4 th santa anita

[dansan]

Should or shouldn't have the 8 horse been taken down he clearly cut in front of the 5 horse what a joke

[Stillriledup]

I prefer to pay the winners. Its a contact sport and horses don't always maintain straight lines, so i don't believe we ought to manage the game as if it is. Sorry, i would have left the results alone and paid the winners.

[dansan]

Then u need glasses

[Stillriledup]

Then u need glasses
:lol:

You might be right maybe the guy crashed into the other guy, at any rate, as a bettor i could care less about that stuff, i just want to be paid if i win, not a lot to ask. if they need to fine or suspend a jock, do that on their own time and leave me out of it.

[dansan]

Will then they need to do away with inquires all together

[Stillriledup]

Will then they need to do away with inquires all together

Im not saying that, they need to stop making stupid calls and dumb DQs.

DQs should be rare occurrences not everyday occurrences.

[SandyW]

Then u need glasses
Pay the winner, deal with the jockey later. No horse should ever come down.
Treat horse racing like dog racing and pay the winner regardless.

[Stillriledup]

Pay the winner, deal with the jockey later. No horse should ever come down.
Treat horse racing like dog racing and pay the winner regardless.

5aVwxTM0ZZ0

[Some_One]

5aVwxTM0ZZ0

Greyhounds don't have jockeys on top of them. Would you ride at a track where a fellow jock can steer his horse into your path and possibly put you on the ground? Would you own a horse and race them where this could happen?

[Relwob Owner]

Greyhounds don't have jockeys on top of them. Would you ride at a track where a fellow jock can steer his horse into your path and possibly put you on the ground? Would you own a horse and race them where this could happen?

Exactly....taking it further, would you bet at a track with no rules? I wouldn't....the current system is poorly implemented and there seems to be little consistency. However, 'letting them play' so to speak is not the answer.

[Stillriledup]

Exactly....taking it further, would you bet at a track with no rules? I wouldn't....the current system is poorly implemented and there seems to be little consistency. However, 'letting them play' so to speak is not the answer.

I would welcome it, why would no rules bother you? If you pick the winner, you cash, what's wrong with that?

[plainolebill]

As soon as I watched the head on view I was sure the winner wasn't coming down, Desormeaux spiced it up with a little drama.

If Smoove it is DQ'd I had the winner but....that's hoss racing.

*That's not a vote for no rules, just my view of that particular race that the OP asked for and then insulted SRU for a giving his opinion.

[Relwob Owner]

I would welcome it, why would no rules bother you? If you pick the winner, you cash, what's wrong with that?

Come on SRU. Its absurd.

***Would be more dangerous for jockeys
***Would be more dangerous for horses
***Would make betting harder because you have no faith your horse will get a clean trip
***Would lead to nefarious activities because jocks, trainers and horses could gang up on certain horses to make sure they don't win
***Would lead to less claiming because there would be a greater likelihood the horse you take gets hurt during the race
***People barely care about horse racing anymore and having no rules would make it even less popular.

Racing needs clear rules IMO. I laugh sometimes at the threads bitching about DQ's and non DQ's when people don't even know the rules at that track. Is it just whether a foul occurred or whether the horse fouled was cost a placing or both? Also, enough of different rules in bigger(cough, cough Bayern) races.


Sports need rules. Its as simple as that.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Come on SRU. Its absurd.

***Would be more dangerous for jockeys
***Would be more dangerous for horses
***Would make betting harder because you have no faith your horse will get a clean trip
***Would lead to nefarious activities because jocks, trainers and horses could gang up on certain horses to make sure they don't win
***Would lead to less claiming because there would be a greater likelihood the horse you take gets hurt during the race
***People barely care about horse racing anymore and having no rules would make it even less popular.

Racing needs clear rules IMO. I laugh sometimes at the threads bitching about DQ's and non DQ's when people don't even know the rules at that track. Is it just whether a foul occurred or whether the horse fouled was cost a placing or both? Also, enough of different rules in bigger(cough, cough Bayern) races.


Sports need rules. Its as simple as that.

I'm not exactly sure what SRU means by "no rules", but when I've commented on this topic in the past, it's not been to ditch all the rules. I've been in favor of "no DQs" for parimutuel payoffs, and let the stewards consider fines, days, DQs, and purse redistribution at a later time. In other words, remove the human judgement element from the official results, which is the only way to make the system consistent, especially considering the "time pressure" to make the race official. This would improve the popularity of racing because there'd be no debate after the photos were posted, and the jocks weighed in.

If continuing to enforce the rules of riding (maintain straight path, proper weights, can't hit the other horse with your whip, etc.), this would discourage jockeys from riding any differently than they do today. Gaining any short-term advantage to win a race through rough riding would be negated by penalties delivered by steward's rulings later on, assuming the penalties are heavy enough.

