NICE CALL TREVOR

[TEJAS KIDD]

I feel sorry for the person alive in the pick 6 to Afternoon Gold and having to hear Trevor call him the winner. Not the 1st time he's done it, and certainly won't be the last.

[larman]

trevor denman has fallen asleep at the helm more than any announcer
I have ever listened to, yet somehow he is chosen to call the
breeders cup, which he destroys. Go figure.

[DeanT]

As you guys note, he tends to do that more often than many others. Amazingly, over the past two months I have heard it about four times, and each time he called a horse I bet the loser.

I am not immune to losers, hell I bet one 80% of the time, but I think Trevor really doesn't like me. :(

[Marshall Bennett]

Off the top of my head I could name at least a dozen announcers that do a better , more accurate , race call than Denman . Ten years ago I could have named the same number . At best he's average , but then thats only my opinion . :p

[overunder]

Trevor tends to call what he thinks he should be seeing instead of what is actually happening on the track. There are a few of these ego driven announcers who handicap the race, and call to their handicapping.

[Jeff P]

Trevor is obviously not as sharp as he once was. IMHO he used to be the premier race caller in the game.

But I'm going to cut him a little slack here. Watching yesterday's nightcap live - and after watching a replay in slow motion - and after watching the close up replay in slow motion - it looked to ME like the #1 clearly beat the #7 to the wire by about a head.

I'll make the argument (knowing in advance that several here will immediately jump on me and say this is impossible) that the win photo shows what it shows because the shot used as the win photo shows the horses AFTER they crossed the wire (with a cartooned in line) - and not AS the lead horse crossed the wire.


-jp

.

[overunder]

I agree with you Jeff about the photo. I think they take several photos at several different points and angles in the last 10 yards of the race.
This way the track can post the most profitable winner for the establisment based on breakage. I've seen some pretty strange photos over the years.
I was once standing right on the wire, and watched a horse win by about 1/2 a yard only to lose in a photo. You takes your chances when the photo sign goes up.

[Jeff P]

I'm going to present two images to support the argument I presented in my earlier post:

I went to CalRacing.com, logged in, and took a screenshot of the official track win photo. Here's a link:
http://www.jcapper.com/images/SAX_041408_R8_WinPhoto.JPG

Next I recorded the stretch run of the track video... and advanced it frame by frame... and took a screenshot at the point in the race where (in my opinion) the lead horse breaks the plane of the wire. Here's a link:
http://www.jcapper.com/images/SAX_041408_R8.JPG

Compare the two. Specifically, look at two things:

1. The right front leg of the #7 horse. In my screenshot (where I think the lead horse breaks the plane of the wire) the right front foreleg is extended forward. In the track's official win photo, the right front foreleg of the #7 is positioned so that the hoof is toward's the horse's rear.

2. The #9 horse who finished 4th. In my screenshot (where I think the lead horse breaks the plane of the wire) Michael Baze (the rider of the 4th place finisher) is just starting to stand up in the irons. In the track's official win photo, Michael is very clearly standing up at this point.

In my screenshot the left front leg of Michael's horse is postioned towards the horse's rear. In the track's official win photo, Michael's horse has BOTH front legs extended forward.

I did not have a financial interest in this race. But I do contend that the track's official win photo shows what happened AFTER the horses crossed the wire. IMHO it does not show the horses AS they hit the wire.


-jp

.

[njcurveball]

But I do contend that the track's official win photo shows what happened AFTER the horses crossed the wire. IMHO it does not show the horses AS they hit the wire.


.

Totally agree with what you have posted! Looking forward to hearing an explanation on this. Thanks for sharing! :ThmbUp:

[cj]

I know a lot about computers, but very little about digital photography, so keep that in mind before telling me how stupid the following question is. Why, in 2008, can't we have a photo that is just that, a real photograph of the finish? It seems to me the current methodology is outdated just like everything else in the game.

I've watched plenty of 100 meter races and they have finish line photos that***-gasp-***look just like a real photograph!

[ryesteve]

Next I recorded the stretch run of the track video... and advanced it frame by frame... and took a screenshot at the point in the race where (in my opinion) the lead horse breaks the plane of the wire.
I think that's the problem: the video camera is up the track, so it's hard to tell when exactly the lead horse hits the wire. But even in that screenshot, it kind of looks like the horse on the outside has the lead anyway; it's hard to tell by looking at the noses, because of the blur, but the 7's shadow looks ahead of the 1's...

[LottaKash]

I know a lot about computers, but very little about digital photography, so keep that in mind before telling me how stupid the following question is. Why, in 2008, can't we have a photo that is just that, a real photograph of the finish? It seems to me the current methodology is outdated just like everything else in the game.

I've watched plenty of 100 meter races and they have finish line photos that***-gasp-***look just like a real photograph!

I agree CJ.....The meadowlands has a marvelous picture service that they offer when viewing their charts.......but, not in real time, or maybe that has changed since my last visits a few years ago.....:cool:

[bob77713]

Now I'm starting to wonder. Looking at the photos at Santa Anita's site, why are the backgrounds fuzzy? Specifically, why can't you see the finish line mirror.

[DeanT]

I think you stopped the frame too early Jeff (in the second picture). That angle screws up perspective, imo.

[Imriledup]

I think you stopped the frame too early Jeff (in the second picture). That angle screws up perspective, imo.

I have that race on my DVR. HRTV slows down the finish and you can clearly see that Baze (on the 4th place finisher) doesn't stand up until the top 2 horses are 3 or 4 lengths past the wire. Also, the 3rd place finisher (on the grey horse) is in a crouch also at the 'wire' and he doesn't rise up either until after the finish. In the win photo, these jocks are clearly NOT in a crouch.

[Jeff P]

posted by CJ:I know a lot about computers, but very little about digital photography, so keep that in mind before telling me how stupid the following question is. Why, in 2008, can't we have a photo that is just that, a real photograph of the finish? It seems to me the current methodology is outdated just like everything else in the game.

I've watched plenty of 100 meter races and they have finish line photos that***-gasp-***look just like a real photograph!

I watched a program that aired on the History Channel a few weeks back. The topic of the program was "Rods." Quite a bit of ameteur video exists where "rods" appear in filmed events when the video is reviewed afterwards. A "rod" looks like an elongated fast moving flying creature possessing several sets of wings.

The gist of the program was this: Specialists in camera and film were asked to review video showing rods and give their opinions. Most of the specialists said things like "Yes. I see it. It's really unusual. I don't know what that object is but there's definitely something there. I don't think this was faked."

The producers of the show interviewed a technician from Minolta who showed them a high speed video camera (that could be used to film a bullet at the moment of impact as it struck a target) that operated at about 3000 frames per second.

It turned out that a standard video camera (the kind people buy at Best Buy or Circuit City) operates at something like 30 frames per second.

The producers of the show then focused two two video cameras (a standard camera and a high speed camera) on an actor standing about 30 yards away. In between the cameras and the actor was a small garden. While the cameras where focused on the actor one of the show's producers stirred up the plants in the garden with a broom. Bugs and moths scattered by the broom began flying into the shot.

