Worst DQ ever?

[SG4]

So the first horse under the line in CD's finale today would have paid out the entire jackpot pool of 317k, just 2 days before mandatory payout day on Sunday & a certain nice expected profit for Churchill with that upcoming betting activity. The runner up would've had the pick 6 hit multiple times, so the carry would've been about $216k, but CD goes for a double DQ to where the 3rd place finisher had 0 tickets alive & therefore now the whole $317k carries into Saturday.


Having watched the replay several times on the pan & head on this is absolutely one of the worst disqualifications I have ever seen, no matter what sort of payouts were at stake. Considering the value to CD of this pick 6 carrying over, it is hard for me to believe they're not connected which makes me feel sick. I usually despise conspiracy theories & things of this nature, but this was disgusting. The runner-up came over with a decent bump, I could see that DQ with no problem (but not a certainty either), but there is ZERO chance the winner's actions cost anyone a placing as he slightly came out 2 jumps from the wire. I feel bad for whoever held this ticket, especially as it was quite an amazing & game battle to come back at the wire.

[azeri98]

So the first horse under the line in CD's finale today would have paid out the entire jackpot pool of 317k, just 2 days before mandatory payout day on Sunday & a certain nice expected profit for Churchill with that upcoming betting activity. The runner up would've had the pick 6 hit multiple times, so the carry would've been about $216k, but CD goes for a double DQ to where the 3rd place finisher had 0 tickets alive & therefore now the whole $317k carries into Saturday.


Having watched the replay several times on the pan & head on this is absolutely one of the worst disqualifications I have ever seen, no matter what sort of payouts were at stake. Considering the value to CD of this pick 6 carrying over, it is hard for me to believe they're not connected which makes me feel sick. I usually despise conspiracy theories & things of this nature, but this was disgusting. The runner-up came over with a decent bump, I could see that DQ with no problem (but not a certainty either), but there is ZERO chance the winner's actions cost anyone a placing as he slightly came out 2 jumps from the wire. I feel bad for whoever held this ticket, especially as it was quite an amazing & game battle to come back at the wire.

I saw the race and agree with you no way the winner should have been DQ'd, smells fishy

[Suff]

I have to agree... the 7 on the outside , at the 16th pole does come in and maybe, yea, you could see a DQ, but that set the whole thing in motion and NO WAY the rail horse should come down. NO way.


https://preview.ibb.co/gqWiKq/pic1.png (https://ibb.co/i9P3Kq)


https://preview.ibb.co/gTnqzq/pic2.png (https://ibb.co/mUhOKq)

https://preview.ibb.co/fpPW5V/pic3.png (https://ibb.co/jwKLzq)

[Robert Fischer]

The :7: reacted to the incidental contact between the :9: and the :7: by fouling the :9:.

That should DQ the :7: to 3rd in a 3-way stretch run.

Then, near the wire, when the :9: had no chance to overtake the :8:, the :8: came over and fouled the :9:. While this was a foul, it should not result in a change of placing.

The correct result should be :8::9::7:

I wouldn't put being carryover-influenced past the judges, but my default guess is that they were simply incompetent, again.

[metro]

What really constitutes a double DQ? Considering they are few and far between in the game it's hard to say if the actions of the CD stewards were justified or not.

I would have leaned to leave the winner up and take the 7 down to 3rd.

[v j stauffer]

So the first horse under the line in CD's finale today would have paid out the entire jackpot pool of 317k, just 2 days before mandatory payout day on Sunday & a certain nice expected profit for Churchill with that upcoming betting activity. The runner up would've had the pick 6 hit multiple times, so the carry would've been about $216k, but CD goes for a double DQ to where the 3rd place finisher had 0 tickets alive & therefore now the whole $317k carries into Saturday.


Having watched the replay several times on the pan & head on this is absolutely one of the worst disqualifications I have ever seen, no matter what sort of payouts were at stake. Considering the value to CD of this pick 6 carrying over, it is hard for me to believe they're not connected which makes me feel sick. I usually despise conspiracy theories & things of this nature, but this was disgusting. The runner-up came over with a decent bump, I could see that DQ with no problem (but not a certainty either), but there is ZERO chance the winner's actions cost anyone a placing as he slightly came out 2 jumps from the wire. I feel bad for whoever held this ticket, especially as it was quite an amazing & game battle to come back at the wire.

He "slightly" came out? What the hell replay are you watching? The inside horse was in the 1 path, He came out into the 2 path but unfortunately for him the 2 path was already taken by the 9 who damn near got dropped!

As for the conspiracy theories about the Pick 6. I will remind you the Stewards are employees of the State of Kentucky and therefore have ZERO vested interest in the CD business model.

I was on the air on TVG2 when the incident happened and told the viewers a double DQ was coming.

This was a simple, easy call.

[Track Phantom]

He "slightly" came out? What the hell replay are you watching? The inside horse was in the 1 path, He came out into the 2 path but unfortunately for him the 2 path was already taken by the 9 who damn near got dropped!

As for the conspiracy theories about the Pick 6. I will remind you the Stewards are employees of the State of Kentucky and therefore have ZERO vested interest in the CD business model.

I was on the air on TVG2 when the incident happened and told the viewers a double DQ was coming.

This was a simple, easy call.

At the point when the 8 came over into the path of the 9, the race was already decided (about 50-100 yards left if i recall). An infraction may have occurred but it had zero bearing on the outcome (at least as it concerned the 9). After the 7 came over on the 9, the 9 was eliminated as a win candidate and was always going to be third.

I have no problem with the stewards DQ'ing the 8 as long as the stewards always DQ the 8 in that kind of instance. They don't and that is what disturbs players.

Regarding the pick 6, you're saying the stewards have zero invested in the outcome. You might be right. Others say the stewards might have some interest in the outcome. They might be right. Hence the problem with horse racing. Speculation runs rampant because the game is woefully non-transparent and now the track actually cares who wins the races and when. Big problem.

Full disclosure: I had all 3 runners in the pick 4 and they paid:
7: 1300
8: 1100
9: 3700

I got lucky.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/DRFMcGee/status/1066307991081750529

Excerpt:

FACT: The convergence of jackpot wagers such as the Single 6 with stewards’ decisions makes for an inherent conflict of interest that shakes the public’s confidence in the game. A similar occurrence at Gulfstream Park in February 2014 led to a disqualification of a horse named Collinito that resulted in a bettor losing what would have been a payout of more than $1.6 million. Predictably, there was public outrage at that decision, whether or not the DQ was warranted, just as there was public outrage following the Friday call at CD.

https://twitter.com/PatCummingsTIF/status/1066325077237612545

https://twitter.com/MultiraceWagers/status/1066309509000413185

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/1066325229641719808

8 shouldn't have come down. At the point he interfered with the 9 the 9 was never gonna get second.

[ronsmac]

Bad dq plain and simple.

