Things Bettors Can't Control

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I think it is fair to say that there are three basic reasons horseplayers lose: poor handicapping, poor betting, and not being able to account for certain externalities. Three externalities that come to mind are poor rides, decisions by the stewards and chemical manipulation

As long as I've been going to the track, there have been people who unload on the jockeys. Sometimes they are right, sometimes it's really the horse, sometimes it's just an excuse for poor handicapping. I'll be conducting interviews with some high profile jockeys next week. I want to get their opinions on a number of things related to race riding, including how much of the winning formula is the horse and how much is the jockey, and how often a jockey would say the ride directly led to a horse winning or losing.

I'm also starting interviews with stewards. Obviously the decisions they make on disqualifications have a direct impact on winning and losing. My focus with them will be really getting into how those decisions are made, and why there isn't more transparency surrounding stewards decisions.

I would welcome any input from forum members on questions they would put to either group. If you had the chance to talk with jockeys or stewards, what would you ask them?

[Capper Al]

Having to overcome a take-out is a big hurdle.

[EMD4ME]

I think it is fair to say that there are three basic reasons horseplayers lose: poor handicapping, poor betting, and not being able to account for certain externalities. Three externalities that come to mind are poor rides, decisions by the stewards and chemical manipulation

As long as I've been going to the track, there have been people who unload on the jockeys. Sometimes they are right, sometimes it's really the horse, sometimes it's just an excuse for poor handicapping. I'll be conducting interviews with some high profile jockeys next week. I want to get their opinions on a number of things related to race riding, including how much of the winning formula is the horse and how much is the jockey, and how often a jockey would say the ride directly led to a horse winning or losing.

I'm also starting interviews with stewards. Obviously the decisions they make on disqualifications have a direct impact on winning and losing. My focus with them will be really getting into how those decisions are made, and why there isn't more transparency surrounding stewards decisions.

I would welcome any input from forum members on questions they would put to either group. If you had the chance to talk with jockeys or stewards, what would you ask them?

Mark my words, this thread will have 50,000 views and a TON of replies.

GREAT THREAD :)

To answer your question, most of my questions as interviewer are not feasible.


I would ask jockeys (as I show them a replay): What were you most PROUD of in this ride/race?

I would then ask jockeys: (Different replay of a poor ride) If you could redo this race, what would you have done better? (I would be prepared to show them their mistakes).

Stewards: I would show them 50 replays of their circuit. I would show them how they took down 14 horses for minimal fouls but LEFT UP 36 FOR MANSLAUGHTER.

I would record their answers and ask them: If you were a client, how much integrity would you think the Stewards have?

I would also ask the stewards: "How much time do you spend on ensuring that no jock is stiffing a horse? After they gave their answer. I would show them 147 replays of a jock "not giving their horse a chance at victory" and ask them what they did about it.

I would be thrown out of the Stewards room in 19 seconds.

Hey, you asked, my answers are serious. That's what I would do.

[green80]

Like any other athlete, jocks have to make split second decisions and have perfect timing. It is not easy to judge how fast a race is going or how fast your horse is running. It is easy to sit back and watch the replay and say what the jock shoulda done. When you have your money on the line, it makes their mistakes a little harder to take.

[aaron]

If you are able, interview Angel Cordero and ask him how much he thinks a jockey can impact a race. I have heard him interviewed and don't think any jockey understands the role of jockey better than him.

[v j stauffer]

When I was an agent in Southern Cal. almost every trainer. Very few exceptions. Felt the top 10 riders were completely interchangeable.

IMO the vast majority of trainers really don't care who rides their horse as long as the guy/gal is not a total slug.

[EMD4ME]

If you are able, interview Angel Cordero and ask him how much he thinks a jockey can impact a race. I have heard him interviewed and don't think any jockey understands the role of jockey better than him.

Great idea.

They do know how vital they are. No horse can be turned into Secretariat by a great jock, but every Secretariat can be slowed down by a bad ride.

[v j stauffer]

As for stewards decisions.

Even if you believe to your core they are incompetent. Just total idiots.

Every decision benefits just as many people as it hurts.

Thereby making the long term effect meaningless. A wash.

[Stillriledup]

I think it is fair to say that there are three basic reasons horseplayers lose: poor handicapping, poor betting, and not being able to account for certain externalities. Three externalities that come to mind are poor rides, decisions by the stewards and chemical manipulation

As long as I've been going to the track, there have been people who unload on the jockeys. Sometimes they are right, sometimes it's really the horse, sometimes it's just an excuse for poor handicapping. I'll be conducting interviews with some high profile jockeys next week. I want to get their opinions on a number of things related to race riding, including how much of the winning formula is the horse and how much is the jockey, and how often a jockey would say the ride directly led to a horse winning or losing.

I'm also starting interviews with stewards. Obviously the decisions they make on disqualifications have a direct impact on winning and losing. My focus with them will be really getting into how those decisions are made, and why there isn't more transparency surrounding stewards decisions.

I would welcome any input from forum members on questions they would put to either group. If you had the chance to talk with jockeys or stewards, what would you ask them?

I would love the jocks and judges to answer questions anonymously, or at least knowing that the answers they are giving to you will be without their name attached, the PC stuff we will get if they know they're putting their name on it is hit or miss as to whether or not it's of any value.

My steward concern is the general feeling that horse racing is viewed by them as not a contact sport. It's one thing to crash and cause a jarring hit, it's entirely different when a light brush happens, the light brushes that happen when horses and jocks are straining to the line are 'part of the game' but many times they're not viewed as so.

I think serious bettors not only want consistent rulings but they want the judges to stay out of the way and not play god with their cash.

Another factor that seems to be an epidemic at tracks around the nation is no direct head on views (mostly on turf courses) and judges judging races as if these are direct head ons.

Leave the results alone unless you absolutely have to make a call, too many races where there are DQs that could have stayed up, make the standard for a DQ incredibly high instead of acting like being the physical winner holds no weight.

[Stillriledup]

When I was an agent in Southern Cal. almost every trainer. Very few exceptions. Felt the top 10 riders were completely interchangeable.

IMO the vast majority of trainers really don't care who rides their horse as long as the guy/gal is not a total slug.

This is true, the top 10 at an A track are all very good with very little separating them.

[098poi]

I've always been curious if jockeys are affected by the odds on their mounts. I don't mean big high profile races where they are all probably anxious but in a basic claiming race and the horse is going off at 3/5 can they get too aware, try too hard etc. If their horse is 19-1 do they give it a shot but if they have no horse do they kind of just kick back.

[v j stauffer]

Finally comes "chemical manipulation".

If you choose to attempt to factor it in, it's never any better than an educated guess.

Impossible to feel rock solid you can quantify. Even if you strongly believe there is cheating. I believe there is.

Most times after you've lost it becomes evident.

