Stettin: Pardise Lost: Most of the negativity in racing is well founded.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/1067768259825418240

[Zman179]

I agree that the bettor is the one who fuels racing. However, that bettor is generally seated behind a slot machine. Right now with horsemen it is simply a cash grab due to slot-fueled purses with little to no marketing of horse racing. But if decoupling occurs, many casino operators will drop racing like holding a hot pan without an oven mitt.

[Andy Asaro]

Excerpt to article link in thread starter.

Let’s start with something I have been talking about and writing about for about for four years now. Stewards and their lack of accountability to bettors, owners, and trainers. Stewards make decisions that affect our money. We have no input in those decisions and they are made at times without even the courtesy of an explanation. Case in point this past weekend at Churchill Downs. We all saw the double disqualification resulting in a large carryover in the jackpot pick 6 wager. Right or wrong call is not the issue for me. That’s way too subjective and we will come back to that. The issue at least for me is twofold. First, it is not a consistent call with other similar occurrences. We have all seen horses stay up for more of a foul and come down for less of a foul. That’s a problem. Second, there is no clear-cut reasoning and explanation provided to the people whose bank accounts were affected. No accountability whatsoever. No review process. No appeal or at least true appeal process. Nothing. Just take it on the chin. That doesn’t work for me and it shouldn’t for you either.

An underlying problem to these types of calls is perception, and we already have enough of a problem with that. We all know history repeats. If history has taught us anything it is where there can be corruption there likely will be corruption. Does anything corrupt more than money? I don’t know. Maybe sex. Maybe power. Perhaps something else, but money is on any worthwhile top ten list of corruption factors. There was a decent amount of money at stake based on that iffy call. The first two finishers both of whom would have triggered the pool being paid out were disqualified. The third finisher who was declared the official winner carried the pool over, which generated a whole new day of revenue fueled by jackpot chasing. Perception. This is why a clear transparent explanation immediately following the call was an absolute necessity. No ands, ifs, or buts. I have yet to see one of it was provided.

[jay68802]

I really can not blame the Stewards for their decisions. We have all agreed or disagreed with decisions they have made. However, with the way the rules are written, this sport is asking for "perception problems". We are asking these people to make decisions based on rules that have no clear definitions. Add to that problem by having different rules for every state, and there is no wonder as to why we see decisions that vary so widely.

The tracks, bettors, owners and trainers have no input in these decisions. And that is the way it should be. Any of these interests having input into the decisions being made would be a disaster. The Stewards, however, should be required to explain their decision at the time the decision is made. By not explaining the decisions, this sport just invites more perception problems.

Can or has Stewards decisions been influenced by some of these interests? Probably. Did it happen a Churchill recently? Maybe. My personal opinion is that CDI would do anything to keep the carryover pool intact. Their track record of this is clear.

[dilanesp]

Without in any way saying stewards are perfect, just understand the following:

Every sport has officiating difficulties. Every one. Watch a baseball telecast and watch how many balls out of the strike zone are called strikes and vice-versa. Watch a basketball telecast and watch how many players get away with traveling. Watch football and watch the offensive line get away with holding. Watch boxing matches and compare how some fights are stopped the moment a boxer gets a sustained rally going while other referees allow fighters to attempt to come back in the later rounds after being beaten to a pulp.

You have animals running around. They are going to interfere with each other. And then you have jockeys on top of them, who are going to accidentally and intentionally sometimes cause interference. The job of the stewards to sort this out and make disqualification calls is legitimately difficult. I have seen many, many calls in my time as a racing fan that could have gone either way. Did the horse in front move in or did the jockey behind anticipate an opening that did not materialize? That sort of thing. Impossible to call precisely.

If you decide to bet on horse racing, you simply accept the risk of this. You have to. Because there's no way to have perfect stewards rulings given the chaos of races when they are actually run. Just like if you bet on a football game you accept the risk that the NFL won't have the definitive camera angle that would have reversed the ruling that ended your team's chances, and if you bet on a baseball game you accept the risk of a high strike 3.

Stop complaining about the stewards so much. You choose to bet, you take the risk.

