Wow! High Tension at CHRB Meeting Today. Listen to early part. Some want Stews Fired.

[Andy Asaro]

http://www.selectstreaming.com/live/chrb/archives.php

Thursday May 24th, 2018

Starts off a little slow with first public comment but then Bob Ike says he's not betting So. Cal racing anymore until significant changes are made. The Nick Alexander calls them out forcefully and says the Stewards need to go. Also admonished the CHRB Board for making excuses. Then Ritvo agrees that changes are needed.

Was music to my ears.:headbanger:

Pretty sure they'll have to make changes prior to Del Mar.

[GMB@BP]

I listened to it.

I disagreed with that call. I appreciate how hard the job is. People want consistency, and right now they cant figure out their own rules.

You cant take McKinzie down and not take that horse down.

I would say in general CHRB has been better about taking horses down when fouls have occurred. In other jurisdictions there is some serious herding down the stretch and bumping out of the gates.

They should change it a foul is a foul, would clean a lot of this up and there would be zero ambiguity.

[Track Phantom]

Rules, consistency, McKinzie...none of that matters. If the stewards do not DQ Achira from the race in question they need to be fired on the spot. That was a disgrace to the game and the only conclusion that can be drawn was they had another agenda for not taking the horse down.

No excuses. That was an impossible one to miss.

[GMB@BP]

Rules, consistency, McKinzie...none of that matters. If the stewards do not DQ Achira from the race in question they need to be fired on the spot. That was a disgrace to the game and the only conclusion that can be drawn was they had another agenda for not taking the horse down.

No excuses. That was an impossible one to miss.

Its that whole "did it cost a horse a placing"...that can create a lot of wiggle room for the stewards to make bad decisions.

[Track Phantom]

Its that whole "did it cost a horse a placing"...that can create a lot of wiggle room for the stewards to make bad decisions.
They are morons if they don't know when to apply that statement. There is just ONE application of that statement. That is when the foul occurs after the race positions have already been decided. When you see a horse surge away in the final 100 yards but create an infraction in the process on a tiring horse and the positions don't change, that is the ONLY time that statement can be applied.

That is for protection against a situation where there is a foul but it clearly and with virtually no doubt did not alter the outcome. Applying that rule in the infraction that prompted this discussion is among the stupidest things ever uttered in the history of the planet. The only thing more insane is saying the infraction that Bayern caused out of the starting gate "did not cost a horse a better placing".

If an adult that went past the third grade can't figure out when (and how absolutely rare it is) to apply the "it didn't cost a horse a better placing" then they need to call 1-800-mcdonalds for their next gig.

[GMB@BP]

They are morons if they don't know when to apply that statement. There is just ONE application of that statement. That is when the foul occurs after the race positions have already been decided. When you see a horse surge away in the final 100 yards but create an infraction in the process on a tiring horse and the positions don't change, that is the ONLY time that statement can be applied.

That is for protection against a situation where there is a foul but it clearly and with virtually no doubt did not alter the outcome. Applying that rule in the infraction that prompted this discussion is among the stupidest things ever uttered in the history of the planet. The only thing more insane is saying the infraction that Bayern caused out of the starting gate "did not cost a horse a better placing".

If an adult that went past the third grade can't figure out when (and how absolutely rare it is) to apply the "it didn't cost a horse a better placing" then they need to call 1-800-mcdonalds for their next gig.

I am in the foul is a foul camp, the cases where a horse wins so overwhelmingly that the foul is meaningless is pretty small, and again riders would clean up a lot of this stuff if they started getting dq'd regularly with longer and longer suspensions. No one could argue anything from their "own" personal view point.

[dilanesp]

I disagree. I think it is very important that non-outcome determinative fouls be dealt with via suspensions and fines.

It would be entirely unfair to bettors to disqualify a horse who would have won anyway for a foul. California's rule is the right one.

Now, is it always correctly applied? No. But you don't solve this problem by disqualifying horses who would have won anyway for jockey tactics.

[Andy Asaro]

Rule is fine but the were blatantly inconsistent in that particular call and they make these inconsistent calls far too often. If you listened you know California has had enough. Nick Alexander is the TOC Chairman.