Are there ways to guesstimate trainers who might be taking an unfair edge?

Sure. We all see the crazy percentages some guys have. Sheets are a huge help with this too.

But at the end of the day it's just another factor in the handicapping equation.

Options?

Try to exploit for your benefit the edges you think they are taking. Join em rather than being pissed when they beat you.

Pass races altogether when you suspect there are components to the race you have little chance to quantify.

If you truly believe the reason you can't win is drug cheaters. Do something else.

You wouldn't play poker with a marked deck that you didn't know the marks would you?

[thaskalos]

It isn't the jockeys, OR the stewards, IMO; it's that pesky thing called "chaos"...which has the nasty habit of playing the definitive role in short-term outcomes. When the result is often determined by necks and noses, and the horses lose precious fifths-of-a-second as they jockey for position around the oval...the outcome of the race will often arouse doubt...and there will always be plenty of blame to go around. In my own play...it helps me to remember that my "control" over the situation ends when I put my money down at the betting window. All I can do is try to position myself favorably against the odds...and whatever happens after I place my bet is totally out of my hands. It's a fallacy to believe that the gambler is in "control" of the situations that he bets on, IMO. Winning -- and losing -- is a COLLECTIVE effort...and all the gambler can do is make sure that he plays his OWN part well. The jockeys, the trainers and the stewards have their OWN role to play in this scenario...and that's an area of the game that the bettor can't control.

As far as jockeys are concerned, I am reminded of former jockey-great Pat Day...who remarked that the best jockey is the one who hampers his horse the least.

[Stillriledup]

Finally comes "chemical manipulation".

If you choose to attempt to factor it in, it's never any better than an educated guess.

Impossible to feel rock solid you can quantify. Even if you strongly believe there is cheating. I believe there is.

Most times after you've lost it becomes evident.

Are there ways to guesstimate trainers who might be taking an unfair edge?

Sure. We all see the crazy percentages some guys have. Sheets are a huge help with this too.

But at the end of the day it's just another factor in the handicapping equation.

Options?

Try to exploit for your benefit the edges you think they are taking. Join em rather than being pissed when they beat you.

Pass races altogether when you suspect there are components to the race you have little chance to quantify.

If you truly believe the reason you can't win is drug cheaters. Do something else.

You wouldn't play poker with a marked deck that you didn't know the marks would you?

Good post. I think that winning players would only do something else if they thought the drugs turned them from a winner to a loser. If you win 100k betting for the year(for example) but felt you would win 150 if the races were 'honest' you're not going to do something else even if you're complaining about cheaters.

I know personally I bet much less money on races where I feel the race is 'dominated' on paper by a human and not a 'fair contest' HORSE race. Ill leave the musical trainer races to people smarter than me.

[v j stauffer]

I've always been curious if jockeys are affected by the odds on their mounts. I don't mean big high profile races where they are all probably anxious but in a basic claiming race and the horse is going off at 3/5 can they get too aware, try too hard etc. If their horse is 19-1 do they give it a shot but if they have no horse do they kind of just kick back.

Great question. Many riders believe it or not HATE riding favorites. Feel there's added pressure. Don't want to let the connections and fans down and make mistakes by trying too hard or even panicking.

Some guys get very disappointed when they see very long odds. Think they may be pre-disposed to not having a chance.

Of course those guys are being short sighted and stupid.

One of the main reasons Patrick Valenzuela lasted so long was because he never came out of that room not thinking he could win.

If on a 3/5 his energy filled the connections with confidence.

If on a 20-1 his enthusiasm filled them with hope.

That's why people loved P.Val and would always come back to him despite his well documented troubles.

Joe Talamo makes people feel that way too.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If you are able, interview Angel Cordero and ask him how much he thinks a jockey can impact a race. I have heard him interviewed and don't think any jockey understands the role of jockey better than him.
I loved Cordero when he was riding my horse. Not so much when he wasn't.

[v j stauffer]

It isn't the jockeys, OR the stewards, IMO; it's that pesky thing called "chaos"...which has the nasty habit of playing the definitive role in short-term outcomes. When the result is often determined by necks and noses, and the horses lose precious fifths-of-a-second as they jockey for position around the oval...the outcome of the race will often arouse doubt...and there will always be plenty of blame to go around. In my own play...it helps me to remember that my "control" over the situation ends when I put my money down at the betting window. All I can do is try to position myself favorably against the odds...and whatever happens after I place my bet is totally out of my hands. It's a fallacy to believe that the gambler is in "control" of the situations that he bets on, IMO. Winning -- and losing -- is a COLLECTIVE effort...and all the gambler can do is make sure that he plays his OWN part well. The jockeys, the trainers and the stewards have their OWN role to play in this scenario...and that's an area of the game that the bettor can't control.

As far as jockeys are concerned, I am reminded of former jockey-great Pat Day...who remarked that the best jockey is the one who hampers his horse the least.

Spot on correct :ThmbUp:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I've always been curious if jockeys are affected by the odds on their mounts. I don't mean big high profile races where they are all probably anxious but in a basic claiming race and the horse is going off at 3/5 can they get too aware, try too hard etc. If their horse is 19-1 do they give it a shot but if they have no horse do they kind of just kick back.
That was an excellent question. Definitely on the list.

[098poi]

That was an excellent question. Definitely on the list.

Thanks. Interesting what Vic said about some not liking to ride favorites. I guess it can mess with anyone's head. I know when I am watching a race and the horse I like is not the favorite but in the leading group and then I see the chiclet with the 3/5 it's almost like it has power and inside I'm going NO,NO!

[Grits]

This is great observation of jockeys and the highest of praise!

PVal or no other rider could ask for greater.

Great question. Many riders believe it or not HATE riding favorites. Feel there's added pressure. Don't want to let the connections and fans down and make mistakes by trying too hard or even panicking.

Some guys get very disappointed when they see very long odds. Think they may be pre-disposed to not having a chance.

Of course those guys are being short sighted and stupid.

One of the main reasons Patrick Valenzuela lasted so long was because he never came out of that room not thinking he could win.

If on a 3/5 his energy filled the connections with confidence.

If on a 20-1 his enthusiasm filled them with hope.

That's why people loved P.Val and would always come back to him despite his well documented troubles.

Joe Talamo makes people feel that way too.

[ReplayRandall]

Q&A for Jocks

Do you see most other jockeys studying the form or watching replays in the Jock's room?

What % of the time do you ride exactly to instruction? What % of trainers tell you to take it easy, this is just a prep?

