Should FANS be able to place an objection?

[Imriledup]

Here me out on this.

If you are a really big bettor, you should be able to open an account. You sign up with the racing commission, give them your name and payment/credit card info. You have an allotment of 1 objection allowed per 6 months. (sort of like challenges in the NFL) Each objection costs 1,000, which goes to the purse structure or its used in some other beneficial way to help improve the game.

You have a special phone number and you call it when you want to use your objection. You can claim foul just like a trainer or jockey can.

A little light goes on and an operator answers the phone and takes your objection. After the day is over, your objection will be reviewed by the racing commission and if its found to be frivolous, you lose your ability to claim foul in the future.

There are bettors out there who wager tens of thousands of dollars on races, i think those bettors ought to have a say if they see something they think is a foul that goes unnoticed.

[Tom]

Absolutely not. All bettors have a vested interest and thus have no business participating in the outcome of any race, ever.

[oddsmaven]

Not even under the wild suggestion of paying $1,000 for each claim..let's not put winners thru the angst of waiting on additional foul claims...and from biased onlookers no less...personally, I wish they never took a horse down and just fined/suspended the jock when warranted...a horse that was bothered hasn't proved to me that it would have gone by to win, as many of these "placed 1st" types would probably end up being turned back & held safe anyway, even with a clean run..and there are horses that still get the job done after being interfered with...my least favorite is when the horse that wasn't involved gets placed first - how is that a deserving winner? Get rid of all take downs I say.

[beenacoach]

I repeat....HELL NO!!

[Greyfox]

Here's a hat to go with the suggestion.http://www.sports-gallery.com/images/wingnut.jpg

[InsideThePylons-MW]

As funny as this scenario is, the premise of it has happened many, many, many times.

[Imriledup]

Absolutely not. All bettors have a vested interest and thus have no business participating in the outcome of any race, ever.

So, bettors have a vested interest but the owner or trainer does not?

Of course the bettor is claiming foul to benefit himself.....but, if the judges agree with him, he wins. Nothing wrong with that, right?

No harm no foul. I don't see what the bettor claiming foul has any participation in the outcome of the race...the ultimate decision goes to the judges anyway....with bettors claiming foul, less stuff would go unnoticed. The judges can't and don't see everything.

[Zman179]

Is there still room on the NO bandwagon for me?

And I wouldn't get totally rid of takedowns as Oddsmaven suggested because that would turn the racetrack into the Wild Wild West.

[Tom Barrister]

The jockeys and trainers get fined/disciplined if they call frivolous objections. If they do it repeatedly, the punishment is more severe.

In most jurisdictions, there are supposed to be three stewards watching every race. Add to that all of the jockeys, who have a firsthand view, and most of the trainers, who generally don't have any better view than the common fan. If that many people missed a legitimate foul, then it just gets missed.

[Jeff P]

I've seen enough bad calls over the years to agree with Oddsmaven. The current system in place is a joke and it needs to be changed. Dog tracks have it closer to right than horse racing does.

Here's what I would do if given the chance:

Mutuel Payoffs
If a horse gets to the wire first after running the course with a rider in the irons that horse is the winner. Period. Immediately after the finish, make the race official and pay out the winning mutuels based on the actual finish positions. The only exception would be a DQ of any horse that lost a rider or strayed from the course.

Stewards would no longer have the ability to subjectively alter the finish of a race so far as betting payouts are concerned. This would go a long way towards eliminating one of racing's biggest problems: Perception.

You may not even be aware. But the way the game is viewed by potential new fans (poor perception) is one of the biggest hurdles racing has when it comes to attracting new fans. Perception is part of the reason gamblers would rather feed tokens into a slot machine or play cards than bet a race. Slot machines don't subjectively change the positions/alignment of the symbols/wheels after the spin. Card dealers don't subjectively change the cards in your hand after the deal. When they do it's called cheating. Racing execs fail to realize how badly poor perception affects handle growth from new fans. If you ask me the time is long past for that to change.

However, that doesn't mean riders are free to ride races like they're doing stunts in a B movie.

