PDA

View Full Version : Investigate the stewards at Aqueduct


joelouis
01-11-2009, 05:25 PM
Maybe if someone would investigate the stewards at aqueduct and find out why they did not take down the horse in the 9th race today this would stop. This is why I stopped gambling because they pull this crap, not just at aqueduct but all the tracks. Nobody is forcing any of you to bet so I guess this is why nothing gets done, nobody cares enough. I feel sorry for the guy who bets. :bang:

Shemp Howard
01-11-2009, 05:47 PM
Who did you want taken down? Looked to me like the horse on the lead in the stretched got bumped.:confused:

joelouis
01-11-2009, 05:57 PM
Who did you want taken down? Looked to me like the horse on the lead in the stretched got bumped.:confused:

The horse on the lead came over and clearly bumped the #5 horse, if you saw it different you need glasses.

2low
01-11-2009, 06:07 PM
Order of finish was not affected in my judgement. they need to err on the side of not making changes in my opinion. I agree with the stewards in this case.

I wish they would let the order stand for betting purposes no matter what. It all evens out in the end. If they need to rearrange purse money, fine, but let the order they crossed the line be the order of finish for betting payouts.

cj
01-11-2009, 06:23 PM
I agree they should always let them stand for betting purposes, but the outside horse held his path and was slammed into, obviously costing the horse at least some chance.

The chart makers comments are comical.

onefast99
01-11-2009, 06:23 PM
Order of finish was not affected in my judgement. they need to err on the side of not making changes in my opinion. I agree with the stewards in this case.

I wish they would let the order stand for betting purposes no matter what. It all evens out in the end. If they need to rearrange purse money, fine, but let the order they crossed the line be the order of finish for betting payouts.
The owner still has the right to go to the racing commission after the race is official and ask for a hearing from the state stewards, I dont think they will overturn this particular race but many have been successful in having their cases heard.

cj
01-11-2009, 06:24 PM
The owner still has the right to go to the racing commission after the race is official and ask for a hearing from the state stewards, I dont think they will overturn this particular race but many have been successful in having their cases heard.

Just another way the bettors get screwed...no recourse.

2low
01-11-2009, 06:31 PM
The owner still has the right to go to the racing commission after the race is official and ask for a hearing from the state stewards, I dont think they will overturn this particular race but many have been successful in having their cases heard.

So if the hearing is successful, they would change the purse settlement, but obviously not the wagering payouts, correct?

Just another reason to leave the wagering finishing order alone assuming this is the case.

ClockerQ
01-11-2009, 06:35 PM
I know you're just looking at what honor evening was doing, joelouis, but indymine bore in at the same time h.e bore out. incidential contact, neither horse broke stride, both riders persevered to the wire. good no call by the stewards.

what concerns me more were the other comments on this thread. let the result stand no matter what. are you kidding? that is such an unrealistic proposal that it doesn't merit a response. it just shows a lack of knowledge about how the track works. i can understand joelouis and other backers of indymine wanting a dq, but letting a thoroughbred horse race become something like roller derby is just plain crazy.

2low
01-11-2009, 06:41 PM
I know you're just looking at what honor evening was doing, joelouis, but indymine bore in at the same time h.e bore out. incidential contact, neither horse broke stride, both riders persevered to the wire. good no call by the stewards.

what concerns me more were the other comments on this thread. let the result stand no matter what. are you kidding? that is such an unrealistic proposal that it doesn't merit a response. it just shows a lack of knowledge about how the track works. i can understand joelouis and other backers of indymine wanting a dq, but letting a thoroughbred horse race become something like roller derby is just plain crazy.

why would it become roller derby when there would still be suspensions and purse reallocations for infractions? Methinks you are failing to separate wagering from purse settlement.

BIG HIT
01-11-2009, 06:45 PM
If they let position stand and don't take anyone down your asking for trouble.Some crook gets paid to do what ever to get in money finish no matter what.And they make a bet on him so they all collect any way.Granted they are not perfect but could be much worse if they did what you guys suggest it end up like roller derby.In all sports we don't like the call's sme time but that part of all sports.Think about it how many football cards.hockey or baseball game have you lost for simalar reason

cj
01-11-2009, 07:03 PM
If they let position stand and don't take anyone down your asking for trouble.Some crook gets paid to do what ever to get in money finish no matter what.And they make a bet on him so they all collect any way.Granted they are not perfect but could be much worse if they did what you guys suggest it end up like roller derby.In all sports we don't like the call's sme time but that part of all sports.Think about it how many football cards.hockey or baseball game have you lost for simalar reason

Wouldn't that depend on the size of the fines those involved have to pay?

onefast99
01-11-2009, 07:32 PM
Just another way the bettors get screwed...no recourse.
Both horses were roughly 7-1 so an even amount of money was bet on each one(so the conspiracy theory isnt applicable here))there is always going to be someone who had the winner and would of been pissed off if they took him down and there will always be someone who had the horse that was supposedly bumped and wanted the stewards to move him up. The no change in order of finish was a correct call. It is simply called race riding.

joelouis
01-11-2009, 07:37 PM
Both horses were roughly 7-1 so an even amount of money was bet on each one(so the conspiracy theory isnt applicable here))there is always going to be someone who had the winner and would of been pissed off if they took him down and there will always be someone who had the horse that was supposedly bumped and wanted the stewards to move him up. The no change in order of finish was a correct call. It is simply called race riding.