What % of the time do you ride a horse fully to the wire, versus putting them away for another day? Is that your call or the trainer's instruction?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It isn't the jockeys, OR the stewards, IMO; it's that pesky thing called "chaos"...which has the nasty habit of playing the definitive role in short-term outcomes. When the result is often determined by necks and noses, and the horses lose precious fifths-of-a-second as they jockey for position around the oval...the outcome of the race will often arouse doubt...and there will always be plenty of blame to go around. In my own play...it helps me to remember that my "control" over the situation ends when I put my money down at the betting window. All I can do is try to position myself favorably against the odds...and whatever happens after I place my bet is totally out of my hands. It's a fallacy to believe that the gambler is in "control" of the situations that he bets on, IMO. Winning -- and losing -- is a COLLECTIVE effort...and all the gambler can do is make sure that he plays his OWN part well. The jockeys, the trainers and the stewards have their OWN role to play in this scenario...and that's an area of the game that the bettor can't control.

As far as jockeys are concerned, I am reminded of former jockey-great Pat Day...who remarked that the best jockey is the one who hampers his horse the least.
One thing I want to make clear is that I'm not trying to cast anyone in a negative way. Thask's point is exactly my point - there are things beyond the control of the horseplayer, and while you have to live with the outcome, understanding the how jockeys and stewards do their job is still information worth knowing. It is also worth knowing how jockeys and stewards perceive their role in the "chaos."

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Q&A for Jocks

Do you see most other jockeys studying the form or watching replays in the Jock's room?

What % of the time do you ride exactly to instruction? What % of trainers tell you to take it easy, this is just a prep?

What % of the time do you ride a horse fully to the wire, versus putting them away for another day? Is that your call or the trainer's instruction?
Excellent. Thank you.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Finally comes "chemical manipulation".

If you choose to attempt to factor it in, it's never any better than an educated guess.

Impossible to feel rock solid you can quantify. Even if you strongly believe there is cheating. I believe there is.

Most times after you've lost it becomes evident.

Are there ways to guesstimate trainers who might be taking an unfair edge?

Sure. We all see the crazy percentages some guys have. Sheets are a huge help with this too.

But at the end of the day it's just another factor in the handicapping equation.

Options?

Try to exploit for your benefit the edges you think they are taking. Join em rather than being pissed when they beat you.

Pass races altogether when you suspect there are components to the race you have little chance to quantify.

If you truly believe the reason you can't win is drug cheaters. Do something else.

You wouldn't play poker with a marked deck that you didn't know the marks would you?
The issue of drugs in racing has an enormous impact on both existing and prospective horseplayers. By interviewing medical directors, pharmacologists, veterinarians, trainers and racing commissioners, I'm hoping I can pass along some accurate information about how serious the issue is.

[v j stauffer]

The issue of drugs in racing has an enormous impact on both existing and prospective horseplayers. By interviewing medical directors, pharmacologists, veterinarians, trainers and racing commissioners, I'm hoping I can pass along some accurate information about how serious the issue is.

You don't have to interview anybody.

2nd only to an aging/dying fan base. The use of illegal drugs is BY FAR the biggest reason for horse racing's demise.

We have ZERO chance of cultivating new players if they can't trust our sport is fair.

Unfortunately the bad guys have a massive edge on the good guys for many different reasons.

The one's that are ruining the sport and the breed DO NOT CARE about the future of our sport.

They care about lining their pockets with money from cheating.

With a long line of dead horses to show for it.

[EMD4ME]

You don't have to interview anybody.

2nd only to an aging/dying fan base. The use of illegal drugs is BY FAR the biggest reason for horse racing's demise.

We have ZERO chance of cultivating new players if they can't trust our sport is fair.

Unfortunately the bad guys have a massive edge on the good guys for many different reasons.

The one's that are ruining the sport and the breed DO NOT CARE about the future of our sport.

They care about lining their pockets with money from cheating.

With a long line of dead horses to show for it.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:


Well said Mr. Vic J Stauffer!

[Stillriledup]

You don't have to interview anybody.

2nd only to an aging/dying fan base. The use of illegal drugs is BY FAR the biggest reason for horse racing's demise.

We have ZERO chance of cultivating new players if they can't trust our sport is fair.

Unfortunately the bad guys have a massive edge on the good guys for many different reasons.

The one's that are ruining the sport and the breed DO NOT CARE about the future of our sport.

They care about lining their pockets with money from cheating.

With a long line of dead horses to show for it.

Thank you!

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84922&highlight=Drugs

[CincyHorseplayer]

I've read 1 post where the problem wasn't outside of the player himself. I think if you really believe in that you shouldn't play at all. You are undermined by your view of the game. And if there aren't enough winners to go round for you then it's not them keeping you from it.

I just want to say I know I am not a universal experience but here is mine. The greatest thing that has impeded me from winning at a high level is me. Coming in 2nd by a nose are the financial realities of the game. We get up and go to work 5 days a week and we get paid at the end of the week. Gas and food is all it costs and you to get a paycheck. With racing you can get the same paycheck but your expenses will probably be 4 or 5 times as much as that paycheck. And you might not get one for 1 or 2 weeks out of the month. Those other 2 checks will be bigger though! Are you ready to bet 4 or 5 times as much as you make to make what you want to be a winner at the racetrack? And then do it 52 weeks a year til your dirt? I can't quite handle that equation which means absolutely I am not a pro player.

The other impediment been me. Trying to shortcut that above reality gets you to do all kinds of "Smart" stuff. Like being a better handicapper or coming up with a 2-3 horse betting method etc or worse specializing. The worst thing I ever did was trying to specialize and I'm not going to get into detail. What I found out was all you do is isolate yourself from opportunity. I did. And the mediocrity with which I found myself in I could not stand anymore and I said "f**k it" and stopped playing. My game from where I started in 1996 did not even remotely resemble what I was doing in early 2015. Best thing I ever could have done.Stop. For one thing if you are a player and you believe in yourself, why the hell aren't you out there playing and looking for every opportunity the game is giving you? I came up on the low level Ohio circuit. Best thing that could have happened to me. I learned how to win at this game on these type of horses. I later learned to win painstakingly at the big tracks. But they aren't filled with gold with their endless chalky stakes and wide open maiden races. The turf presents great opportunities but you can't bank on killing the 15 turf races a week. It has it's variance too. The solution was right in front of me and I couldn't see it. Play all of it. In fact doing so, playing high and low end tracks is the horseplayer's version of psychic equilibrium. When I get sick of the grind and chaos of Gulfstream for example I can find solace in winners at Sam Houston or Turf Paradise or Will Rodgers Downs where I made a big pot of money last year. When those get old or chalky getting back to Gulfstream and Tampa is invigorating. I jump back into it with aplomb and am stimulated.And that the handicapping styles are at different ends of the spectrum is a relief too. Switching up keeps you fresh. Plus I was playing only weekends and A tracks. Now I can play and win just about anywhere except maybe Portland Meadows or Fairmount! Weekends, after work on weekdays, nights. I can play as much as I possibly can. Point being is in taking advantage of the opportunities the game has out there. Stop looking for it in specific places. I was betting 500 races or so a year. I'll triple that this year easy and that's while working a fulltime job also.