[v j stauffer]

At the point when the 8 came over into the path of the 9, the race was already decided (about 50-100 yards left if i recall). An infraction may have occurred but it had zero bearing on the outcome (at least as it concerned the 9). After the 7 came over on the 9, the 9 was eliminated as a win candidate and was always going to be third.

I have no problem with the stewards DQ'ing the 8 as long as the stewards always DQ the 8 in that kind of instance. They don't and that is what disturbs players.

Regarding the pick 6, you're saying the stewards have zero invested in the outcome. You might be right. Others say the stewards might have some interest in the outcome. They might be right. Hence the problem with horse racing. Speculation runs rampant because the game is woefully non-transparent and now the track actually cares who wins the races and when. Big problem.

Full disclosure: I had all 3 runners in the pick 4 and they paid:
7: 1300
8: 1100
9: 3700

I got lucky.

It did happen very late. Remember they have to decide if the :9: could have possibly finished 2nd. Very tough call but as I said I think they made the correct call. The jock on the :8: certainly did them no favors by carelessly coming out. I always told the riders. Go straight! Don't make us have to split hairs and perhaps get a VERY CLOSE decision wrong. There's NEVER been a horse DQ'ed for going straight. Never.

[Suff]

The replay shows.. when the 7 comes in on the 9 .. the 9 comes over and has contact with the rail horse and forces him into the 1 path.... The rail horse simply recovers and goes back to the path he was in. Watch the replay head on.. pretty easy to see.

And welcome to the weekly.. "Shakes the public confidence in the game" thread.

I have no dog, other than, please don't insult my intelligence by posting that the stewards work for the state and have no interest in what's good for churchill downs. Please stop with that bullshit. Thanks

[v j stauffer]

The replay shows.. when the 7 comes in on the 9 .. the 9 comes over and has contact with the rail horse and forces him into the 1 path.... The rail horse simply recovers and goes back to the path he was in. Watch the replay head on.. pretty easy to see.

And welcome to the weekly.. "Shakes the public confidence in the game" thread.

I have no dog, other than, please don't insult my intelligence by posting that the stewards work for the state and have no interest in what's good for churchill downs. Please stop with that bullshit. Thanks

That's not the way the film looks to me. Or the Stewards.

[Robert Fischer]

It did happen very late. Remember they have to decide if the :9: could have possibly finished 2nd.

How did the :9: not already have 2nd locked up?
The :7: clearly fouled the :9: at the top of the stretch. 2nd=:9: , and 3rd=:7:

[the little guy]

Yet another "worst DQ ever." It's so hard to keep up with them

I use Allemeuse, a five length winner that was disqualified at 7:1, but was actually the wrong horse...something Jerry Bailey told the Stewards during the inquiry, as the barometer for worst DQ ever. None of the 50 supposed worst DQs ever from 2018 come even close to that.

[linrom1]

Occam Razor and the end-result always justifies decisions in business driven by profit. In this case the situation speaks for itself. There is no justification for the double DQ otherwise.

Racing stewards are just as impartial as Executive Compensation Committees, perhaps less so.

Too many people assume that others will act and think ethically as they do; in most situations involving profit, one must assume the worst intention to come up with the correct assessment.

Therefore it is my conclusion that the DQ was solely made on Jackpot ramification.

[v j stauffer]

Occam Razor and the end-result always justifies decisions in business driven by profit. In this case the situation speaks for itself. There is no justification for the double DQ otherwise.

Racing stewards are just as impartial as Executive Compensation Committees, perhaps less so.

Too many people assume that others will act and think ethically as they do; in most situations involving profit, one must assume the worst intention to come up with the correct assessment.

Therefore it is my conclusion that the DQ was solely made on Jackpot ramification.

If you're correct how would the Stewards benefit?

[cj]

If you're correct how would the Stewards benefit?

Not commenting on this particular call, but let's not pretend that Churchill and the KHRC aren't in bed together.

[v j stauffer]

Not commenting on this particular call, but let's not pretend that Churchill and the KHRC aren't in bed together.

I can't speak to KY. I'd like to think that's not the case. I will say it's not that way in California. In fact the CHRB and the tracks often have contentious, adversarial discourse.

[Robert Fischer]

Maybe it's a trick question and Churchill money goes completely out (or even to the detriment) of the State??

If not, the technical distinction of management, is silly.


Either way, I don't think this was very likely to be a 'fix'.

linrom mentioned Occam's razor, ... this is more likely related to Hanlon's razor

[SaratogaSteve]

This is a HoF thread. Easy DQ to make first of all. How it can be questioned by even a casual fan is beyond me. Second, and more importantly, is that if you all think track management and the stewards, and the the owners, and jockeys, and the whales are all on the take....WHY DO YOU KEEP COMING BACK? :bang: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[v j stauffer]

Maybe it's a trick question and Churchill money goes completely out (or even to the detriment) of the State??

If not, the technical distinction of management, is silly.


Either way, I don't think this was very likely to be a 'fix'.

linrom mentioned Occam's razor, ... this is more likely related to Hanlon's razor

I'm VERY sure there's no FIX. The Stewards did their job regulating the races. The association did their job running the track. For you to be right management would have had to call the Stewards stand during the deliberation and tell them how they wanted the order of finish to come out.

Does anybody REALLY think that call took place? C'mon people.

I've never met a Steward in my life that wouldn't tell whomever was on the other side of the phone to F-OFF, hang up and go about the important business of deciding the inquiry.

[cj]

I can't speak to KY. I'd like to think that's not the case. I will say it's not that way in California. In fact the CHRB and the tracks often have contentious, adversarial discourse.

But this is Kentucky, and every decision ever made by them has favored Churchill and Keeneland over anything and anyone else. There have been many threads about it, notably the latest decision about a harness license.

I'd find it hard to be believe that those tracks had no say over which stewards are hired, fired, renewed, whatever. I'd hope I'm wrong but I'd also be very surprised if I am.

[Andy Asaro]

A jackpot carryover like they one they have going on brings in huge money on mandatory payout day. Guessing at least a couple million in new money if it isn't hit today. Additionally handle goes up dramatically on all the other races.

And Stewards don't bet just like Umpires in Baseball and Referee's in Football and Basketball don't bet. :lol:

Likely a coincidence but you never know.

A

[davew]

Yet another "worst DQ ever." It's so hard to keep up with them

I use Allemeuse, a five length winner that was disqualified at 7:1, but was actually the wrong horse...something Jerry Bailey told the Stewards during the inquiry, as the barometer for worst DQ ever. None of the 50 supposed worst DQs ever from 2018 come even close to that.

I agree .. Allemeuse wasn't even near the horse that pushed the gray horse over the rail at the top of the stretch on the Saratoga turf (back in the 80's).

[Spalding No!]

This was a simple, easy call.

Very tough call but as I said I think they made the correct call.
Ladies and gentlemen, please note: v j stauffer has been DISQUALIFIED and placed LAST for interference in this thread.