BS Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

onefast99
01-11-2009, 07:37 PM
Wouldn't that depend on the size of the fines those involved have to pay?
We have seen horrendous calls in the NFL all season even yesterdays Tennessee game where the play clock ran down and the ravens made a great play didnt get reviewed. At least in horse racing there is a review by the stewards whether by an inquiry or an objection. Not one sport can get it right all the time. But in the case of this race which is what the thread is about the correct call by the stewards was made.

onefast99
01-11-2009, 07:42 PM
BS Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Where was the infraction? They did bump, but the 2nd place finisher wasnt impeded by the eventual winner. Where was the infraction. Dominguez did a great job of race riding, Honor evening won the race. Case closed.:confused:

ClockerQ
01-11-2009, 07:43 PM
thank u bighit. these guys have no clue.

ClockerQ
01-11-2009, 07:49 PM
onefast, did u see the head on? i don't thibk the proponents of a dq did. they would see that the 5 bore in as the 6 bore out. focus your EYES on the 5, not the 6 joelouis and friends. my explanation in post 9 should be the end of the discussion. these guys just won't admit that they are wrong and this thread is deteriorating to mindless juvenile arguments.

Tom
01-11-2009, 07:53 PM
OK, let's assume some rider will put his life or another jock's in jeopardy to get a bet cashed. The owner loses the horse later, and the jock gets suspended.
How many mounts do you think this kind of rider will get after that?

ClockerQ
01-11-2009, 07:56 PM
plenty for the owner or trainer he made $$$$$$ for. this is nuts. i'm done. :bang:

onefast99
01-11-2009, 08:00 PM
onefast, did u see the head on? i don't thibk the proponents of a dq did. they would see that the 5 bore in as the 6 bore out. focus your EYES on the 5, not the 6 joelouis and friends. my explanation in post 9 should be the end of the discussion. these guys just won't admit that they are wrong and this thread is deteriorating to mindless juvenile arguments.
I just looked at the head on again (I just saw the objection from the rear view a bit more bumping but very very late) I did focus in on the 5 not enough to convince me he was impeded at all. Everyone on this forum is entitled to their own opinion on what they saw or thought they saw. The 6 horse Honor evening won the race with a good stretch run.

onefast99
01-11-2009, 08:02 PM
OK, let's assume some rider will put his life or another jock's in jeopardy to get a bet cashed. The owner loses the horse later, and the jock gets suspended.
How many mounts do you think this kind of rider will get after that?
Dominguez put someone elses life in jeopardy for simply "side swiping" another horse? If it was a bug boy on the winner do you think he would of been taken down?

supercap
01-11-2009, 08:09 PM
thank u bighit. these guys have no clue.

Clocker, what would you like him taken down for? The 5 never broke stride, maybe he was intimidated, but thta is not grounds for a dq. Let me know what exactly he should be taken down for.

onefast99
01-11-2009, 08:10 PM
thank u bighit. these guys have no clue.
NJ bets has the view from the rear.

exactaplayer
01-11-2009, 10:48 PM
just watched the replay on youbet two times. don't think a dq was called for. Can't get njbets replays.
but if i had the 5 in my p4 i would have liked one.;)

BIG49010
01-11-2009, 11:04 PM
Nice to see you remove some of the comments!

Bruinswin
01-11-2009, 11:18 PM
I've seen a lot worse with no dq, I've also seen a lot less cause disqualification. In this case if it were me as a steward, there would be no dq.
You fight an uphill battle when you want to complain about inquiries.
Everyone sees it differently.

NY BRED
01-12-2009, 06:31 AM
A: The issue of who bumped who and the fact that the #6 bumped the
#5 with NO call by the stewards reflects the fact of the inconsistency
actions of the morons policing the races at NYRA.

B:before taking issue with this statement, none of you have even looked at the
PPS of Honor Evening.Guess what? in the last 6 starts this horse was involved
in two(2) bumping incidents,clearly indicating this horse has physical problems.

Anyone watching these races know the odds of pulling a horse based upon
a jockey's objection, without the Steward's call, is virtually nil,UNLESS you are on a horse owned by a big time stable/owner.

The icing on the cake is the Fox replay, that didn't even bother to mention
the call.

Once again, I am recommending an independent authority monitor the
actions of the Stewards to level the playing field.

ezrabrooks
01-12-2009, 06:58 AM
A: The issue of who bumped who and the fact that the #6 bumped the
#5 with NO call by the stewards reflects the fact of the inconsistency
actions of the morons policing the races at NYRA.

B:before taking issue with this statement, none of you have even looked at the
PPS of Honor Evening.Guess what? in the last 6 starts this horse was involved
in two(2) bumping incidents,clearly indicating this horse has physical problems.

Anyone watching these races know the odds of pulling a horse based upon
a jockey's objection, without the Steward's call, is virtually nil,UNLESS you are on a horse owned by a big time stable/owner.

The icing on the cake is the Fox replay, that didn't even bother to mention
the call.

Once again, I am recommending an independent authority monitor the
actions of the Stewards to level the playing field.


Well, knowing your are recommending, I will sleep better at night. Who in a heck are you?

EZ

onefast99
01-12-2009, 08:02 AM
A: The issue of who bumped who and the fact that the #6 bumped the
#5 with NO call by the stewards reflects the fact of the inconsistency
actions of the morons policing the races at NYRA.

B:before taking issue with this statement, none of you have even looked at the
PPS of Honor Evening.Guess what? in the last 6 starts this horse was involved
in two(2) bumping incidents,clearly indicating this horse has physical problems.

Anyone watching these races know the odds of pulling a horse based upon
a jockey's objection, without the Steward's call, is virtually nil,UNLESS you are on a horse owned by a big time stable/owner.

The icing on the cake is the Fox replay, that didn't even bother to mention
the call.

