Q

[Justafan]

#2 BEFORE the start causes interference to the trailing #12.  The finish of the race is 2-9-4-12.  They DQ #2 to 4th for causing interference BEFORE the start, thus making is a 9-4-12-2.  Then they declare #12 a non-starter because of the interference BEFORE the start of the race.  They then go official iwth 9-4-2. 

My question is the interference was BEFORE the race.  You can be DQ'ed for something that occurs BEFORE the race?

Talk about a gay rule.

[edwardwilliam]

#2 BEFORE the start causes interference to the trailing #12.  The finish of the race is 2-9-4-12.  They DQ #2 to 4th for causing interference BEFORE the start, thus making is a 9-4-12-2.  Then they declare #12 a non-starter because of the interference BEFORE the start of the race.  They then go official iwth 9-4-2. 

My question is the interference was BEFORE the race.  You can be DQ'ed for something that occurs BEFORE the race?

Talk about a gay rule.

Of course you can be DQed for something before the start!  It's not fair for interference to occur and no penalty to result.

IMO, there should've been a recall.

Another point of contention I have: if a horse is off-stride BEFORE the start, I think there should be a recall.  He should be charged with the recall (and after two be scratched), but I don't think it's fair to owners, horsemen, and bettors to start a race with one entrant out of it...

Best,
EW

[Justafan]

I'm not trying to allege that infractions before the word "go" should go overlooked.  I'm saying that if there should have been a recall, I think it unfair to penalize the bettors in any way.  It was the starters error for no recall and those betting on the #2 paid the price. 

[BalmuleandGaywood]

Interference before the start is an automatic recall, IMO the correct call would be 12 is a non starter (since the starter missed the interference) and 2 is placed as finished.    What they did doesn't make since, you can't throw a horse out who interfered with a horse that was technically never in the race.

[Justafan]

Thank you for understanding BalmuleandGaywood!

No offense EW, but you really missed the point I was trying to make.

[edwardwilliam]

No offense EW, but you really missed the point I was trying to make.

You said:

I'm saying that if there should have been a recall, I think it unfair to penalize the bettors in any way.

And I said:

IMO, there should've been a recall.

I think we are pretty much in agreement.

Best,
EW

[edwardwilliam]

BTW -- what about purse money?  I'm assumig that's why the 2 was taken down...

Best,
EW

[BalmuleandGaywood]

I was looking at the usta rule book htp://www.ustrotting.com/pdf/UstaRuleBook05.PDF

A horse can be placed back for interference before the start and it sounds like it is the starters call rather or not a horse is declared a non-starter.  Why don't you guys take a look and see what you think?