Are stewards allowed to bet on horse racing ?

[ZippyChippy423]

There must be some type of stipulations but what are they?

[bello]

If they want to bet they will bet

[mountainman]

No official is permitted to bet any race conducted by the track they work at. There are tracks that also frown (severely) on officials attending simulcast and playing ANY horse race originating from ANYWHERE.

I even remember hearing about an official getting fired for betting other tracks. His employer stated that he was unlikely to draw a line and resist playing his home track.

To me, the irony is that the sort of interest required to play races would probably translate to some passion for an official's work.

It's always astounded me how disinterested most officials are in the very events they produce and administer. Put 10 of them in a room showing a horse race, and I guarantee you seven will ignore the monitor.

[v j stauffer]

When I was a California Steward it was stipulated in the contract that wagering was grounds for immediate dismissal. It was also suggested that wagering on races around the country, even if not assigned that day, even a KY Derby pool, was unacceptable. I also stopped playing poker or sports. Didn't think the Executive Director would appreciate a cell phone photo of me sitting at card table.

[jay68802]

I think it is strange that it is like this. I understand why stewards are not allowed to wager, but why doesn't the same logic apply to owners, trainers, and jockeys?

[Jeff P]

I can understand the reasoning for stewards not being allowed to bet.

On the other hand, as a horseplayer --

It is my opinion that many of racing's biggest problems arose and continue unabated - because racing's decision makers do not bet.



-jp

.

[v j stauffer]

I think it is strange that it is like this. I understand why stewards are not allowed to wager, but why doesn't the same logic apply to owners, trainers, and jockeys?

In many jurisdictions jockeys cannot wager on any races including simulcast. Owners and trainers can wager but must ONLY use their horse to win. No exacta boxes. Must single in horizontals.

[jay68802]

In many jurisdictions jockeys cannot wager on any races including simulcast. Owners and trainers can wager but must ONLY use their horse to win. No exacta boxes. Must single in horizontals.

I always thought the rules were the same for all of them.

[v j stauffer]

I always thought the rules were the same for all of them.

Owners buy a ticket on their horse and give it to the jock all the time. Race tracks have never had a problem with that. At smaller venues. Agents with leading riders often choose a particular mount over another based on the barn's willingness to bet for the jockey. Agent gets half of any money bet for the jock. Their are some riders that tend to forget to tell their agent when they are given a ticket.

[jay68802]

Owners bet FOR jockeys all the time. Race tracks have never had a problem with that.

My memory is jogged now, the wording I read for the rules did read something like that. Now, I just need to remember where the bathroom is.....

[VigorsTheGrey]

How much do stewards make...? Are they well paid and enjoy great benefits...? Many of the stewards rose from the ranks of people who formerly did have a financial interest in the outcomes. Can the stewards own horses...? Do the stewards have friends or relatives that own or train horses...?

[Prioress Ply]

Yeah I'm sure it's limited to just a win ticket for the jockey since we all know that owners, trainers and jockeys are some of the most honest and law abiding people on earth.

We also know that the racetrack itself is closely monitoring any untoward wagering by insiders (by example through straw men third parties that could possibly place a bet on their behalf but of course would never do so because that would violate the rules and the rules are everything in horse racing).

[turfnsport]

I can understand the reasoning for stewards not being allowed to bet.

On the other hand, as a horseplayer --

It is my opinion that many of racing's biggest problems arose and continue unabated - because racing's decision makers do not bet.



-jp

.

The stewards don't even read the DRF. I remember there was a race in NY a few years ago where Chad Brown had a rabbit and there was some type of controversy over an inquiry, I forget which race.

Everyone knew about the rabbit but the stewards. Totally clueless about trainer's intentions. You would think they would show some interest in what is going on.

Vic will come to their defense but most are ill informed and are not qualified for their positions.

The confidence level in stewards has never been lower, and it's a problem.

They don't bet because most probably did not bet before they became stewards and have no understanding of gambling.

[v j stauffer]

How much do stewards make...? Are they well paid and enjoy great benefits...? Many of the stewards rose from the ranks of people who formerly did have a financial interest in the outcomes. Can the stewards own horses...? Do the stewards have friends or relatives that own or train horses...?

I can only speak to California. They are independent contractors that were paid $525.00 per racing day in 2015. Safety Stewards a little bit more because of a much longer work day. I doubt it's gone up much. Although they don't have a benefits plan per se. We did get a reimbursement when we purchased personal insurance. They also receive a travel stipend when assigned to a track away from their home base. Stewards cannot own horses. Some Stewards do have relatives that own horses. They typically recuse themselves from races and or hearings that involve those family members.

[PaceAdvantage]

Troll question brah (and just so nobody gets all in a tither, this is aimed at the OP)

[v j stauffer]

The stewards don't even read the DRF. I remember there was a race in NY a few years ago where Chad Brown had a rabbit and there was some type of controversy over an inquiry, I forget which race.