The main complaint we have as horseplayers is that even after overcoming the takeout, the difficult handicapping, the drugs, the buzzers, bad trips, etc., we can still get fleeced at the windows due to the (seemingly) inconsistent whims of the stewards......

[Stillriledup]

Come on SRU. Its absurd.

***Would be more dangerous for jockeys
***Would be more dangerous for horses
***Would make betting harder because you have no faith your horse will get a clean trip
***Would lead to nefarious activities because jocks, trainers and horses could gang up on certain horses to make sure they don't win
***Would lead to less claiming because there would be a greater likelihood the horse you take gets hurt during the race
***People barely care about horse racing anymore and having no rules would make it even less popular.

Racing needs clear rules IMO. I laugh sometimes at the threads bitching about DQ's and non DQ's when people don't even know the rules at that track. Is it just whether a foul occurred or whether the horse fouled was cost a placing or both? Also, enough of different rules in bigger(cough, cough Bayern) races.


Sports need rules. Its as simple as that.

Hoof has it right,i mean "no rules" for betting purposes.

ALso, it would not lead to any nefarious activities that we dont already see. The judges would still judge, jocks would still get fined and suspended...guys would still get 5 year suspensions for buzzers, that won't change at all.

The problem isn't the rules, its the idiots who are trying to apply the rules, 60 and 70 year old political hacks with agendas and biases making decisions on who stays up and who comes down? Please. Just pay the darn winners in all instances but the most extreme, rules are fine, its the interpretation and inconsistency that's the problem.

[v j stauffer]

I'm not exactly sure what SRU means by "no rules", but when I've commented on this topic in the past, it's not been to ditch all the rules. I've been in favor of "no DQs" for parimutuel payoffs, and let the stewards consider fines, days, DQs, and purse redistribution at a later time. In other words, remove the human judgement element from the official results, which is the only way to make the system consistent, especially considering the "time pressure" to make the race official. This would improve the popularity of racing because there'd be no debate after the photos were posted, and the jocks weighed in.

If continuing to enforce the rules of riding (maintain straight path, proper weights, can't hit the other horse with your whip, etc.), this would discourage jockeys from riding any differently than they do today. Gaining any short-term advantage to win a race through rough riding would be negated by penalties delivered by steward's rulings later on, assuming the penalties are heavy enough.

The main complaint we have as horseplayers is that even after overcoming the takeout, the difficult handicapping, the drugs, the buzzers, bad trips, etc., we can still get fleeced at the windows due to the (seemingly) inconsistent whims of the stewards......

Sounds somewhat reasonable in theory. But Hoofless and SRU what are you going to say when the following happens?

You're 5 for 5 in the Pick 6. You've hit some nice prices so far. You're singled to the 4/5 favorite in the final leg. Your ticket cost $288. If your horse wins 6 of 6 is coming back $41,856.00. Field turns for home. Only 2 horses can win. A tiring frontrunner who's hoping to hang on and your horse. Your rolls up on the outside and is easily going to blow by and win. The tiring front runner drifts into your path at mid stretch. Your horse is forced to check very hard. He's impeded. He gathers himself. Re-Rallies. Comes flying and misses by a nose. Human judgment is not factored in and for pari-mutels the
result stands. You miss out on 42K when you handicapped the "single" dead on balls correctly.

Horse gets DQ'ed out of purse money. Jock gets days.

Are both of you guys cool with this scenario?

[Stillriledup]

Sounds somewhat reasonable in theory. But Hoofless and SRU what are you going to say when the following happens?

You're 5 for 5 in the Pick 6. You've hit some nice prices so far. You're singled to the 4/5 favorite in the final leg. Your ticket cost $288. If your horse wins 6 of 6 is coming back $41,856.00. Field turns for home. Only 2 horses can win. A tiring frontrunner who's hoping to hang on and your horse. Your rolls up on the outside and is easily going to blow by and win. The tiring front runner drifts into your path at mid stretch. Your horse is forced to check very hard. He's impeded. He gathers himself. Re-Rallies. Comes flying and misses by a nose. Human judgment is not factored in and for pari-mutels the
result stands. You miss out on 42K when you handicapped the "single" dead on balls correctly.

Horse gets DQ'ed out of purse money. Jock gets days.

Are both of you guys cool with this scenario?

Good post.

Here's what i feel.

Lets say that horse racing had a no DQ rule, they paid the winners no matter what and any infraction that was caused during the running of the race that could trigger a fine/suspension for the jock, it would take place with the bettors being paid.

Now, if there was a no DQ rule, i would know this in advance and therefore, when it happened, i would know right then and there, i wasn't getting placed first so even though i would be bummed and yell a few "are you kidding me's" i would know at the time it happened to not get my hopes up.