Actions By Stewards
Be transparent. Be very clear about where the line is. Everyone involved (riders, trainers, owners, bettors) should know ahead of time where the line is and what the penalty is for crossing the line. Enforce penalties (fines/suspensions/redistribution of purse money) when the line is crossed.

When a riding infraction happens call the riders, agents, trainers, and owners in for a hearing. Review videotape and let everyone involved present their case. Then reach a decision and explain why action has to be taken or why no action is taken. Hand out suspensions and fines. Redistribute purse money when warranted.

In all cases publish the opinion of each of the stewards afterwards. Make everything about the entire process completely transparent.

But leave the bettors out of this.

Make the penalties for crossing the line severe enough that owners and trainers want no part of the line being crossed.

When a drug positive comes back from the lab do the same thing. Call the trainer and owner in for a hearing. Review the lab results and let everyone involved present their case. Then reach a decision and explain why action has to be taken or why no action is taken. Hand out suspensions, fines and redistribute purse money when warranted. But make the penalty severe enough that no owner wants to leave a horse in the care of a trainer who cheats.

Example:

First drug positive for a trainer = 90 day suspension and redistribution of purse money. All horses in trainers barn are likewise suspended (not allowed to race) for 90 days.

Second drug positive for a trainer = 6 month suspension and redistribution of purse money. All horses in trainers barn are likewise suspended (not allowed to race) for six months.

Third drug positive for a trainer = Trainer barred from racing for life. All horses in trainers barn are suspended (not allowed to race) for one year.

Trainer caught calling the shots while serving a suspension is the same as a third drug positive.

Make the penalty severe enough and here's what happens:

Owners will get involved and pull their horses from trainers who cheat.

Enforce these changes and the perception of the game from potential new fans changes from one of "racing is crooked" to "racing is actually well regulated."

My 2.3 cents...


-jp

.

[Zman179]

Your post, Jeff P, has too many holes in it. If I'm running a horse in a race at Northfield Park with the winner's share at only $1,000, and I've placed a $400 wager on my horse at 5/1 and $50 for the driver (the pools there are big enough to support such a bet)...and we're neck and neck with another horse alongside us, what is to stop us from gently easing over, interfering with the other horse to make it look like accidental contact, and get the money from the wagering pool which would be larger than the purse? Your rule would allow that. The current rule does not.

Those who committ larceny would kiss your feet.



Make the penalty severe enough and here's what happens:

Owners will get involved and pull their horses from trainers who cheat.

Or, owners not associated with cheating would pull out of your racetrack and move to another because they would be sick and tired of being penalized for incidents that are out of their control. Good luck with your well regulated track with five horse fields.

[Jeff P]

ZMan, I understand what you are saying. There's no way to stop all cheating from happening.

When a horse ducks in or shies from the whip, video footage makes it very clear that it was the horse altering path and not the rider.

When a rider purposely alters a horse's path, video footage makes it very clear what happened.

When a rider purposely steers his mount into a competitor and shuts him off, that's going to show up in video footage. And it DOES look quite different than a horse who suddenly ducks in or out or shies from the whip.

Let's say for the sake of argument that a rider were to do what you describe and get away with it. He knows the trainer or owner has $50.00 or $100.00 riding on the horse for him and purposely shuts off a rival. He gets days and a fine. And maybe even laughs about the whole thing.

Don't you think that same type of incident wouldn't be repeated at some point by the same people involved? The owner or trainer bets $50.00 or $100.00 on the horse for the rider and the rider purposely shuts off another rival...

It's really hard to keep everyone involved in something like that totally quiet.
At some point, someone who knows (the trainer, the rider, the groom) is going to get fired or drunk and talk.

Under the system I describe the penalty for doing something like that is going to be severe. If just one owner/trainer/rider combo were to get caught in such an incident and be handed a lifetime ban from the game I guarantee you others would think twice about it.

Please understand that my goal here is one of attracting new fans to the game and growing handle. Racing has a perception problem that needs to be addressed. Until that happens the sport WILL continue to struggle.

I'll make the argument that under such a system where lifetime bans are a reality that cheating would become almost nonexistent.


-jp

.

[Whitehos]

At Raceway Park in Ohio I, as an owner filed an objection on a photo finish.
Stewards said it was a snow flake and not the finish line. I lost by a snow flake.