Everyone knew about the rabbit but the stewards. Totally clueless about trainer's intentions. You would think they would show some interest in what is going on.

Vic will come to their defense but most are ill informed and are not qualified for their positions.

The confidence level in stewards has never been lower, and it's a problem.

They don't bet because most probably did not bet before they became stewards and have no understanding of gambling.

I worked with some Stewards that were lazy, clueless and incompetent. That was rare. Most of the judges I worked with were talented, dedicated people who truly cared about fairness and providing a level playing field for everyone.

[AndyC]

I think it is strange that it is like this. I understand why stewards are not allowed to wager, but why doesn't the same logic apply to owners, trainers, and jockeys?

The owners, trainers and jockeys have vested interests in each race. A steward is supposed to maintain complete independence. Big difference.

[ZippyChippy423]

Troll question brah (and just so nobody gets all in a tither, this is aimed at the OP)

How is this a “ troll “question? I simply did not know the answer and was very curious. The responses are interesting especially the one about 7/10 stewards not even into horse racing . I abide by your terms of service and yet you bait me into being negative by your uncalled for comment. Have some integrity. My questions usually generate a lot of great information that I would have otherwise not known the answers to. Merry Christmas !

[v j stauffer]

How is this a “ troll “question? I simply did not know the answer and was very curious. The responses are interesting especially the one about 7/10 stewards not even into horse racing . I abide by your terms of service and yet you bait me into being negative by your uncalled for comment. Have some integrity. My questions usually generate a lot of great information that I would have otherwise not known the answers to. Merry Christmas !

I have NEVER seen you post a question or response that wasn't trolling. Including when you insist you're not trolling.

[biggestal99]

Owners buy a ticket on their horse and give it to the jock all the time. Race tracks have never had a problem with that. At smaller venues. Agents with leading riders often choose a particular mount over another based on the barn's willingness to bet for the jockey. Agent gets half of any money bet for the jock. Their are some riders that tend to forget to tell their agent when they are given a ticket.

When I was at the track when my horse ran.

20 for the jock. 20 for the groom.

They treated me well.

Allan

[v j stauffer]

When I was at the track when my horse ran.

20 for the jock. 20 for the groom.

They treated me well.

Allan

Those bets for the grooms mean world to them.

[Suff]

I simply did not know the answer and was very curious.

That's the way I read it. I wouldn't let the responses bother you. This is how people in "the industry" treat curious fans. Its the the state of the nation. What we are left with is industry folks who's most common communication is mocking the less informed and sounding clever on twitter.

As far as stewards integrity.. I'd go case by case basis but by and large I'd not trust most of them to leave track politics and their own self-importance out of decisions they make.


Pete Rose bet on baseball.

[v j stauffer]

That's the way I read it. I wouldn't let the responses bother you. This is how people in "the industry" treat curious fans. Its the the state of the nation. What we are left with is industry folks who's most common communication is mocking the less informed and sounding clever on twitter.

As far as stewards integrity.. I'd go case by case basis but by and large I'd not trust most of them to leave track politics and their own self-importance out of decisions they make.


Pete Rose bet on baseball.

I'm in the industry. I've always tried my best to be accessible, transparent and candid.

I've NEVER talked down to anybody who's asked a serious, respectful question.

[Afleet]

The owners, trainers and jockeys have vested interests in each race. A steward is supposed to maintain complete independence. Big difference.

bingo; not allowing the owners to bet would be a big hit to handle

[ultracapper]

bingo; not allowing the owners to bet would be a big hit to handle

Since the Mongols raced horses in their down time parading across asia the owners always made it interesting by putting a little something on it, whether a few pieces of gold or a night for the winner with the loser's wife. Owners should be expected to bet on their horse.

[castaway01]

That's the way I read it. I wouldn't let the responses bother you. This is how people in "the industry" treat curious fans. Its the the state of the nation. What we are left with is industry folks who's most common communication is mocking the less informed and sounding clever on twitter.

Pete Rose bet on baseball.

I like your track pictures and stories Suff, but you're way, way way wrong on this guy and his posts. "Curious fan", funny.


The gimmick of asking rudimentary yet rude questions and pleading ignorance has been done 1000 times here and by people a lot better at it (and before you jump on it, asking if stewards bet isn't rude in and of itself---but look at ALL of this guy's posts and tell me he's not the 87th reincarnation of that gimmick).

[ubercapper]

I can understand the reasoning for stewards not being allowed to bet.

On the other hand, as a horseplayer --

It is my opinion that many of racing's biggest problems arose and continue unabated - because racing's decision makers do not bet.



-jp

.

Not exactly on topic about stewards/officials, but having been (or being) a bettor was and continues to be one of the criteria for being a chart caller because understanding the end user is so important. Some of the best chart callers I've ever known (just a few being Scaravilli, Guilliams and Valentine) all bet on the races which helped them continually understood the importance of good charts and footnotes.

AND, to beat any cynics to the punch, no, I've never known a single chart caller to keep something out of a chart so he/she could profit from that information.