Once again, I am recommending an independent authority monitor the
actions of the Stewards to level the playing field.
So now they will check to see if you are a repeat offender? Ok.

the little guy
01-12-2009, 08:12 AM
I'm surprised that while a lot of people seem to be checking in with the usual " the stewards suck " type of posts, nobody has explained what actually happened. The stewards in NY have condoned " herding " through their past actions.....whether you agree with this or not. Very often we see leaders drift, sometimes a few paths and sometimes more, when a challenger approaches. Since horses are herd animals, the challenger will simultaneously drift, in some ways the horse is intimidated, and this will allow the leader to usually hold a tenuous lead. The " smart " riders have learned to take advantage of this interpretation by the stewards. If you watch this race you will see this is exactly what Dominguez did.....you can see it on the pan but it is very clear on the head on. As the second finisher approaches, Dominguez's horse is close to the inside, and Dominguez goes to his left hand and drifts several paths, herding the challenger. However, this goes awry when the other rider ( Orlando Boccacica I believe ) steers his horse to stop the drifting, and this causes the first place finisher to effectively bang into him. I guess you could say it was " herding gone awry. "

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you think herding should be allowed. If you do, and some do, then you could argue that the second finisher was the aggressor. If you don't, then you would already consider that the eventual winner was guilty even before the bump, and perhaps the contact just further proved that. It's all in your interpretation of the rules.

slewis
01-12-2009, 08:16 AM
A: The issue of who bumped who and the fact that the #6 bumped the
#5 with NO call by the stewards reflects the fact of the inconsistency
actions of the morons policing the races at NYRA.

B:before taking issue with this statement, none of you have even looked at the
PPS of Honor Evening.Guess what? in the last 6 starts this horse was involved
in two(2) bumping incidents,clearly indicating this horse has physical problems.

Anyone watching these races know the odds of pulling a horse based upon
a jockey's objection, without the Steward's call, is virtually nil,UNLESS you are on a horse owned by a big time stable/owner.

The icing on the cake is the Fox replay, that didn't even bother to mention
the call.

Once again, I am recommending an independent authority monitor the
actions of the Stewards to level the playing field.

You used the key reference here: inconsistency.:ThmbUp:

On wed's and friday's, the horse comes down, on sat and sun's he stays up.
This is the problem. Could you imagine if our legal system were run this way, (after all, these guys are "judges".) ?
There is no consistancy, and no precedent set. (although they'll probably tell you differently, they just dont back it up.)


Regarding the possible illegal activity that was suggested by some on here with the stewards, you can forget about that. I am the most skeptical guy around, but if everyone on here got to know these stewards, well, I'd believe they were Russian spies sooner then I'd think they were betting races.
Although politics is definetely an issue with them.........
Incompetant, inconsistant?... yes.. Cheaters. no.

slewis
01-12-2009, 08:34 AM
I'm surprised that while a lot of people seem to be checking in with the usual " the stewards suck " type of posts, nobody has explained what actually happened. The stewards in NY have condoned " herding " through their past actions.....whether you agree with this or not. Very often we see leaders drift, sometimes a few paths and sometimes more, when a challenger approaches. Since horses are herd animals, the challenger will simultaneously drift, in some ways the horse is intimidated, and this will allow the leader to usually hold a tenuous lead. The " smart " riders have learned to take advantage of this interpretation by the stewards. If you watch this race you will see this is exactly what Dominguez did.....you can see it on the pan but it is very clear on the head on. As the second finisher approaches, Dominguez's horse is close to the inside, and Dominguez goes to his left hand and drifts several paths, herding the challenger. However, this goes awry when the other rider ( Orlando Boccacica I believe ) steers his horse to stop the drifting, and this causes the first place finisher to effectively bang into him. I guess you could say it was " herding gone awry. "

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you think herding should be allowed. If you do, and some do, then you could argue that the second finisher was the aggressor. If you don't, then you would already consider that the eventual winner was guilty even before the bump, and perhaps the contact just further proved that. It's all in your interpretation of the rules.

LG,

There are MANY things I see the "smart" riders do that I dont agree with, many that I think are and can be dangerous, and are against the rules (or should be if they ever come up with a rule book).
BUT.. this is something they MUST do to stop this "smart riding" and it's very simple:
When a jock does something too cute and dangerous... fine fine and fine.. more heavily each time, dont DQ, just fine. A few years ago when Coa was putting everyone over the rail on the inner track and riding the 2 path daring everyone to move inside him, I would have put and end to that within 2 weeks, OR.. he'd have been out $50,000 in fines.
Dont tell me that riding the 2 path is ok or legal when you're on the lead, because I'll sit you down and give you a geometry lesson, (I'm speaking not to you personally, but as the stewards should to the jocks.).
If you (a jock) think the 2 path is best, fine, that's legal, but if we see you look over your shoulder and squeeze the first horse that moves inside you, that'll cost you $5000. Do it again... $12,000... again $25,000.
Still want to ride in the 2 path???
If they fine these guys (heavily) more often, trust me, we'll have safer racing and those "herd" horses that get the "clever" rides, will miraculously be running much straighter.

the little guy
01-12-2009, 08:42 AM
I'm not condoning, or disapproving, of anything that happened ( or happens ). I was just explaining what actually happened in this particular instance.

supercap
01-12-2009, 08:45 AM
I'm not condoning, or disapproving, of anything that happened ( or happens ). I was just explaining what actually happened in this particular instance.

I think your explanation is excellent. You are on the money with your herding call!

ezrabrooks
01-12-2009, 08:54 AM
I'm not condoning, or disapproving, of anything that happened ( or happens ). I was just explaining what actually happened in this particular instance.

