. Setsuko should have been disqualified ...
Fred Pankratius More than 1 year ago
Absolutey terrible call at a racetrack that has seen more than a few bad calls. It took 12 minutes to do nothing. Abysmal call.
William Hoy More than 1 year ago
Bad call or not, if you took Twirling Candy to win you are bitter because you believed you had a sure bet. I truly feel bad for the supporters of Setsuko, who were robbed. This will not destroy the game, it will make it stronger. The stewards will be held more accountable and the tracks will add more views, they will tighten training. It happens every day in professional sports. Take the good with the bad, it is the sad reality all sports fans have to learn. So take your bitter pill and move on, we all have to swallow our share of them and that is the part of sports that keeps us coming back.
John S More than 1 year ago
Forget the bumping for a second. If Setsuko runs in a straight line down the stretch, he would have beaten Game on Dude to the wire and this would all be a moot point. Instead the horse continued to drift in well after the incident with Twirling Candy, and probably lost enough ground to let Game on Dude finish in front and create all this controversy. There's plenty of blame to go around on this one, but perhaps Victor Espinoza should shoulder some of the blame for his ride on Setsuko.
Nancy Taylor More than 1 year ago
Guess they have annointed Bob Baffert an honorary steward now. He already has influence over how the racetrack is tailor-made for his early speed types - The Factor, Always A Princess, et al. The two judges who came with the fairy tale that blamed Sidney's Candy for the interference (were incorrect). The winner came out about four or five lanes from the turn under too many left-handed whips, while the pair on the outside were both bothered. Everybody hates for the best horse to come down, but this was blatant and the favorite was clearly denied a better placing.
Del More than 1 year ago
The reason why there is so much agreement on this subject is there were two different incidents. Coming into the stretch, Sutherland had passed horses and was assuming the rail position. What she did was cut throught the first lane and then proceed out into the third lane. If you watch the available replays, she ends up where Setsuko was initially. The reason that it is so obvious is there is a path around the rail that is paved by the tractors. Use this as a reference. Sutherland went out two lanes forcing Candy into Setsuko. Rosario saw this coming and held up enough so that he only bumped Setsuko. This is the move that cost Candy a placement. This is why there was so much hostility. After this, Rosario somehow caused his horse to kick inward and bump the Dude. So Candy is derailed, between horses, one of the worst positions. Sutherland scored a coup. She took the rail, was allowed to come out two lanes, bump and pinch the closing horse, and then have two stewards blame it all on Rosario. I thought it was understood that when you take the inner path, you have the advantage of running a shorter distance but have the duty to stay in your lane.
Blaine More than 1 year ago
The blog has nothing to do with whether Twirling Candy could have won or if he can win a Grade 1 at 10 furlongs. The question is whether or not the winner Game on Dude caused interference during the stretch run of the 2011 Santa Anita Handicap. The head-on replay clearly shows that under left-handed encouragement, Game on Dude did in fact bump Twirling Candy who bumped eventual runner-up Setsuko. Was Game on Dude a more determined competitor than Setsuko after the incident? Absolutely. However, that is not the issue.
Brian Goodspeed More than 1 year ago
The left hand use of the whip caused Game On Dude to drift out. It ought to be evident, that Game on Dude attempted to move away from the sting of the whip. Yes, Twirling Candy drifted in for a moment, but Game on Dude's contact had more of an impact. How two stewards could not get it right, and one steward got it right is another clear example how some people see things as they are not as they hope it to be. Secondly, accepting any phone call during the process of deciding an inquiry is strange. All the tools needed to make a decision ought to be in the booth. A call out from the booth is one thing, but to accept one during the critical moment is something else.
robert poulos More than 1 year ago
Don't soft-sell everything. It was a horrific call. Just say it.
Blaine More than 1 year ago
The problem with the stewards' decision is it centered around a flawed analytical premise. I saw Twirling Candy initiate the bumping by brushing Setsuko. If Twirling Candy in turn bumped Game On Dude, which isn't how I saw it, does that give Sutherland the right to smack Game On Dude left-handed and slam him into Twirling Candy who in turn impeded Setsuko? This is all I want to rationalize. In other words, am I to understand that because Horse A (Twirling Candy) bumped Horse B (Game on Dude) it's okay for Horse B to retaliate and hit Horse A and clearly impede Horse C (Setsuko)? The fans didn't just boo because they were turned off by the rodeo-like racing during the stretch run of the Big 'Cap. They're even more upset because every day stewards disqualify horses in condition races for far less than what happened in the meet's signature event. Not fair.