[davew]

I'm in the industry. I've always tried my best to be accessible, transparent and candid.

I've NEVER talked down to anybody who's asked a serious, respectful question.

It seems everyone working around the track needs licensed by the respective state racing commission. Are the stewards employees of the track or the state (where does their pay come from)?

What about track announcers, can they bet on races they are calling?

[Suff]

I like your track pictures and stories Suff, but you're way, way way wrong on this guy and his posts. "Curious fan", funny.





I said before, regarding Zippy..I think he is getting long in the truth, He's probably in Socks or Slippers full time. :D I put him mush-mind. I'm willing to go with you because I don't know.. the stuff he posts makes me laugh more than grimace.

Its not always easy for me to detect who is a devious nut job just trying to tweak people with posts. I got had by checkmark who looped me into thinking he was a 16 year old kid from Canada.. Then after it was clear he was something else.. it pissed me off... because I'm not set up to detect these weirdos..

[Suff]

I'm in the industry.

I caught you on TVG for 30-45 minutes last week, it was the day you told the story about riding your bike between Gulfstream and Calder. I enjoyed it. You were funny, self-deprecating and entertaining.

[ZippyChippy423]

I caught you on TVG for 30-45 minutes last week, it was the day you told the story about riding your bike between Gulfstream and Calder. I enjoyed it. You were funny, self-deprecating and entertaining.

VIC does have some interesting stories. I follow and bet on his pics many times with little success. Just a timing thing. Anyway Fuss I will be at Gulfstream middle of January if you care to meet. I have a family that may have a few horses running through LRF racing .

[Suff]

Anyway Fuss I will be at Gulfstream middle of January if you care to meet. I have a family that may have a few horses running through LRF racing .

Absolutely!. It's on like donkey kong!

[v j stauffer]

It seems everyone working around the track needs licensed by the respective state racing commission. Are the stewards employees of the track or the state (where does their pay come from)?

What about track announcers, can they bet on races they are calling?

Stewards can be contracted by the State OR employed by the track. In California all 4 Stewards (safety) were independent contractors. There are other jurisdictions where 1 or 2 are paid by the association.

It's very rare to work at a track that prohibits announcers from wagering. There are a few. I bet on the races I call. More so now that I'm doing a full handicapping show before the races everyday. There have been times when if I felt like I wasn't properly motivated or focused on a card. Maybe a rainy Thursday during a long season. I'd cap the card and bet $20 on every race. It helped me be much more in tune to the dynamics of the race and assisted when memorization.

[v j stauffer]

I caught you on TVG for 30-45 minutes last week, it was the day you told the story about riding your bike between Gulfstream and Calder. I enjoyed it. You were funny, self-deprecating and entertaining.

Thanks Fuss. 4 hours of live TV can drag. I try to fill in some of the gaps with stories. After 45 years at the racetrack you archive a few. Some of them are even true:p

[v j stauffer]

VIC does have some interesting stories. I follow and bet on his pics many times with little success. Just a timing thing. Anyway Fuss I will be at Gulfstream middle of January if you care to meet. I have a family that may have a few horses running through LRF racing .

Here's another race tracker term I'll share with you. It's called being a Jonah. Look up Eddie Mush from the movie A Bronx Tale.

If you've had "little success" you must be the Jonah. My plays on TVG have been on FIRE lately.

Back on the air next weekend Dec 13,14 & 15.

I'm doing the reporting on track from Los Alamitos on Friday the 14th. Really looking forward to that.

[ReplayRandall]

Thanks Fuss. 4 hours of live TV can drag. I try to fill in some of the gaps with stories. After 45 years at the racetrack you archive a few. Some of them are even true:p

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.

You got time now to tell me a heated stewards story involving a split decision?

[v j stauffer]

You got time now to tell me a heated stewards story involving a split decision?

At Ferndale we DQ'ed a Mule. It was as simple and cut and dried as a decision could be. They were racing around a turn. Running 660 yards. The mule wiped out three others. One of which amazingly was coming back on to almost win the race. 2-1 split decision. When we asked the dissenter what the hell race was he looking at he said I'm leaving it as is and you would too if you understood the " Persona of the Mule" There was a HUGE stink because a bridge jumper had $200,000 to show on the Mule and we DQ'ed her completely out of the money to 4th.

Biggest argument I ever had was over whether a horse should be a late scratch. The filly showed up in the paddock wearing blinkers. She had not worn them in her last start and there was no change of equipment on either the overnight or program. They were coming out of the paddock. Trainer insisted he put the COE on the entry card. We called the racing office and sure enough there was the change. It's now 7 minutes to post and we have to decide what to do. We gave the trainer the option to run her without the blinkers. He didn't want to do that. So I voted to scratch the filly. One of my fellow stewards agreed but the other was very vociferous that she should be allowed to run with the blinkers if an announcement was made with TV graphics and a crawl. This was further complicated by another trainer in the race complaining that it would effect the tactics he intended to use with his filly. I said she MUST be scratched because if we let her run in blinkers it wouldn't be fair to the wagering public. The other Steward said the announcement would be enough. I said what about the people who made advance wagers and couldn't have the opportunity to cancel or change their tickets? What if they got home and lost to a filly that had blinkers when they were not on when they did their handicapping and made their wagers? The discussion got very heated. We voted 2-1 to scratch her.