TLG, what is your take on Slewis' Coa rant? So, now the horse on the lead has to stay in his Path?

Ez

JCB
01-12-2009, 08:54 AM
this thread is deteriorating to mindless juvenile arguments.

All I see you do is put others down.... Do you feel superior calling others names?

Where was the infraction?

If 5 had won the race, they would have taken him down. He bumped 6 twice.

the little guy
01-12-2009, 09:15 AM
TLG, what is your take on Slewis' Coa rant? So, now the horse on the lead has to stay in his Path?

Ez


I've publically commented on that enough ( before I worked for NYRA ;) ).

I am for what is most fair while being most protective of bettors interests. If a rider is guilty of riding infractrions, even if they didn't necessarily affect the order of finish, it's hard to argue with anything that would deter that....for everybody's best interests.

ryesteve
01-12-2009, 09:27 AM
However, this goes awry when the other rider ( Orlando Boccacica I believe ) steers his horse to stop the drifting, and this causes the first place finisher to effectively bang into him.

you could argue that the second finisher was the aggressor.
This was a good explanation as to what happened, except I don't see how anyone could argue that the horse maintaining a straight path is "the aggressor".

the little guy
01-12-2009, 09:32 AM
This was a good explanation as to what happened, except I don't see how anyone could argue that the horse maintaining a straight path is "the aggressor".

You have taken my statement out of context. What I said was, IF you condone herding, then when another horse is directly steared to stop the herding, you could say that horse then become the aggressor.

I'm just offering that as a possible interpretation. Considering some people here seem to think the second finisher could have come down had he won, whether you agree with this or not, I don't think you can argue with what I said being one way someone could look at this.

slewis
01-12-2009, 10:19 AM
TLG, what is your take on Slewis' Coa rant? So, now the horse on the lead has to stay in his Path?

Ez

Ez,

Just to set the record " straight, no pun intended", in my opinion, the rider on the lead does not have to necessarily stay in his path. Switching paths, lanes is fine. A jock does not have to go to the rail if he gets the lead, if he thinks on that day the 4 path is the place to be, fine and legal. But you cannot switch (or do anything) to intimidate purposely(jockeying for position is fine), this is not the UFC. Also, you must be reasonably enough clear when you do attempt to switch paths, and should your horse drift in the stretch drive, because he's getting tired, (or hurting) you must show reasonable effort to keep him straight, even if that means you need to stop whipping, grab his head (reins) and get him safely straightend out.

dartman51
01-12-2009, 10:45 AM
Order of finish was not affected in my judgement. they need to err on the side of not making changes in my opinion. I agree with the stewards in this case.

I wish they would let the order stand for betting purposes no matter what. It all evens out in the end. If they need to rearrange purse money, fine, but let the order they crossed the line be the order of finish for betting payouts.


Think about what you just said. Then think of the ramafications from such an act. If you don't have the stews changing the order of finish for betting purposes, how long before jockeys get paid to run someone over to let another horse win. With enough money on the line, it would happen eventually. It's hard enough to keep the sport clean now. I have lost my share of winners being taken down. I don't like it, but shit happens. On occasion, I have benifited from it too. JMHO :)

ArlJim78
01-12-2009, 11:00 AM
i had the horse that finished second, and when they started running the head-on replay i thought by historical standards that it might warrant a takedown, even though in general i favor no action by the stewards in a case like this.
Why? because if I did have the winner i would feel robbed if they put him down for that as it was likely that even without contact there would be no difference in the finish order.

the only maddening part is that we've all seen disqualifications for lesser infractions.

ezrabrooks
01-12-2009, 11:20 AM
Ez,

Just to set the record " straight, no pun intended", in my opinion, the rider on the lead does not have to necessarily stay in his path. Switching paths, lanes is fine. A jock does not have to go to the rail if he gets the lead, if he thinks on that day the 4 path is the place to be, fine and legal. But you cannot switch (or do anything) to intimidate purposely(jockeying for position is fine), this is not the UFC. Also, you must be reasonably enough clear when you do attempt to switch paths, and should your horse drift in the stretch drive, because he's getting tired, (or hurting) you must show reasonable effort to keep him straight, even if that means you need to stop whipping, grab his head (reins) and get him safely straightend out.

Slewis, thanks for the explanation of your point. Question: Are we going to ask the Stewards to issue DQ's based on Jockey Intent? I do respect your opinion, and will not say I disagree with what you are saying, as you can put my knowledge of race riding etiquette under your thumb nail. For this reason, I look to guys like you and TLG for information.

Ez

ryesteve
01-12-2009, 11:23 AM
You have taken my statement out of context. What I said was, IF you condone herding, then when another horse is directly steared to stop the herding, you could say that horse then become the aggressor.

I'm just offering that as a possible interpretation. Considering some people here seem to think the second finisher could have come down had he won, whether you agree with this or not, I don't think you can argue with what I said being one way someone could look at this.Still, it seems like a really odd interpretation to me... kinda like saying the guy who doesn't duck when he sees the punch coming, gets called "the aggressor" when the police come to sort out the bar fight...

the little guy
01-12-2009, 11:29 AM
Still, it seems like a really odd interpretation to me... kinda like saying the guy who doesn't duck when he sees the punch coming, gets called "the aggressor" when the police come to sort out the bar fight...


Or like in the NBA when the officials don't nail a guy with a T for shoving someone.....but boot them both when the offended party retailiates.

I didn't say it was necessarily the correct interpretation....just one possible interpretation.

onefast99
01-12-2009, 11:49 AM
I'm not condoning, or disapproving, of anything that happened ( or happens ). I was just explaining what actually happened in this particular instance.
Im not putting you on the spot here but if you were a steward would you have called for an inquiry?

the little guy
01-12-2009, 12:14 PM
Im not putting you on the spot here but if you were a steward would you have called for an inquiry?


