PDA

View Full Version : Higher standard for DQs: catastrophic free for All?


Stillriledup
07-01-2015, 02:19 AM
I want to address the comments of steward from post 268 of the DQ complaint thread stickied to the top. I think this is a good debate question so I broke it free from that thread.

I suggested that winners should be paid in all but the most extreme cases of hard physical contact and the judge let me have it Saying my suggestion would turn racing into a "catastrophic free for all which would very quickly make for dead horses and jockeys laying on America's racetracks everyday"

Personally I believe that my suggestion of only disqualifying the most blatant fouls wouldn't change any behavior by jocks. In fact, I believe my suggestion would create a better culture at tracks, more winning bettors would be paid and the overall product would prosper.

If a rider gets more aggressive under these new rules, he or she gets fined and suspended, it's no different than it is now.

Why would ANYTHING change in the way riders ride? This steward is not giving much credit to the professionalism of jocks, it's a dangerous profession, these guys aren't going to alter their styles, there is going to be no dead horses or riders, all I'm suggesting is to stop the nitpicking DQs and pay off the gamblers who won.

v j stauffer
07-01-2015, 03:16 AM
I want to address the comments of steward from post 268 of the DQ complaint thread stickied to the top. I think this is a good debate question so I broke it free from that thread.

I suggested that winners should be paid in all but the most extreme cases of hard physical contact and the judge let me have it Saying my suggestion would turn racing into a "catastrophic free for all which would very quickly make for dead horses and jockeys laying on America's racetracks everyday"

Personally I believe that my suggestion of only disqualifying the most blatant fouls wouldn't change any behavior by jocks. In fact, I believe my suggestion would create a better culture at tracks, more winning bettors would be paid and the overall product would prosper.

If a rider gets more aggressive under these new rules, he or she gets fined and suspended, it's no different than it is now.

Why would ANYTHING change in the way riders ride? This steward is not giving much credit to the professionalism of jocks, it's a dangerous profession, these guys aren't going to alter their styles, there is going to be no dead horses or riders, all I'm suggesting is to stop the nitpicking DQs and pay off the gamblers who won.

I'm not a judge anymore. I'm a civilian. No matter where you post your opinion I strongly believe you are incorrect. Jockey's will do exactly and precisely what they think they can get away with. If the criteria for a disqualification is an unseated rider, accident or a spill they will ride up to the closest possible point to hope to avoid DQ's or suspensions.

To relax the criteria for disqualifications would be open season for rough, dangerous riding.

Horses and jockeys would die.

While I'm 100% percent in favor of doing anything to help the bettor. After all they pay all of our salaries. This idea is far too risky.

Hoofless_Wonder
07-01-2015, 03:57 AM
To relax the criteria for disqualifications would be open season for rough, dangerous riding.

Horses and jockeys would die.

Pure speculation. We won't know until it's tried.

If the post-race process of reviewing rough riding and penalties are accessed properly, this would not be a problem.

My opinion is based on several other examples in sports, in particular the case of fighting in Minnesota High School hockey. If a player gets in a fight, he's ejected from the game. If he gets in a second fight during the season, he's DQ'ed for the season. Fighting is not a problem.

There's no reason to believe a similar approach to the rough-riding jockeys wouldn't have the same effect.

v j stauffer
07-01-2015, 05:22 AM
Pure speculation. We won't know until it's tried.

If the post-race process of reviewing rough riding and penalties are accessed properly, this would not be a problem.

My opinion is based on several other examples in sports, in particular the case of fighting in Minnesota High School hockey. If a player gets in a fight, he's ejected from the game. If he gets in a second fight during the season, he's DQ'ed for the season. Fighting is not a problem.

There's no reason to believe a similar approach to the rough-riding jockeys wouldn't have the same effect.

My reasoning is based on 35 years of being intimately involved in every aspect of the business. I'm 100% sure I'm right.