As a post script to that story. The trainer was given an entry "super star" which meant she would receive 1st preference to enter in any future race she was eligible for. We also fined the complaining trainer for inappropriate behavior towards racing officials. The racing office was also fined for the clerical error of not properly posting the blinker change which WAS on the original entry card.

I'll share if I think of any others. :)

[ReplayRandall]

Good stuff....Never heard of the term "super star" when given entry preference before....Is that a retro term or is it still used in Race Sec Office?

[v j stauffer]

Good stuff....Never heard of the term "super star" when given entry preference before....Is that a retro term or is it still used in Race Sec Office?

Some offices keep track of eligibility with a "dates" system. Some use a "star" system.

With the star method each time a horse can't get into a race it's given a "star". If in another race it's a toss up as to who would draw in and who would be excluded the horse with the most stars would get preference.

A Super Star would put that horse immediately to the front of the line in any race they wanted to enter her in.

[ReplayRandall]

Is there any way to know when a horse has been "super starred" into a race beforehand?

[v j stauffer]

Is there any way to know when a horse has been "super starred" into a race beforehand?

The only way I can think of would be to attend the draw. Which BTW any member of the public can witness. Even if it's on the backstretch. They'll give anyone that wants to watch the draw a special pass.

[ReplayRandall]

The only way I can think of would be to attend the draw. Which BTW any member of the public can witness. Even if it's on the backstretch. They'll give anyone that wants to watch the draw a special pass.

Will the Race Sec Office give that info over the phone?...Looking for possible edges the streamlined way....Wouldn't mind charting this info to see something, could yield +ROI play or auto-toss.

[v j stauffer]

Is there any way to know when a horse has been "super starred" into a race beforehand?

Unfortunately in this day and age eligibility preference rarely comes into play. Racing secretaries are much more concerned about getting 5 or 6 to make a race go than who is impacted by a race overfilling.

When that does happen the Secretary immediately starts to investigate if he might be able to "split" the race into two or three separate fields.

If they're thinking about a split office staffers will calls the large barns and ask a trainer if he has another one for the same condition because the office is looking into a split. An announcement will also be made.

If a trainer does put other horses in. Those entries will be separated before the draw begins to insure he doesn't have to run both in the same race against each other.

[v j stauffer]

Will the Race Sec Office give that info over the phone?...Looking for possible edges the streamlined way....Wouldn't mind charting this info to see something, could yield +ROI play or auto-toss.

Entries cannot be viewed by anyone other than the Racing Secretary before the race is exposed at the draw.

That's when eligibility is revealed. But it would only be spoken of if horses are excluded.

A horse with a super star would just mesh in with everybody else unless the race overfilled.

I suppose if you asked the Office about a particular race or horse they would tell you. There's nothing to hide.

But there's zero chance if you called and asked what horses had super stars for that day's draw they would take time to look it up.

Also, something like a super star is extremely rare. Maybe 3 or 4 a year.

[ReplayRandall]

Will the Race Sec Office give that info over the phone?...Looking for possible edges the streamlined way....Wouldn't mind charting this info to see something, could yield +ROI play or auto-toss.

Here's what I'm thinking of doing when your track, Oaklawn, opens it's meet....Since Oaklawn seems to always have full fields, it would seem that this situation might happen there more than any other track and is definitely worth charting, if it's doable....Something to keep in mind.

[onefast99]

I think it is strange that it is like this. I understand why stewards are not allowed to wager, but why doesn't the same logic apply to owners, trainers, and jockeys?
An trainer and owner can bet, nothing wrong with that. I also see where an owner or two may buy a win ticket for a jockey or a trainer. A steward shouldnt be able to bet he can change the dynamics of the race by making a call based on an inquiry or an objection. A jockey can as well but it is tough to ascertain if the jockey has actually held a horse back and if they are guilty of that they are fined and or suspended.
We will see a lot more of these threads as sports wagering becomes legal nationwide and people look at the integrity of games and sporting events.

[v j stauffer]

Here's what I'm thinking of doing when your track, Oaklawn, opens it's meet....Since Oaklawn seems to always have full fields, it would seem that this situation might happen there more than any other track and is definitely worth charting, if it's doable....Something to keep in mind.

A super star at Oaklawn or any other meeting would be VERY rare. It's only assigned in very unusual instances. Something like racing office error. Or some sort of a computer glitch.

They could go years without ever having one horse assigned a Super Star.

As far as horses that may have been excluded and now have a better date or star. That info is kept in the racing office.

If you want to know if a race over filled. Look at the numbers at the bottom of each race on the overnight.