The interesting thing was that in the video filmed by the standard 30 frame per second camera - the bugs appeared as "rods" - elongated streaks with up to six sets of wings - because, as the technician from Minolta explained - they were out of focus. But the video taken by the high speed 3000 frames per second camera showed the bugs exactly as they were: flying bugs with a single set of wings.

Where am I going with this?

The technology in fact DOES exist for race tracks to use video replay to judge the finish of a race. All they need are two things:

1. Invest in a high speed camera.

2. Mount the camera right on the finish line.

The technology tracks are currently using has been antiquated for decades.


-jp

.

[BillW]

Another question, don't all photo finish pics involve a mirror, in which case physics would disallow an error? (assuming the mirror wasn't misaligned :bang: )

[rrbauer]

No dog in this fight. Looked at all of the evidence: #7 is the winner based on the evidence produced. I think they use the mirror image when the view of the inside horse is blocked in the pan shot.

One of the best tracks that I'm familar with for sorting out the finish is Tampa. They show the finish three times on video. First is Pan from the spectator side. The 2nd is slo-mo from the spectator side and the 3rd is slo-mo from the infield side. The last one is very revealing and almost always the definitive shot if you have any questions based on the first two.

[Imriledup]

No dog in this fight. Looked at all of the evidence: #7 is the winner based on the evidence produced. I think they use the mirror image when the view of the inside horse is blocked in the pan shot.

One of the best tracks that I'm familar with for sorting out the finish is Tampa. They show the finish three times on video. First is Pan from the spectator side. The 2nd is slo-mo from the spectator side and the 3rd is slo-mo from the infield side. The last one is very revealing and almost always the definitive shot if you have any questions based on the first two.

What does Tampa have to do with Santa Anita?

[v j stauffer]

I agree with you Jeff about the photo. I think they take several photos at several different points and angles in the last 10 yards of the race.
This way the track can post the most profitable winner for the establisment based on breakage. I've seen some pretty strange photos over the years.
I was once standing right on the wire, and watched a horse win by about 1/2 a yard only to lose in a photo. You takes your chances when the photo sign goes up.

It's only April and we already have a winner for most ridiculous post of the year!!

Congrats!!

Speech?

[JustRalph]

2nd the motion of the esteemed gentleman from the announcers booth!! :lol: :lol:

[Imriledup]

It's only April and we already have a winner for most ridiculous post of the year!!

Congrats!!

Speech?

Its not as ridiculous as you might think.

If someone had posted the pick 6 was fixed for the Breeders Cup we all would have laughed at that person and said his post was a nominee for honors, no?

:lol:

[overunder]

It's only April and we already have a winner for most ridiculous post of the year!!

Congrats!!

Speech?

WOW... A touchy announcer chiming in! Who made you the Marshall around here? Just because you call races doesn't make you the be all and end all in discussions. I have always enjoyed your race calls, but this post of yours now puts you in a different light as far as I'm concerned. If I had the most ridiculous post of the year, it was short-lived, because I think you just outdid me. Thanks alot, and I won't hold this against you at Hollywood.

[BombsAway Bob]

I agree with you Jeff about the photo. I think they take several photos at several different points and angles in the last 10 yards of the race.
This way the track can post the most profitable winner for the establisment based on breakage. I've seen some pretty strange photos over the years.
I was once standing right on the wire, and watched a horse win by about 1/2 a yard only to lose in a photo. You takes your chances when the photo sign goes up.
Dec. 2007, OverUnder started a thread lamenting the results of races he was wagering on:
Better off playing Roulette
Call me a cynic. I've played the races for 30 years or so, and have always been a very competent handicapper, but these last 2 years have made me reconsider whether or not to continue playing horses. Drugs? Poly? I don't know? I stay on top of the latest trends, but every time I take them to the track, the winning factor changes. Anyone else having similar thoughts, or have I just lost my mojo?
-------------------------
Lose enough, & your mind begins dreaming up excuses for bad luck....:mad:

[overunder]

What in the hell does that have to do with this thread Bombs?

I mean really, get a life. Looking up old quotes. What the hell for?
I'm quite happy to report that I've restricted my play on poly, and my returns have improved. Today was a great day. Lots of longshots. But again, what are you trying to prove Bombs Away?

[overunder]

Never mind answering Bombs Away!

I think I know the reason for your insulting comment. You've been brown nosing Vic, and you're coming to his defense. It's O.K. I understand now.

Bombs Away wrote in an earlier thread:
TVG & HRTV have allowed bettors the opportunity to really get into dynamite track announcers from coast-to-coast. I'm not going to start singling out callers, but how many folks do you know are dedicated enough to call a race during an Earthquake!

[BombsAway Bob]

Never mind answering Bombs Away!

I think I know the reason for your insulting comment. You've been brown nosing Vic, and you're coming to his defense. It's O.K. I understand now.

Bombs Away wrote in an earlier thread:
TVG & HRTV have allowed bettors the opportunity to really get into dynamite track announcers from coast-to-coast. I'm not going to start singling out callers, but how many folks do you know are dedicated enough to call a race during an Earthquake!



insulting comments? I was trying to find out how you could post something like "They take several win photos at several different points and angles."
It Had Zip to do with Vic...he's a big boy & can talk to you himself.

[Hosshead]

posted by CJ:

I watched a program that aired on the History Channel a few weeks back. The topic of the program was "Rods." Quite a bit of ameteur video exists where "rods" appear in filmed events when the video is reviewed afterwards. A "rod" looks like an elongated fast moving flying creature possessing several sets of wings.
.
I saw that program too. The "inventor" of "Rods" (Jose) has also been on the radio program "Coast To Coast" many times. Even though it's been proven to be a illusion produced by the camera (changing Bugs to Rods), he continues to ignore it, as his income is derived from giving lectures around the country on "Rods".

Back to racing- The video camera (the pan shot we see) is usually placed before the finish line. That is why (normally) the outside horse actually wins the photos that appear very close from the video.
If you look at the video screen shot you posted, you can see that the placement of the video camera is well before the finish line.
Most tracks are like this. This is why things often don't look right to us. Also why the outside horse usually wins the photo.
If two horses look like they hit the wire close to each other (in the video shot), 9 times out of 10, the outside horse (really) gets there first.

But I agree with CJ about updating the photofinish camera system .

[overunder]

insulting comments? I was trying to find out how you could post something like "They take several win photos at several different points and angles."
It Had Zip to do with Vic...he's a big boy & can talk to you himself.

Why then did you not take Jeff to task? As he has basically supplied evidence to say the same thing?

[BombsAway Bob]

Jeff only implicated one camera in the photo-chicanery.. regarding track cameras,
Los Alamitos uses "shutter-cam" to view close finishes.
It's not an official placing tool, but it's right 99% of the time.
Every track should use that technology for simulcast bettors!