What do you do when you actually put someone on the spot?

Bruinswin
01-12-2009, 12:18 PM
If TLG's herding theory were correct, the calls would be consistent.
The fact is that the calls are not consistent. Yesterday it was no action, on Wednesday the same thing happens and the horse might come down.
Who knows? No consistency!

the little guy
01-12-2009, 12:26 PM
If TLG's herding theory were correct, the calls would be consistent.
The fact is that the calls are not consistent. Yesterday it was no action, on Wednesday the same thing happens and the horse might come down.
Who knows? No consistency!


Actually, they are pretty consistent on herding. If there is contact, that's a different story.

Find the head on of Three Ring beating Better Than Honour in the Acorn sometime.

slewis
01-12-2009, 12:44 PM
Slewis, thanks for the explanation of your point. Question: Are we going to ask the Stewards to issue DQ's based on Jockey Intent? I do respect your opinion, and will not say I disagree with what you are saying, as you can put my knowledge of race riding etiquette under your thumb nail. For this reason, I look to guys like you and TLG for information.

Ez

Ez,


To answer your question regarding the stewards actions after interpreting "intent"... I say, well, they are "judges" and like in small claims and traffic court, they are the "jury" as well. They can question the jock by telephone after the race, (which they do) and get answers.. and yes, they should if, in their opinion, "intent" was to move illegally, i.e. shut off the rail, DQ.
BUT!!!!......In my opinion... you only DQ if the horse that's fouled had a REASONABLE chance of winning (or if it cost 2nd place). When I say reasonable, how's about asking yourself the following: "Had the incident of foul not occurred, what chance do I think the horse fouled on a percentage basis have in winning the race???
10%, 20%, 30% of the time??? These percentages, in my opinion would not warrant a DQ.
I would have to (personally) be convinced that at least 4 times out of 10, (40%), the fouled horse would have gone on to win the race. Then I would vote for a DQ. Else, just leave the results as is AND FINE THE JOCKEY.

The problem is that they (the stewards) NEED A RULE BOOK. EVERY SPORT HAS A RULE BOOK TO FOLLOW and made available to the public. The rules in EVERY other sport are outlined. They set "precedent". ... But the racing elite believe they are above the law... so they leave interpretation open... sometimes for their own convienence.
This again reverts back to what I've been screaming on this web site about, especially when it comes to NYRA. Accountablility. Racing's elite feel they are accountable to NOBODY. So when Dutrow and McGaughey's horses are neck and neck down the stretch, and there is bumping, there are no rules, Dutrow gets DQ'd.

So until they come up with a rule book to follow... like I said, on Wed's and Thursday's it's a DQ, on Sat and Sun, the results stand.

the little guy
01-12-2009, 01:05 PM
When was the last time Shug had a horse head and head with Dutrow?

Bruinswin
01-12-2009, 01:08 PM
When was the last time Shug had a horse head and head with Dutrow?

I think he was just trying to show us a hypothetical matchup to illustrate his point. I got it.

the little guy
01-12-2009, 01:13 PM
I think he was just trying to show us a hypothetical matchup to illustrate his point. I got it.


Oh, I got it....and I imagine my friend Slewis got that I was joking as well.

the little guy
01-12-2009, 01:15 PM
It's sort of ironic that the worst case of herding ( outside of the afforementioned Acorn ) that I have ever seen was the Saint Liam - Ghostzapper Woodward and I have always wondered if Saint Liam would have been ( rightfully ) disqualified had he won that race.

Bruinswin
01-12-2009, 01:16 PM
Oh, I got it....and I imagine my friend Slewis got that I was joking as well.

LOL. Way to cover your bases there. ;)

twindouble
01-12-2009, 02:32 PM
Well if you guys don't mind me butting in, when I first started out in this game the dq was upsetting when I had the winner, that's just a human response. Heck you route your horse home right to wire and he's move to third, you lose your win and place wager, what a bummer.

I learned real quick as someone here said things balance out and getting all bent out shape didn't prepare me for the next race. Beating up on the Stewart's, and the jocks get you nowhere. If you want to talk percentages, think about the number of races that are run clean, not just your track, through out the country. Not enough bad races to be overly concerned about. Once a player gets into the conspiracy mode thinking the game is loaded with a bunch of thieves, he's a loser for sure. Best to give up the game pronto. Not to say there isn't any thieves as we all know.

Another thing I jumped onto early on was, when there's trouble in a race I made note of it. When the infraction was serious enough to cause a horse not to run his best race to me that was a future wager. Not only that over the years I've been on the receiving end of dq's that put a lot of money in my pocket and sorry to say, I didn't feel bad for the other players.

Also most players don't give jocks credit for there riding skills, they can be very creative and cute with the subtle tools in their arsenal they developed over the years. I'm not talking the buzzer. It's simple to me, winning the race puts more money in their pocket but it would be naive to think they only have that race in mind, including the connections. There's always another day even for players.

I would like to ask tlg why his herding theory only applies to the stretch run? I'm not questioning the horses inherent instincts that in my opinion can be overcome with training, not all horse of course. Maybe I'll learn something.

Horse racing is far from being a perfect game and I mean every aspect of it. Excepting that truth makes for a better player.


Good luck,

T.D.

supercap
01-12-2009, 02:43 PM
It's sort of ironic that the worst case of herding ( outside of the afforementioned Acorn ) that I have ever seen was the Saint Liam - Ghostzapper Woodward and I have always wondered if Saint Liam would have been ( rightfully ) disqualified had he won that race.