It will look one of three ways.

------------------------------------------10-----------------------------------------

Means there were 10 entered. Which you can obviously see.

---------------------------------12 & 4AE------------------------------------------

Means, Well you know what that means.


When horses never saw the light of day it will look like this.

---------------------------------12 & 4AE & 8EX-----------------------------------

The excluded horses are named out loud at the draw. Some sharp agents will quickly jot down their names.

If you ever want to know what's really going on at any track. No matter the subject. Make friends with an agent. They can be a fountain of information.

[Jeff P]

If you ever want to know what's really going on at any track. No matter the subject. Make friends with an agent. They can be a fountain of information.

Second that. Imo, really good advice.


-jp

.

[mountainman]

Good stuff....Never heard of the term "super star" when given entry preference before....Is that a retro term or is it still used in Race Sec Office?

Overriding preference (that trumps anything) is called a "Z" date at Mountaineer. Z dates are allotted only in special circumstances unrelated to a preference system. Runners in-to-go on cancelled cards, for instance, get z dates, as do horses excluded due to office mistakes.

Only a preference clause written into the header supersedes the z.

Pertaining to date systems,-and they do vary, sometimes considerably, from track to track-I'm not a fan of "stars." But I'll be typing all night if I start expounding on that topic-or date systems in general. And I've designed several.

[v j stauffer]

Overriding preference (that trumps anything) is called a "Z" date at Mountaineer. Z dates are allotted only in special circumstances unrelated to a preference system. Runners in-to-go on cancelled cards, for instance, get z dates, as do horses excluded due to office mistakes.

Only a preference clause written into the header supersedes the z.

Pertaining to date systems,-and they do vary, sometimes considerably, from track to track-I'm not a fan of "stars." But I'll be typing all night if I start expounding on that topic-or date systems in general. And I've designed several.

Correct me if I'm wrong Mark but "Stars" are pretty much antiquated these days?

[mountainman]

Correct me if I'm wrong Mark but "Stars" are pretty much antiquated these days?

Hi Vic...Correct. The Old School star system remains mainly at places that have tweaked and inflated it into a 40-page Frankenstein of regulations and caveats. The objective in those cases is to ensure that industrious connections can't acquire stars by making bad-faith entries in over-filled spots.


You could get a migraine just reading some of these date systems.

Happy holidays, pal.

[v j stauffer]

Hi Vic...Correct. The Old School star system remains mainly at places that have tweaked and inflated it into a 40-page Frankenstein of regulations and caveats. The objective in those cases is to ensure that industrious connections can't acquire stars by making bad-faith entries in over-filled spots.


You could get a migraine just reading some of these date systems.

Happy holidays, pal.

You too my friend!

[jay68802]

Absolutely!. It's on like donkey kong!

and...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_IWlPHMziU

[Copyroomjim]

I've never witnessed a steward bet but I've been "upstairs" at numerous race tracks where I observed operational self-serve tote machines, I presume located there for its intended purpose.

[v j stauffer]

I've never witnessed a steward bet but I've been "upstairs" at numerous race tracks where I observed operational self-serve tote machines, I presume located there for its intended purpose.

Those machines are for members of the media.

[sammy the sage]

Promise ya'll....they're "BEARDS" available at EVERY race track....:eek:

[v j stauffer]

Promise ya'll....they're "BEARDS" available at EVERY race track....:eek:

Don't understand. The machines are beards? The stewards are using beards to bet for them?

I was licensed as a Steward for about 8 years. There's a difference between being licensed and assigned.

Either way It was made clear that wagering of any kind. Other tracks, March Madness pools, Poker was not allowed.

I watched closely to see if there was any form of gambling at my tracks I saw a placing judge making bets at the self-serve terminal about an hour and a half before the races started. I don't know the size of the wagers. Or what track he was playing. I did see him at the machine more than once. He didn't seem comfortable with me walking by but didn't stop the wagering.

Only one time did I see ANYTHING involving an assigned Steward. On Kentucky Derby day. He was part of a Kentucky Derby Pool. One of those where they put 20 names on a piece of paper. Everybody puts up $5.00 and it's a blind draw.

He showed me his slip of paper and the horse we was rooting for. I advised him to not show it to anyone else. And give his ticket away to someone else in the press box. I said he had a financial interest in the running of a horse race and that wasn't good. Sure it was benign and a harmless Derby pool. But a hater could try to turn it around. He agreed and decided not to take a chance.

Other than those instances I have NEVER seen any Stewards at any track, whether I was the announcer or Steward, make wagers.

[Redboard]

I’d like to know if the stewards know which horses are alive for the rainbow jackpot in the last leg. Now I know some here insist that it doesn’t profit the stewards one nickel if someone hits the rainbow, but they are employees (or contractors) of the track, and the track does care. Hey, everyone wants to keep their boss happy.
Anyone?