As you can see from the quoted thread footage, v j stauffer lugged out severely against several other posters at the top of the lane only to come back in sharply in deep stretch, crowding even more posters near the wire.

For this, the stewards had no choice but to disqualify v j stauffer and place him LAST.

There's NEVER been a horse DQ'ed for going straight. Never.
Gate Dancer, 1984 Breeder's Cup Classic.

[Robert Fischer]

For you to be right management would have had to call the Stewards stand during the deliberation and tell them how they wanted the order of finish to come out.


I've said repeatedly, that I do not believe that there was a 'fix'.

I think it was very likely to be 'incompetence'.

In the long-shot chance that this was a call influenced/decided by the carryover, there need not be a phone-call.

It's not hard to imagine that the stewards are aware of the carryover situation.

[cj]

I'm VERY sure there's no FIX. The Stewards did their job regulating the races. The association did their job running the track. For you to be right management would have had to call the Stewards stand during the deliberation and tell them how they wanted the order of finish to come out.

Does anybody REALLY think that call took place? C'mon people.

I've never met a Steward in my life that wouldn't tell whomever was on the other side of the phone to F-OFF, hang up and go about the important business of deciding the inquiry.

Come on, you think they didn't know the circumstances. Impossible. Regardless of what you think of the decision, no way they didn't know the repercussions.

[ReplayRandall]

I can't speak to KY. I'd like to think that's not the case. I will say it's not that way in California. In fact the CHRB and the tracks often have contentious, adversarial discourse.

So, there must have been a few contentious split decisions among the Stewards that you've worked with.....Tell me about a heated split decision that you were involved with, and the outcome...

[Suff]

I'm not suggesting anything is Fixed.... at all. My personal opinion is that there are far to many inquires to begin with, and that racing is a tough racket, and horses are wild animals and shit happens and we should let it happen.

Isn't it the same racing experts who always remind us


We are the only athletes who are followed around by an ambulance?



We take our life in out hands everytime we get up on a mount!



We are on a 1000 pound animal going 40 MPH while making split second decisions


And trainers.. "he has a lot to learn"... "he's head strong"... so on so on.....

But let one of them move laterally 2 feet and its DISQUALIFIED!....by a State employee. Who may or may not have ever made a wager in his or her life.


Let them run I say. And let it be rough out there...

[v j stauffer]

Ladies and gentlemen, please note: v j stauffer has been DISQUALIFIED and placed LAST for interference in this thread.

As you can see from the quoted thread footage, v j stauffer lugged out severely against several other posters at the top of the lane only to come back in sharply in deep stretch, crowding even more posters near the wire.

For this, the stewards had no choice but to disqualify v j stauffer and place him LAST.


Gate Dancer, 1984 Breeder's Cup Classic.

I accept this ruling. Is there a chance that a suspension could be attached? I could use the rest. :headbanger:

[cj]

I'm not suggesting anything is Fixed.... at all. My personal opinion is that there are far to many inquires to begin with, and that racing is a tough racket, and horses are wild animals and shit happens and we should let it happen.

Isn't it the same racing experts who always remind us


We are the only athletes who are followed around by an ambulance?



We take our life in out hands everytime we get up on a mount!



We are on a 1000 pound animal going 40 MPH while making split second decisions


And trainers.. "he has a lot to learn"... "he's head strong"... so on so on.....

But let one of them move laterally 2 feet and its DISQUALIFIED!....by a State employee. Who may or may not have ever made a wager in his or her life.


Let them run I say. And let it be rough out there...

Well said. Way too many DQs in North America.

[v j stauffer]

So, there must have been a few contentious split decisions among the Stewards that you've worked with.....Tell me about a heated split decision that you were involved with, and the outcome...

I will Randall. I've got a couple. Can't do it now. Due on the air on TVG2 at 1:00pm. But I promise I'll follow up later.

[v j stauffer]

I'm not suggesting anything is Fixed.... at all. My personal opinion is that there are far to many inquires to begin with, and that racing is a tough racket, and horses are wild animals and shit happens and we should let it happen.

Isn't it the same racing experts who always remind us


We are the only athletes who are followed around by an ambulance?



We take our life in out hands everytime we get up on a mount!



We are on a 1000 pound animal going 40 MPH while making split second decisions


And trainers.. "he has a lot to learn"... "he's head strong"... so on so on.....

But let one of them move laterally 2 feet and its DISQUALIFIED!....by a State employee. Who may or may not have ever made a wager in his or her life.


Let them run I say. And let it be rough out there...

That's a recipe for dead horses and paralyzed jockeys.

[cj]

That's a recipe for dead horses and paralyzed jockeys.

Doesn't seem to be a problem in other jurisdictions.

[Jeff P]

I can't speak to KY. I'd like to think that's not the case. I will say it's not that way in California. In fact the CHRB and the tracks often have contentious, adversarial discourse.

My first hand experience with the CHRB (California Horseracing Board) has been the complete opposite.

Despite all outward appearances:

The CHRB is not a true independent regulatory body.

The commissioners of the CHRB are appointed from a short list of candidates handed to the Legislature and Governor's Office by the TOC and the Tracks.

In my opinion, the commissioners of the CHRB have consistently done the bidding of those who got them appointed in the first place --

The CHRB may occasionally disagree with the tracks and the TOC.

But when it comes time to rule on an issue horsesplayers have put in front of them such as reversing the takeout hikes, allowing exchange wagering, scratching misreported first time geldings instead of allowing them to run for purse money only, changing the rule that allows trainers to dictate a convenient time to serve their drug suspensions, suspending riders for not trying, etc:

The CHRB consistently rules the way the TOC and the Tracks tell them to rule.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

That's a recipe for dead horses and paralyzed jockeys.

And yet -that hasn't been the case at all in other parts of the world (Hong Kong for example) where the stewards tend to let the results stand and call the rider in for a hearing afterwards.


-jp

.

[v j stauffer]

My first hand experience with the CHRB (California Horseracing Board) has been the complete opposite.

Despite all outward appearances:

The CHRB is not a true independent regulatory body.

The commissioners of the CHRB are appointed from a short list of candidates handed to the Legislature and Governor's Office by the TOC and the Tracks.

In my opinion, the commissioners of the CHRB have consistently done the bidding of those who got them appointed in the first place --

The CHRB may occasionally disagree with the tracks and the TOC.

But when it comes time to rule on an issue horsesplayers have put in front of them such as reversing the takeout hikes, allowing exchange wagering, scratching misreported first time geldings instead of allowing them to run for purse money only, changing the rule that allows trainers to dictate a convenient time to serve their drug suspensions, suspending riders for not trying, etc:

The CHRB consistently rules the way the TOC and the Tracks tell them to rule.


-jp

.


Good, fair post #2

[v j stauffer]

And yet -that hasn't been the case at all in other parts of the world (Hong Kong for example) where the stewards tend to let the results stand and call the rider in for a hearing afterwards.


-jp

.