Whitehos

[Track Phantom]

I kind of like Jeff's idea. It has some logic to it.

However, since we know that will never happen, I fall back to my lifelong belief. There should be an inquiry into EVERY race. Period. Forget this silly BS with the stewards speaking to the jockeys on the phone after the race, etc. Just spend 5 minutes after every race to review the action of the race.

Also, if there is any kind of action they view that causes another look, they should announce the incident and the reason for change or no change after the race.

I would challenge anyone to offer a valid reason this wouldn't work.

[cj]

I've been saying for years on this site the DQs should be for purse money only. I'm glad others are coming around. They can figure out purse distribution later.

[Imriledup]

Jeff,

Amazing posts, i totally agree with you on this stuff.

My suggestion of fans being able to object is in response to the way the system currently operates. There should be no disqualifications, i agree. Dog racing doesn't have them, why do we need them in horse racing?

One of my peeves with inquiries and disqualifications is that they automatically award a slower horse in place of a faster one. Slower horses don't get punished, faster ones do.

But, you'll say, "what if the faster horse interferes with a slower horse and costs that slower horse a placing?"

I'd say, "than the slower horse has to find a way not to get interfered with"

90% of inquires seem to involve a horse who sweeps up on the far turn and lugs in when he runs right by the slower horse who is in between horses not going anywhere. Horses have a tendency to lug in when they don't see anything on their left side. If you don't want to get lugged into by the rival who is sweeping the field my advice to you is to run faster. Why should a winner who circles the field get disqualified because he lugged into a rival who couldn't keep up?

I love Jeff's stronger fines and the judges being transparent.

People are risking hundreds and THOUSANDS of dollars on these races and we are talking 100th of a second that seperates potential million dollar betting scores.

Do you know how many years have been taken off my life by 10 minute inquiries where i was blinking for tens of thousands of dollars? Its bad enough to get boxed in or nosed for a fortune, its almost impossible to mentally withstand the judges taking away a year's worth of mortgage payments on a 'judgment' call.

My theory is they should have 2 seperate betting pools on each race. Two win pools, two place pools, etc. You give the public the option to decide if they want to bet into Pool A where the results are official no matter what happens, or Pool B where the judges go about their normal business. Would ANYONE bet into pool B? Do you know a single gambler who wants to have the judges stick their mitts into that person's life?

Give the bettors the option if they want to participate in 10 minute inquiries or not.

Ask any bettor and he'll tell you that he's down lifetime on disqualifications, which means no bettor will want to participate into horse racing board business. If a jock gets fined or suspended for a mistake he's made, the bettors shouldn't have to suffer.

[jotb]

I guess most of the horseplayer's in this thread don't bet on other sports like baseball, football and basketball. The umpires and referees in these sports many times play a major role in the outcome of these events and there's not a thing any gambler can do to change it. A simple holding penalty (where the call could have went either way) changes the momentum for the other team. Even though football has "instant play reviews" the referees can still control the game the way they want and they do. Back in the day, I lost many games just because of a referees decision. I'm glad I realized after many games lost because of this nonsense, my choice was not to play any longer. Now I can finally sit back and watch a game (enjoy it much better) thinking to myself that some unfortunate gambler just lost their money because of this ref that just made a bad call.

I can tell you Jeff P that in thoroughbred racing jockeys don't want to get fined or get suspended. The jockeys of today that get days lose a significant amount of money and business so the risk is just not worth it. They are not on salary like many other sports. Whether the stewards post an inquiry or a jockey places a hold (objection) into the running of a race usually something happened. I have no idea how you arrived at this stat, " 90% of inquires seem to involve a horse who sweeps up on the far turn and lugs in when he runs right by the slower horse who is in between horses not going anywhere".
Anyway, if I placed a wager on a race and there was an objection and it was not against my horse, I would certainly want to be put up even if the foul was a frivolous one.