[v j stauffer]

I’d like to know if the stewards know which horses are alive for the rainbow jackpot in the last leg. Now I know some here insist that it doesn’t profit the stewards one nickel if someone hits the rainbow, but they are employees (or contractors) of the track, and the track does care. Hey, everyone wants to keep their boss happy.
Anyone?

In California the Stewards are paid by the CHRB. California Horse Racing Board. They have no interest in a track's business model. They often make decisions the individual tracks do not agree with or like. Like calling a race no contest for example. When that occurs the track must refund all wagers. Certainly not in the best interest of the association.

There was one steward I worked with that would ask me at the beginning of the day if there was a carry over. I think it was just a curiosity thing. As far as who was alive going into the last race. They have TV monitors in the Stewards stand so the info is available. I never had one ask ME which numbers were alive.

When people say the Stewards manipulate the results to foster continued carry overs. Like the double DQ at Churchill the other day. It makes no sense to me. Before they had the DQ's three horses had to bounce off each other in a well choreographed incident. Did the Stewards and track set that up too?

When I was a Steward. My main focus was that "everyone" bettors, horsemen, race tracks were held to the rules of racing. That all were allowed to participate on a level playing field.

I VERY strongly believe the chance a racetrack would tell the Stewards what to do in an inquiry to further a carryover is extremely unlikely.

NO COLLUSION!

[ZippyChippy423]

Don't understand. The machines are beards? The stewards are using beards to bet for them?

I was licensed as a Steward for about 8 years. There's a difference between being licensed and assigned.

Either way It was made clear that wagering of any kind. Other tracks, March Madness pools, Poker was not allowed.

I watched closely to see if there was any form of gambling at my tracks I saw a placing judge making bets at the self-serve terminal about an hour and a half before the races started. I don't know the size of the wagers. Or what track he was playing. I did see him at the machine more than once. He didn't seem comfortable with me walking by but didn't stop the wagering.

Only one time did I see ANYTHING involving an assigned Steward. On Kentucky Derby day. He was part of a Kentucky Derby Pool. One of those where they put 20 names on a piece of paper. Everybody puts up $5.00 and it's a blind draw.

He showed me his slip of paper and the horse we was rooting for. I advised him to not show it to anyone else. And give his ticket away to someone else in the press box. I said he had a financial interest in the running of a horse race and that wasn't good. Sure it was benign and a harmless Derby pool. But a hater could try to turn it around. He agreed and decided not to take a chance.

Other than those instances I have NEVER seen any Stewards at any track, whether I was the announcer or Steward, make wagers.

“Beards” are people that bet for an individual person so they remain anonymous to the betting public. Jockeys , owners, trainers and stewards have all used “ beards “ at one time or another. You can pretend like this business is squeaky clean but just do a simple google search and see the numerous articles about the shady side of things. I can only imagine what went on prior to the Internet.

[the little guy]

I can only imagine what went on prior to the Internet.

For one, people were blissfully unaware of your existence.

[v j stauffer]

For one, people were blissfully unaware of your existence.

OUTSTANDING POST

[ultracapper]

HAHAHA!!

OMG!!! And the extra point is good!!!

That was just funny.

[AndyC]

In California the Stewards are paid by the CHRB. California Horse Racing Board. They have no interest in a track's business model. They often make decisions the individual tracks do not agree with or like. Like calling a race no contest for example. When that occurs the track must refund all wagers. Certainly not in the best interest of the association.

I VERY strongly believe the chance a racetrack would tell the Stewards what to do in an inquiry to further a carryover is extremely unlikely.

NO COLLUSION!

I am not suggesting collusion or any conspiracy theory, but to say a steward has no interest in a track's business model is not correct. If not for the success of the track there would be no need for a steward. The CHRB is funded by the wagering (business) of the track so the CHRB and stewards have a definite interest in the business success of the track.

[v j stauffer]

I am not suggesting collusion or any conspiracy theory, but to say a steward has no interest in a track's business model is not correct. If not for the success of the track there would be no need for a steward. The CHRB is funded by the wagering (business) of the track so the CHRB and stewards have a definite interest in the business success of the track.

They may have an interest but it's not vested. If the track has a great year and it's stock holders are thrilled. Or if they go in the crapper it doesn't effect the stewards. Their assignments and pay check don't change.

The only way they could be impacted is if racing in their jurisdiction ceased.

[big frank]

For one, people were blissfully unaware of your existence. Grand Slam ! walk off by Andy !

[AndyC]

They may have an interest but it's not vested. If the track has a great year and it's stock holders are thrilled. Or if they go in the crapper it doesn't effect the stewards. Their assignments and pay check don't change.

The only way they could be impacted is if racing in their jurisdiction ceased.

Do you see a lot of new tracks opening these days? There is a high probability that racing will cease and stewards will lose jobs at several tracks. Given the prospect of losing jobs is it really out of the question to think that business implications might have a small influence on thinking?

[rastajenk]

Short answer, Andy: Yes.