Good, Fair post #1

[Andy Asaro]

My first hand experience with the CHRB (California Horseracing Board) has been the complete opposite.

Despite all outward appearances:

The CHRB is not a true independent regulatory body.

The commissioners of the CHRB are appointed from a short list of candidates handed to the Legislature and Governor's Office by the TOC and the Tracks.

In my opinion, the commissioners of the CHRB have consistently done the bidding of those who got them appointed in the first place --

The CHRB may occasionally disagree with the tracks and the TOC.

But when it comes time to rule on an issue horsesplayers have put in front of them such as reversing the takeout hikes, allowing exchange wagering, scratching misreported first time geldings instead of allowing them to run for purse money only, changing the rule that allows trainers to dictate a convenient time to serve their drug suspensions, suspending riders for not trying, etc:

The CHRB consistently rules the way the TOC and the Tracks tell them to rule.


-jp

.

Amen

[the little guy]

I think there is a lot of exaggerating as far as DQs are concerned. Overall, they are relatively infrequent, and in my experience, I don't have a major issue with too many. Maybe there were a few more than was to be expected in Saratoga this Summer, but as someone involved with racing pretty much every day, their significance seems negligible. Clearly this is just me, as a lot of people seem to be up in arms about it, and I have no argument that a uniform set of rules, adjudicated consistently, would be an ideal scenario, but it's hard to see that happening.

Personally, I wish Stewards would be more hands on in the day to day racing activities, not involving riding infractions. It could never hurt to talk to trainers, or riders, more after races to ask why certain things did or did not happen. It can't be bad to be more involved in a positive way.

I do take exception with anyone that suggests Stewards make decisions based on what some believe track management may want ( like doing something to create Pick-6 carryovers or the like ). This is outright foolishness. It quite simply is not the case. That's beyond grassy knoll stuff. Sensible solutions come from reasonable discussions, not outlandish accusations.

[Andy Asaro]

I think there is a lot of exaggerating as far as DQs are concerned. Overall, they are relatively infrequent, and in my experience, I don't have a major issue with too many. Maybe there were a few more than was to be expected in Saratoga this Summer, but as someone involved with racing pretty much every day, their significance seems negligible. Clearly this is just me, as a lot of people seem to be up in arms about it, and I have no argument that a uniform set of rules, adjudicated consistently, would be an ideal scenario, but it's hard to see that happening.

Personally, I wish Stewards would be more hands on in the day to day racing activities, not involving riding infractions. It could never hurt to talk to trainers, or riders, more after races to ask why certain things did or did not happen. It can't be bad to be more involved in a positive way.

I do take exception with anyone that suggests Stewards make decisions based on what some believe track management may want ( like doing something to create Pick-6 carryovers or the like ). This is outright foolishness. It quite simply is not the case. That's beyond grassy knoll stuff. Sensible solutions come from reasonable discussions, not outlandish accusations.

Absolutely agree with paragraph 2

Paragraph 3 not so much. And I'm speaking for California.

[mountainman]

I will never be mistaken for a fan of Mahoning officials, but the stewards there adhere to a policy of restraint, intervening only in egregious cases. And I dig that. A lot.

[thaskalos]

IMO...a DQ should only occur when the stewards' decision is unanimously in support of it. If there is enough doubt to cause a split decision among the stewards...then the posted finish result should always stand.

[Robert Fischer]

save for the life-changing (or I'll even take a month-changing :lol: ) scores, a player shouldn't be living and dying with a result anyway.

It's more about the perceived integrity of the game, and plain old basic quality control.

The stewards are 'good' relative to the average fan.

The stewards are 'bad' relative to other professionals who have a focused circle of competence.

Some of this is unavoidable systemic issues, but there are things that could be done to help. Be it ignorance, or apathy or benefit; things are what they are.

[Suff]

S therefore now the whole $317k carries into Saturday.

.

Somebody is happy.


$0.20 PICK SIX 9/6/6/10/1/7,10,13,14,15,16 $500,256.86

$2 PICK FIVE 6/6/10/1/7,10,13,14,15,16 $173,634.80

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/Silk1900/status/1066478189986369536

[SaratogaSteve]

I think there is a lot of exaggerating as far as DQs are concerned. Overall, they are relatively infrequent, and in my experience, I don't have a major issue with too many. Maybe there were a few more than was to be expected in Saratoga this Summer, but as someone involved with racing pretty much every day, their significance seems negligible. Clearly this is just me, as a lot of people seem to be up in arms about it, and I have no argument that a uniform set of rules, adjudicated consistently, would be an ideal scenario, but it's hard to see that happening.

Personally, I wish Stewards would be more hands on in the day to day racing activities, not involving riding infractions. It could never hurt to talk to trainers, or riders, more after races to ask why certain things did or did not happen. It can't be bad to be more involved in a positive way.

I do take exception with anyone that suggests Stewards make decisions based on what some believe track management may want ( like doing something to create Pick-6 carryovers or the like ). This is outright foolishness. It quite simply is not the case. That's beyond grassy knoll stuff. Sensible solutions come from reasonable discussions, not outlandish accusations.

hey Andy - any chance you could ever get the stewards to come on the feed to explain their decision - much like the NHL does with their suspensions?

[the little guy]

hey Andy - any chance you could ever get the stewards to come on the feed to explain their decision - much like the NHL does with their suspensions?

No.

[Afleet]

I benefited from this, had a $50 double. The people next to me were live to the 7,8 in the pick 4. I thought the #8 should of stayed up, but he did foul the 9, but thought it was to close to the finish line

[metro]

But this is Kentucky, and every decision ever made by them has favored Churchill and Keeneland over anything and anyone else. There have been many threads about it, notably the latest decision about a harness license.

I'd find it hard to be believe that those tracks had no say over which stewards are hired, fired, renewed, whatever. I'd hope I'm wrong but I'd also be very surprised if I am.

Not sure how it is in other states but most of the racing officials, stewards, placing judges, etc. in the state of Kentucky just rotate from track to track. I worked in the Racing Secretary's office at Keeneland for a half dozen or so of their meets back in the 2000s. Back then the same crew that worked Churchill would work Keeneland, Turfway or Ellis, and even KY Downs.

Barb Borden, Butch Beacraft, and Tyler Picklesmeyer (sp?), the stewards involved in Friday's decision, were all racing officials in some capacity back then and will probably be in some capacity until they are ready to retire. I worked closest with Barb Borden and can assure everyone that she would never cater to the best financial interest of Churchill, or any track she worked, when it comes to making a decision as a steward. She is a true professional as a racing official. I didn't know the other two as well but Beacraft struck me as a no nonsense guy who wouldn't compromise the integrity of the game, for the benefit of the track, either.

[SG4]

Yet another "worst DQ ever." It's so hard to keep up with them

I use Allemeuse, a five length winner that was disqualified at 7:1, but was actually the wrong horse...something Jerry Bailey told the Stewards during the inquiry, as the barometer for worst DQ ever. None of the 50 supposed worst DQs ever from 2018 come even close to that.