This game is so much like baseball. Except those players get guaranteed money! Hit .300 and you will get paid but you will lose .700. Hit .250 with a big OBP(tickets cashed) and you will get there also. Hit .200 with a big SLG%(ROI) and you'll get there too. And that doesn't mean you'll get 3 hits every 10 at bats. You will get hot and cold. The more races I look at and play the more mellow I am getting because bad variance will undo itself over a few weeks. This realization has changed my whole outlook on the game. You can't get hits if you don't get plate appearances. Why limit your at bats if you believe in your skill set? That's what I'm shooting for. Salvation doesn't lie in any one place. It's out there and it's spread out all over this country. Go find it at any place you can win at. Don't specialize in turf races or maiden races or big tracks or small tracks, specialize in winning period!

Anyway longstory short, even with as many external $hitty realities that are out there I think the biggest struggle is within you and within the financial commitment that playing any gambling game for a living entails. For now I'm comfortable with my place in this game and taking my chunk of change from it without altering my lifestyle. Next change is right up around the bend. I'm ready for it. Like I said I know mine is not a universal experience but as I start my 20th year in this game in earnest I couldn't be more enthusiastic. But I had to take myself through some serious misery to come full circle. There are enough wins to go round. Get your ass out there and find em. This game is awesome!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You don't have to interview anybody.

2nd only to an aging/dying fan base. The use of illegal drugs is BY FAR the biggest reason for horse racing's demise.

We have ZERO chance of cultivating new players if they can't trust our sport is fair.

Unfortunately the bad guys have a massive edge on the good guys for many different reasons.

The one's that are ruining the sport and the breed DO NOT CARE about the future of our sport.

They care about lining their pockets with money from cheating.

With a long line of dead horses to show for it.
Well, I figure it's my time to waste and the windmill at which I choose to tilt.

I've always had a couple of questions I want to ask the mavens of horseracing. What are the bad guys using that is undetectable given machines that can detect trillionths of a gram of practically anything? If you know who the bad guys are, what is taking you so long to get them out of racing? And if you don't know who the bad guys are, shouldn't you take some responsibility for not doing your job as well as it should be done?

I wrote a piece that included Florida's suspension of Kirk Ziadie. Ziadie wasn't using magic mushrooms. He was busted for overages of the legal (in Florida) therapeutic Clenbuterol. 18 violations total. (I'll point out that in the article I condemned Ziadie.) Now you can recoil in horror over a trainer that had 18 violations, but I'm going to ask this question: How does Ziadie get away with not being busted the first or second time he violated? It took 18 violations, 18 horses that had whatever advantage Clenbuterol confers, before Florida could shut Ziadie down? I also wrote about Gary Contessa's conviction for having a horse test positive for 2.3 nanograms of cocaine. I won't go through the whole case - you can read about it on my web site or Gary Contessa's web site if you want - but I will mention it took TWO YEARS to get to the final resolution. Here's another question. How can it possibly take two years to resolve a case?

As they used to say on the Sopranos, with all due respect, there are a lot of questions to which the race-going public should get answers, including how widespread "cheating" is and how the bad guys are getting away with it.

[Stillriledup]

Well, I figure it's my time to waste and the windmill at which I choose to tilt.

I've always had a couple of questions I want to ask the mavens of horseracing. What are the bad guys using that is undetectable given machines that can detect trillionths of a gram of practically anything? If you know who the bad guys are, what is taking you so long to get them out of racing? And if you don't know who the bad guys are, shouldn't you take some responsibility for not doing your job as well as it should be done?

I wrote a piece that included Florida's suspension of Kirk Ziadie. Ziadie wasn't using magic mushrooms. He was busted for overages of the legal (in Florida) therapeutic Clenbuterol. 18 violations total. (I'll point out that in the article I condemned Ziadie.) Now you can recoil in horror over a trainer that had 18 violations, but I'm going to ask this question: How does Ziadie get away with not being busted the first or second time he violated? It took 18 violations, 18 horses that had whatever advantage Clenbuterol confers, before Florida could shut Ziadie down? I also wrote about Gary Contessa's conviction for having a horse test positive for 2.3 nanograms of cocaine. I won't go through the whole case - you can read about it on my web site or Gary Contessa's web site if you want - but I will mention it took TWO YEARS to get to the final resolution. Here's another question. How can it possibly take two years to resolve a case?

As they used to say on the Sopranos, with all due respect, there are a lot of questions to which the race-going public should get answers, including how widespread "cheating" is and how the bad guys are getting away with it.

isnt it pretty obvious which trainers who have overages are cheats and which overages are accidental?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The greatest thing that has impeded me from winning at a high level is me.

You are absolutely correct that most of the reason for success or failure lies within. Thanks for sharing your story.

Even though the externalities may be a small part, they carry an enormous weight psychologically. They form mental impediments to winning. As long as someone believes crappy rides, or drugs, or inconsistent stewards decisions play a larger role than they actually may, they may either outthink themselves or give up. All I'm hoping to do is to find some truth about the externalities.

[SG4]

As for stewards decisions.

Even if you believe to your core they are incompetent. Just total idiots.

Every decision benefits just as many people as it hurts.

Thereby making the long term effect meaningless. A wash.

By that logic I feel you wouldn't have a big problem with innocent people being found guilty in court, heck some guilty people will be let off so it all balances out? Obviously not an apples to apples comparison with the stewards, but their decisions do need to have more consistency & transparency behind them, as this will help the game overall as jockeys will know with certainty what they can & cannot do, which should improve the product & improve bettor confidence.

To the original poster here's a question for the stewards - when reviewing an inquiry are their judgments determined in any way by the jockeys involved, as in will a habitual offender be treated more harshly than a rider usually noted for being very clean? If this answer isn't 100% no then it's clearly not fair to bettors & all connections. I know this is the way it's supposed to be, but see how much you believe that when your number is blinking at Gulfstream, wouldn't your confidence levels change depending if Paco Lopez was riding vs. Castellano, even if their maneuvers were identical?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I started the thread to get some ideas what would be important for people to ask jockeys and stewards if they had the chance. I appreciate the responses I've gotten on those topics, and I hope I'll get more. The drug thing is the 800 pound gorilla in racing so to speak, and I hope I'll be able to add something useful to the conversation once I have the opportunity to get a little more perspective.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

By that logic I feel you wouldn't have a big problem with innocent people being found guilty in court, heck some guilty people will be let off so it all balances out? Obviously not an apples to apples comparison with the stewards, but their decisions do need to have more consistency & transparency behind them, as this will help the game overall as jockeys will know with certainty what they can & cannot do, which should improve the product & improve bettor confidence.