[GMB@BP]

Rule is fine but the were blatantly inconsistent in that particular call and they make these inconsistent calls far too often. If you listened you know California has had enough. Nick Alexander is the TOC Chairman.

Any rule that creates this much ambiguity, across multiple jurisdictions, cannot be fine, it defies logic.

The argument is that if its fine all stewards are incompetent, and that is not the case either.

The rule is as open to interpretation as a impression style painting.

[Andy Asaro]

Any rule that creates this much ambiguity, across multiple jurisdictions, cannot be fine, it defies logic.

The argument is that if its fine all stewards are incompetent, and that is not the case either.

The rule is as open to interpretation as a impression style painting.

They've changed the language before. The only issue is one of consistency. Did you listen to Nick Alexander? He's a big owner and head of the Thoroughbred Owners of California. What he said and how he said it was EXTRAORDINARY

[GMB@BP]

They've changed the language before. The only issue is one of consistency. Did you listen to Nick Alexander? He's a big owner and head of the Thoroughbred Owners of California. What he said and how he said it was EXTRAORDINARY

i listened to him, he more or less said those guys are 3 blind mice and need to be "turned over".

Thing is, same thing will happen with "three more blind mice".

The concept of did it cost a horse a placing is just very questionable. Its why we NEVER see out of the gate dq's. How do you know it cost a horse a placing, they may have run last or 5th. Yet a horse like Bayern clearly fouled the other horses.

[Denny]

Always let the results stand.

Unless a foul can be known to be intentional, which is close to impossible to determine.

Don't punish bettors who backed a winner.

[PaceAdvantage]

Always let the results stand.

Unless a foul can be known to be intentional, which is close to impossible to determine.

Don't punish bettors who backed a winner.Your desired scenario, of course, would lead to a lot of speculation about a jockey who fouls another horse to possibly cash a bet...knowing the bet won't be taken down. Sure the jock might get fined and/or suspended, but it would be very easy for someone or some group to grab a hold on a jockey and basically force him to fix a race in that manner...foul the favorite out of the race...if you know the favorite isn't going to win, you can easily make a lot of money no matter who wins.

[GMB@BP]

Always let the results stand.

Unless a foul can be known to be intentional, which is close to impossible to determine.

Don't punish bettors who backed a winner.

PVAL would have had a field day with this interpretation.

[zawaaa]

fools and their conspiracy theories...

[jocko699]

PVAL would have had a field day with this interpretation.

No ffiiing kidding!!! Great Post!!!!! :ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[P Matties Jr]

Its that whole "did it cost a horse a placing"...that can create a lot of wiggle room for the stewards to make bad decisions.

Agreed. The whole concept of "did the incident cost a horse a better placing" is backwards. It would be much more logical if the concept was "did the offender gain an advantage or placing by his actions"....So, the process should be, first determine if there was a foul. After such determination is made, then decide if the winner gained a placing by causing the rule infraction. If it's a determined foul by the rules and the breaking of the rule caused an advantage for the perpetrator, then make the disqualification. If the infraction had no impact on the order of the finish, then let the results stand.......In cases with horses who finish 3rd instead of 2nd (cost a better placing), there is no logic in making a horse who was never going to win, anyway, the declared winner and it is hugely disrespectful to the bettors. Redistributing millions of dollars to undeserving parties at the windows, so an owner like Sheikh Mohammed or Mike Repole can get a few more dollars in purse money makes no sense at all. Besides, owners are well versed in that bad racing luck can cost you a placing, but if you take money out of the pockets from a well deserved bettor (your customers) by putting up a horse who had no business winning, you may lose a customer, for a day, week, year, forever..

[jay68802]

From CHRB 2016.