If a horse savages another horse is that an auto dq?

ClockerQ
01-12-2009, 02:57 PM
you misunderstood me supercap. i agreed with the stewards. go back to my first post. the guys who want race results unchanged no matter what are the ones i was referring to.

the little guy
01-12-2009, 03:00 PM
If a horse savages another horse is that an auto dq?


Good question. I don't know but will try to find out.

Doesn't it seem like the " savager " usually bites out of the frustration of not getting by?

LottaKash
01-12-2009, 03:14 PM
Once a player gets into the conspiracy mode thinking the game is loaded with a bunch of thieves, he's a loser for sure. Best to give up the game pronto.
Good luck,T.D.

TD, I believe that you are right about that particular mindset... Still, I also believe that, it is ok to let the Stewards and Judges everywhere, know, that they ARE being watched and scrutinized in an ongoing basis, don't you think ?......

There is a voice here, and one nevers knows who is voyeuring about.....

best,

supercap
01-12-2009, 03:18 PM
Good question. I don't know but will try to find out.

Doesn't it seem like the " savager " usually bites out of the frustration of not getting by?

I have a great photo from sar of a horse getting passed on the outside and taking a chomp at the passerby. I think that is the best natural reaction in the game. Personality of the horse really comes thru. They say Man O War would look horses in the eye when they came to him and retreat! Love when instincts take over.

supercap
01-12-2009, 03:19 PM
you misunderstood me supercap. i agreed with the stewards. go back to my first post. the guys who want race results unchanged no matter what are the ones i was referring to.

I understood Clocker and hear what you r saying.

slewis
01-12-2009, 03:36 PM
When was the last time Shug had a horse head and head with Dutrow?

Check the DRF charts..... I'm sure at one time or another Rick probably ran some 20k claimer against that breeding "genius" Phipps and his Blue Blood trainer and nipped em in a photo.....

If it never happened with Rick... turn the clock back a few more...


How's this name : IRON GAVEL.....

PS I know that one was Gasper.:lol: :lol:

the little guy
01-12-2009, 04:03 PM
Iron Gavel was originally a Phipps horse....right?

onefast99
01-12-2009, 04:05 PM
What do you do when you actually put someone on the spot?
Go to plan B.

twindouble
01-12-2009, 05:00 PM
TD, I believe that you are right about that particular mindset... Still, I also believe that, it is ok to let the Stewards and Judges everywhere, know, that they ARE being watched and scrutinized in an ongoing basis, don't you think ?......

There is a voice here, and one nevers knows who is voyeuring about.....

best,

LottaKash; When it comes to many other things I would normally agree. When it comes to the Stewards and Jocks regardless of how much bitching, change of rules, or schooling it's a broken record. What can I say after seeing and hearing it for so many years. My advise is forget about it and move on to more important things as a player if your goal is to change things, better yet improve your game. Besides, throwing a blanket over all the Stewart's is unfair. I think the greater majority of them try to be fair for one very important reason, that's preserving the integrity of the game, without that the track will lose players. I'll go this far, if bitching about a bad call at the time makes anyone feel better, that's fine with me. Hey, I'd buy you drink, settle you down to get your face in the form again. The last few races could very well run as you see them.


T.D.

cmoore
01-12-2009, 05:38 PM
Hey little guy...Have you ever disagreed with the stewards in NY?..Just curious..:D

the little guy
01-12-2009, 05:47 PM
Hey little guy...Have you ever disagreed with the stewards in NY?..Just curious..:D


I haven't taken a position either way in this thread.

onefast99
01-12-2009, 05:55 PM
Hey little guy...Have you ever disagreed with the stewards in NY?..Just curious..:D
Good way to re-phrase my question.

cmoore
01-12-2009, 05:58 PM
I haven't taken a position either way in this thread.

That wasn't the question...

PaceAdvantage
01-12-2009, 06:13 PM
Hey little guy...Have you ever disagreed with the stewards in NY?..Just curious..:DWhat do you think? Silly question. We've ALL disagreed with a decision now and then.

But 99.9% of the time, *I* personally can SEE why the stewards did what they did. I even explained my position on this incident, in thread #10 on the subject.

LottaKash
01-12-2009, 06:18 PM
LottaKash; When it comes to many other things I would normally agree. When it comes to the Stewards and Jocks regardless of how much bitching, change of rules, or schooling it's a broken record. What can I say after seeing and hearing it for so many years. T.D.

I believe that ALL people in positions of power, especially the ones who control the coins, should be held accountable and scrutinized at all times, and I for one do not disagree that a disagreement with the stewards by any horseplayer that bet his hard earned money, may be unwarranted at any time....A little sympathy is good in these circumstances, I think...

Most of the time, those souls are just ranting to vent their frustrations, and I just smile, and do not take it so seriously, as I have been there more times than I can remember......They all are forgotten.......

TD perhaps, you can just skip those posts....I for one, play anyway, and as long as my bottom line is ok, I have learned to laugh it off and live with it as well....Others haven't come as far in their coping process, maybe......

best,

cj
01-12-2009, 06:19 PM
That wasn't the question...

You guys are too much. TLG works for NYRA. While he doesn't point that out in every thread like some others do about their positions, I think it is pretty well known by most people that have any interest in New York racing. I would hope that includes anyone in this thread.

Now, I ask you, would come on here and rip your company on a message board if you disagreed with it or its decisions, especially one where your bosses might very well frequent? Andy is very open with his posts, and calls things as he sees them. That doesn't mean he has to criticize those he probably sees every day.

cmoore
01-12-2009, 06:32 PM
What do you think? Silly question. We've ALL disagreed with a decision now and then.