Having started this thread as the "worst DQ ever" I'll clarify a bit, as I stand by this from what I've seen in my lifetime. There may have been more egregious calls, Allemeuse incident comes to mind as #1, and I'm sure plenty others along the way have done less to merit a DQ. However, the confluence of events here between the bettor who was screwed out of an amazing score, plus the optics of this decision being so clearly beneficial to the racetrack's bottom line, combined with my feeling that there was 100% no way the foul changed the order of finish, makes this to me the worst I've seen.



Regarding the stewards & their motivation, I absolutely don't think a track official got on the phone & told them to make this DQ nor do I think discussion like that has ever occurred. But the stewards aren't in a soundproof box up there, they've got the track feed going & I'm sure it's possible they knew what may have been at stake, right? Isn't there a chance in the back of their minds if they were on the fence about this call that maybe helping the track out could've swayed their decision an iota? Even if they're trying to be fair, officials in sports will inevitably lean slightly in the home team's favor.

[ubercapper]

If you haven't already taken the "Interference Survey" at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2018InterferenceSurvey
this thread might serve as additional motivation.



The survey closes Friday and in spite of 800+ views of the thread I started on 11/16 in this forum, only 450 people have taken the survey.

[cj]

If you haven't already taken the "Interference Survey" at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2018InterferenceSurvey
this thread might serve as additional motivation.



The survey closes Friday and in spite of 800+ views of the thread I started on 11/16 in this forum, only 450 people have taken the survey.

Possible the same people view the thread multiple times as they come back to read the latest replies, such as I just did for yours. I don't believe the views are unique, as in the number of people.

[Afleet]

Possible the same people view the thread multiple times as they come back to read the latest replies, such as I just did for yours. I don't believe the views are unique, as in the number of people.

bingo

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yet another "worst DQ ever." It's so hard to keep up with them

I use Allemeuse, a five length winner that was disqualified at 7:1, but was actually the wrong horse...something Jerry Bailey told the Stewards during the inquiry, as the barometer for worst DQ ever. None of the 50 supposed worst DQs ever from 2018 come even close to that.

You may or may not remember a 1977 race at Saratoga in which It's Freezing and Great Contractor were two of the runners. There was contact out of the gate initiated by It's Freezing, but after a few seconds It's Freezing took off like he normally did and won the race easily. My shaky memory thinks there were at least 8 lengths back to Great Contractor. They DQ'd It's Freezing for the contact out of the gate. That DQ still irritates me.

[Afleet]

The two jockeys whose mounts were disqualified in the 12th race Friday both will serve three-day suspensions.

Chris Landeros, rider of first-place finisher Presidential Tweet, will serve Wednesday through Friday of this week before resurfacing Saturday for the Claiming Crown card at Gulfstream Park. Florent Geroux, who rode second-place finisher New Colussus and is headed to Fair Grounds, will serve his penalty Dec. 5-7.

Both horses were disqualified in a controversial ruling that awarded victory in the maiden-special race to third-place finisher Laser Loop.

[Suff]

If you haven't already taken the "Interference Survey" at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2018InterferenceSurvey
this thread might serve as additional motivation.



The survey closes Friday and in spite of 800+ views of the thread I started on 11/16 in this forum, only 450 people have taken the survey.

I just took it, because I had not seen it. I think posting it often or even posting it as its own thread would be productive.

But 450 people took it? That is pretty amazing if this is the only place or the predominate place that you posted it.

[Suff]

The two jockeys whose mounts were disqualified in the 12th race Friday both will serve three-day suspensions.

Chris Landeros, rider of first-place finisher Presidential Tweet, will serve Wednesday through Friday of this week before resurfacing Saturday for the Claiming Crown card at Gulfstream Park. Florent Geroux, who rode second-place finisher New Colussus and is headed to Fair Grounds, will serve his penalty Dec. 5-7.

Both horses were disqualified in a controversial ruling that awarded victory in the maiden-special race to third-place finisher Laser Loop.

This some Bull pucky here.. wowza.... purse money plus days... ouch.

[formula_2002]

I felt the pain..I also thought it a bad call

[v j stauffer]

hey Andy - any chance you could ever get the stewards to come on the feed to explain their decision - much like the NHL does with their suspensions?

HRTV used to have a weekly segment where CHRB steward Scott Chaney would explain everything that took place the previous week.

I was interviewed on the Fairplex in house feed after a confusing situation regarding suspension days for a jockey named Christian Santiago Reyes.

[linrom1]

It never fails to disappoint how racing insiders continue to disparage and ridicule handicappers' concerns about integrity of the game!

We all should assume that racing industry has our backs? What a joke! On the contrary, everything that this industry does should be scrutinized by handicappers.

[v j stauffer]

It never fails to disappoint how racing insiders continue to disparage and ridicule handicappers' concerns about integrity of the game!

We all should assume that racing industry has our backs? What a joke! On the contrary, everything that this industry does should be scrutinized by handicappers.

Since I'm a child of both worlds I will tell you personally I try to do whatever I can to promote the best possible treatment of the players.

I would suppose The Little Guy who is in a very similar position to mine would echo those sentiments.

If you had an insiders link to the upper management of a major racing facility. What would you want to see done? What would you like for them to consider? What changes would you want?

[Robert Fischer]

If you had an insiders link to the upper management of a major racing facility. What would you want to see done? What would you like for them to consider? What changes would you want?

To consider improving public perception.

Brand integrity damn it.

For a modest fee, I would produce a few brief 'segments' with an On-Air Talent and a highly-qualified Senior Steward to replay, comment, and then 'rule' on a few commonly controversial scenarios.

Broadcast through already mature online and social media channels, this would significantly increase the public's view of stewards as an 'authority figure', thus increasing the perception of integrity.

[v j stauffer]

To consider improving public perception.

Brand integrity damn it.

For a modest fee, I would produce a few brief 'segments' with an On-Air Talent and a highly-qualified Senior Steward to replay, comment, and then 'rule' on a few commonly controversial scenarios.

Broadcast through already mature online and social media channels, this would significantly increase the public's view of stewards as an 'authority figure', thus increasing the perception of integrity.

I'll be involved in pre-meet discussions regarding TV content at Oaklawn. I'll bring up this idea. Remember the judges are employed by the State not the association.

[linrom1]

Since I'm a child of both worlds I will tell you personally I try to do whatever I can to promote the best possible treatment of the players.

I would suppose The Little Guy who is in a very similar position to mine would echo those sentiments.

If you had an insiders link to the upper management of a major racing facility. What would you want to see done? What would you like for them to consider? What changes would you want?


I understand that you do, it's very obvious to see. On the other hand, I do not believe that others do.

The relationship between players and racing management is adversarial. Management is always seeking to extract more revenue from the players while at same time disproportionally shifting costs to non computer and non high volume players. In a parimutuel betting this should never happen!

What we have now is some hybrid version of parimutuel wagering where some players are getting kickbacks under the table.