COMMISSIONER AUERBACH: Yeah. What my concern is, as with this whole rule but specifically with this, is sometimes floating is the most beautiful race riding you’ll ever see, really and truthfully. And when you put it like this it would depend upon, I think, the mindset of the stewards and what they’re looking at. And I think sometimes by trying to identify it so minutely I’m concerned that we’re going to cause more problems than we’re going to solve. That’s my concern.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Don’t the rules say that you’re supposed to stay in a straight line? COMMISSIONER AUERBACH: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But floating, now that’s a way of intimidating too. I mean people don’t go on the freeway and take another car out because it’s going to cause a problem.
COMMISSIONER AUERBACH: Have you ever driven behind me?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don’t know.
VICE CHAIR ROSENBERG: Madeline, I think --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But my point with with the floating, I mean, to me race riding is where you get a horse stuck on the inside and keep them in there. That’s, to me, that’s race riding. To me if you push a horse out, I have gone back to those barns where I push a horse out and brush them, and you go back to the barn and they’re all cut up. To me that’s not race riding, that’s careless. And floating to me is the same thing. VICE CHAIR ROSENBERG: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, you can call it --
CHAIRMAN WINNER: I think that’s the way the stewards felt when they, when they recommended this language. They felt that floating is exactly what --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It’s illegal.
CHAIRMAN WINNER: -- Commissioner Solis is saying.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, it’s, yeah, it helps you to win races.
COMMISSIONER AUERBACH: You’ve done it, huh?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, it’s, yeah, it helps you to win races. Yes, I have done it. But at the same time you’re taking that horse out, but that horse is going to the side. It’s not going in a straight line. If you go to the side it’s changing a different kind of stride, and that’s where they can be hurt.
VICE CHAIR ROSENBERG: And, Madeline, to float is not a penalty here. It’s not interference. You have to read of it which goes on to say, “or otherwise causing any other horse to lose stride, ground, et cetera. So it’s not just the floating, it’s the second part.
COMMISSIONER AUERBACH: I think my problem with it, Richard, is the subjectiveness, which is --
VICE CHAIR ROSENBERG: Well, it’s the system.
COMMISSIONER AUERBACH: -- in all rules.
VICE CHAIR ROSENBERG: Yeah.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/1000023118218342400

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/1000024817976799232

[GMB@BP]

Its interesting that they have Solis there, I always thought of him as a safer rider out there (I am sure he was not perfect).

This herding stuff is bullcrap, horse is in the 2 path and ends up in the 10 path because another horse is coming, I dont even care if there was contact, to me thats a dangerous move. Go watch the grass race that Castallano won on SA Derby day, he is all over that track, herded not one but two horses, weaved in to intimidate, weaved out to intimidate. Ridiculous and dangerous.

[dilanesp]

You guys are looking for objectivity in an inherently subjective vocation.

[Andy Asaro]

I could be wrong but I think some are missing the point. This is the first time ever high profile people in positions of authority have spoken out against and slammed Stewards at a major jurisdiction in such a public manner. It's awesome IMO

[GMB@BP]

I could be wrong but I think some are missing the point. This is the first time ever high profile people in positions of authority have spoken out against and slammed Stewards at a major jurisdiction in such a public manner. It's awesome IMO

Well isnt there some irony in that, they are the ones coming up with the rules, which are so ambiguous no one knows how they are actually to be applied.

Its like the NFL catch rule. One crew see it one way, another see it this way....its the rule that is bad, though these particular stewards are taking it up a notch.

[Andy Asaro]

Well isnt there some irony in that, they are the ones coming up with the rules, which are so ambiguous no one knows how they are actually to be applied.

Its like the NFL catch rule. One crew see it one way, another see it this way....its the rule that is bad, though these particular stewards are taking it up a notch.

Ritvo, Alexander, Ike, et al don't make up the riding rules the CHRB does.

[GMB@BP]

Ritvo, Alexander, Ike, et al don't make up the riding rules the CHRB does.

Thats who I am talking about, the CHRB, Auerbach, Solis, Winner....et all.

They can talk about changing out stewards all they want, its the rules and their application (which they oversee) that needs to be fixed.

[jay68802]

Ritvo, Alexander, Ike, et al don't make up the riding rules the CHRB does.

CHAIRMAN WINNER: I think that’s the way the stewards felt when they, when they recommended this language. They felt that floating is exactly what --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It’s illegal.

Call it what you want, floating, herding, whatever. It comes down to these tactics change a horses stride, even if it is not that obvious.

[Andy Asaro]

Thats who I am talking about, the CHRB, Auerbach, Solis, Winner....et all.

They can talk about changing out stewards all they want, its the rules and their application (which they oversee) that needs to be fixed.

They've changed the language before. It's the people in the Stewards positions who are the problem.