One of the worst feelings in the world is to think you won and then have them take it away, much worse of a feeling than knowing in advance that there are no DQs. The actual worst feeling is getting taken down on a ticky tack call.

I was taken down many years ago for about a hundred large in the pick 6, now ,it wasnt the final leg so it was retrospective knowledge so it didn't hurt nearly as bad as it would have if it was the actual last leg, but hurt nonetheless, it was one of those "sell jobs" where the jock put on a big display and the judges rewarded him for the unsportsmanlike move when it was a situation where they could easily have left it up.

I'm fine with "judging" but the problem is that if there's going to be inconsistency, many players including myself bet more than 1 track, so we're dealing with different sets of judges on different days, i can't tell you how many times i was taken down and then when i needed someone to come down on the exact same situation where i ran 2nd, the winner stayed up...so, i lost both ways, and lost both times.

If they just paid the winners, nobody would have to worry about being on the wrong end of similar calls when one horse gets DQd and a similar situation gets left up.

Judging in general is fine if that's what you prefer, its the judges inconsistencies that drives players crazy.

One question i've asked here and i'll ask it again, if there were 2 separate betting pools and one was the no DQ pool where they pay off the winners the way they came in and the other pool was the judging pool where the races get judged the way they normally do....how many of us would be betting into the "judging pool" I know i wouldn't bet a cent into that pool, i'm perfectly fine winning or losing on my own handicapping, living with a situation where i was roaring and got crashed into pales in comparison to running off for huge money and then someone deciding not to pay you on a technicality.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Sounds somewhat reasonable in theory. But Hoofless and SRU what are you going to say when the following happens?

You're 5 for 5 in the Pick 6. You've hit some nice prices so far. You're singled to the 4/5 favorite in the final leg. Your ticket cost $288. If your horse wins 6 of 6 is coming back $41,856.00. Field turns for home. Only 2 horses can win. A tiring frontrunner who's hoping to hang on and your horse. Your rolls up on the outside and is easily going to blow by and win. The tiring front runner drifts into your path at mid stretch. Your horse is forced to check very hard. He's impeded. He gathers himself. Re-Rallies. Comes flying and misses by a nose. Human judgment is not factored in and for pari-mutels the
result stands. You miss out on 42K when you handicapped the "single" dead on balls correctly.

Horse gets DQ'ed out of purse money. Jock gets days.

Are both of you guys cool with this scenario?

I'm cool with it. I'm sure the holder of the single winning ticket for $420K on the tiring horse would be cool with it. :) Even more so, I'm sure the single ticket holder on the runner who finished first at GP a couple of winters ago when the Jackpot 6 was huge would be cool with it.

Based on your scenario, the winner should get DQ'ed from 1st to 2nd for purse money. If the jock appeared to be able to control the tiring front runner, then he should get days, though that seems a bit of a contradiction, as we know tiring horses are hard to control. Your example is extreme - what if the 4/5 chalk gets cut off by the 4th place finisher on the turn, and then still comes up a nose short? A different kind of bad racing luck, where the finish is the same.

To your point, I've never lost $42K on an inquiry. I also tend to agree with the stewards 80+% of the time. The change in removing the ability to DQ and alter the official order of finish results in a change of the definition of "racing luck", and would also need the legal backing to allow the system where a steward's ruling later overturns the finish, affecting purse payouts versus the tote payouts.

It's not perfect, but improves on the inconsistency we observe today. There's just no way for humans to differentiate between the extreme interference, the 50-50 ones, the ticky-tack ones, and all the shades in-between. If we pay the winners, then we all at least know what the rules are.....

[Stillriledup]

I'm cool with it. I'm sure the holder of the single winning ticket for $420K on the tiring horse would be cool with it. :) Even more so, I'm sure the single ticket holder on the runner who finished first at GP a couple of winters ago when the Jackpot 6 was huge would be cool with it.

Based on your scenario, the winner should get DQ'ed from 1st to 2nd for purse money. If the jock appeared to be able to control the tiring front runner, then he should get days, though that seems a bit of a contradiction, as we know tiring horses are hard to control. Your example is extreme - what if the 4/5 chalk gets cut off by the 4th place finisher on the turn, and then still comes up a nose short? A different kind of bad racing luck, where the finish is the same.

To your point, I've never lost $42K on an inquiry. I also tend to agree with the stewards 80+% of the time. The change in removing the ability to DQ and alter the official order of finish results in a change of the definition of "racing luck", and would also need the legal backing to allow the system where a steward's ruling later overturns the finish, affecting purse payouts versus the tote payouts.

It's not perfect, but improves on the inconsistency we observe today. There's just no way for humans to differentiate between the extreme interference, the 50-50 ones, the ticky-tack ones, and all the shades in-between. If we pay the winners, then we all at least know what the rules are.....