[the little guy]

I understand that you do, it's very obvious to see. On the other hand, I do not believe that others do.

The relationship between players and racing management is adversarial. Management is always seeking to extract more revenue from the players while at same time disproportionally shifting costs to non computer and non high volume players. In a parimutuel betting this should never happen!

What we have now is some hybrid version of parimutuel wagering where some players are getting kickbacks under the table.

You don't get a lot right, including this one.

Maybe if I blew my own horn, more people ( not you, of course ), would get it. But that's never going to happen.

[thaskalos]

If you had an insiders link to the upper management of a major racing facility. What would you want to see done? What would you like for them to consider? What changes would you want?

I would try to convince upper management that the 6-horse field -- while lucrative for the horsemen -- is an awful betting prospect for the wagering customer...especially when it carries with it a 24+% blended parimutuel takeout.

[v j stauffer]

I would try to convince upper management that the 6-horse field -- while lucrative for the horsemen -- is an awful betting prospect for the wagering customer...especially when it carries with it a 24+% blended parimutuel takeout.

I understand it's frustrating. However, that six horse field may be a prep for several horses that might end up in a 12 horse Graded Stakes three weeks later. The LAST thing a racing office wants to do is card a short field. They know exactly how much every single entry means to the bottom line. Sometimes though it is a necessary evil.

[the little guy]

I would try to convince upper management that the 6-horse field -- while lucrative for the horsemen -- is an awful betting prospect for the wagering customer...especially when it carries with it a 24+% blended parimutuel takeout.

With all due respect, the notion that anyone in track management, at any level, wants to run small fields is absurd. If it were possible to run nine 12 horse fields every day, we would surely do it. There is a gigantic disconnect between any player that actually thinks like your above post and reality.

Don't get me wrong, I don't always agree with "management" decisions, in racing or really anywhere, but any suggestion that management wants small fields is ludicrous.

[thaskalos]

I understand it's frustrating. However, that six horse field may be a prep for several horses that might end up in a 12 horse Graded Stakes three weeks later. The LAST thing a racing office wants to do is card a short field. They know exactly how much every single entry means to the bottom line. Sometimes though it is a necessary evil.

I can't agree with you, Vic. If indeed the short field is the "LAST thing" that a racing office wants...then, would this sad development reach such epidemic levels? Don't you see what has been happening out there...especially on the weekdays? Are all these late scratches that we see being primed for upcoming Stakes races?

[thaskalos]

With all due respect, the notion that anyone in track management, at any level, wants to run small fields is absurd. If it were possible to run nine 12 horse fields every day, we would surely do it. There is a gigantic disconnect between any player that actually thinks like your above post and reality.

Don't get me wrong, I don't always agree with "management" decisions, in racing or really anywhere, but any suggestion that management wants small fields is ludicrous.

I am not saying that the management prefers the short fields. I contend that the HORSEMEN want the short fields...and that the management chooses to appease the horsemen's wishes. These rampant late scratches are killing the game, IMO...and the sad truth is that the "track management" is doing nothing to stop this lamentable scenario which is being played out nationwide to the utter dismay of the wagering customer.

[the little guy]

I am not saying that the management prefers the short fields. I contend that the HORSEMEN want the short fields...and that the management chooses to appease the horsemen's wishes. These rampant late scratches are killing the game, IMO...and the sad truth is that the "track management" is doing nothing to stop this lamentable scenario which is being played out nationwide to the utter dismay of the wagering customer.

You are incorrect and, frankly, it's nonsensical. Nobody in management is running small fields to appease horsemen. You are making this up as you go along.

You assert that management is "doing nothing" yet have no idea whether that is true or not. I'm with you that the abundance of late scratches, in races without a surface change, is an issue. However, to suggest that management is happy with it not only makes no sense, it's untrue.

[thaskalos]

You are incorrect and, frankly, it's nonsensical. Nobody in management is running small fields to appease horsemen. You are making this up as you go along.

You assert that management is "doing nothing" yet have no idea whether that is true or not. I'm with you that the abundance of late scratches, in races without a surface change, is an issue. However, to suggest that management is happy with it not only makes no sense, it's untrue.

I am trying to understand you here, TLG...and I want you to try and understand ME. What exactly am I "making up as I go along"? Am I "making up" the fact that the racing industry nationwide was touting that the casino-infused purses would subsequently improve the quality and the competitiveness of the fields that were already in decline as far as "quality and competitiveness" were concerned? When an original field of 8 horses is reduced to 5 or 6 by the obligatory 2 or 3 late scratches, without a drop of moisture on the track or a cloud in the sky...then, how long should this shameful practice be allowed to go on without having management play a hand in rectifying this sad scenario? I have been talking about this for YEARS here...and the situation is only getting worse and worse...NATIONWIDE!

You insinuate that the management isn't "doing nothing"; if they were indeed "doing something"...would we see what we are currently seeing with the weekday dirt races nationwide?

[the little guy]

I am trying to understand you here, TLG...and I want you to try and understand ME. What exactly am I "making up as I go along"? Am I "making up" the fact that the racing industry nationwide was touting that the casino-infused purses would subsequently improve the quality and the competitiveness of the fields that were already in decline as far as "quality and competitiveness" were concerned? When an original field of 8 horses is reduced to 5 or 6 by the obligatory 2 or 3 late scratches, without a drop of moisture on the track or a cloud in the sky...then, how long should this shameful practice be allowed to go on without having management play a hand in rectifying this sad scenario? I have been talking about this for YEARS here...and the situation is only getting worse and worse...NATIONWIDE!

You insinuate that the management isn't "doing nothing"; if they were indeed "doing something"...would we see what we are currently seeing with the weekday dirt races nationwide?

im not interested in playing the conversation twisting game. Maybe when I'm home and not trying to type on my iPad. My responses logically followed your posts....and you know that.

as my responses clearly stated, your inferences that management of racetracks in any way are complicit with anyone that may benefit from small fields, is incorrect. How anyone could actually believe this is beyond me. I never said I didn't wish something could be done about the situation, nor would I, I was pretty simply trying to dissuade you from that line of thinking, specifically and in general.

[thaskalos]

im not interested in playing the conversation twisting game. Maybe when I'm home and not trying to type on my iPad. My responses logically followed your posts....and you know that.

as my responses clearly stated, your inferences that management of racetracks in any way are complicit with anyone that may benefit from small fields, is incorrect. How anyone could actually believe this is beyond me. I never said I didn't wish something could be done about the situation, nor would I, I was pretty simply trying to dissuade you from that line of thinking, specifically and in general.

I don't presume to have spent any time talking to track management, but other respectable members here have...and to a man, they testify that the tracks only consider the HORSEMEN to be their customers, while casually ignoring the needs of the common horseplayer. Speaking strictly for myself...I can't, for the life of me, see how this late-scratch problem cannot be effectively handled by track management...if they realize how unappetizing a situation it is from a betting standpoint. Could it be that tracks are under the impression that the bettors LIKE these short fields? I read somewhere where some track executive said that he couldn't understand why the horseplayers were complaining about the short fields...because the tiny field sizes were bound to help the horseplayers' win percentage.

