(1) INQUIRY/OBJECTION – 3RD RACE – DISQUALIFICATION
The Board of Stewards conducted an inquiry to review observed interference at the head of the lane and at the 1/16th pole. Jockey Eliska Kubinova, aboard # 2, also lodged an objection. Films show # 3 lugging in on both occasions interfering with # 3. For those actions # 3 was disqualified from 1st and placed 2nd behind # 2.
(2) INQUIRY – 8TH RACE – NO CHANGE
Film review of the race was conducted after # 7. “Quesea” lost the rider reportedly at about 4 ½ furlongs. No action was taken as heavy fog completely obscured the incident.
(1) INQUIRY – 2ND RACE – NO CHANGE
Tan inquiry was held to determine the cause of # 2 stumbling and unseating jockey Guillermo Muro near the wire. Films show the horse stumbled while racing clear, leaving a disqualification as unwarranted. The results were therefore left as is.
(2) INQUIRY – 3RD – NO CHANGE
Film review of the race (out of the gate and into the turn) was held to review the tight quarters between # 1, 2, 3, and 4. While there were a number of minor factors considered, the Board ruled most of the incident was caused by # 3, who finished last, while the # 2 got the worst of things but finished 1st. As such, no action was taken, having ruled there was insufficient evidence to disqualify the # 4 who had followed the # 3 down.
(1) INQUIRY – 5TH RACE – NO CHANGE
The Board of Stewards conducted an inquiry after having witnessed the #2 and #4 horses coming together out of the far turn and down the stretch. Films show the contact taking place between the two horses was due to equal involvement among the two. As such, no change was made to the order of finish.
(1) OBJECTION – 3RD RACE – NO CHANGE
The Board of Stewards conducted an inquiry at the behest of # 3’s jockey Leonel Camacho-Flores, who lodged an objection against # 6 at the 1/8th pole. Films show # 3 drifting out and making things tight for # 5 and # 6. Eventually # 6 drifted in but was clear of # 3 by the time they crossed paths, causing no interference.
(1) INQUIRY/OBJECTION – 2ND RACE – DISQUALIFICATION
The Board of Stewards posted the inquiry to review observed interference near the wire. Jockey Kassie Guglielmino (aboard # 6) also lodged an objection against # 4. Films prove # 4 drifted in and took the path of # 6, forcing the latter to check to avoid heels, costing her momentum and the opportunity at a better placing. For that action, # 4 was disqualified from second and placed fourth behind # 6.
(1) OBJECTION – 4TH RACE – NO CHANGE
The Board of Stewards conducted an inquiry at the request of the trainer of the # 3 who filed objection against the eventual winner, # 1, at the head of the lane. Films show # 1 had # 3 cleared by a sufficient distance leaving the rider of # 3 the option of merely taking to the inside without checking and saving ground in doing so. Since there was no evidence of interference, there was no change to the order of finish.
(2) INQUIRY – 7TH RACE – #8 DECLARED NON-STARTER
Film review of the start of the race confirmed # 8 was prevented a fair start due to it having its’ head over the divider and into the # 9 chute prior to and at the time the starter dispatched the field. The horse was therefore declared a non-starter and wagers on the horse ordered refunded.
(1) INQUIRY – 3RD RACE – NO CHANGE
The Board of Stewards conducted an inquiry to review the incident in which the # 2 fell at the 5/8 pole, unseating its’ rider. No change was warranted as the horse fell while racing clear.
(1) INQUIRY/OBJECTION – 1ST RACE – NO CHANGE
The Board of Stewards conducted an inquiry to review an incident at the starting gate in which the # 4 horse broke very tardily and without a rider. Films show # 4 threw its’ head over the divider between the four and the five chute, costing itself the opportunity for a competitive start. Additionally, the jockey chose to step off the horse due to the fractious nature of the incident. Since the horse was not prevented the opportunity at a fair start except by its’ own actions, the results were left as is with the horse being declared a starter.
(2) INQUIRY – 2ND RACE – DISQUALIFICATION
This inquiry was held to determine the cause of # 4 being squeezed back behind # 3 and # 5, and effectively out of contention for a placing better than last. After reviewing the films, the stewards argue that even though # 3 and # 4 shifted out briefly just prior to the incident, it was very slight, and had # 5 maintained a relatively straight course, the bumping would have been inconsequential to the outcome. Therefore, # 5 was disqualified from 2nd and placed last behind # 4.
(1) INQUIRY/OBJECTION – 6TH RACE – DISQUALIFICATION
The Board of Stewards conducted an inquiry after having witnessed the #2 horse drifting out and interfering with #9 near the 1/8 pole. The jockey of #9 also lodged an objection. Films confirmed #2 did interfere with #9, having knocked the latter off stride, costing that horse momentum and the opportunity at a better placing. For that action #2 was disqualified from 1st and placed 2nd behind #9.