Just as I'm 100% sure you're entitled your opinion which while I disagree with I totally respect.

thaskalos
07-01-2015, 05:59 AM
It is unbelievable that three supposedly knowledgeable people, with multi-camera replays and all sorts of time at their disposal, cannot do a better job of officiating this game than they are currently doing. Some of these calls that we see go beyond mere incompetence, and force the horseplayer to harbor dark suspicions of ulterior motives.

burnsy
07-01-2015, 07:36 AM
It is unbelievable that three supposedly knowledgeable people, with multi-camera replays and all sorts of time at their disposal, cannot do a better job of officiating this game than they are currently doing. Some of these calls that we see go beyond mere incompetence, and force the horseplayer to harbor dark suspicions of ulterior motives.

Thask nails it again. If there was even a morsel of CONSISTANCY, these threads would not exist and the complaints would be less numerous. You can have the most knowledgeable people in the world speaking. However, you can't fool peoples eyes, if you can't pass the "eye test" you should not be a steward. If umpires need glasses, many of these stewards need laser, eye corrective surgery. Way too many of the calls are a joke and the non- calls are often worse.

castaway01
07-01-2015, 07:36 AM
Vic's 100% right---all of the whiners who currently complain about stewards' decisions would instead be complaining about how they lost because their horse got knocked into the infield by a jockey playing bumper cars. A few of those horses getting killed by those antics would also have PETA all over horse racing. If you want to get rid of DQs, you'll also rapidly speed up the decline of the sport itself.

castaway01
07-01-2015, 07:37 AM
Thask nails it again. If there was even a morsel of CONSISTANCY, these threads would not exist and the complaints would be less numerous. You can have the most knowledgeable people in the world speaking. However, you can't fool peoples eyes, if you can't pass the "eye test" you should not be a steward. If umpires need glasses, many of these stewards need laser, eye corrective surgery. Way too many of the calls are a joke and the non- calls are often worse.

Thask is just toadying for SRU, which seems to be his new gimmick.

burnsy
07-01-2015, 09:01 AM
Thask is just toadying for SRU, which seems to be his new gimmick.

Yeah, but he's right. I'm not for the rule change, just hire better people and the problem would be less complained about. The position can't be some "favor" or "appointment" because some guys worked at the track all his life. "Joe" has been kicking around the grounds for umpteen years, lets make him a steward." That is not a job credential for officiating any sport.........except for horse racing. He may know everything that goes on (at a track) but if he can't see straight or make sound judgment calls................this is the quality you get. Of course, some people will always complain but the way it stands now, they are right many times when they do. He said nothing like SRU, just how bad some of these calls are, which I happen to agree with

Dave Schwartz
07-01-2015, 10:37 AM
There's no reason to believe a similar approach to the rough-riding jockeys wouldn't have the same effect.

Except for the instruction that says, "Do whatever you must to win this race."

v j stauffer
07-01-2015, 01:46 PM
Any official. Horseracing, Baseball, Soccer, Superior Court Judge, HOA guy, PTA mom, who is entrusted to make difficult decisions will be deemed incompetent by those who disagree with them.

Stillriledup
07-01-2015, 02:04 PM
Any official. Horseracing, Baseball, Soccer, Superior Court Judge, HOA guy, PTA mom, who is entrusted to make difficult decisions will be deemed incompetent by those who disagree with them.

Thanks for the replies in this thread, appreciate the feedback.

You say 'difficult' decisions but its not all that difficult if you have the philosophy that the integrity of the actual result will stand and in only the most extreme cases, we will make a change.

To me, the more results that the humans alter, the more room for error.

A DQ is essentially giving a person who stole a candy bar from a convenience store 30 to life.

Remember that there's no partial DQs so it's essentially "life in prison" for the person who won the race, that's why I say the standard should be incredibly high for a DQ.

v j stauffer
07-01-2015, 02:11 PM
Thanks for the replies in this thread, appreciate the feedback.

You say 'difficult' decisions but its not all that difficult if you have the philosophy that the integrity of the actual result will stand and in only the most extreme cases, we will make a change.

To me, the more results that the humans alter, the more room for error.

A DQ is essentially giving a person who stole a candy bar from a convenience store 30 to life.

Remember that there's no partial DQs so it's essentially "life in prison" for the person who won the race, that's why I say the standard should be incredibly high for a DQ.

Unless of course you made a huge bet on the horse that finished 2nd and was denied the chance to win.

Your analogies are meaningless to this discussion.

Inaction is just as subject to mistakes as action.