[Imriledup]

I saw that program too. The "inventor" of "Rods" (Jose) has also been on the radio program "Coast To Coast" many times. Even though it's been proven to be a illusion produced by the camera (changing Bugs to Rods), he continues to ignore it, as his income is derived from giving lectures around the country on "Rods".

Back to racing- The video camera (the pan shot we see) is usually placed before the finish line. That is why (normally) the outside horse actually wins the photos that appear very close from the video.
If you look at the video screen shot you posted, you can see that the placement of the video camera is well before the finish line.
Most tracks are like this. This is why things often don't look right to us. Also why the outside horse usually wins the photo.
If two horses look like they hit the wire close to each other (in the video shot), 9 times out of 10, the outside horse (really) gets there first.

But I agree with CJ about updating the photofinish camera system .

The Camera being before the finish wire distorts the view the public gets to make the outside horse look closer to the inside horse than he really is. With the Camera before the wire, the outside horse has to be decidedly in front to win by a nose. If the 2 horses look tied, the inside horse gets the photo.

I still would like someone to explain to me how the rider of the 4th place finisher is standing up in the still photo, but when you look at the video of the race, he's still in his crouch when the winner hits the wire.

[overunder]

I wasn't implicating more than one camera either. Just different angles, and increments. You're splitting hairs here. I know what I'm saying is possible, and if you've seen as many strange photo finish results as I have, you too would be looking for possible answers.

[Hosshead]

The Camera being before the finish wire distorts the view the public gets to make the outside horse look closer to the inside horse than he really is. With the Camera before the wire, the outside horse has to be decidedly in front to win by a nose. If the 2 horses look tied, the inside horse gets the photo.

Absolutely Not True. In fact, just the opposite is true.

[DJofSD]

High speed video cameras? They're used on Mythbusters all of the time.

As cj has already stated, this industry is way, way behind the technology curve.

[Imriledup]

Absolutely Not True. In fact, just the opposite is true.

If the camera is before the finish line, it makes the outside horse appear closer to winning than he actually is. Maybe i'm not understanding what you are saying.

[JustRalph]

come on? Get real. They are cheating for an extra .20 cents or maybe .80 cents? If they wanted to go to all that trouble...........they could cheat a hell of a lot easier ways than just that.

The post about posting multiple photos to get an advantage on the "breakage" is crazy and Vic called him on it. Big Freakin deal!

I don't know Vic from Adam, but he was right. He deserved to be called on that crap. It's almost funny........ but I think he believes it.

[Tom Barrister]

The field of vision for the lens in the camera that takes the placing photo is essentially a small slit through which the horses pass by at the wire. The actual track placing photo is a very long horizontal picture of each horse as it passes the wire. Therefore, the "Win" photo is NOT a picture of how all of the horses look as the winner's nose hit the wire.

For example: Assume #1 crosses the wire three lengths in front. At that instant, #5, who is tiring badly, is four lengths back in second with his forelegs fully extended, while #8, who is closing very fast, is a nose behind that one with his forelegs fully drawn in. In other words, if you stopped the track's instant replay at that point, #5 would be leading #8 by a nose as #1 hits the wire for his win photo, with #5's forelegs extended and #8's forelegs curled in.

As #5 and #8 finish the race, #8's momentum carries him past #5 in the short distance to the wire, and he beats #5 by a nose. In the process both horses' forelegs change position so that they're more or less perpendicular to the ground.

If you look at the track's "Win" photo, you'll see #1 three lengths in front, and #8 a nose ahead of #5, with #5's and #8's forelegs perpendicular to the ground---in other words, you'll see them exactly as you would if you took pictures of each as they crossed the finish line. The entire placing photo is just one long finishing position for each horse, as each crosses the wire. It's NOT a series of photos.

To make it plainer, suppose that in the above photo, another horse, #7 is also in the battle for second with #5 and #8, but it stumbles and falls 20 feet (about two lengths) from the wire and never finishes the race. A minute later (after the placing photo is turned off), #7 horse and jockey get up and walk off unharmed. The placing photo will show-----#1 winning by three lengths, #8 a nose in front of #5 for second, and whoever else crossed the wire thereafter. #7 will not show up in anywhere in the photo because he did not cross the finish.

[v j stauffer]

WOW... A touchy announcer chiming in! Who made you the Marshall around here? Just because you call races doesn't make you the be all and end all in discussions. I have always enjoyed your race calls, but this post of yours now puts you in a different light as far as I'm concerned. If I had the most ridiculous post of the year, it was short-lived, because I think you just outdid me. Thanks alot, and I won't hold this against you at Hollywood.

Good to see you standing up for yourself. I appreciate the input. How can what I say in this forum effect whether or not you like my calls? You either like them or not. But I won't hold that against you at the trailer park.

The real reason I said what I did is that I'm just so sick people of thinking the game is rigged against them. If you were in a poker game and thought the cards were marked wouldn't you get up and leave?

Anyway. I hope this finds you well. Come to HP as my personal guest anytime.

Thanks for listening and taking time to write.

All the best.

[v j stauffer]

Its not as ridiculous as you might think.

If someone had posted the pick 6 was fixed for the Breeders Cup we all would have laughed at that person and said his post was a nominee for honors, no?

:lol:

No. It wasn't the Breeders Cup that fixed thier own Pick 6.

[Hosshead]

If the camera is before the finish line, it makes the outside horse appear closer to winning than he actually is. Maybe i'm not understanding what you are saying.
False. Just the opposite is true.
The video camera which is placed before the finish line, makes the Inside horse appear closer to the wire (vs. the outside horse), than he really is.

In fact anyone can try this experiment at home with 2 little toy horses or anything else. (you need something that's 3 dimensional, and stands up from the paper and has a neck that sticks out. lol)
1. Simply (using a Sharpie) draw an EXACTLY straight line on a piece of paper.

2. Then move your head to the left of the line about a foot or so, not looking from exactly straight down, but a little lower, from the point of view of a video camera.


3. Then (without moving your head), line the horses up so that they both look (To YOU) like their noses are on the line.

4. Now move your head back to the "finish line".

5. You can see how far ahead the Outside horse really is. In fact, the farther the horses are apart (when they hit the line), the More the difference the Outside horse wins by.

Notice that in the horse race in question (Jeff's post), the outside horse is WAY far from the inside horse, thus creating a much bigger winning margin than the view from the pan shot.

This is why the OUTSIDE HORSE almost always wins a photo that looks close to us, looking at the pan shot. Unless the headbob decides.
I'm just talking about our perceived view of the finish line from the video pan shot.

The actual photo finish camera with a focal plane shutter is what Tom Barrister's post is about. Although I don't think that all tracks use that same setup anymore.

[Hosshead]

Hey Vic, can I be your personal guest too. I'm already in the Los Angeles area! lol

[samyn on the green]

This post about the photos was pretty good for a laugh. I may have a story to match that or even trump it.