[v j stauffer]

Do you see a lot of new tracks opening these days? There is a high probability that racing will cease and stewards will lose jobs at several tracks. Given the prospect of losing jobs is it really out of the question to think that business implications might have a small influence on thinking?

Sure. I'll give you that. We're all one day away from the unemployment line. But I wouldn't use the word influence. They may be concerned but I can't ever see a scenario where they would be involved in any way.

[mountainman]

I've seen contrarian stewards, with contempt for management and the entire operation-the kind who would like to see the ship sink simply out of spite-but I have never known a steward much concerned about handle, bottom lines or carryovers. And CERTAINLY not concerned to the point of sacrificing integrity, risking reputation, and jeopardizing their very positions.

It sounds good in theory that stews have the sort of vested interest in the tracks they work at that could creep into their decisions. But in the real world, that is simply not how they think or operate.

And I have been WELL acquainted with many, many stewards.

[jimmyb]

Becoming and being a Steward not as easy as I thought.



https://www.thebalancecareers.com/racing-steward-125762

[v j stauffer]

I've seen contrarian stewards, with contempt for management and the entire operation-the kind who would like to see the ship sink simply out of spite-but I have never known a steward much concerned about handle, bottom lines or carryovers. And CERTAINLY not concerned to the point of sacrificing integrity, risking reputation, and jeopardizing their very positions.

It sounds good in theory that stews have the sort of vested interest in the tracks they work at that could creep into their decisions. But in the real world, that is simply not how they think or operate.

And I have been WELL acquainted with many, many stewards.

EXCELLENT POST:ThmbUp:

[Robert Fischer]

Stop ****ing worrying about Stewards betting, and worry about competent stewards. Stewards that the public sees as 'authority figures' (not 3 blind mice). Stewards that consistently rule and share universal 'rule interpretations' on certain commonly occurring scenarios.

Let's get that **** first.

Whether they bet is a fun curiosity, but the game itself and the perception of integrity should be of primary concern.


As a matter of fact, **** it :rant:

[v j stauffer]

Becoming and being a Steward not as easy as I thought.



https://www.thebalancecareers.com/racing-steward-125762

It's certainly not a way to get rich.

Many states don't offer benefits or a 401k plan.

Assignments can be spotty with changing racing dates and competition for work from other available judges.

For obvious reasons being a Steward can be a thankless job. No matter your decision someone is going to be disappointed and suggest you don't have what it takes.

If you work at a track and have many friends. I thought I did. Become a Steward and watch that roll call shrink.

When I resigned in 2015 I was frustrated about not getting better assignments. By being the safety steward which is totally different than being "in the stand" That and there were a couple of CHRB investigators I didn't get along with.

But by far the biggest reason was because I wanted to be in action betting. I wanted to see if I fully immersed myself in the "war vs the windows" if I could be successful.

I would love to someday return to the Steward's Stand.

[mountainman]

Becoming and being a Steward not as easy as I thought.



https://www.thebalancecareers.com/racing-steward-125762

Some stewards are well versed on how a racing dept operates, others not so much. Some work, some are ceremonial. Some I respect, others not so much. But most of them got the job by being connected in the right places.

90% of the people who become racing officials aspire to be either a steward or racing secretary. Most realize rather quickly that they could never handle the secretary's position..I mean in any way, shape , or form. At that point most decide that becoming a steward has been their lifelong, burning ambition.

[v j stauffer]

Stop ****ing worrying about Stewards betting, and worry about competent stewards. Stewards that the public sees as 'authority figures' (not 3 blind mice). Stewards that consistently rule and share universal 'rule interpretations' on certain commonly occurring scenarios.

Let's get that **** first.

Whether they bet is a fun curiosity, but the game itself and the perception of integrity should be of primary concern.


As a matter of fact, **** it :rant:

GOOD POST

[mountainman]

It's certainly not a way to get rich.

Many states don't offer benefits or a 401k plan.

Assignments can be spotty with changing racing dates and competition for work from other available judges.

For obvious reasons being a Steward can be a thankless job. No matter your decision someone is going to be disappointed and suggest you don't have what it takes.

If you work at a track and have many friends. I thought I did. Become a Steward and watch that roll call shrink.

When I resigned in 2015 I was frustrated about not getting better assignments. By being the safety steward which is totally different than being "in the stand" That and there were a couple of CHRB investigators I didn't get along with.

But by far the biggest reason was because I wanted to be in action betting. I wanted to see if I fully immersed myself in the "war vs the windows" if I could be successful.

I would love to someday return to the Steward's Stand.

And you should be a steward. One of critical importance at a major track. Every stand should include one ace handicapper who has wagered tons of money.

[AndyC]

I've seen contrarian stewards, with contempt for management and the entire operation-the kind who would like to see the ship sink simply out of spite-but I have never known a steward much concerned about handle, bottom lines or carryovers. And CERTAINLY not concerned to the point of sacrificing integrity, risking reputation, and jeopardizing their very positions.