Jim Miller More than 1 year ago
I couldn't disagree more. While one trainer may have said "Total bull...," I am hearing others (including announcers, ex-jockeys) hold entirely the opposite view - just ask around. Let's leave the track politics and the "he said, she said" opinions out of it and just stick to the viewable facts. 1) No. 11 Game on Dude was under hard left hand whipping and, as a result, did cause all or a great part of the "chain reaction" that the stewards acknowledged created interference with No. 6 Setsuko, severely compromising his chances as evidenced by their quote, “We held (Setsuko) blameless, and he was clearly interfered with.” 2) This leaves the "phantom" backside (flank) bump (that incidentally is not viewable) that Bob and his jockey state caused the reaction. I will humor you on this point and pretend this mysterious bump did occur. However, after "the bump" it clearly shows No. 11 and No. 5 (Twirling Candy) were separated and the continued left hand whipping of the No. 11 caused the horse to "shift out" as Trevor indicated on his original call. Keep in mind the No. 11 was not on the rail - closer the to the 3 or 4 path by all accounts. This shifting out caused the chain reaction that cost the No. 6 the race by most accounts. The stew's conveniently forgot to address the left hand whipping and the shifting out. To hold the No. 11 blameless is ludicrous. This undoubtedly will go down as the worst decision in memory with all due respects to Mr. Bernstein and The Wicked North and I, for one, have had a "belly full" of Santa Anita - a track that I once held in high esteem.
Felix Jakubowski More than 1 year ago
(This) report is slanted and left out vital info from the three jocks involved. Trainers involved had no comment and rightfully so, jocks should show their professionalism and not make inflammatory comments. Game on Dude ran the race of his life and got a class ride from the jockey and maintained his lane of travel. Review the race film and watch all the trouble Twirling Candy got into, especially in the early part of the race. Rosario is much better than that. Glad that no one got seriously hurt, and wow, this was a very good race, just shows the nuances of this particular track ... sub two-minute mile and a quarter.
rdorff WmzZtRZM More than 1 year ago
I've been going to the races since 1946 and had horses of my own. Kim Sawyer had it right! At the head of the lane, Chantal (Sutherland) came out, hit (Game on Dude) mount left-handed, driving him in to Twirling Candy, which pushed him into Setsuko. When 'Candy bounced off him, Chantal came out even further and smacked 'Candy again. It wasn't that hard a call. Ward and the other steward need glasses or a trip back to Steward's school.
Lisa More than 1 year ago
I quit betting Santa Anita several years ago over (stewards') bad calls, so I had no horse in this race. And I never believed Twirling Candy would win at 10 furlongs. That said, I thought it was yet another predictably horrid call at that track. Somebody should keep stats on how often Baffert prevails in Santa Anita inquiries. In recent years it seems his horses are rarely, if ever, taken down even in cases of obvious interference. And to the person who said (to the effect) that this bad call was justified because Twirling Candy interfered in the Del Mar race but wasn't taken down, that is pure BS ... the (stewards) don't get to retry him because they disagree with another jurisdiction's verdict. And Richard Mandella's horse suffered the most from yesterday's bad call. So ... justice was not served.
Ron More than 1 year ago
Horrible call. Worst stewards decision I've ever seen.
RoMo More than 1 year ago
It sure is a strange call from the stewards. Setsuko plainly comes in on Twirling Candy coming out of the turn, starting the bumping. Then Twirling Candy into Gameon Dude. Setsuko further comes in on Game on Dude late in the stretch, as if bumping the chalk was not enough. So to eye of most ... saw it as a "no call" on the wrong horse. What race where they watching?
Alfonso cuomo More than 1 year ago
They should fire those stewards ... for making a joke of a great game.
rolo More than 1 year ago
Horrible call by the two stewards who voted to keep Game on Dude the winner. No one who witnessed this travesty at my track thought he would be declared the winner and were actually stunned when he was. Worst call I've seen in horse racing since Powerscourt was taken down in the 2004 Breeders' Cup Turf and he didn't even touch another horse. Several European owners at that time stated they'd never return to the States after that horrible call. Well, it has finally been topped by the (stewards) at Santa Anita.
Gino More than 1 year ago
I thought the inside horse (Game on Dude) initiated the contact at first but during the replay, the two stewards made the right decision. The winner was clear on the turn until Setsuko (6) bumped into Twirling Candy (5) and as a result hit the winning horse and the pinball effect went on.