While standing on the apron at Belmont these out of town guys from a small town were on the apron. They looked like transient workers in town to put up roadside advertisements or maybe they were from the east end of Palookaville Long Island. I was sure that three of them had not been to the races before but one of them had been. I was outside alone next to them easdropping on their loud conversation. The leader of the group points to all the Stewards stands around the track and tells his three buddies that "from those stands is where they fix the races. There are sharpshooters up there with tranquilizer guns that shoot the horses to ensure the desired result to the track keeps making money." The friends nodded in agreement and asked the leader "who is going to get shot next race." "We do not know the mafia makes the call"

They kept on betting till the ninth race. Not sure that this story trumps the doctored photo finish story but I think it is close in absurdity and humor. People really rationalize their losses at racetracks in odd and funny ways.

[Jeff P]

I replayed the video of the stretch run as the horses neared the wire... one frame at a time... paying particular attention to the #9 horse. I focused on getting one and only one question answered: WHEN did Michael Baze come out of his crouch (as pictured in the track's official win photo.) Watch the video replay several times yourself and you'll see the same thing I did. Michael Baze doesn't stand up until his horse crosses the wire. WHY then is he pictured standing in the track's official win photo? The only possible explanation I can think of is that the official win photo shows what happened after the first THREE finishers were already well past the wire.

Here is a link to a screenshot taken from the race replay at the first point where Michael Baze stands up:
http://www.JCapper.com/images/standsUpHere.jpg

Notice how far past the wire the top three finishers are at this point.

Understand that I did not have a financial interest in this race. Understand that in the finish line screen shot (where I froze the action of the video replay in my earlier post) given that the camera used for that shot is not on the wire I'll freely admit the #7 actually may actually have beaten the #1 to the wire. Understand that I am not suggesting chicanery or a rigged race at all.

I am simply making one observation:

The track's official win photo does not coincide with the actual positions of the horses (I'm talking about specific positions of horses' legs and Baze standing up as opposed to crouching) until the first three finishers are well past the wire.

From that observation I'd like to have one question answered:

Why?





-jp

.

[v j stauffer]

Hey Vic, can I be your personal guest too. I'm already in the Los Angeles area! lol

Sure. PM me contact info and we'll set it up.

[samyn on the green]

Sure. PM me contact info and we'll set it up.You better make sure he brings the women, the bourbon and the bankroll for the day. Gas, grass or ass nobody hangs in the announcers booth for free.

[v j stauffer]

You better make sure he brings the women, the bourbon and the bankroll for the day. Gas, grass or ass nobody hangs in the announcers booth for free.

Oh yeah. Forgot to tell of the rules!

Actually I got the bourbon. Just bring the rest and we'll be fine.

[cj]

Where am I going with this?

The technology in fact DOES exist for race tracks to use video replay to judge the finish of a race. All they need are two things:

1. Invest in a high speed camera.

2. Mount the camera right on the finish line.

The technology tracks are currently using has been antiquated for decades.


-jp

.

Thanks Jeff, that is exactly what I suspected.

[JustRalph]

From that observation I'd like to have one question answered:

Why?
-jp

.

this is why

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=512575&postcount=37


I saw a "Johnny D" segement on this on HRTV the other day. He basically said the same thing as the post above. you are not getting panoramic view of the scene when the first horse hits the wire.

[Hosshead]

Sure. PM me contact info and we'll set it up.
Thanks.

[JustRalph]

Hoss, take a camera so we can see some pictures of you and Vic......... :ThmbUp:

[Hosshead]

I think I'll go on the night of the "bikini babe race". (if they have it again this year)

I don't think anyone will notice when I jump the rail at the 1/16 pole wearing my camouflage jumpsuit painted with poly clods.
But you might see me in the official photo for Show. ... Arms outstretched !!

[ryesteve]

I focused on getting one and only one question answered: WHEN did Michael Baze come out of his crouch (as pictured in the track's official win photo.) Watch the video replay several times yourself and you'll see the same thing I did. Michael Baze doesn't stand up until his horse crosses the wire. WHY then is he pictured standing in the track's official win photo?
I think Tom's post explains it pretty well. I don't quite understand the mechanics of it, but we're not looking at the also-rans as they were when the winner hit the line; we're seeing them as they looked when THEY crossed the line.

[BillW]

I think Tom's post explains it pretty well. I don't quite understand the mechanics of it, but we're not looking at the also-rans as they were when the winner hit the line; we're seeing them as they looked when THEY crossed the line.

Exactly - two differing methods of photography. In the photo finish pic we see each horses "pose" as he crosses in front of the aperture (Each slice of the photo at a different point in time). While the still from the video is a wide view snapshot of the whole field at a single point in time as the winner hit the line.

[098poi]

Overunder


Do not be put off by the response to your post. (although I had the same view when I first read it)

I believe that although the technology may not be up to what is available today, the horse that finishes first is the one we are shown in the picture. I don't think there are any shenanigans going on.

But your post is important because of PERCEPTION!

A lot of the public has the PERCEPTION that races are for the most part fixed, or that the track is a "they" which manipulates the outcomes of races. (Years ago at Santa Anita after the second race a longsot won and I overheard a guy tell his friend "they" didn't want the favorite to win, blah,blah. I don't remember his reason I just remember rolling my eyes.)

If the public perception of racing is poor on so many levels it is no wonder it is hard to get new people into the game. If a newer technology was employed so the public could see a a finish line photo that at least looked like it was on the replay, or how it looked in real time, that might do wonders to boost the public's confidence. The same with useing Trakus data and not relying on humans to call out beaten lengths. (Not a putdown, these people do a seemingly impossible task)

So Overunder thanks for being honest!!!!!!!!

[boomman]

Overunder


Do not be put off by the response to your post. (although I had the same view when I first read it)

I believe that although the technology may not be up to what is available today, the horse that finishes first is the one we are shown in the picture. I don't think there are any shenanigans going on.

But your post is important because of PERCEPTION!

A lot of the public has the PERCEPTION that races are for the most part fixed, or that the track is a "they" which manipulates the outcomes of races. (Years ago at Santa Anita after the second race a longsot won and I overheard a guy tell his friend "they" didn't want the favorite to win, blah,blah. I don't remember his reason I just remember rolling my eyes.)

If the public perception of racing is poor on so many levels it is no wonder it is hard to get new people into the game. If a newer technology was employed so the public could see a a finish line photo that at least looked like it was on the replay, or how it looked in real time, that might do wonders to boost the public's confidence. The same with useing Trakus data and not relying on humans to call out beaten lengths. (Not a putdown, these people do a seemingly impossible task)

So Overunder thanks for being honest!!!!!!!!