[chiguy]

Andy Serling was on Byk earlier this week and discussed, with great insight, the overblown concern over stewards rulings. I agree 100% with what he said. Room for improvement? Sure but we have much bigger problems in the game.

[linrom1]

Andy Serling was on Byk earlier this week and discussed, with great insight, the overblown concern over stewards rulings. I agree 100% with what he said. Room for improvement? Sure but we have much bigger problems in the game.

Robbing people of money they are entitled to is a BIG THING!

[AskinHaskin]

. There was a decent amount of money at stake based on that iffy call. The first two finishers both of whom would have triggered the pool being paid out were disqualified. The third finisher who was declared the official winner carried the pool over, which generated a whole new day of revenue fueled by jackpot chasing.

The above is still more moronic Asaroism, as any revenue gained from one Saturday of jackpot-chasing was majorly offset by two favorites being DQ’ed in Friday’s finale. With favorites running one-two, much of the revenue goes back into the pools, but when replaced by an outsider on top, more went to new appliances, car payments and overdue child support.

pk-4 paid $3700

pk-5 paid 73,000



Asaro just never understands the whole of the stuff he parrots.

[Andy Asaro]

The above is still more moronic Asaroism, as any revenue gained from one Saturday of jackpot-chasing was majorly offset by two favorites being DQ’ed in Friday’s finale. With favorites running one-two, much of the revenue goes back into the pools, but when replaced by an outsider on top, more went to new appliances, car payments and overdue child support.

pk-4 paid $3700

pk-5 paid 73,000



Asaro just never understands the whole of the stuff he parrots.

Article written by Jonathan Stettin @jonathanstettin

Since when do we have to agree with every word in any article in order to post it?

Moronic Asaroism? Just can't help yourself with the personal attacks. Just like I can't help myself stop laughing about you constantly thinking about me. :lol::pound:

And no takeout comments or HANA bashing? C'mon where's the :rant:

Let the good times roll. :rolleyes:

[ultracapper]

Robbing people of money they are entitled to is a BIG THING!

How can you ever feel any level of confidence betting the P6 at Churchill in the future. A DOUBLE DQ!!!! I bet I haven't seen 10 of those in my 35 years of watching racing. But there it is, right when CDI needs it.

Incredible.

[ultracapper]

Andy Serling was on Byk earlier this week and discussed, with great insight, the overblown concern over stewards rulings. I agree 100% with what he said. Room for improvement? Sure but we have much bigger problems in the game.

I would guess Serling was talking about stewards rulings in general, and I'd agree. The timing of this one is a big deal however.

[the little guy]

How can you ever feel any level of confidence betting the P6 at Churchill in the future. A DOUBLE DQ!!!! I bet I haven't seen 10 of those in my 35 years of watching racing. But there it is, right when CDI needs it.

Incredible.

There was one the last weekend of Saratoga this Summer, less than three months ago.

[metro]

Without in any way saying stewards are perfect, just understand the following:

Every sport has officiating difficulties. Every one. Watch a baseball telecast and watch how many balls out of the strike zone are called strikes and vice-versa. Watch a basketball telecast and watch how many players get away with traveling. Watch football and watch the offensive line get away with holding. Watch boxing matches and compare how some fights are stopped the moment a boxer gets a sustained rally going while other referees allow fighters to attempt to come back in the later rounds after being beaten to a pulp.

You have animals running around. They are going to interfere with each other. And then you have jockeys on top of them, who are going to accidentally and intentionally sometimes cause interference. The job of the stewards to sort this out and make disqualification calls is legitimately difficult. I have seen many, many calls in my time as a racing fan that could have gone either way. Did the horse in front move in or did the jockey behind anticipate an opening that did not materialize? That sort of thing. Impossible to call precisely.

If you decide to bet on horse racing, you simply accept the risk of this. You have to. Because there's no way to have perfect stewards rulings given the chaos of races when they are actually run. Just like if you bet on a football game you accept the risk that the NFL won't have the definitive camera angle that would have reversed the ruling that ended your team's chances, and if you bet on a baseball game you accept the risk of a high strike 3.