It sounds good in theory that stews have the sort of vested interest in the tracks they work at that could creep into their decisions. But in the real world, that is simply not how they think or operate.

And I have been WELL acquainted with many, many stewards.

In theory, insider stock trading doesn't happen. Cops can't be bribed. Drs. are always doing what's best for patients regardless of financial ties. Investment advisors are always acting in a fiduciary capacity. Referees and umpires are always fair and impartial.

I am sure that the overwhelming majority of stewards have the highest integrity. That fact that they could or have exerted undue influence on the results of a race has never been a concern of mine. But let's stop with the they would never act or think that way garbage. They are human and not immune to pressures and temptations that are part of daily living.

[mountainman]

Cops can't be bribed.

Now management BRIBES stewards to create carryovers????? Just out of curiosity..lol..who is the bagman??

[mountainman]

In theory, insider stock trading doesn't happen. Cops can't be bribed. Drs. are always doing what's best for patients regardless of financial ties. Investment advisors are always acting in a fiduciary capacity. Referees and umpires are always fair and impartial.

I am sure that the overwhelming majority of stewards have the highest integrity. That fact that they could or have exerted undue influence on the results of a race has never been a concern of mine. But let's stop with the they would never act or think that way garbage. They are human and not immune to pressures and temptations that are part of daily living.

You speak in theory and vague generalities. I've been friends with dozens of stewards. And worked as one. Incidentally, I've also had a large role in training and teaching numerous stewards.

[mountainman]

But let's stop with the they would never act or think that way garbage.

No class.

[rastajenk]

He's pretty stubborn.

[mountainman]

He's pretty stubborn.

Me too. But I don't fling words like that at other board members.

[ZippyChippy423]

Nobody likes taking about the seedy dark side of horse racing. It is very much taboo. It is very real but I think in the last 20 years it has become more legitimate. Maybe less seedy is more like it but man oh man the stuff that went on prior to the internet evolving. Just go back to all the fair circuits years ago. The “ fix “ was in on selective races during the pinnacle of fairs. Imagine the jockeys who got busted fixing would be fined or banned for a time and then just come right back to racing. It of course wasn’t all about the jockeys. Corruption existed in every facet. I like to think that every race I bet on is legitimate and everyone gets a fair shake but honestly some seediness still exists. Even in the last 5 -10 years race manipulation has been exposed. I just trust everyone in the business is doing what is right and hopefully the races that are tampered with in the future are ones i haven’t bet on.

[AndyC]

You speak in theory and vague generalities. I've been friends with dozens of stewards. And worked as one. Incidentally, I've also had a large role in training and teaching numerous stewards.

I apologize for the way I have presented my views. Clearly I have missed the mark.

For the record I have never accused or suspected a steward of doing anything illegal or unethical. Yes, I have spoken in theory and generalities. That was because I was refuting a statement saying that stewards never have an interest in the outcome. My comments were not to bash stewards. I never have in 40+ years.

[ZippyChippy423]

I apologize for the way I have presented my views. Clearly I have missed the mark.

For the record I have never accused or suspected a steward of doing anything illegal or unethical. Yes, I have spoken in theory and generalities. That was because I was refuting a statement saying that stewards never have an interest in the outcome. My comments were not to bash stewards. I never have in 40+ years.

Although very very rare there have been a few cases of corrupt stewards. Taboo subject but fact.

[ReplayRandall]

Although very very rare there have been a few cases of corrupt stewards. Taboo subject but fact.

If there are corrupt stewards, from the results I have seen over the last 40+ years, I would say they possibly reside in the state of Pennsylvania...

[ZippyChippy423]

If there are corrupt stewards, from the results I have seen over the last 40+ years, I would say they possibly reside in the state of Pennsylvania...

In the last 10-15 years it’s been Pennsylvania, Michigan and Louisiana all confirmed.

[castaway01]

If a racetrack wanted there to be a carryover that required a certain horse not to win a race, there are a lot easier ways to do that than to hire crooked stewards and have them wait years for the day that one horse in one particular race absolutely has to come down.

[mountainman]

I apologize for the way I have presented my views. Clearly I have missed the mark.

For the record I have never accused or suspected a steward of doing anything illegal or unethical. Yes, I have spoken in theory and generalities. That was because I was refuting a statement saying that stewards never have an interest in the outcome. My comments were not to bash stewards. I never have in 40+ years.

Before I paint all stews, past and present, as shining exemplars of goodness and virtue, I must confess I've known a few that owned and raced horses. At the same track they served at. And that, of course, is a HUGE no no.

[turfnsport]

And CERTAINLY not concerned to the point of sacrificing integrity, risking reputation, and jeopardizing their very positions.


Judging by the rash of questionable decisions stewards have made over the past couple of years, as a group they probably should be more concerned about their integrity, reputation and their positions.

[mountainman]

Judging by the rash of questionable decisions stewards have made over the past couple of years, as a group they probably should be more concerned about their integrity, reputation and their positions.

Concern for their positions?? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the hammer to come down.