But 99.9% of the time, *I* personally can SEE why the stewards did what they did. I even explained my position on this incident, in thread #10 on the subject.

I want to actually read it from a little guy post..I have a strange feeling that you 2 exchange pm's on a regular basis..:lol:

gopony
01-12-2009, 06:37 PM
TLG, what is your take on Slewis' Coa rant? So, now the horse on the lead has to stay in his Path?

Ez

It would be nice if this were not allowed at any race track. But right now it is part of racing. You have to watch the horses and riders and see if it is being allowed at that track.

But for my own opinion I do not think that a horse should be able to change paths in the stretch if it impedes the progress of another horse. I've seen lead horses drift 4 out to herd another horse and I don't think it should be allowed. He never bumped the horse in the instance I remember, but he did intimidate the other horse.

But my favorite of all time was a close call at the finish. I had money on horse A and horse B was coming up at the end. But I thought horse A still was holding the lead at the finish. Horse B was called the winner in a photo finish. It was the last race of the day and I waited for a replay. At the end of the replay they showed the photo finish. The photo finish showed horse B just touching the wire while horse A's nose was clearly past the wire. I just looked at that photo and couldn't believe that they actually showed it. So currently I'm of the opinion that the last race is close to roller derby time.

I'm about 50-50 on dq's. The last time though I thought they were going to dq a horse from 1st from 2nd which was no help to me. But they actually dq him to fouth which got me a trifecta. So I don't know it's kind of horse racing.

I also think that if a horse pulls up in the middle of a race he should be treated as if he didn't start. (But i'm sure I'll see reduced takeouts before that will ever happen)

cmoore
01-12-2009, 06:43 PM
What do you think? Silly question. We've ALL disagreed with a decision now and then.

But 99.9% of the time, *I* personally can SEE why the stewards did what they did. I even explained my position on this incident, in thread #10 on the subject.

99.9%...As Lil John says..WHAT!!!!!!!!

So 999 out 1000 steward decisions can be seen as why they did and what they did by you..You need to get contacts, glasses or a good slap in the face.:lol:

LottaKash
01-12-2009, 06:46 PM
[QUOTE=cmoore ..You need to get contacts, glasses or a good slap in the face.:lol:[/QUOTE]

Slap...It is so today...:lol:

best,

twindouble
01-12-2009, 07:30 PM
TD perhaps, you can just skip those posts....I for one, play anyway, and as long as my bottom line is ok, I have learned to laugh it off and live with it as well....Others haven't come as far in their coping process, maybe......

best,[/QUOTE] Lottakash

I was concerned about jumping back in here after a long absence, when comes to posting anyway. I had to start somewhere. I've been indulging in the Cal tracks so Monday and Tuesday frees me up some to post here unless the wife has other ideas. I'll take the time to go over some threads to see if I can add anything of value.


Thanks for responding.


Regards,

T.D.

NY BRED
01-12-2009, 07:33 PM
Well, knowing your are recommending, I will sleep better at night. Who in a heck are you?

EZ[/QUOTE]

Who am I? An owner, a Handicapper and someone who was alive yesterday
in the pick 6 and pick4.
Hopefully you will have the same experience in the future:mad:

onefast99
01-12-2009, 08:18 PM
You guys are too much. TLG works for NYRA. While he doesn't point that out in every thread like some others do about their positions, I think it is pretty well known by most people that have any interest in New York racing. I would hope that includes anyone in this thread.

Now, I ask you, would come on here and rip your company on a message board if you disagreed with it or its decisions, especially one where your bosses might very well frequent? Andy is very open with his posts, and calls things as he sees them. That doesn't mean he has to criticize those he probably sees every day.
He gave everyone a nice lesson in "herding", I asked him this question due to the very fact that he is open with his comments.

supercap
01-12-2009, 08:44 PM
So now they will check to see if you are a repeat offender? Ok.
Horses with rap sheets!

twindouble
01-12-2009, 10:05 PM
He gave everyone a nice lesson in "herding", I asked him this question due to the very fact that he is open with his comments.

Maybe you can answer my question. I can't seem to wrap my brain around this herding factor. Granted horses instinctively avoid one another like anything else they see in their way, even to extent of jumping shadows so the shadow roll was invented. Blinkers have been around for a long time for good reason. To infer race horses haven't been trained to run being controlled by a jock and their herding instincts only comes in to play in the stretch run if that's what being said, I find it hard to believe. Why is it through out the race they don't bore out to the 8 path 4 or 5 deep on the turns and back stretch? I'd say the jock had something do with it and training along with the horse's racing experience.

Why do we applaud the jock when he rates his horse just right, splits horses on the back stretch shoots around four others dives to the rail entering the stretch, "scraping paint" taking the 2 path all the way home and just hangs on fending off 4 closer's outside of him for an 1/8 of mile. A clean race, no one took the others path way of any consequence. Boy, isn't racing great! You won't see a jock using a right hand whip scrapping the paint, that's for sure. The whip is their rudder and horses run in straighter line when hand rode. Tiring horses are more apt to bore out on their right lead in a stretch run being whipped, so there's a point where the whip is of no use. That's another subject. That's what I've observed.

I'm sure there's horseman on this forum that can clear things up. Its one thing to watch from afar it's another to be in the pits.


Good luck,

T.D.

cj
01-12-2009, 10:15 PM
Many horses hate tight quarters, whether early or late. All horses are different. There are plenty of times when a horse comes out and the other one keeps right on going. Other horses while shy away from contact. Size does have something to do with it in my opinion, but not everything. If a jockey on a tiring speed horse knows he his in trouble, he has nothing to lose by trying. It doesn't mean it always works.