The precedent in the game that has been set is that the bigger the race, the more obvious the infraction has to be for there to be a DQ. As a matter of an "unwritten rule" they don't DQ in big races.

With 20 horses in the Ky derby, there's probably anywhere from 2 to 5 bumps per year in that race, its roller derby, and yet, there's not been too many DQs for physical infractions during the race and do you know why? Because a DQ would "taint" the running of the race. Of course, judges and tracks have no problem "tainting" some bettors big race, every race i bet is my "Ky Derby" and yet, THEIR Ky Derby gets judged like we all want races to be judged, just leave the results alone.

Funny thing about the Ky Derby is that if there's a bump or a crash or something else, nobody yells "INQUIRY" because they know there won't be one. Bettors are perfectly fine with getting crashed into during the Ky Derby because that's the way things go in that particular race. So, why are they nitpicking bettors at Gulfstream for a million bucks? Isn't that the Rainbow 6 bettors "Ky Derby"?

If you can bump in the Derby and leave the results alone, you can leave the results alone in all the other races and you can police the jocks behind the scenes just like they do in "big races" and leave the bettors out of it. If you get crashed into, better luck next time, as long as you know that there's no DQs, you would eventually learn to be fine with whatever happened on the track, just like you're fine betting the Ky Derby knowing that no matter what happens, you won't get DQd.

[PaceAdvantage]

Good post.

Here's what i feel.

Lets say that horse racing had a no DQ rule, they paid the winners no matter what and any infraction that was caused during the running of the race that could trigger a fine/suspension for the jock, it would take place with the bettors being paid.

Now, if there was a no DQ rule, i would know this in advance and therefore, when it happened, i would know right then and there, i wasn't getting placed first so even though i would be bummed and yell a few "are you kidding me's" i would know at the time it happened to not get my hopes up.

One of the worst feelings in the world is to think you won and then have them take it away, much worse of a feeling than knowing in advance that there are no DQs. The actual worst feeling is getting taken down on a ticky tack call.

I was taken down many years ago for about a hundred large in the pick 6, now ,it wasnt the final leg so it was retrospective knowledge so it didn't hurt nearly as bad as it would have if it was the actual last leg, but hurt nonetheless, it was one of those "sell jobs" where the jock put on a big display and the judges rewarded him for the unsportsmanlike move when it was a situation where they could easily have left it up.

I'm fine with "judging" but the problem is that if there's going to be inconsistency, many players including myself bet more than 1 track, so we're dealing with different sets of judges on different days, i can't tell you how many times i was taken down and then when i needed someone to come down on the exact same situation where i ran 2nd, the winner stayed up...so, i lost both ways, and lost both times.

If they just paid the winners, nobody would have to worry about being on the wrong end of similar calls when one horse gets DQd and a similar situation gets left up.

Judging in general is fine if that's what you prefer, its the judges inconsistencies that drives players crazy.

One question i've asked here and i'll ask it again, if there were 2 separate betting pools and one was the no DQ pool where they pay off the winners the way they came in and the other pool was the judging pool where the races get judged the way they normally do....how many of us would be betting into the "judging pool" I know i wouldn't bet a cent into that pool, i'm perfectly fine winning or losing on my own handicapping, living with a situation where i was roaring and got crashed into pales in comparison to running off for huge money and then someone deciding not to pay you on a technicality.I guess your goal now is to push the "ridiculous envelope" as far as you can before I am forced to throw up my hands and ban you out of sheer principle...is that your thinking? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Stillriledup]

I guess your goal now is to push the "ridiculous envelope" as far as you can before I am forced to throw up my hands and ban you out of sheer principle...is that your thinking? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you dont want me around, you dont have to ban me, i'll gladly leave, just say the word.

[PaceAdvantage]

If you dont want me around, you dont have to ban me, i'll gladly leave, just say the word.I've said my peace.

[Stillriledup]

No SRU, you're one of the best poster's ive got, please don't go.

Ftfy. ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Ftfy. ;)I've got a different sort of abbreviation that comes to mind as a reply to you.

[Stillriledup]

I've got a different sort of abbreviation that comes to mind as a reply to you.

You mean change the tfy to a u? :D

[PaceAdvantage]

Not exactly

[Stillriledup]

Not exactly

Ut oh. I guess i'll leave well enough alone and get back to posting NBA winners and adding to my 50-29 season record. ;)

[v j stauffer]

If you dont want me around, you dont have to ban me, i'll gladly leave, just say the word.




WORD

[v j stauffer]

I guess your goal now is to push the "ridiculous envelope" as far as you can before I am forced to throw up my hands and ban you out of sheer principle...is that your thinking? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'll simonize your car every Sunday until 2026. :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

WORD

You can just put me on ignore, its just as good as if i'm not here. Or, you can bet my NBA picks and pay for vacations and fancy bottles of "whine". ;)