Jimmy H More than 1 year ago
As a bettor, all I asked is to be treated fairly. Disqualify me when I deserve it and put me up when I deserve it. The sport has a lot of issues with (medication), short fields and high takeout. Steward integrity now is just another black eye. Eventually, the bettors get fustrated and find another avenue for their money. I'm wondering if the (winning connections) connections were less high profile, would the result have stood. A trainer can always threaten to move his horses out and squeeze the track that is already short of horses.
Alex More than 1 year ago
I believe the stewards got it right. Looking at the head-on shot, they both kind of ran into each other. Also it looks like for a brief moment Setsuko takes the lead by a nose about a sixteenth from the wire, but Game on Dude fights back and gallops out much better. Setsuko had his chance but Game on Dude was the better horse today.
Big Jeff More than 1 year ago
Game on Dude was already a half-length clear when he was bumped by Twirling Candy. This was clearly visible to all who those with an objective opinion. There was nothing "phantom" about it. Game on Dude's supposed "retaliation and reaction to left handed whipping" was the result of the horse regaining his balance and correcting himself. I was live to Setsuko in the double and would have been thrilled to see him win. He did take a beating but the stewards made the right call. Congratulations to the connections and especially to Chantal Sutherland. She gave the horse a great ride and should be very proud of her accomplishment. And to those of you who thought Twirling Candy could get a mile and a quarter enough to support him at odds-on, well ... now you know.
Big Tony More than 1 year ago
There is absolutely no camera angle that shows Game on Dude was a half-length clear when he was allegedly bumped.
Dylan More than 1 year ago
The decision on behalf of the stewards to allow the original result to stand in the Big 'Cap was absolutely the correct decision. I agree with the two stewards, Twirling Candy in essence "tripped" Game On Dude and he ducked out slightly to prevent himself from falling. On the replay it is clear his hind legs, drift to the left, which causes him to veer right slightly to keep balance, and not fall. If he had not done that, he could have fallen, and there could have been a major spil. (Winning jockey Chantal) Sutherland rode a brilliant race, and made history becoming the first female jockey to win the Big 'Cap. However the hstory, the excitement of the race, and the drama, and the fun was quickly ruined by the inconsiderate and outright dumb crowd who elected to boo incessantly as the historic march into the Winners' Circle was made. For me, it completely ruined the excitement of the race and moment, and the fun watching. If those crowd members wanted to boo something it should have been their poor handicapping skills, for relying on a heavy favorite in a race that doesn't often see the odd-on choice win. Add to that, remember Twirling Candy's run in the Del Mar Derby where he sharply interfered with a rival with no consequence, and this decision just seems ever more clear to be the right one. I for one, had the winner picked and was ecstatic to see the right choice made, I went to cash my tickets while the sore losers in the crowd who dared to ruin the exciting moment, cried boo. But what a race it was and a thrill to be there in person.
Keith More than 1 year ago
The integrity of the sport is highly in question ... ... (it was) one of the most historic races at Santa Anita, and one of the worst outcomes from an inquiry. I frankly don't trust (the stewards') judgement. If they make this kind of call on a Grade I race, what will they do on a lesser race? There are other ways for wagering and Santa Anita won't be one of them. The takeout is outrageous ... winning is harder and harder. The real winner is the track (house). They keep screwing us and we thank them and move on. Baffert used a jockey his wife pushed him into using ... (Chantal Sutherland) totally screwed up what could have been a great race. One of my favorite races of the year is the Santa Anita Derby ... this year I will watch without investing one dollar. People are catching on to California racing with small fields and huge takeouts. Have fun playing them if you must I will not. I don't care that the favorite won or didn't, it is what was an obvious call ... (The stewards) let stand a horse who in nine out of 10 tracks would be moved to fourth way before the 12-minute delay.
Keith More than 1 year ago
This has to be the lowest day for horse racing. Last year Zenyatta got Horse of the Year over Blame, and now this. It was very obvious what happened in the race as I watched it live and then the repeated replays. I then watched the replay again several hours later just to be sure of what I thought. I think the same thing now as I did when watching what the stewards saw. Trevor when calling the race had it right ... Game on Dude shifted (out). If you watch the replay when the horses turn for home and they are three wide with Game on Dude on the inside. Chantal Sutherland hit the horse with her whip with the left hand hard which anyone who has been around racing knows that this causes the horse to go opposite of the hit which in this case Game on Dude took a sharp right hitting Twirling Candy as they appoached the quarter pole. The bull that the stewards said Twirling Candy came in ... really ticks me off. I have been watching and wagering on horses for over 30 years and never remember such an incorrect and obvious result from an inquiry. There have been inquiries before that can be questioned but nothing on this magnitude. I lost all respect for Santa Anita today.