098: Your post is right on the mark! Having worked in the business for nearly 30 years, I am constantly reminded that the public sees many things in our sport that they perceive as "fixed", so when something like the Breeder's Cup scandal ( 3 renegade tote guys who did prison time who had nothing to do with The Breeder's Cup) hits the newsstands (especially after the tote company vehemently denied it for 3 days) it only adds to the public's mistrust. One of the things I have preached that MUST be fixed is the appearance of a horse on the lead in deep stretch having his odds go down as he crosses the wire (a common occurence). Now those of us in the industry know that this can happen because of the last minute co-mingling from all of the simulcast outlets into the pool, but the PERCEPTION that someone may be past posting is terrible! We have to do everything in our power to restore the public's confidence or we will NEVER get new racing fans. You are 100% correct in your assessment. Vic: I think it is outstanding that you invite members from the board to the booth to get a "birdseye" view and see a side of racing they have probably never seen. I also invite any of you that will be making it to Yavapai Downs this summer to contact me and I'll be happy to show you around. I know we are proud to show folks this side of the game and I would hope all announcers will take this opportunity to promote our sport any time they can!:ThmbUp:

:) Boomer

[cj]

Perception is the reason things like the insane call at Hawthorne on the 13th need to be addressed...in a public manner.

[Jeff P]

Agreed.

-jp

.

[Bruddah]

Never mind answering Bombs Away!

I think I know the reason for your insulting comment. You've been brown nosing Vic, and you're coming to his defense. It's O.K. I understand now.

Bombs Away wrote in an earlier thread:
TVG & HRTV have allowed bettors the opportunity to really get into dynamite track announcers from coast-to-coast. I'm not going to start singling out callers, but how many folks do you know are dedicated enough to call a race during an Earthquake!





After reading the above crap, it's no wonder why professionals at any level of Thoroughbred racing won't Post on these boards. Why suffer the insults from individuals who aren't qualified to open a Racing Form or handicapping software program.

I suppose according to your criteria I am a brown noser. That's ok,I'd rather be a brown noser than a jaded green noser. According to my criteria.

Sorry Vic, I don't live in Cali, but darn sure wish I could make the trip. :kiss: I know, I know!! Now I will be called an A&& :kiss: :lol: :ThmbUp:

[overunder]

Overunder


Do not be put off by the response to your post. (although I had the same view when I first read it)

I believe that although the technology may not be up to what is available today, the horse that finishes first is the one we are shown in the picture. I don't think there are any shenanigans going on.

But your post is important because of PERCEPTION!

A lot of the public has the PERCEPTION that races are for the most part fixed, or that the track is a "they" which manipulates the outcomes of races. (Years ago at Santa Anita after the second race a longsot won and I overheard a guy tell his friend "they" didn't want the favorite to win, blah,blah. I don't remember his reason I just remember rolling my eyes.)

If the public perception of racing is poor on so many levels it is no wonder it is hard to get new people into the game. If a newer technology was employed so the public could see a a finish line photo that at least looked like it was on the replay, or how it looked in real time, that might do wonders to boost the public's confidence. The same with useing Trakus data and not relying on humans to call out beaten lengths. (Not a putdown, these people do a seemingly impossible task)

So Overunder thanks for being honest!!!!!!!!

I didn't say the races were rigged. What I said was that the track might take the best possible photo for the establishment based on breakage.
Simple economic decision!

[Bruddah]

Hoss, take a camera so we can see some pictures of you and Vic......... :ThmbUp:


Put up the pictures of the Bikini Babes. :ThmbUp: ;)

Guess I just lost my honorary A&& :kiss: title. :lol:

[overunder]

After reading the above crap, it's no wonder why professionals at any level of Thoroughbred racing won't Post on these boards. Why suffer the insults from individuals who aren't qualified to open a Racing Form or handicapping software program.

I suppose according to your criteria I am a brown noser. That's ok,I'd rather be a brown noser than a jaded green noser. According to my criteria.

Sorry Vic, I don't live in Cali, but darn sure wish I could make the trip. :kiss: I know, I know!! Now I will be called an A&& :kiss: :lol: :ThmbUp:

Another guy up in arms why???

I've been handicapping and betting thoroughbreds since I was nine. I've made most of my living betting horses, and currently don't do anything else.
I've managed to do so for about 5 years. I'm not living on the ritz or anything, but I've managed. I don't know why you say I'm not qualified to make statements on this forum. I suppose you'll just say I'm lying. So be it.
If you consider it to be crap Bruddah, that's your perogative.

[njcurveball]

. All they need are two things:

1. Invest in a high speed camera.

2. Mount the camera right on the finish line.

The technology tracks are currently using has been antiquated for decades.


-jp

.

As Larry Lederman says in his race calls. The response would be INSTANT and EFFECTIVE!

Monmouth supposedly had 30 million to spend. A simple machine to detect the wind direction and speed would have cost a few hundred. Your suggestion a little bit more.

I guess integrity and accuracy are very low on the lists of Track Management. :ThmbDown:

[Imriledup]

Some great responses about the technicalities of photography. What i want to know is why MC Baze is standing up in the official photo and when the 2 horses in front hit the wire on the video tape, MC is in his crouch still. I even paused it and waited until the horses are AFTER the wire by a long neck or half length just to make sure i was on or after the wire and he's still in the crouch.

Also, the 3rd place finisher, who lost the race by a neck for the entire win, his jock was also in a crouch at the wire, but on the official photo he's starting to stand up. Since that runner only lost the entire race by a neck, that runner hit the wire about 1/100th of a second after the winner did, so if your explanation was correct, why is the jockey on the 3rd place finisher not consistent with what is shown on the photo?

Do we also find it an odd coincidence that the track announcer called the 1 horse the winner? Not only did he call the 1 the winner, he didn't even indicate it was close. There is precedent where Trevor Denman DOES in fact use the term "close, or very close" in his calls, so he has, in the past, indicated a close finish. This time he did not indicate this was even close. Why? Just a coincidence i guess? Trevor is right on the wire in his booth. He looked down and watched the race live and saw the 1 clearly in front. From his booth you have an AMAZING view of the actual wire.

One last thing. For the guys who talk about photography and how the picture is distorted or what have you, please find me another race at Santa Anita where this is evident. Go back in their photo archive and point out the race, date and time and i'll go back to the replays and see the same distortion. if this happens all the time, how come no one has noticed it until now?

[jma]

Another guy up in arms why???

I've been handicapping and betting thoroughbreds since I was nine. I've made most of my living betting horses, and currently don't do anything else.
I've managed to do so for about 5 years. I'm not living on the ritz or anything, but I've managed. I don't know why you say I'm not qualified to make statements on this forum. I suppose you'll just say I'm lying. So be it.
If you consider it to be crap Bruddah, that's your perogative.

Why would you waste your time on something that is so obviously fixed to cheat you?

I think people are "up in arms" because it sounds insane to say that several different photo finish pictures are taken and used so a track could make a few extra pennies. All of the people who have run the equipment, taken the pictures, viewed the photos, etc. and zero proof of this has ever come out. So, even the jaded people on here think you're a little too paranoid. That's all.