[GMB@BP]

They've changed the language before. It's the people in the Stewards positions who are the problem.

Then this problem would be isolated to socal.

I think the riding tactics are even more dangerous in NY.

[Andy Asaro]

Then this problem would be isolated to socal.

I think the riding tactics are even more dangerous in NY.

The one that broke the camels back wasn't a riding tactic. Mike Smith was whipping right handed doing everything he could to straighten his mount out yet he got days. At the CHRB meeting Nick Alexander said he got a text from Mike saying he though he should have been DQ'd

[cj]

New York is mostly consistent. If you drift in and put a horse tight on the rail, pretty much automatic DQ. If you drift out, no matter how far, you're safe 95% of the time.

[jay68802]

The one that broke the camels back wasn't a riding tactic. Mike Smith was whipping right handed doing everything he could to straighten his mount out yet he got days. At the CHRB meeting Nick Alexander said he got a text from Mike saying he though he should have been DQ'd

Riding incident? Broke the camels back? The only reason this is a issue now with the CHRB is that Alexander and Rivto voiced "their" opinion. If those two do not do this, the CHRB sweeps this under the rug and it becomes past news. Just like their "conversation" about whales is being put off, and soon will be ignored. This is not about horse racing and bettering the sport, it is about who said something and how "important" or "elite" that person is.

[Denny]

New York is mostly consistent. If you drift in and put a horse tight on the rail, pretty much automatic DQ. If you drift out, no matter how far, you're safe 95% of the time.

Really?

How about when Enticed got put into the rail by Vino Rosso?
Had to check.

No DQ!

Which is fine by me. I want winners that are best - the horse that finishes first.

[Andy Asaro]

Riding incident? Broke the camels back? The only reason this is a issue now with the CHRB is that Alexander and Rivto voiced "their" opinion. If those two do not do this, the CHRB sweeps this under the rug and it becomes past news. Just like their "conversation" about whales is being put off, and soon will be ignored. This is not about horse racing and bettering the sport, it is about who said something and how "important" or "elite" that person is.

Pretty sure I've made the same point you're making in this post. Hence the "Wow" in thread title.

[Denny]

Your desired scenario, of course, would lead to a lot of speculation about a jockey who fouls another horse to possibly cash a bet...knowing the bet won't be taken down. Sure the jock might get fined and/or suspended, but it would be very easy for someone or some group to grab a hold on a jockey and basically force him to fix a race in that manner...foul the favorite out of the race...if you know the favorite isn't going to win, you can easily make a lot of money no matter who wins.

PA,

1. Much, much stiffer fines and suspensions to jockeys for reckless/careless/intentional fouls would accomplish more than a DQ ever will.

2. What your suggesting above is criminal and could result in going to prison. Isn't that enough of a deterrent already?

[Andy Asaro]

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/press_releases/2018_05_25_press_release.pdf


During the Public Comment portion of the meeting, several speakers criticized a decision by the stewards involving a May 6 race at Santa Anita Park and urged the Board to take steps to remedy what they feel is a continuing problem.

Chairman Winner and Vice Chair Auerbach said they met with staff the previous day in an ongoing review, and they outlined measures under consideration, including the rotation of stewards and further changes to CHRB Rule 1699 to reduce the amount of subjectivity in decisions by the stewards.

[Spalding No!]

Mike Smith was whipping right handed doing everything he could to straighten his mount out yet he got days.
I think Smith was whipping more right-handed to intimidate the D'Amato filly and not to correct his mount. If he wanted to correct his mount, he would have reined the horse back to the inside. He only did this after he successfully impeded the other horse.

Note, too, that Smith chose to whip right-handed with near full extension of his right arm, to where the head of Helen Hillary is convenient in the trajectory of his windmilling. In fact, I'm not even sure he was striking his mount as he's flailing away with too rapid a motion; it's seems more like he's waving it in front of the other horse.

And if he was indeed striking his mount that ferociously, perhaps under the new whip rules he should have been further penalized for failing to give his mount a proper chance to respond.

[PaceAdvantage]

2. What your suggesting above is criminal and could result in going to prison. Isn't that enough of a deterrent already?Has this ever stopped someone who wanted to try and fix a race before? There have been fixed races in the past, correct?

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/1012390429130543104