To the original poster here's a question for the stewards - when reviewing an inquiry are their judgments determined in any way by the jockeys involved, as in will a habitual offender be treated more harshly than a rider usually noted for being very clean? If this answer isn't 100% no then it's clearly not fair to bettors & all connections. I know this is the way it's supposed to be, but see how much you believe that when your number is blinking at Gulfstream, wouldn't your confidence levels change depending if Paco Lopez was riding vs. Castellano, even if their maneuvers were identical?
Great question. Thanks for your input.

[v j stauffer]

Well, I figure it's my time to waste and the windmill at which I choose to tilt.

I've always had a couple of questions I want to ask the mavens of horseracing. What are the bad guys using that is undetectable given machines that can detect trillionths of a gram of practically anything? If you know who the bad guys are, what is taking you so long to get them out of racing? And if you don't know who the bad guys are, shouldn't you take some responsibility for not doing your job as well as it should be done?

I wrote a piece that included Florida's suspension of Kirk Ziadie. Ziadie wasn't using magic mushrooms. He was busted for overages of the legal (in Florida) therapeutic Clenbuterol. 18 violations total. (I'll point out that in the article I condemned Ziadie.) Now you can recoil in horror over a trainer that had 18 violations, but I'm going to ask this question: How does Ziadie get away with not being busted the first or second time he violated? It took 18 violations, 18 horses that had whatever advantage Clenbuterol confers, before Florida could shut Ziadie down? I also wrote about Gary Contessa's conviction for having a horse test positive for 2.3 nanograms of cocaine. I won't go through the whole case - you can read about it on my web site or Gary Contessa's web site if you want - but I will mention it took TWO YEARS to get to the final resolution. Here's another question. How can it possibly take two years to resolve a case?

As they used to say on the Sopranos, with all due respect, there are a lot of questions to which the race-going public should get answers, including how widespread "cheating" is and how the bad guys are getting away with it.

I wasn't saying you specifically shouldn't interview who you see fit to. Please understand I meant no disrespect.

I was speaking more to the futility of trying to catch the cheaters.

Yes you're correct. The tests can find drugs in microscopic levels.

Unfortunately. They can only find what they are programmed to look for.

The chemists are producing more and newer synthetic versions of drugs and perhaps more importantly drug maskers that nobody has ever seen or heard of.

Extremely frustrating. Especially when the horses are the defenseless guinea pigs.

Please keep going forward with what you're doing. I think it's very important.

[CincyHorseplayer]

You are absolutely correct that most of the reason for success or failure lies within. Thanks for sharing your story.

Even though the externalities may be a small part, they carry an enormous weight psychologically. They form mental impediments to winning. As long as someone believes crappy rides, or drugs, or inconsistent stewards decisions play a larger role than they actually may, they may either outthink themselves or give up. All I'm hoping to do is to find some truth about the externalities.

I got ya. And since you said you were a writer I am definitely rooting for you to find the ugliness and drag it into the light. I was following your opening line about the reasons players lose and what got lost was the thread itself after that!

[v j stauffer]

By that logic I feel you wouldn't have a big problem with innocent people being found guilty in court, heck some guilty people will be let off so it all balances out? Obviously not an apples to apples comparison with the stewards, but their decisions do need to have more consistency & transparency behind them, as this will help the game overall as jockeys will know with certainty what they can & cannot do, which should improve the product & improve bettor confidence.

To the original poster here's a question for the stewards - when reviewing an inquiry are their judgments determined in any way by the jockeys involved, as in will a habitual offender be treated more harshly than a rider usually noted for being very clean? If this answer isn't 100% no then it's clearly not fair to bettors & all connections. I know this is the way it's supposed to be, but see how much you believe that when your number is blinking at Gulfstream, wouldn't your confidence levels change depending if Paco Lopez was riding vs. Castellano, even if their maneuvers were identical?

Ahh the real "C" word. Consistency.

People think the stewards are consistent until one thing happens. They disagree with a decision.

Suddenly their consistency has gone out the window.

As for considering particular repeat offender jockeys during an inquiry. I can speak for myself and several stewards I worked with here in California.

It may influence credibility when talking to them after the race or the next morning.

However, it has zero bearing on the AS IS / DQ decision.

Stewards don't even look at the jockeys when reviewing film during an inquiry. They look at ONLY the horses.

What the jockey did or did not do is meaningless during the inquiry.

His actions only come into play the following morning at film review.

[Nitro]

I think it is fair to say that there are three basic reasons horseplayers lose: poor handicapping, poor betting, and not being able to account for certain externalities.
Three externalities that come to mind are:
poor rides,
decisions by the stewards and
chemical manipulation
Just some more valid reasons for playing in an atmosphere where:
A) The jockey’s are held strictly accountable for their riding efforts – good or bad.
B) The stewards are rarely involved in changing the outcome of a race.
C) NO DRUGS allowed. Period. (Huge fines & suspensions)

Hong Kong!

Some facts….In 2015, over HK$107.9 BILLION was wagered! That is almost $14 Billion USD. With only two tracks (Happy Valley and Sha Tin), Hong Kong Racing enjoyed a 5.8% increase in betting from 2014.
Take all the tracks in North America and the total wagered in 2013 was $10.88 Billion. Maybe America could learn a thing or two from the Hong Kong Jockey Club about racing? (Amen to that!)
With only 83 races in the year, there were over two million people who attended the races in person! (And yes, believe it or not they have computers and ADW's there too.)

I guess I’m now spoiled playing what I believe to be the best racing on the planet! :ThmbUp:
.
.

[DeltaLover]

Ask the jocks about how often they are asked for a soft run.

[castaway01]

Just some more valid reasons for playing in an atmosphere where:
A) The jockey’s are held strictly accountable for their riding efforts – good or bad.
B) The stewards are rarely involved in changing the outcome of a race.
C) NO DRUGS allowed. Period. (Huge fines & suspensions)

Hong Kong!

Some facts….In 2015, over HK$107.9 BILLION was wagered! That is almost $14 Billion USD. With only two tracks (Happy Valley and Sha Tin), Hong Kong Racing enjoyed a 5.8% increase in betting from 2014.
Take all the tracks in North America and the total wagered in 2013 was $10.88 Billion. Maybe America could learn a thing or two from the Hong Kong Jockey Club about racing? (Amen to that!)
With only 83 races in the year, there were over two million people who attended the races in person! (And yes, believe it or not they have computers and ADW's there too.)

I guess I’m now spoiled playing what I believe to be the best racing on the planet! :ThmbUp:
.
.
Yeah, I'm sure the government running horse racing would work great here, since our federal government does such a great job running everything else.