[rastajenk]

I didn't say the races were rigged. What I said was that the track might take the best possible photo for the establishment based on breakage.
Simple economic decision!What about churn? What if they make cheating decisions based on that? Is it better to give the win to a horse that pays $4 over one that pays $20, so as to cycle more of the winnings back for more takeout (not to mention all those exactas and tris the even-money fave keyed)? Wouldn't takeout trump breakage?

Maybe there's a magic formula hidden somewhere in the bowels of the mutuel department that goes something like: if Horse A > 6-1 but breaks at <.10, and Horse B <3-1 but breaks at >.10 but <.15, the choice is B; but if Horse A breaks at >.10 and there's a carryover involved on even-numbered days, then B, unless Horse C is the optimum choice then call Stewards for a DQ, but only if....

So many choices...so little time. Your theory is totally whack. I third the nomination for goofiest post of the year.

Much easier and fairer and safer and imminently more sensible to give the win to the horse that hits the line first.

[overunder]

Why would you waste your time on something that is so obviously fixed to cheat you?

I think people are "up in arms" because it sounds insane to say that several different photo finish pictures are taken and used so a track could make a few extra pennies. All of the people who have run the equipment, taken the pictures, viewed the photos, etc. and zero proof of this has ever come out. So, even the jaded people on here think you're a little too paranoid. That's all.

It's obvious that you don't take the time to read. I make my living betting horses, or did you miss that?

[overunder]

What about churn? What if they make cheating decisions based on that? Is it better to give the win to a horse that pays $4 over one that pays $20, so as to cycle more of the winnings back for more takeout (not to mention all those exactas and tris the even-money fave keyed)? Wouldn't takeout trump breakage?

Maybe there's a magic formula hidden somewhere in the bowels of the mutuel department that goes something like: if Horse A > 6-1 but breaks at <.10, and Horse B <3-1 but breaks at >.10 but <.15, the choice is B; but if Horse A breaks at >.10 and there's a carryover involved on even-numbered days, then B, unless Horse C is the optimum choice then call Stewards for a DQ, but only if....

So many choices...so little time. Your theory is totally whack. I third the nomination for goofiest post of the year.

Much easier and fairer and safer and imminently more sensible to give the win to the horse that hits the line first.

Don't even get me started on this one. This post makes absolutely no sense, and certainly deserves the wackiest post of the year award.
Go back, and read what you have written. If you honestly think your theory about churn is sound, come on back, and I'll chew you up.
You better be a little better at math than what you have put forward.

[Tom]

I didn't say the races were rigged. What I said was that the track might take the best possible photo for the establishment based on breakage.
Simple economic decision!

And you don't consider THAT rigging? Altering the outcome of a race for thier own gains is OK by you?

[Tom]

I guess integrity and accuracy are very low on the lists of Track Management. :ThmbDown:

Testify, my bruth-a!
How long has Trakus been around, in use, proven....and how many tracks have it yet? How many are considering it at all? Innovation Rnot Them!
D'oh!

[overunder]

Didn't say it was right Tom. I suppose if you're on the win end of the photo, it might seem right. And no, I don't feel this is rigging either. I think most races are wide open, and the results reflect that. Just sometimes, you are at the mercy of the photo. And if it is at all close, will likely go to the horse with highest breakage.

[v j stauffer]

Didn't say it was right Tom. I suppose if you're on the win end of the photo, it might seem right. And no, I don't feel this is rigging either. I think most races are wide open, and the results reflect that. Just sometimes, you are at the mercy of the photo. And if it is at all close, will likely go to the horse with highest breakage.

The people who have the "final" say after analysis as to which horse is in front in a very close photo finish are the stewards.

They have no vested inetrest in the financial well being of the track.

They are employees of the State of California.

Why is it every time I have to listen to a crackpot like you it's prefaced with your racetrack resume?

" I've been playing horses for 384 years! I blah blah blah!!"

I know guys that do make thier living at the track.

They all have one thing in common. They simply keep to themselves and play!

Thanks for listening.

Have a nice day.

Looking forward to meeting you.

Perhaps I'll learn something.

VJS

[overunder]

The people who have the "final" say after analysis as to which horse is in front in a very close photo finish are the stewards.

They have no vested inetrest in the financial well being of the track.

They are employees of the State of California.

Why is it every time I have to listen to a crackpot like you it's prefaced with your racetrack resume?

" I've been playing horses for 384 years! I blah blah blah!!"

I know guys that do make thier living at the track.

They all have one thing in common. They simply keep to themselves and play!

Thanks for listening.

Have a nice day.

Looking forward to meeting you.

Perhaps I'll learn something.

VJS

Oh PUHHHLEASSE! Spare me the melodramatics.
The Stewards can only look at the photo that is given to them.
Why would a person in your position get so defensive about this?

You really aren't a very nice person are you?
I've read a lot of your posts, where you are down right nasty and condescending to the people you are talking to.

I make my living betting horses, and said so because one of your cronies was questioning my credibility. I didn't say what my name was so it means sweet diddly twat. But you sir are a GLUTTON, who needs to come back to reality.

You don't know anymore than anyone else, and if the truth be told you probably know far less, so quit coming in here like the final authority on all subjects. Oh and I'll probably get banned for confronting you, but I really could care less.

Now wake up Vic!

[George Sands]

I appreciate the input. How can what I say in this forum effect whether or not you like my calls?

I have nothing whatsoever against any of your posts here, Vic, but I do have a related question:

Do you think there is anything an anouncer could write on a message board that would tend to cheapen his racetrack in any way? Super-crude comments, perhaps?

Here's what I mean: I close my eyes and think of Hollywood Park, and I hear great callers of the past, and I see lakes and flowers, great horses, and so on. What I do NOT want to think about is the personality of the announcer. OK, what if in the future I were to start associating Hollywood Park with an announcer who goes on message boards, gets into fights, and makes crude comments? Could you see that in any way cheapening a racetrack in the eyes of some people? Reducing its class in some small way? Or do you see the announcer and the racetrack as totally separate when the announcer is not sitting in the booth? In other words, do you consider yourself to be representing Hollywood Park at all times, or only when you are in the booth? And what does Hollywood Park think about this question?

[JustRalph]

tough room. Vic, don't let these wingnuts run you off. :ThmbUp:

[overunder]

tough room. Vic, don't let these wingnuts run you off. :ThmbUp:

Boy you ought to get along with this guy just fine Vic.
Wingnuts, and Crackpots. Anything else you can call someone wo disagrees with you?

[v j stauffer]

I think that's an excellent question. I think anytime I'm in a forum like this I do it as a represenative of Hollywood Park.

I've always tried to be respectful of anyone I've dealt with on this or any other site.

Of course I'm entitled to my opinions and will share them whenever possible. What I do and say definately reflects upon the track I work for.

Whille passionate. I don't feel I cross the line. Crackpot and ridiculous IMO aren't crude. Perhaps some would disagree. I'm just having fun and can take it as well as I dish it out.

I love interacting with fellow horseplayers that feel the same love for our game that I do.

I've never understood why selling my opinions with a little spice is condesending but I've accused of that before so I guess there's something to it.