[castaway01]

I can't agree with you, Vic. If indeed the short field is the "LAST thing" that a racing office wants...then, would this sad development reach such epidemic levels? Don't you see what has been happening out there...especially on the weekdays? Are all these late scratches that we see being primed for upcoming Stakes races?

Where do you think the horses that aren't being bred going to come from to fill these fields? The foal crop is half what it once was, and horses that do exist run less than they used to. It's not track management---the supply isn't there. You really haven't noticed that and thought it was all a big conspiracy?

[v j stauffer]

I don't presume to have spent any time talking to track management, but other respectable members here have...and to a man, they testify that the tracks only consider the HORSEMEN to be their customers, while casually ignoring the needs of the common horseplayer. Speaking strictly for myself...I can't, for the life of me, see how this late-scratch problem cannot be effectively handled by track management...if they realize how unappetizing a situation it is from a betting standpoint. Could it be that tracks are under the impression that the bettors LIKE these short fields? I read somewhere where some track executive said that he couldn't understand why the horseplayers were complaining about the short fields...because the tiny field sizes were bound to help the horseplayers' win percentage.

Thask. We all agree short fields are a blight on the industry. Evidently you don't understand management does everything in their power stop them. When you say management "ALLOWS" horseman to scratch from 8 to 5 or 6 it's shows you don't know what you're talking about. As valued as full fields are coveted so are horsemen that will support the program. With the rise in expenses forced upon owners and trainers it's a miracle more don't run for the hills. I think you may be suggesting sanctions for trainers that scratch horses. That's NEVER going to happen. They'd pack up in 10 seconds and go to a track that will welcome them with open arms. If you have any ideas to combat the problem of short fields I and the industry are all ears.

[ReplayRandall]

It's funny that you work at a track that has full fields almost everyday at Oaklawn…..Lucky you, Vic.

[v j stauffer]

It's funny that you work at a track that has full fields almost everyday at Oaklawn…..Lucky you, Vic.

We have the fullest fields in North America. We are blessed to have gaming revenue help with purses and run a boutique meet at a time of year that we can lure the biggest stables in America. The Cella family has had a vision for 40 years and it's coming to fruition. Lots of very hard work by a staff that's dedicated to offering 57 days of the best racing in the world.

[thaskalos]

Where do you think the horses that aren't being bred going to come from to fill these fields? The foal crop is half what it once was, and horses that do exist run less than they used to. It's not track management---the supply isn't there. You really haven't noticed that and thought it was all a big conspiracy?

English is my SECOND language...so, that must be why I have such a hard time being understood here. My sole argument is against the epidemic of LATE SCRATCHES that we see. The weekday dirt races start off with 8 horses...and then they are reduced to 5 or 6 by the obligatory 2 or 3 late scratches...even though the track is fast, and there isn't a single cloud in the sky. Now...does this have anything to do with the foal crop shortage that you are talking about here? Why are the horses entered...when the intention to run them isn't there?

Am I making myself clear NOW?

[thaskalos]

Thask. We all agree short fields are a blight on the industry. Evidently you don't understand management does everything in their power stop them. When you say management "ALLOWS" horseman to scratch from 8 to 5 or 6 it's shows you don't know what you're talking about. As valued as full fields are coveted so are horsemen that will support the program. With the rise in expenses forced upon owners and trainers it's a miracle more don't run for the hills. I think you may be suggesting sanctions for trainers that scratch horses. That's NEVER going to happen. They'd pack up in 10 seconds and go to a track that will welcome them with open arms. If you have any ideas to combat the problem of short fields I and the industry are all ears.

Tell me again that I don't know what I am talking about...and I'll give you another handicapping lesson over at HorseTourneys.

You are a riot, Vic. First you tell me that "management is doing everything in their power to stop the late scratches"...and then you say that this problem will never go away...because sanctions will just make the horsemen take their ball and go home in anger. Great argument you are putting forth here. :ThmbUp:

[MONEY]

Here's my conspiracy theory about short fields.

A lot of the horsemen know each other & the condition book
is written weeks in advance.

What's to stop some of the horsemen from getting together
and agreeing to avoid each other, especially when some races
with the same conditions are only a few days apart.

Many years ago I knew some trainers, and sometimes they would
make an entry that they knew that they would scratch. They made
these entries as a favor to another trainer, to make sure that a race would fill.

So what's preventing them from not entering a runners to assure a short field
as a favor to some friends.

[Poindexter]

I think purses should be decreased or increased due to field size(number of starters when they spring the gate). I would suggest something like this.

5 or less horses-60% of original purse
6 horses-70% of original purse
7 horses-80% of original purse
8 horse-90% of original purse
9-10 horses-100% of original purse
11 horses-110% of original purse
12 horses+-120% of original purse.

Some allowances might have to be made for field fillers(horses that go off at over 50-1 might be considered a 1/2 entry rather than a full entry).

[the little guy]

I think purses should be decreased or increased due to field size(number of starters when they spring the gate). I would suggest something like this.

5 or less horses-60% of original purse
6 horses-70% of original purse
7 horses-80% of original purse
8 horse-90% of original purse
9-10 horses-100% of original purse
11 horses-110% of original purse
12 horses+-120% of original purse.

Some allowances might have to be made for field fillers(horses that go off at over 50-1 might be considered a 1/2 entry rather than a full entry).


Yeah, punishing the people who DO enter is a great idea.

[Poindexter]

Yeah, punishing the people who DO enter is a great idea.

Theoretically it is not a punishment. If you race in a five horse field you have four horses to beat if you race in a 12 horse you have 11 horses to beat. My approach evens out the playing field. The current system punishes those who enter into large fields and actually encourages them to scratch and find an easier spot. It also rewards those who happen to get into 5 or 6 horse fields. Why should a 40 claimer who wins in a 5 horse field be rewarded just as much as a 40 claimer who wins in a 12 horse field?

[the little guy]

Theoretically it is not a punishment. If you race in a five horse field you have four horses to beat if you race in a 12 horse you have 11 horses to beat. My approach evens out the playing field. The current system punishes those who enter into large fields and actually encourages them to scratch and find an easier spot. It also rewards those who happen to get into 5 or 6 horse fields. Why should a 40 claimer who wins in a 5 horse field be rewarded just as much as a 40 claimer who wins in a 12 horse field?

I understand. It's a reasonable expected value point. It doesn't matter, however, because contractually horsemen get certain dollars, and the ones that do enter are fulfilling their end of the bargain, for their owners as well. You couldn't reduce if you wanted to. You can incentivize, and increase by field size above a certain number, but at the end of the day, a ton of horses aren't sitting in the barn, they simply don't exist in your horse population. Now, if you want to argue that it's a racing office's job to try to attract as many horses as possible, there is something to that, but given the numbers in NY for workman's comp and minimum wage versus the States competing with you for horses, it's hard to blame the racing office, at least in NY.