[pandy]

I've always been curious if jockeys are affected by the odds on their mounts. I don't mean big high profile races where they are all probably anxious but in a basic claiming race and the horse is going off at 3/5 can they get too aware, try too hard etc. If their horse is 19-1 do they give it a shot but if they have no horse do they kind of just kick back.


I've written about this many times regarding harness races, and I think it applies to thoroughbred racing as well. For those of you who don't know much about harness racing, the "first over" trip is generally regarded as difficult because the first over horse goes "uncovered" and forces the pace against the pacesetter.

I have written stuff like this, "when a horse is the favorite, and especially a heavy favorite, the drivers are aware of this and they often use the horse hard because they don't want to be accused of not trying or stiffing the horse. Consequently, don't bet on any favorite unless you believe that the horse is so superior that it can take command of the race at any time or go first over and wear down the pacesetter. NEVER bet a favorite hoping that it will get a good trip."

I believe this generally applies to thoroughbred racing as well. Here is a typical scenario:

A horse is 9th early and rallies from far off the pace to win in a race where the pace completely fell apart after an early speed duel, and the horse earns a big speed figure. In its next start, the horse, based on the big speed fig, goes off at 4-5 odds. But the horse had a dream trip in its last start and blew by exhausted horses. Today, there is not much speed in the race. The jockey knows that if he takes back and sits 9th and finishes out of the money, the chalk bettors will be disappointed and he could even get fined for a lackadaisical ride, so he will hustle his horse earlier in the race and use the horse hard.

Again, for those of you who don't follow harness racing, a driver can get fined or suspended if he appears to give a horse too conservative a drive. Last year at the Meadowlands one of the sport's top drivers was fined for racing an odds on horse from off the pace, even though the horse had raced off the pace in its last three starts.

This is why the odds are so important. When you bet a favorite, if you don't think the horse can overcome a rough trip, or isn't capable of taking control of the race on the lead or first up, it's probably a bad bet.

[098poi]

Pandy that's good info, interesting. Thanks.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Ahh the real "C" word. Consistency.

People think the stewards are consistent until one thing happens. They disagree with a decision.

Suddenly their consistency has gone out the window.

As for considering particular repeat offender jockeys during an inquiry. I can speak for myself and several stewards I worked with here in California.

It may influence credibility when talking to them after the race or the next morning.

However, it has zero bearing on the AS IS / DQ decision.

Stewards don't even look at the jockeys when reviewing film during an inquiry. They look at ONLY the horses.

What the jockey did or did not do is meaningless during the inquiry.

His actions only come into play the following morning at film review.
I hope where I come in is to clarify how the stewards do their job. When you note that the stewards don't look at the jockey, just the horse, to many people that is new information. And understanding why that is the ideal way to determine whether a foul worth disqualification has occurred is definitely worth knowing. As the racing public understands that there is a consistency and how it works, it increases the integrity of the game.

You may appreciate this. As a basketball referee we are often counseled to "referee the defense." That doesn't mean you don't see the offensive player, but usually the defensive player tells you how to evaluate the contact.

[pandy]

Pandy that's good info, interesting. Thanks.

Thanks and you're welcome. It makes sense. I don't think there's any doubt that favorites tend to get used harder than non favorites because the jockeys want to give the chalk bettors a run for their money. When a jockey saves ground with a big favorite and comes on late for the show, you'll hear people screaming that the jockey stiffed the horse. But if the jockey puts the horse on the lead and finishes third the bettor's are satiated.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I know alot of people are sensitive to the drug thing, and we all know it exists. Have I been screwed by it, im sure I have. The problem is the bettors arent protected. The connections are with the drug testing after the race and if the horse is found with a positive, the purses get redistributed. As for the players that bet on a horse that ran second to a hopped up horse, we are left with no recourse.

Are there questionable rides by jocks? Sure, but I know I am not always spot on at work either. Hindsight is always 20/20. The hardest thing to gauge is their intent. I dont ever intend to make mistakes, but i do make them. Horses sometimes dont fire, fact of the game.

Someone mentioned on here that the biggest problem with winning is themselves, and I agree. Esp when I get on tilt.

I have always questioned stewards decisions, but the more I study about ROAP the less I question. Some boards, CA in particular, actually post decisions involving action or no action and why, in addition to which steward voted what way. Consistency is key, treating one violation the same way as another, regardless of who was riding. Sure there are mitigating and aggravating circumstance, but that is handled with the action take on the connections/jockey after the fact.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I know alot of people are sensitive to the drug thing, and we all know it exists. Have I been screwed by it, im sure I have. The problem is the bettors arent protected. The connections are with the drug testing after the race and if the horse is found with a positive, the purses get redistributed. As for the players that bet on a horse that ran second to a hopped up horse, we are left with no recourse.

Are there questionable rides by jocks? Sure, but I know I am not always spot on at work either. Hindsight is always 20/20. The hardest thing to gauge is their intent. I dont ever intend to make mistakes, but i do make them. Horses sometimes dont fire, fact of the game.

Someone mentioned on here that the biggest problem with winning is themselves, and I agree. Esp when I get on tilt.

I have always questioned stewards decisions, but the more I study about ROAP the less I question. Some boards, CA in particular, actually post decisions involving action or no action and why, in addition to which steward voted what way. Consistency is key, treating one violation the same way as another, regardless of who was riding. Sure there are mitigating and aggravating circumstance, but that is handled with the action take on the connections/jockey after the fact.
That fact that the bettors get screwed and any remedy is after the fact is a critical point. I've long argued that more effort has to go into keeping the violation from happening in the first place. Fixing the result long after the bettors have been paid is about as unsatisfying as it gets.

I've suggested that if a fan is watching a sporting event, and he can't tell if a penalty/foul occurred, or if it looks like the call was wrong (Dez Bryant's catch/no catch in the playoffs), either the rule is ambiguous or it doesn't make sense. The average fan should be able to watch a video replay and understand what the right call should be 99% of the time.

[Stillriledup]

I'd love to see 'ballot boxes' in jocks rooms and on back stretches where horsemen can place anonymous notes inside the boxes on which trainers and jocks they feel are fixing races, give the name and any specifics they have, It would be interesting to see what gets put in that box.

[atlasaxis]

I've always been curious if jockeys are affected by the odds on their mounts. I don't mean big high profile races where they are all probably anxious but in a basic claiming race and the horse is going off at 3/5 can they get too aware, try too hard etc. If their horse is 19-1 do they give it a shot but if they have no horse do they kind of just kick back.

http://www.janicelblake.com/top-jockeys-and-long-shots/

[ultracapper]

SRU, doing that anonymously would be the worst thing you could do. Anything could get thrown in there in a fit of rage. If somebody makes accusations like that, they have to stand up and be accountable, and be very, very certain they are correct.

[Stillriledup]

SRU, doing that anonymously would be the worst thing you could do. Anything could get thrown in there in a fit of rage. If somebody makes accusations like that, they have to stand up and be accountable, and be very, very certain they are correct.