Just trying to cash a ticket and rejoice in our game.

VJS

[v j stauffer]

Oh PUHHHLEASSE! Spare me the melodramatics.
The Stewards can only look at the photo that is given to them.
Why would a person in your position get so defensive about this?

You really aren't a very nice person are you?
I've read a lot of your posts, where you are down right nasty and condescending to the people you are talking to.

I make my living betting horses, and said so because one of your cronies was questioning my credibility. I didn't say what my name was so it means sweet diddly twat. But you sir are a GLUTTON, who needs to come back to reality.

You don't know anymore than anyone else, and if the truth be told you probably know far less, so quit coming in here like the final authority on all subjects. Oh and I'll probably get banned for confronting you, but I really could care less.

Now wake up Vic!

I see nothing in this post that IMO would warrant being banned from the site. That's the fun of it as long as it doesn't get vulgar.

Ufortunately sending me a threatening PM does.

I wish you nothing but the best and lot's of winners. Regretably I won't be able to respond to your posts or messages henceforth.

VJS

[overunder]

In spite of all this, I still enjoy Vic's calls.
I think he truly does have a passion for this game.

[overunder]

I see nothing in this post that IMO would warrant being banned from the site. That's the fun of it as long as it doesn't get vulgar.

Ufortunately sending me a threatening PM does.

I wish you nothing but the best and lot's of winners. Regretably I won't be able to respond to your posts or messages henceforth.

VJS

There was nothing threatening im my PM to Vic.
Let's keep it truthful here.

[Bruddah]

Boy you ought to get along with this guy just fine Vic.
Wingnuts, and Crackpots. Anything else you can call someone wo disagrees with you?


Type nasty and get nasty back. Different day and time on the Internet. You guys came in insulting and pushing the man. Now you want to claim foul. The only personnas or images being sullied here are your own. Let it go!

At least the man (Vic) is not hiding behind a personna. Nor will I, for the record, my name is John Wilkins. Let it go and we'll probably agree on another topic later. This is horse racing and cyber space. In the end, it doesn't mean squat and doesn't settle disagreements.

Best Regards
John Wilkins a.k.a. Bruddah

[overunder]

Type nasty and get nasty back. Different day and time on the Internet. You guys came in insulting and pushing the man. Now you want to claim foul. The only personnas or images being sullied here are your own. Let it go!


Interesting perception you have there. Vic started this with his insulting response to my theory. Right or wrong, I am entitled to that opinion without having to be called a crackpot.

[njcurveball]

It's only April and we already have a winner for most ridiculous post of the year!!

Congrats!!

Speech?

I have to agree with Overunder, this reply would have gotten me a lil riled up as well.

Sometimes the jokes are funnier on the other side of the keyboard (and if this finger is pointed at me, I will say guilty as charged)!

[rastajenk]

I'd just like to hear what overunder's evidence is, other than some kind of business logic.

I've been in stewards' stands, photofinish booths, announcer's booths, mutuel and tote rooms, and not once have I ever heard anyone say, "Boy howdy, that's a close one. I can't tell....what's the breakage?" Just who are these people pulling off such a stunt, anyway?

[overunder]

I'd just like to hear what overunder's evidence is, other than some kind of business logic.

I've been in stewards' stands, photofinish booths, announcer's booths, mutuel and tote rooms, and not once have I ever heard anyone say, "Boy howdy, that's a close one. I can't tell....what's the breakage?" Just who are these people pulling off such a stunt, anyway?

There really doesn't have to be anyone pulling off the stunt.
Perhaps there are just camera problems which lead to strange photo results?

A picture taken just before the wire produces a different angle and result than the photo that is taken just after the wire.

Rethinking my position, my perception of the problem of breakage might just be a probability thing. More often than not, the winner has lower odds than the loser of the photo. So I am recanting my position somewhat here in that I don't think there is a conspiracy, but I definitely think the technology has to be revamped.

[juanepstein]

just watch australian racing and you'll see how behind we are.they will tell you the winner right after he crosses the wire if its close it takes a bit but not as long as we wait. few seconds after the race is over they are already showing slow motion as the leaders are hitting the line and it stops right when the first nose hits the wire.

examples
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRnsKEUaxLU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vyhegzXODI


starting gates too, we have to have some guy climb the gate to change the numbers around. alot of australias gates are going digital.

we suck!

[riskman]

But I won't hold that against you at the trailer park.
.

Are you neighbors?

[surfdog89]

I like to see u guys call a race................ as to the one horse in the last race............ He did look like the winner............:mad:

[ALL CIRCUITS GO]

I saw the photo, and I believe the correct order of finish should be 9-1-6 and not 9-6-1... Is my computer access so bad that I can't see the finish correctly? Or am I finally going blind? If anyone can help me to see that the correct order of finish was posted by the stewards, I'd appreciate it. thanks.

[riskman]

Why is it every time I have to listen to a crackpot like you it's prefaced with your racetrack resume?

" I've been playing horses for 384 years! I blah blah blah!!"

I know guys that do make thier living at the track.


Perhaps I'll learn something.

VJS

Public relations is certainly not your gig. "Learn something"--Although a disagreement may exist, you did not handle this correctly from the start.

[George Sands]

I think that's an excellent question. I think anytime I'm in a forum like this I do it as a represenative of Hollywood Park.

I've always tried to be respectful of anyone I've dealt with on this or any other site.

Of course I'm entitled to my opinions and will share them whenever possible. What I do and say definately reflects upon the track I work for.

Whille passionate. I don't feel I cross the line. Crackpot and ridiculous IMO aren't crude.

Vic,

Thank you. Now, can I get you to agree with me that it is a bad idea for a track announcer, a representative of Hollywood Park, to go on the Del Mar Fan Forum, feud with other posters, and write things like "I'd rather kiss a buffalo's balls"?

[samyn on the green]

People really take this stuff too seriously. Did you guys read the overunder post about the track doctoring photo finishes to maximize breakage? Someone took that seriously? The track announcer guy highlighted some serious humor and now you stuffed shirts are bashing him for that? This just confirms the theory that the public can not take the honest truth and prefers to be lied to. The public can not take the fact that VJ Stauffer speaks honesty on the forum and not a false customer service voice. Now it is time for me to be frank, and completely surrender the high ground. You guys are the lamest, most unfunny people in the horse racing universe.

[v j stauffer]

Where does it say we are not allowed to have fun?

Isn't that the entire idea of forums like this?

As I said before I take it in stride and dish it out when I want to mix it up a bit.

Crackpot and ridiculous are far from saying anything about someones mama!

You can't have it both ways guys.

You want me to be just one of the guys and in the same breath hold me to a standard that few others seem to hold themseleves to.

I read day after day things that are far more inflamatory about myself and my colleagues and try to take it in the spirit it's intended.

Maybe i'm just too naive to understand that there are haters out there and they are going to latch onto the negative no matter what road they have to travel to get there.

I've already tried to be respectful but normal at the same time. I do not intend to be anyone's doormat just because I happen to work in the industry.