(1) INQUIRY – 5TH RACE – NO CHANGE
The Board of Stewards conducted an inquiry after having witnessed the #1 horse coming out of the turn a little wide and placing the #4 in tight quarters. Replays of the incident show the interference was slight and didn’t require the rider on #4 to check her mount. Since the #4 was not compromised the opportunity at a better placing the order of finish was left as-is.
(2) OBJECTION – 7TH RACE – NO CHANGE
Second place finisher Jose Zunino (aboard #5) lodged a claim of foul against the #9 horse for interference approaching the wire. The Board of Stewards determined the contact was inconsequential to the outcome of the race, since #9 was rapidly overtaking #5 when they brushed.
(1) OBJECTION – 5TH RACE – NO CHANGE
Jockey apprentice Osvaldo Gonzalez (aboard the #2 horse) lodged an objection against # 1 about a furlong away from the gate. The Board argues that while quarters were tight, there was insufficient interference to warrant a disqualification. Considered were the following: the horse was being out footed when the incident occurred, there was pressure from the outside contributing to the tight quarters, and the horse finished last, beaten by a distance farther than he was inconvenienced.
(2) INQUIRY/OBJECTION – 8TH RACE – NO CHANGE
The stewards posted the inquiry to review an incident mid-stretch between #3, who finished first, and #8, who finished second. Jockey Nathan Haar (aboard the #8 horse) also lodged an objection. Films show #8 always had racing room and could have opted not to steady. Further, #8 was beaten by a margin greater than any ground lost during the incident. For both reasons the order of finish was left as is.
(3) OBJECTION – 9TH RACE – NO CHANGE
The objection sign was posted due to a claim of foul from an owner of the #5 who claimed interference from the #3 down the lane. The stewards saw no evidence supporting the claim and went official with the original order of finish.
(1) OBJECTION – 9TH – NO CHANGE
The objection was posted at the behest of # 7 jockey Luis Gonzalez, who claimed interference from the #5 at about the 3/16 pole. The pan shot confirmed there was no contact between the two as # 5 drifted out while # 7 was making up ground on the outside. While the claim of foul was not frivolous, # 5 was making a move as well, eliminating sufficient evidence that the incident cost # 7 a better placing. Therefore, no change in the order of finish was made.
(1) INQUIRY/OBJECTION – 2ND RACE – DISQUALIFICATION
The inquiry was posted due to observed interference near the wire between #9, ridden by Luis Gonzalez, and the #4, with Eduardo Gutierrez-Sosa up. Mr. Gutierrez also filed an objection. Films confirmed #9 drifted down across the field and eventually took the path of #4. While it doesn’t appear the incident cost #4 the opportunity at a better placing, it did cost him momentum and time. As this was a timed trial event, #9 was disqualified from 2nd and placed 4th behind #4.
(2) INQUIRY – 3RD RACE – DISQUALIFICATION
This inquiry was the result of #8 breaking in hard leaving the starting gate and colliding with #7, who in turn collided with #6, effectively taking both horses out of contention for a qualifying time for the Far West Futurity. As such, #8 was disqualified from 5th and placed 8th behind #7 and #6.
(1) INQUIRY – 2ND RACE – DISQUALIFICATION
The inquiry sign was illuminated after observed interference was observed mid stretch between #2 with Kassie Guglielmino aboard and the #3. Films show Ms. Guglielmino urging her mount with a left handed crop while her mount drifted out and into the path of #3, causing the latter to clip heels and stumble. Having cost #3 the opportunity at a better placing, the stewards disqualified #2 and placed her 8th, just behind #3.
(1) INQUIRY – 1ST RACE – NO CHANGE
The stewards posted the inquiry to review the incident resulting in the rider (Matt Hagerty) of the #3 horse, “Furriddle” to become unseated. Films show the horse bucked early on then bolted to the inside, hitting the rail and dislodging the jockey. Since the fault lied with the #3, no change was warranted.
(2) INQUIRY – 2ND RACE – NO CHANGE
The Board of Stewards posted the inquiry sign after witnessing an incident between the #8, #9, and #10 horses near the wire. While the quarters became rather tight on the #9 horse, the Board made no change because #9 always had room to place her feet.
(3) INQUIRY – 6TH RACE – NO CHANGE
The inquiry sign was illuminated as the result of an accident near the 3/16 pole. The #5 went down while racing clear resulting in a decision by the Board of Stewards to leave the results as is.