Stop complaining about the stewards so much. You choose to bet, you take the risk.

Great post.

[GMB@BP]

There was one the last weekend of Saratoga this Summer, less than three months ago.

Does not change the fact they are very very rare, I happen to agree with the OP that I can only recall it happening a handful of times in 30 years of the races that I have watched.

[GMB@BP]

Andy Serling was on Byk earlier this week and discussed, with great insight, the overblown concern over stewards rulings. I agree 100% with what he said. Room for improvement? Sure but we have much bigger problems in the game.

I would agree with Andy that in terms of problems this one seems to have taken off with social media. Problem yes, that its somehow ruining the game, no.

[Prioress Ply]

You choose to bet, you take the risk.>>


And more and more people are choosing not to bet. So what now?
This is the familiar refrain of the apologist.

[dilanesp]

You choose to bet, you take the risk.>>


And more and more people are choosing not to bet. So what now?
This is the familiar refrain of the apologist.

If you believe that stewards rulings are the cause if this, it is unfixable and the sport would be doomed.

In reality stewards rulings are at best a minor issue.

[ultracapper]

It just looks ugly when the house so obviously gains by the ruling.

A number of years ago I was watching a small stake at Penn. It was a 5 horse field with the monster 1/5 fav with 98% of the show pool on her. She was in the 5 hole. At the break, she bears in ever so slightly, barely making contact with the 4 horse. Race is over, she wins for fun running around the track in the 6 path, the 4 horse finishes 4th, and guess what. Stewards inquiry. Never guess what they did? Yep, moved the winner down to 4th. I had no dog in the fight, but it was the most self serving DQ I have ever seen in my life, and I haven't placed a bet on a Pennsylvania track since, not that I had that often anyway.

I will never ever forget that race, and I'll bet there were a couple bridge jumpers that will never come back there again also.

[cj]

It just looks ugly when the house so obviously gains by the ruling.

A number of years ago I was watching a small stake at Penn. It was a 5 horse field with the monster 1/5 fav with 98% of the show pool on her. She was in the 5 hole. At the break, she bears in ever so slightly, barely making contact with the 4 horse. Race is over, she wins for fun running around the track in the 6 path, the 4 horse finishes 4th, and guess what. Stewards inquiry. Never guess what they did? Yep, moved the winner down to 4th. I had no dog in the fight, but it was the most self serving DQ I have ever seen in my life, and I haven't placed a bet on a Pennsylvania track since, not that I had that often anyway.

I will never ever forget that race, and I'll bet there were a couple bridge jumpers that will never come back there again also.

You sure this wasn't Mountaineer? I remember it happening there for sure. Not saying it couldn't have happened at Penn also.

That said, I agree with dilanesp. Stewards decisions aren't perfect and never will be, but there are a lot more important things that should be addressed before worrying about something this minor in my opinion.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I interviewed a number stewards and was going to publish an article, but with no disrespect meant, there wasn't one of them who would concede there was inconsistency at their track. It would have really been a crap article, so the info just stays in my recorder.

They would talk a lot about all the training they have to take, and how they enforce the rules as strictly as they can. I had a video of a race at SA. On the backstretch one horse clearly goes over hard on another horse causing the horse to check sharply. Since it was a sprint, the horse that got "fouled" pretty much lost all chance while the culprit went on to win. I found that if you just showed the part of the race where the horse moves sharply toward the rail, most would agree it was a foul. But if you showed the whole race, most thought it was NOT worthy of disqualification.

The only way I think to solve the problem is to have a committee of impeccable experts on racing, and when there is an objection or inquiry, you let them make the decision. The stewards at the track will still have plenty to do, so they would still be needed. There aren't so many objections/inquiries that we need hundreds of stewards with different backgrounds and training.

[Zman179]

I interviewed a number stewards and was going to publish an article, but with no disrespect meant, there wasn't one of them who would concede there was inconsistency at their track.

So essentially you wanted a steward to admit something that would guarantee getting himself fired so that you could have a good article?

Then again that sounds like 75% of journalism.