I think most horseplayers feel that the stewards are not consistent and the horseplayer is probably right in some cases. It all depends on the situation. Jockeys shut off other jockeys many times and this is just part of race riding. As long as the jock does not jeopardize the safey of another rider and horse it's perfectly legal to do. Many times especially late in the race horses interfere with one another because one of the jocks are not appropriately using their stick. It's the stick that gets many jockeys and horses in trouble and in return the cause for interference. If you take a look at many head-on shots where an inquiry is involved it's because some jock impeded with another horse just because he or she was sticking with the same hand. Intimidation is legal to a point and it's that jockey responsibilty to know when enough is enough.

There are many situations where the jock is not at fault even though there is an inquiry into the running of a race. When you are riding 2yo's that are green they can be difficult to ride. Then you have your trainers that use the wrong equipment on a horse. It's not easy sometimes for a jockey to steer a horse that might not be equpped with the right type of bit. Blinkers on or blinkers off for the first time can cause a horse to do something that it should not do but shit does happen. This is all part of horse racing and for horseplayers it's the risk you take once you make that wager. If you didn't have inquiries in a race then I'm pretty sure there would be many disappointed horseplayers just the same.

Joe

[Jeff P]

posted by jotb:
I can tell you Jeff P that in thoroughbred racing jockeys don't want to get fined or get suspended. The jockeys of today that get days lose a significant amount of money and business so the risk is just not worth it. They are not on salary like many other sports. Whether the stewards post an inquiry or a jockey places a hold (objection) into the running of a race usually something happened. I have no idea how you arrived at this stat, " 90% of inquires seem to involve a horse who sweeps up on the far turn and lugs in when he runs right by the slower horse who is in between horses not going anywhere".

Joe, It wasn't me that said the bolded part above. Just want to make that clear.

Otherwise, I understand (and agree to a large extent) with what you are saying. IMHO riders are often DQ'd for things they have very little real control over such as horses suddenly ducking in or out or shying from the whip.

The problem I have with the way racing is currently officiated is that when it comes to DQ's for riding infractions:

1. Stewards are inconsistent. They'll take a horse down in one race for an infraction; yet they'll completely ignore the exact same infraction in another race.

2. There is no transparency. Stewards can do what they want. To my knowledge there is no accountability for bad calls.

Case in point, the video clip of the DQ that was posted here from last spring's HAW meet. The race video showed a horse wiring a field without ever touching or even coming close to touching another horse. Yet the horse was DQ'd. Why? No one knows. There is no transparency. Stewards aren't (to my knowledge) accountable for their bad calls.

3. Favoritism. Calls like the one I mentioned above leave me convinced that in certain jurisdictions it's not how serious the infraction was that determines whether or not action will be taken. The names of the owners, trainers, and/or riders involved appear to have every bit as much to do with whether or not a foul occured than the seriousness of the foul itself.

I'm not proposing a re-write of the rules as to what constitutes a foul and what doesn't. And I'm in no way claiming to know how many days a rider should get for certain types of fouls. I'm simply not qualified. There are others in the game far more knowledgeable than myself in those areas of the game.

What I AM saying is that racing has a huge problem. Calls made by stewards are consitently bad enough that bad calls are part of the overall problem. And that problem can be summed up in one word:

Perception.

Late odds changes are another part of the problem. So are trainers who cheat. So are horsemen's groups and track execs who piss off the customers by making us jump through hoops to actually bet.

The only way that I can think to change the bad calls part is to forget any and all attempts at creating an artificial order of finish. Instead, simply pay out winning mutuels based on the actual order of finish that happened on the track. If and when an infraction occurs take it up with the riders involved afterwards.

I think such a change would pretty much eliminate the bad calls part from racing's perception problem.

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here... But I'll make the argument that if someone actually polled the customers, most bettors would prefer to see such a system adopted. And if that's the case, I can't think of a reason not to at least give it a try somewhere.

-jp

.

[Jeff P]

I'm glad I realized after many games lost because of this nonsense, my choice was not to play any longer. Now I can finally sit back and watch a game (enjoy it much better) thinking to myself that some unfortunate gambler just lost their money because of this ref that just made a bad call.

Joe, what you siad here (the bolded part) is exactly what I'm talking about. You aren't the only one who decided to stop betting (or decided to reduce the amt you bet) because of bad calls.

What can racing do to grow handle?

Eliminating bad calls would be a step in the right direction.

-jp

.