Stillriledup
07-01-2015, 02:19 PM
Unless of course you made a huge bet on the horse that finished 2nd and was denied the chance to win.

Your analogies are meaningless to this discussion.

Inaction is just as subject to mistakes as action.

I would much rather not get placed first than win and be taken down. The simple math of the equation is this, the more DQs that happen, the more chance for wrongly disqualifying a deserving winner.

I bet less money (or no money) at tracks that seem to have a pretty easy standard for a DQ. I'd prefer the judges to make the race official and pay the bettors and discipline the jock behind the scenes, I don't know anyone (other than you) who wants "more judging" and less "pay the winners"

thaskalos
07-01-2015, 08:45 PM
Vic's 100% right---all of the whiners who currently complain about stewards' decisions would instead be complaining about how they lost because their horse got knocked into the infield by a jockey playing bumper cars. A few of those horses getting killed by those antics would also have PETA all over horse racing. If you want to get rid of DQs, you'll also rapidly speed up the decline of the sport itself.

I don't know if I qualify to be called a "whiner"...but I refuse to look the other way when the stewards make a bone-headed call which ends up costing people considerable amounts of money. There is a lot riding on these calls...and a little consistency of performance from the stewards shouldn't be too much to ask for. Let's take that recent double-disqualification at Mountaineer; do we just shrug our shoulders and say..."Okay...it looks as if the stewards made a mistake on this one. Let's hope that they get it right the next time..."? :rolleyes:

This game has enough stigma attached to it...we don't need more ongoing controversies caused by the calls of the stewards. When rating jobs according to difficulty of performance...the job of a steward does not exactly rate close to the top of the list. A little "professionalism" should easily be one of the job requirements.

thaskalos
07-01-2015, 08:53 PM
Thask is just toadying for SRU, which seems to be his new gimmick.

SRU takes a lot of abuse on this board...and handles it all with dignity and class. Never have I seen him react in an improper manner towards any of his "attackers"...even though they have often deserved it. As a long time handicapper, I have learned to appreciate "class"...in horses, AND in people.

HalvOnHorseracing
07-01-2015, 09:40 PM
I think the obvious question is, can the stewards be trained in a way that would lend consistency to the process of evaluating inquiries/objections? Most racegoers agree that the primary criterion should be whether the foul affected the finish position of any of the runners. If the answer is no, there should never be a disqualification. But the answer should be less subjective and more based on consistency in evaluating a respective situation.

As a certified basketball official, I know we watch hundreds of different plays on tape as a group in an effort to develop consistency in calls. I don't see why stewards can't do the some sort of thing as part of their own certification.

If you look at professional sports, they make strong efforts to create uniformity in how officials make calls in order to ensure the players decide the game, not the officials. An NFL game in NY should be officiated basically the same way as an NFL game in Seattle. It's a shame horseracing is unable to establish a national training system to create competency, consistency AND transparency with its first line officials.

ultracapper
07-01-2015, 09:54 PM
In SoCal they have a no-harm, no-foul attitude. If the fouled horse didn't lose a placing, there is no foul. In basketball, there is no no-harm, no-foul attitude. You see guys get rebounds all the time when another player has gone over his back and been called for the foul. Since the fouled player got the rebound anyway, should there be a foul on the player that went over his back? I mean, the over the back foul didn't cause any harm, the positioned player got the rebound anyway, so why call an over the back foul. That's the way a horse racing steward in SoCal would handle it.

I've seen plenty of fans say "a foul is a foul". If a foul was committed, there needs to be a price paid.

I don't know what side of the fence I'm on. I've been on both sides of DQs, just like you all have. There don't seem to be that many, from my standpoint. A couple a week, max, in SoCal. Maybe a week without any as often as not.

Hoofless_Wonder
07-01-2015, 10:38 PM
My reasoning is based on 35 years of being intimately involved in every aspect of the business. I'm 100% sure I'm right.

Just as I'm 100% sure you're entitled your opinion which while I disagree with I totally respect.

While I do have some respect for your experience, I don't recall a single post of yours on this topic advocating any change to the current system. There are many of us who believe there's room for improvement.