The complaints are easy, and believe me I get them....but the solutions are extremely difficult, if they exist at all.

[Tom]

..Weight 121 lbs. Horses that have scratched in the past 30 days, OT AE, MTO, carry 5 lbs, extra.

[the little guy]

..Weight 121 lbs. Horses that have scratched in the past 30 days, OT AE, MTO, carry 5 lbs, extra.

But, Tom, many of the scratches are vet scratches. Some are also legitimately sick. Should we punish them? Some scratch because they are entered in a race in the next day or two. At least they are running. Why would we punish them and create smaller fields?

I hear you, but the problems are endless. The small fields hurt the host track more than anyone else. We, or any track, would do anything for larger fields. There are some scratches that probably shouldn't be allowed, that I understand, but it's a very small part of the problem. Doesn't mean, however, that it shouldn't be addressed.

[jimmyb]

Average field size at Aq tomorrow is 7. One would think with the NY breeders incentives, foal crops would be larger.


In 2017, a total of 55 stakes races restricted to registered New York-breds worth more than $7.6 million in purse money were scheduled at the three New York Racing Association racetracks and Finger Lakes. In addition, there are over 800 other races written each year at these tracks covering a wide range of conditions for registered New York-breds.

[v j stauffer]

Tell me again that I don't know what I am talking about...and I'll give you another handicapping lesson over at HorseTourneys.

You are a riot, Vic. First you tell me that "management is doing everything in their power to stop the late scratches"...and then you say that this problem will never go away...because sanctions will just make the horsemen take their ball and go home in anger. Great argument you are putting forth here. :ThmbUp:

I thought you were better than this Thask. When I said you didn't know what you were talking about I meant that you've never worked at the race track and don't understand what we have to deal with. I shared that with you because I THOUGHT you deserved a respectful answer.

This isn't the first time I've read you wrong though is it? I gave you the respect of sharing and offering some ideas I had and you wasted my time by misrepresenting yourself to be something you clearly are not.

You did a good job on the $20 games we played at HorseTourneys. I gave you props for those. Of course you must know they didn't matter to me at all. But I thought it would be nice for me to help you feel good about yourself.

In any language you must know how disappointed I am in you.

[thaskalos]

I thought you were better than this Thask. When I said you didn't know what you were talking about I meant that you've never worked at the race track and don't understand what we have to deal with. I shared that with you because I THOUGHT you deserved a respectful answer.

This isn't the first time I've read you wrong though is it? I gave you the respect of sharing and offering some ideas I had and you wasted my time by misrepresenting yourself to be something you clearly are not.

You did a good job on the $20 games we played at HorseTourneys. I gave you props for those. Of course you must know they didn't matter to me at all. But I thought it would be nice for me to help you feel good about yourself.

In any language you must know how disappointed I am in you.

I was only kidding with that remark, Vic, and I was certain that you would pick up on that...just as I had picked up on the joking around that you did with those repeated "props" that you kept on giving me...even as you were winning those $1,500 heads-up tourneys on Horsetourneys. And, you can't very well accuse me of "wasting your time"...because I didn't even bother you for the steak dinner that we were supposed to meet up for.

But I wasn't kidding with the last part of that post of mine...which you managed to conveniently ignore. You can't say that the tracks are doing "everything in their power" to address the late-scratches problem...when the truth is that they don't want to inconvenience the horsemen in the least...for fear that these horsemen will pack up and go someplace else.

[v j stauffer]

I was only kidding with that remark, Vic, and I was certain that you would pick up on that...just as I had picked up on the joking around that you did with those repeated "props" that you kept on giving me...even as you were winning those $1,500 heads-up tourneys on Horsetourneys. And, you can't very well accuse me of "wasting your time"...because I didn't even bother you for the steak dinner that we were supposed to meet up for.

But I wasn't kidding with the last part of that post of mine...which you managed to conveniently ignore. You can't say that the tracks are doing "everything in their power" to address the late-scratches problem...when the truth is that they don't want to inconvenience the horsemen in the least...for fear that these horsemen will pack up and go someplace else.

You were not kidding. The props I gave were heartfelt. I didn't feel like minimizing your excellent handicapping those days. Believe me I was happy we played for $20 and the $1500 players weren't as good as you.

I didn't ignore anything. And what you've just said is a re-capitulation of exactly what I've already explained.

[thaskalos]

You were not kidding. The props I gave were heartfelt. I didn't feel like minimizing your excellent handicapping those days. Believe me I was happy we played for $20 and the $1500 players weren't as good as you.

I didn't ignore anything. And what you've just said is a re-capitulation of exactly what I've already explained.

I have argued plenty with you here in the past...and I assure you that I have no qualms about arguing with you again. Why would I say that I was only kidding with a remark...if I really wasn't? Did you also believe that OTHER remark that I made soon after our contest? That I would love to get you on a slow boat to China?

Lighten up, Vic...it's only a game. It's just that I am the favorite when we match up from now on...and you'll have to deal with that.*



*(Do I really have to use those emojis to show you that I am only kidding?)

[v j stauffer]

I have argued plenty with you here in the past...and I assure you that I have no qualms about arguing with you again. Why would I say that I was only kidding with a remark...if I really wasn't? Did you also believe that OTHER remark that I made soon after our contest? That I would love to get you on a slow boat to China?

Lighten up, Vic...it's only a game. It's just that I am the favorite when we match up from now on...and you'll have to deal with that.*



*(Do I really have to use those emojis to show you that I am only kidding?)

Use or say whatever you'd like.

You weren't kidding.

It's cool.

You're inconsistent of character. No big deal. It's the internet.

Feel bad my read about you was wrong. But I don't care that much.

No hard feelings.

[thaskalos]

Use or say whatever you'd like.

You weren't kidding.

It's cool.

You're inconsistent of character. No big deal. It's the internet.

Feel bad my read about you was wrong. But I don't care that much.

No hard feelings.

Sure I am inconsistent of character. I have my contradictions...just like everybody else. And, like you...I don't much care that your read about me was wrong. But, if it will make you feel any better...I assure you that I deleted your phone number without saving it. You won't be getting any phone calls from me...even concerning dinner plans.

[Afleet]

English is my SECOND language...so, that must be why I have such a hard time being understood here. My sole argument is against the epidemic of LATE SCRATCHES that we see. The weekday dirt races start off with 8 horses...and then they are reduced to 5 or 6 by the obligatory 2 or 3 late scratches...even though the track is fast, and there isn't a single cloud in the sky. Now...does this have anything to do with the foal crop shortage that you are talking about here? Why are the horses entered...when the intention to run them isn't there?

Am I making myself clear NOW?

I quit playing the Maryland racing product. All dirt races there always have 2-3 scratches; fast, muddy, sloppy it doesn't matter