That's why I would require specifics. Stuff that looks 'fit of ragey' gets tossed in the trash, stuff w details would get investigated.

[ultracapper]

I'm still wary of the anonymous thing. If there is anything to it, the accuser would have to come forward ultimately anyhow.

Accusations like that should not be taken lightly, and accusers should be held to as high a standard as the accused. Call me an Orwellian paranoiac if you wish, but I am against the "narc society" in any form.

[v j stauffer]

I'd love to see 'ballot boxes' in jocks rooms and on back stretches where horsemen can place anonymous notes inside the boxes on which trainers and jocks they feel are fixing races, give the name and any specifics they have, It would be interesting to see what gets put in that box.

Just have them join PA. They can feel free to say whatever they want. No matter how hurtful or stupid.

They'll fit right in.

[Stillriledup]

I'm still wary of the anonymous thing. If there is anything to it, the accuser would have to come forward ultimately anyhow.

Accusations like that should not be taken lightly, and accusers should be held to as high a standard as the accused. Call me an Orwellian paranoiac if you wish, but I am against the "narc society" in any form.

The accuser wouldn't have to come forward because the 'tip' would alert authorities who would then conduct their own surveillance and investigations. The key would be if the crook does it again, which would Be likely since they don't know they're being watched. What you're right about would be that if this was the last time the crook did something wrong, you would probably need the accuser to come fwd. I'm banking on them doing it again though.

[v j stauffer]

The accuser wouldn't have to come forward because the 'tip' would alert authorities who would then conduct their own surveillance and investigations. The key would be if the crook does it again, which would Be likely since they don't know they're being watched. What you're right about would be that if this was the last time the crook did something wrong, you would probably need the accuser to come fwd. I'm banking on them doing it again though.

When I was the safety steward. Rarely would a day go by without a horseman whispering in my or an investigator's ear about something.

We'd look into it and almost always is was BS borne from jealousy, envy, personal problems and many other meaningless things.

Lot's of very sad and angry people on the backstretches in the country.

Your idea doesn't work.

[cj]

When I was the safety steward. Rarely would a day go by without a horseman whispering in my or an investigator's ear about something.

We'd look into it and almost always is was BS borne from jealousy, envy, personal problems and many other meaningless things.

Lot's of very sad and angry people on the backstretches in the country.

Your idea doesn't work.

Were you a steward somewhere other than the NoCal fairs? I really don't know which is why I'm asking.

[Stillriledup]

When I was the safety steward. Rarely would a day go by without a horseman whispering in my or an investigator's ear about something.

We'd look into it and almost always is was BS borne from jealousy, envy, personal problems and many other meaningless things.

Lot's of very sad and angry people on the backstretches in the country.

Your idea doesn't work.

Almost always or always? Because if it's not always, the one time you stumble on something, all the other nonsense was worth it.

As far as sad and angry goes, maybe the anger is because people are cheating and nobody is doing anything about it. I can't imagine every horseman would whisper things to the judges that was 100 pct false and had zero merit.

I would imagine that someone who is just randomly saying 'that guy is cheating' is much different from someone who is laying out specifics.

[v j stauffer]

Were you a steward somewhere other than the NoCal fairs? I really don't know which is why I'm asking.

I worked as a fill in at Del Mar for two weeks year before last.

I worked a season at Fairplex when it was still running.

And two runs at Los Alamitos thoroughbreds.

[v j stauffer]

Almost always or always? Because if it's not always, the one time you stumble on something, all the other nonsense was worth it.

As far as sad and angry goes, maybe the anger is because people are cheating and nobody is doing anything about it. I can't imagine every horseman would whisper things to the judges that was 100 pct false and had zero merit.

I would imagine that someone who is just randomly saying 'that guy is cheating' is much different from someone who is laying out specifics.

Many people are angry because they feel the playing field is not level. For some I believe those concerns are legitimate and justified. I worked VERY hard to do what I could to try to make it fair for everyone.

Some accuse because they're jealous and don't have any ethic. They're simply being outworked and are not willing to do what it takes to succeed.

[Baron Star Gregg]

For stewards:
Is a foul a foul? How is the probability the outcome of the race was compromised, or not, considered?
Are all fouls equal? In other words, would the same degree of interference on the clubhouse turn be treated the same as if it were the far turn?
For jockeys:
How much influence do you give your agent in selecting mounts?
How much do you review video replays of your rides?
What do you wish the public knew about the difference between pan shots, head ons and being in the race on a horses back?
Would you prefer weights were increased for all riders in all contests?

BTW, I consider the great majority of the criticism these two groups receive is largely the result of sour grapes. Nobody knows better than the jockey what he/she sees, hears, or how the horse feels during the race. As for stewards, you know the old saying about how you can't please all of the people all of the time. I'll give special kudos for the Fairgrounds stewards this meet. They have been calling it tight and very consistently.

[Stillriledup]

Many people are angry because they feel the playing field is not level. For some I believe those concerns are legitimate and justified. I worked VERY hard to do what I could to try to make it fair for everyone.

Some accuse because they're jealous and don't have any ethic. They're simply being outworked and are not willing to do what it takes to succeed.

No doubt there's a lot more jealousy and hollow allegations, you're probably right about the anonymous box all it would create is a bunch of people making things up with no grounds for anything.

Thanks for working hard to keep the game clean, we need more people with that attitude.

[SG4]

Ahh the real "C" word. Consistency.

People think the stewards are consistent until one thing happens. They disagree with a decision.

Suddenly their consistency has gone out the window.

As for considering particular repeat offender jockeys during an inquiry. I can speak for myself and several stewards I worked with here in California.

It may influence credibility when talking to them after the race or the next morning.

However, it has zero bearing on the AS IS / DQ decision.

Stewards don't even look at the jockeys when reviewing film during an inquiry. They look at ONLY the horses.

What the jockey did or did not do is meaningless during the inquiry.

His actions only come into play the following morning at film review.

You often make reference to how things were/are in California, do you feel these are blanket statements that cover all jurisdictions or are you just speaking for what you explicitly know?

My real beef is with NY & Gulfstream stewards, I'd like to think I'm clearheaded enough where my bets aren't clouding my judgment on their levels of consistency, which I believe are certainly lacking. If I played enough races in West Virgina or Pennsylvania I'd probably have much bigger issues to resolve, but for the major tracks this is where I see a real problem on steward rulings.

I can't think of the last time I've been discontented with a stewards' ruling in CA, and I appreciate that they put forward public notes on their decisions, and during the HRTV days when Scott Chaney would come on to speak & debate difficult decisions, that was a breath of fresh air to see someone out from behind the curtain willing to defend their decision. If there were some more faces behind the names in NY or Florida maybe that would help matters, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

[SG4]

Great question. Thanks for your input.