If your view of being "100% right" is against the "pay the winners" method, does that mean you're satisfied there are no changes neeeded to the current system of reviewing and ruling on the outcome of races? This seems to contradict the "open mindedness" that you claim the California steward community operates under.

I hardly think that this topic is the biggest problem racing has, but the attitude expressed by racing management and officials towards belittling and alienting the player underscores the decline of the sport. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I feel I get a much fairer shake of my money in races held overseas - and that's where more of my handle will continue to flow....

Hoofless_Wonder
07-01-2015, 10:40 PM
Vic's 100% right---all of the whiners who currently complain about stewards' decisions would instead be complaining about how they lost because their horse got knocked into the infield by a jockey playing bumper cars. A few of those horses getting killed by those antics would also have PETA all over horse racing. If you want to get rid of DQs, you'll also rapidly speed up the decline of the sport itself.

See Hong Kong. Get back to us on the logic of your argument.

Hoofless_Wonder
07-01-2015, 10:49 PM
Except for the instruction that says, "Do whatever you must to win this race."

Not that jockeys are known for their brains, but it would have to be a real dolt that would risk their income and health if the penalties for rough riding were something like:

First infraction - 30 days
Second infraction - one year
Third infraction - three strike, banned for life

dasch
07-01-2015, 11:11 PM
"A foul is a foul" is certainly not anywhere close to the ideal way to go which is why the "rules" were changed, but stewards all over the country have proven that having "discretion" is certainly no better, and seems to be getting worse. Right now as the "rule" reads what is the incentive to wait for a tiring horse to go by you rather than plowing into him to make your move early? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that horse will NEVER be dq'd unless the tiring horse or rider falls. Thats dangerous and pretty ridiculous IMO. These are fragile animals that can get injured sometimes fairly easily and if after a horse is interfered with if that horse doesnt make some kind of forward move most stewards will claim that the horse wasnt cost a placing. HOW IS THERE ANY WAY TO KNOW THIS FOR SURE? Its gotten out of control and it just seems to be getting worse and worse.

IMO, we have tried the "discretion of the stewards" long enough and they have failed miserably. I am all for going back to a foul is a foul, maybe its not perfect but its the only way we will know what to expect, and maybe the riders will not take that chance the next time hoping it wont cost the bumped horse "a placing at the discretion of the stewards"

Stillriledup
07-02-2015, 12:09 AM
While I do have some respect for your experience, I don't recall a single post of yours on this topic advocating any change to the current system. There are many of us who believe there's room for improvement.

If your view of being "100% right" is against the "pay the winners" method, does that mean you're satisfied there are no changes neeeded to the current system of reviewing and ruling on the outcome of races? This seems to contradict the "open mindedness" that you claim the California steward community operates under.

I hardly think that this topic is the biggest problem racing has, but the attitude expressed by racing management and officials towards belittling and alienting the player underscores the decline of the sport. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I feel I get a much fairer shake of my money in races held overseas - and that's where more of my handle will continue to flow....

This is a great post, it's about a fair shake. That's really all I'm interested in.

v j stauffer
07-02-2015, 12:49 AM
"A foul is a foul" is certainly not anywhere close to the ideal way to go which is why the "rules" were changed, but stewards all over the country have proven that having "discretion" is certainly no better, and seems to be getting worse. Right now as the "rule" reads what is the incentive to wait for a tiring horse to go by you rather than plowing into him to make your move early? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that horse will NEVER be dq'd unless the tiring horse or rider falls. Thats dangerous and pretty ridiculous IMO. These are fragile animals that can get injured sometimes fairly easily and if after a horse is interfered with if that horse doesnt make some kind of forward move most stewards will claim that the horse wasnt cost a placing. HOW IS THERE ANY WAY TO KNOW THIS FOR SURE? Its gotten out of control and it just seems to be getting worse and worse.

IMO, we have tried the "discretion of the stewards" long enough and they have failed miserably. I am all for going back to a foul is a foul, maybe its not perfect but its the only way we will know what to expect, and maybe the riders will not take that chance the next time hoping it wont cost the bumped horse "a placing at the discretion of the stewards"

Don't forget that absent a DQ the stewards still have the power to issue sanctions against a jockey for careless riding.

As a former agent I can assure these penalties are not taken lightly and can have a major business impact.