[DeanT]

Joe,

The NFL is a bad example, because they do review the reviewers and everything is above board. Jeff's points hold, imo.

Transparency - The NFL network has a show each week where the head ref looks at all calls for fans. The refs who make the wrong call are written up, and there is accountability. Inconsistent calls are not tolerated.

Overseas - the rules are interpreted to the letter. In Australia the offenders are interviewed on TV by the judges and their ruling is there for all to see.

It is not splitting the atom. I do not know why horse racing does not follow what other more successful sports, or jurisdictions do. I too am like Jeff on this. I have watched probably 100,000 races like many. We know when we see a bad call. We can see one in race two and a different call in race three. They are not fooling anyone, so making their craft accountable, consistent and transparent should have been done long long ago.

It is pandemic to racing, imo - most of this stuff is. When you are a monopoly for almost 100 years and are the only game in town you become complacent and non-customer driven. If you make a bad call, who cares? The people will be back betting tomorrow, because there is no where else to bet. It is not this way any longer. But I fear that racing has not figured this out.

[barn32]

Ask any bettor and he'll tell you that he's down lifetime on disqualifications... I've been DQd out of many, many races, but I've never been DQd into one.

[jotb]

Joe, what you siad here (the bolded part) is exactly what I'm talking about. You aren't the only one who decided to stop betting (or decided to reduce the amt you bet) because of bad calls.

What can racing do to grow handle?

Eliminating bad calls would be a step in the right direction.

-jp

.

I'm sorry I had you mixed up with Imriledup. I don't think eliminating bad calls will increase handle. Either way bad call or good call by the stewards someone gets effected either in a negative or positive way. I previously mentioned about the lack of consistency with the stewards in my last post and agree with you on this. I know a jockey that was suspended for 7 days because his horse bore out at the start. Taking the horse down was a justifiable call by the stewards but to give 7 days is extreme especially given the fact that the horse was blind in one eye. On top of it, the horse 5 races back did the same thing at another jurisdiction. The horse was taken down for the same infraction but the jock didn't get suspended for it. This jockey had a legit reason to appeal his days but didn't because at this particuliar jurisdiction, if you take the stewards to the commission and you lose your case (which usually happens) the stewards will hand out another 7 days on top of the other 7 days. I always said one thing about horse racing, "it's world all by itself".

Best regards,
Joe

[jotb]

Joe,

But I fear that racing has not figured this out.

Don't fear it because they don't fear it. You said it right. The player keeps coming back.

Joe

[overthehill]

Perhaps I am biased. I think over the years I have been put up twice, taken down about twenty five times, and may be should have been put up another 10 times or so. I think racing would be much better off if disqualifications were for purse money and suspensions only. I remember in one stake race there was a stewards inquiry and sever jockey claims of foul. after about 15 minutes they let the results stand. Then in another celebrated case the stewards managed to disqualify a winner, who wasnt involved in any bumping incident at all. several months later the racing board held an inquiry behind closed doors, I guess they were reluctant to let the public know how three stewards could have identified the wrong horse after reviewing the replay tape that was clear to anyone else who saw it.

[Imriledup]

The one thing i want to add is that it seems like there are plenty of calls that affect the WINNING bettor either way.

The one thing that i don't like about disqualifications is that the winning horse doesn't seem to get any 'benefit' (for lack of a better word) for having actually won the race. Two horses bump and the judges look at it and they never seem to take into consideration that one horse actually WON. Its like they treat both horses equally and give no thought that the winner should be treated under the 9/10ths of the law scenario and remain up only if the loser proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he needs to be put up.

They take down too many horses by treating the 'winner' like a common criminal.

When's the last time you saw a DQ (a physical DQ and not an administrative DQ) in the KY Derby? You don't see them. There's 20 horses all smashing into each other and there's not only is there never a DQ, but there's never even an inquiry and a jockey's objection is almost unheard of.

You'll say well the Derby is the most important race. Important to who? Every race that i play is my own personal 'ky derby' so when i'm blinking, they are blinking me in the freaking Derby. That's MY derby.

they have it right in the big races....leave the results stand and punish the rider behind closed doors and stop playing god with other people's lives in the overnight races at anytown downs.