Thanks, here's another one for stewards - would they be willing to go on air & discuss/defend recent decisions? Wouldn't it be great in NY to have a piece where Andy reviews film with a steward & has them actually explain their actions in certain situations?

[v j stauffer]

You often make reference to how things were/are in California, do you feel these are blanket statements that cover all jurisdictions or are you just speaking for what you explicitly know?

My real beef is with NY & Gulfstream stewards, I'd like to think I'm clearheaded enough where my bets aren't clouding my judgment on their levels of consistency, which I believe are certainly lacking. If I played enough races in West Virgina or Pennsylvania I'd probably have much bigger issues to resolve, but for the major tracks this is where I see a real problem on steward rulings.

I can't think of the last time I've been discontented with a stewards' ruling in CA, and I appreciate that they put forward public notes on their decisions, and during the HRTV days when Scott Chaney would come on to speak & debate difficult decisions, that was a breath of fresh air to see someone out from behind the curtain willing to defend their decision. If there were some more faces behind the names in NY or Florida maybe that would help matters, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

I am speaking only and specifically of California stewards.

In my opinion we are blessed by a superb group of individuals who have dedicated their professional lives to making racing here as fair and consistent as possible.

Under the tutelage of Executive Director Rick Baedeker and newly appointed Chief Steward Darrel McHargue, I strongly believe as an overall body they are by far the best in the business.

[098poi]

http://www.janicelblake.com/top-jockeys-and-long-shots/

Thanks for the link.

[Grits]

Anonymous tips? This is the pinnacle in regard to suggestions that would open up and allow in--the most dishonest of actions.

There's not enough problems in this sport. So, let's leave no stone unturned and start an investigation bearing someone's quickly scribbled, crumpled up, accusatory remarks in hand. Someone who can/will make up anything to create a problem for someone else.

It is poor leadership that would dare think of relying on information from one who is unwilling to physically come forward. A no guts+no spine=a nobody. I'm sorry, gentlemen, but it does. :ThmbDown:

[v j stauffer]

Thanks, here's another one for stewards - would they be willing to go on air & discuss/defend recent decisions? Wouldn't it be great in NY to have a piece where Andy reviews film with a steward & has them actually explain their actions in certain situations?

Not thrilled with the word defend. But I completely agree the more interaction between the public and the judges the better.

Another example where California is way ahead of the curve.

[Stillriledup]

Anonymous tips? This is the pinnacle in regard to suggestions that would open up and allow in--the most dishonest of actions.

There's not enough problems in this sport. So, let's leave no stone unturned and start an investigation bearing someone's quickly scribbled, crumpled up, accusatory remarks in hand. Someone who can/will make up anything to create a problem for someone else.

It is poor leadership that would dare think of relying on information from one who is unwilling to physically come forward. A no guts+no spine=a nobody. I'm sorry, gentlemen, but it does. :ThmbDown:

It needs work for sure, authorities aren't going to run and arrest anyone on one of these 'tips'. However, something could be written where the people concerned would go 'hmm, interesting' and look into it further. If it's just jealousy, that will obviously come out in the thorough investigation.

[ultracapper]

Anonymous tips? This is the pinnacle in regard to suggestions that would open up and allow in--the most dishonest of actions.

There's not enough problems in this sport. So, let's leave no stone unturned and start an investigation bearing someone's quickly scribbled, crumpled up, accusatory remarks in hand. Someone who can/will make up anything to create a problem for someone else.

It is poor leadership that would dare think of relying on information from one who is unwilling to physically come forward. A no guts+no spine=a nobody. I'm sorry, gentlemen, but it does. :ThmbDown:

Well put, Madam.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Thanks, here's another one for stewards - would they be willing to go on air & discuss/defend recent decisions? Wouldn't it be great in NY to have a piece where Andy reviews film with a steward & has them actually explain their actions in certain situations?
It's such a stunningly simple idea, you'd think it would happen everywhere. I think Andy has a lot of credibility with NYRA fans as someone willing to speak his mind, and I think he would do a good job of going through a video replay with a steward.

I will give the CA stewards credit for facing the press after the Bayern BC 2014 race. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during the post race discussion about whether to DQ anyone.

Ironically, the overhead shot, which I don't believe the stewards were able to review immediately post race, seemed to exonerate Bayern. However, the normal pan and head on shots indicated to me both Moreno and Shared Belief were compromised, but you'd have had to have been the Oracle at Delphi to figure out exactly where those horses would have finished, although I'd have made a sizeable bet at the time against Moreno finishing last.

[thaskalos]

In the process of a steward's inquiry, there are times when the decision to disqualify the horse isn't unanimous...but they disqualify the horse anyway. Isn't a split decision an indication that the infraction wasn't clear-cut...and shouldn't only a clear-cut infraction warrant a disqualification? I could see a monetary fine, or even a suspension being levied against the rider as a result of a split-decision by the stewards...but why go to the extent of punishing the connections and the bettors...when there is doubt even among the stewards that an obvious infraction took place in the race?

[whodoyoulike]

...
We'd look into it and almost always is was BS borne from jealousy, envy, personal problems and many other meaningless things.

Lot's of very sad and angry people on the ...
Your idea doesn't work.

This happens everywhere probably at most businesses.

[whodoyoulike]

...
Under the tutelage of Executive Director Rick Baedeker and newly appointed Chief Steward Darrel McHargue, I strongly believe as an overall body they are by far the best in the business.

One of my favorite jockeys from the 70's was a guy named Darrel McHargue. He may have been a HOF.

Is he the same guy?

[EMD4ME]

Thanks, here's another one for stewards - would they be willing to go on air & discuss/defend recent decisions? Wouldn't it be great in NY to have a piece where Andy reviews film with a steward & has them actually explain their actions in certain situations?

I would LOVE that. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:


And no generic answers. Speak specific, speak directly, speak like a human.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I want to say thanks to everyone who posted questions. I'm getting them worded and organized. Before I publish I'll give everybody here a glimpse of the answers first.

[Stillriledup]

In the process of a steward's inquiry, there are times when the decision to disqualify the horse isn't unanimous...but they disqualify the horse anyway. Isn't a split decision an indication that the infraction wasn't clear-cut...and shouldn't only a clear-cut infraction warrant a disqualification? I could see a monetary fine, or even a suspension being levied against the rider as a result of a split-decision by the stewards...but why go to the extent of punishing the connections and the bettors...when there is doubt even among the stewards that an obvious infraction took place in the race?

Great question, let me add this one.

When a horse is blinking and the decision is moments away, is recent precedent a factor? Are judges thinking about the horse who blinked yesterday or a week ago and it was a very similar situation and if not, why not? Why not try and be very consistent and make sure similar infractions are punished the same.