EC More than 1 year ago
Twirling Candy clearly came down into Game on Dude. You can see Rosario almost steer him into Chantal's horse. She looked to be at fault because of the left-hand whip. But on further review, you can clearly see Rosario initiates the contact. And I lost a lot of money with Twirling Candy off the board, like many others. No change was the right call.
taxman More than 1 year ago
Shades of The Wicked North! Another idiot decision by the stewards. Twirling Candy may have been losing ground but what if he doesn't get bounced? You can say that the winner easily cost him a placing, which seems to be the fallback ruling. Another black eye on the stewards of Southern California, just another reason that people are not betting Southern California as much.
Jimmy More than 1 year ago
The call was fine. Unless there is indisputable evidence, you leave the race alone. And let's be honest, Twirling Candy was not going to win this race regardless. In the biggest two races of his career (Santa Anita Handicap, Goodwood Stakes), he has failed. He had a horrible trip yesterday and was never comfortable in the race. It was clear he was tiring around the last turn. At the least, we should all be thankful nothing more serious happened to the horses. Bumping around like that when horses are tired is a very scary thing. Unlike Brad Free's line, we may not have to wait another day to crown Twirling Candy America's best, but we may have to wait a lot longer. Until he can show up against top competition and win, he is nowhere near the best horse, and it's not like these were world beaters he ran against yesterday. Oh well, another top dirt race at the classic distance, another failed attempt by a "top" West Coast horse. Can we please stop crowning these horses the best, until they actually prove it against top competition? On a side note, nice race by Caracortado. He gave his all, but he got "Blamed" by Fluke. Nice effort though and it will be nice to follow his future races.
Edmund Vickery More than 1 year ago
The West Coast boasting as we've both seen apparently will never stop! Outside of Sunday Silence and Zenyatta, the West Coast has had a lot of excellent, talented horses. However, they didn't have Secretariat or Cigar either!
robert spasiano More than 1 year ago
We are talking about ... an important race, not who has better horses West or East.
Some Bettor More than 1 year ago
Does nobody know how to watch a race anymore? From what I've read they all got it wrong. The whole incident began when Game on Dude drifted out very slightly into Twirling Candy just after they turned for home in early stretch. It was subtle, but it put them both slightly off balance. Then, after that, under left-handed urging, Game on Dude came out further and bumped the already off-balance Twirling Candy again hard. Everyone saw the major bump, even the stewards. And it continued from there. You have to look closely to see where all this really began, and it was before the major bump that was blatantly obvious to everyone. Game on Dude initiated the debacle, and benefitted from it, thus, he should have been disqualified and placed behind Twirling Candy. I guess you could call it good race riding - when you win. The call doesn't surprise me. It was wrong.
closer More than 1 year ago
A few facts from a well-informed participant: Santa Anita stewards are unknowns on the backside. Very little investment made in the product. Credibility is an issue. Sadly, there were many new and potential owners present at Santa Anita today. Many will never return as investors in the sport due to the perceived and, in today's' case, actual ineptitude in evidence at the administrative and managerial levels. Loudest and most passionate chorus of boos heard in 35 years at Santa Anita subsequent to the decision. Opportunity to make significant public relations progress was lost this afternoon at Santa Anita.
Ann More than 1 year ago
I've been attending races for over 40 years. What race were the stewards watching? This was a slap in the face to all racing fans who trust in this industry.
reggie More than 1 year ago
These types of decisions are exactly why I don't play California racetracks anymore. Add to that the pitiful fields of four or five horses along with horrible payouts and huge takeout. It's an easy decision. The stewarts are inconsistent, and I seriously wonder if Bob Baffert wasn't involved if there would have been a disqualification. No matter to me since I refuse to bet anything from California anymore, and I live here.
MPD More than 1 year ago
Draw a line on your screens, folks ... Game on Dude did not drift out to make the initial contact ... at worst it was incidental bumping. Anything that happened after that was irrelevant because Game on Dude was knocked offstride. In the United Kingdom, and other jurisdictions, they would have laughed at us for even looking at the incident for so long. Bottom line: If Twirling Candy had not moved left after hitting Setsuko (again, draw a line on your screen) there would have been no contact at all by Game on Dude. Chantal held her ground, at worst. And, no, the fact I had a 14-1 win bet on Chantal does not influence my view.
Karl More than 1 year ago
First of all, if there would have been a disqualification I would have benefited on the wagering line. After having that said and watching the many replays, I agree totally with the stewards. The only thing people are so arguable about is the left whipping. From the head-on view it's amazing that the inside horse didn't go down when Twirling Candy took his right flank out and the more amazing thing is the how strong this horse finished. Truly the best horse won.