If you'd like my input I love trying to share the inner workings when I can. If you don't want it say so and I'll go away.

[v j stauffer]

Are you neighbors?

I'm the manager. Free space rent baby!!

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I read day after day things that are far more inflamatory about myself and my colleagues and try to take it in the spirit it's intended.

Wanna fight? :D ;) :kiss:

[v j stauffer]

Public relations is certainly not your gig. "Learn something"--Although a disagreement may exist, you did not handle this correctly from the start.

Correctly is just your opinion. And what has to be "handled". It's simply a banter filled discussion.

Why can't I engage in that?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

If Vic wants to call someone a crackpot, he's certainly allowed to do that.

I'm as caustic as anybody when giving my opinion.

Heated debate is much better than squealing to the moderator about political correctness.

[Marlin]

Can't speak for every track, but for many. The photo finish is dead on balls accurate and cannot be manipulated in any fashion. No reason to update this technology because it is accurate. The only problem that can occur is when a horse is between rivals and cannot be seen on either picture or mirror. In this case it is usually considered a deadheat. (even though it may not be)

The question about jocks standing up and legs in different positions, is easy to answer. The picture of the legs and the jockey are taken at the exact moment they cross the line. Not when the nose of the horse crosses the line.

[jma]

People really take this stuff too seriously. Did you guys read the overunder post about the track doctoring photo finishes to maximize breakage? Someone took that seriously? The track announcer guy highlighted some serious humor and now you stuffed shirts are bashing him for that? This just confirms the theory that the public can not take the honest truth and prefers to be lied to. The public can not take the fact that VJ Stauffer speaks honesty on the forum and not a false customer service voice. Now it is time for me to be frank, and completely surrender the high ground. You guys are the lamest, most unfunny people in the horse racing universe.

No, I'm with you, as I showed in my earlier post. If overunder had been nice and polite to Vic and Vic gave him a bunch of crap, I could see people whining. However, when you come on here with a crackpot theory about the track changing photos to make extra money on breakage, then you deserve whatever abuse you get. I enjoyed Vic tearing him down and like to see the man speak his mind.

[Jeff P]

The question about jocks standing up and legs in different positions, is easy to answer. The picture of the legs and the jockey are taken at the exact moment they cross the line. Not when the nose of the (first) horse crosses the line.I've been playing horses since 1981 and did not know this - at least not until this thread. All these years I thought a photo was a photo. Now I understand what's actually taking place. So I learned something new from all of this.

But if I can be completely baffled (for years) because win photos don't look quite "right" to me - imagine how the casual fan must see our game.

I contend this is just another in a long line of things that need to be addressed if our game ever hopes to attract new fans and start growing handle.

I say add high speed video cameras mounted on the finish line to the list - which includes:

1. Updating tote-stream odds in real time.

2. Visible accountability for actions taken by stewards... (Anyone else find the Haw thread disturbing?)

3. Open access for ALL licensed track signals to ALL licensed ADWs.

4. Meaningful penalties (and 100% enforcement) for drug violations.

5. And the tracks themselves adopting a customer oriented business model instead of the one they've been using for the past 100 years.


-jp

.

[Tom]

If you'd like my input I love trying to share the inner workings when I can. If you don't want it say so and I'll go away.

Anyone who wants to put Vic on IGGY, feel free. As for me, I vote he keeps on contributing. I enjoy his take on things and appreciate his humor.

And I will take up the challenge he threw down - before the end of the year, the honor of "dumbest post" will be mine! :rolleyes::lol::ThmbUp:

[Bruddah]

I like it when a Knowledgable Horse racing personna interacts with this board. It doesn't matter if it's a jockey, trainer, owner or track announcer etc. It certainly leeds to greater understanding and knowledge of all, on this board.
I suppose Vic S. could hide behind a screen name and enjoy the total annoymity of expression it provides. But, he has the b*lls to put it out front. If I had written the same comments he wrote, very little would have been said. It would have been considered much less abrasive and more innocuous. Since he is a recognized personna, there are those which think he should play nice when attacked. I say bologna. :kiss: :ThmbUp:

P.S. Tom you may have the leed for the "Dum" post but I am a late closer and will be rushing to the wire. ;)

[overunder]

No, I'm with you, as I showed in my earlier post. If overunder had been nice and polite to Vic and Vic gave him a bunch of crap, I could see people whining. However, when you come on here with a crackpot theory about the track changing photos to make extra money on breakage, then you deserve whatever abuse you get. I enjoyed Vic tearing him down and like to see the man speak his mind.


I hardly think he tore me down. I think quite the opposite is true. If you read, and a lot of you people don't, you will see that I was polite with Vic, until he made the crackpot comment. That is when I tore him down, and gave him a piece of my mind.

[overunder]

People really take this stuff too seriously. Did you guys read the overunder post about the track doctoring photo finishes to maximize breakage? Someone took that seriously? The track announcer guy highlighted some serious humor and now you stuffed shirts are bashing him for that? This just confirms the theory that the public can not take the honest truth and prefers to be lied to. The public can not take the fact that VJ Stauffer speaks honesty on the forum and not a false customer service voice. Now it is time for me to be frank, and completely surrender the high ground. You guys are the lamest, most unfunny people in the horse racing universe.

Nice to see someone with some brains in this forum, and as long as Vic doesn't miscall my namesake horse everything will be fine.

[JustRalph]

I saw the photo, and I believe the correct order of finish should be 9-1-6 and not 9-6-1... Is my computer access so bad that I can't see the finish correctly? Or am I finally going blind? If anyone can help me to see that the correct order of finish was posted by the stewards, I'd appreciate it. thanks.


I thought that is how they finished too. Was surprised to see the results on the TVG ticker at the bottom of the screen later

[Greyfox]

And I will take up the challenge he threw down - before the end of the year, the honor of "dumbest post" will be mine! :rolleyes::lol::ThmbUp:

"Dumbest post?"

Sorry I didn't hear that.

[v j stauffer]

"Dumbest post?"

Sorry I didn't hear that.

For the sake of accuracy I didn't say dumbest. I wouldn't say something like that.

The honor went to " most ridiculous" post.

I'm reserving dumbest for myself.

VJS

[Greyfox]

Dah. For the sake of accuracy I was referring to Tom's post.
Cryptically, I said "Sorry I didn't hear that" with the reference abstracting to
"dumb" as in deaf, blind and dumb. Dah.

[PaceAdvantage]

Don't they have moderators on this forum? Where are the moderators? :lol:

Hell man, the overunder dude should have been taken out back after his first post in this thread. Sheesh....it's tough getting good help for free these days...:lol:

[cj]

Sorry, very busy these days.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sorry, very busy these days.I was poking fun at myself more than anything....I greatly appreciate all the help you and BillW have graciously offered here over the years....and besides, everyone knows you two don't have the power to vote anyone off the island...

[cj]

I know, I just like bringing up impending retirement every chance I get! :)