You can try to train horses to race in traffic, but in the end it is mostly the individual horse. It is no different than trying to change a horse to rate. Some will, but most will go right back to whatever instinct is built into them.

twindouble
01-12-2009, 10:44 PM
Many horses hate tight quarters, whether early or late. All horses are different. There are plenty of times when a horse comes out and the other one keeps right on going. Other horses while shy away from contact. Size does have something to do with it in my opinion, but not everything. If a jockey on a tiring speed horse knows he his in trouble, he has nothing to lose by trying. It doesn't mean it always works.

You can try to train horses to race in traffic, but in the end it is mostly the individual horse. It is no different than trying to change a horse to rate. Some will, but most will go right back to whatever instinct is built into them.

I agree, I was a farm boy and I know horses have their own quirks and personality. I got bit more than once. It takes a good trainer to get by those pit falls and a good jock that knows how to handle the horse. Anyway, they are fantastic animals and can be trained to do extraordinary things.

TD

Imriledup
01-13-2009, 01:33 AM
Joelouis,


Please think before you post about a bad call from the stewards. I didn't see this race, but there are enough posts on this thread that indicate to me that this was an inquiry that was either the right call, or a call who could go either way. Reading the heading of your post, i was expecting to see a fairly unanimous concensus that this was a criminally negiglent call by the judges. After reading every post on this thread, that doesn't seem to be the case.

When you post stuff like this, it just hurts any horseplayer who has a legitimate beef on a dq. Posts like this is why horseplayers get the reputation of being complainers and complain on every dQ that hurts them regardless of anything.

With all that said, i'm a huge proponent of leaving the results stand. I think that the posters who say leave the results up no matter what are on the right track, but there needs to be a little wiggle room for judges to disqualify obvious egregious fouls.

As successful horseplayers, which most of us are aspiring to be, we would like to let results stand for the most part. I've found in my vast experience and knowing horseplayers really well, the ones who aren't very good are the ones who really cry about horses who are NOT disqualified. Successful bettors want results to stand because they don't want their great handicapping decided by a bunch of half blind 70 year old political appointees who sit up there in their teflon don suits and laugh down at the suckers and saps who pay 8 dollars admission and 8 dollars to park their cars in order to gamble at a 20-25 pct takeout rate.

If you spend hours per night handicapping these races and doing painstaking work, you want the results to stand. A very high percentage of horses who get interfered with are getting bothered because they are too slow and can't keep up. If you don't want to get bumped, find a way to bet on a faster animal. The faster animals are usually the ones circling and running past tiring rivals and not the ones who 'take up' in traffic when the leader and the sweeping closer are passing them like they are tied to a pole.

Its unfortunate that everytime there is a DQ, its at the expense of a player who wagered on a faster horse than the guy who benefits from the dq. A DQ, by definition, means that a better handicapper (better handicapper on that particular race) gets punished and his money is given to a worse handicapper (on that particular race).

DQs are an ugly part of racing, whether they are legit or not. If i was a steward i would only disqualify the most obvious calls, i would not nitpick and disqualify horses in 50/50 situations (calls that could go either way). Every call that could go 'either way' needs to stay up.

We need to protect the integrity of the result. They run the race in order to see who can get to the line first. Only the most obvious stuff should come down.

NY BRED
01-13-2009, 06:41 AM
a: not that I support TVG but there was quite alot of opinion the
horse should have been dq'd.

b: in fairness, if the jockeys were reversed on both horses and Dominguez
called for an inquiry , in my humble opinion this finish is, without a douby, reversed.

c: once again I remind everyone the winner had a history of bumping horses
in 2 of its last 6 starts, which now becomes 3 of its last 7 starts, indicating this horse either has physical or other issues which lead to this incident.

I'm not saying dq the horse because of its history,but I'm saying this
wasn't Dominguez riding in a crafty manner, rather Dominguez trying
to keep a straight path.

Finally, why support the stewards when there wasn't even a call by these
officials when most handicappers(at least at the Big A) were agreeing
an incident did occur without .

In general, unless the stewards call for a review, you have little
chancde of a reversal unless you are with thye right connections.

Bruddah
01-13-2009, 08:00 AM
and I have reached a monumental conclusion. Poker Players are second only to Horse Players as CRY BABIES and WHINERS. Get over it!! When you gamble your money you take your chances. Even a chance that the decion makers might not be on the up and up. If that's what sticks in your Craw, don't bet the next race or that track. In other words shake off the loss and go on, or quit. :D

David-LV
01-13-2009, 10:14 AM
and I have reached a monumental conclusion. Poker Players are second only to Horse Players as CRY BABIES and WHINERS. Get over it!! When you gamble your money you take your chances. Even a chance that the decion makers might not be on the up and up. If that's what sticks in your Craw, don't bet the next race or that track. In other words shake off the loss and go on, or quit. :D


Agreed, there are always those that will CRY & WHINE as a distraction from their lack of handicapping ability. :D

______
David

supercap
01-13-2009, 11:35 AM
Agreed, there are always those that will CRY & WHINE as a distraction from their lack of handicapping ability. :D

______
David

Not sure what handicapping ability has to do with this thread. Horse in question ran second so the choice was good, author thought the winner should come down. To question his ability is off base.

dmattern
01-13-2009, 12:40 PM
I am going to add some more fuel to this issue. If you want to see a race that is really terrible, where the stewards took no action, look at the 6th race on 1/2/09. There is no question the 2 horse came over and bumped the 3 horse bad two different times, even the announcer said the jockey was having a hard time keeping the horse straight. There was no DQ.

the little guy
01-13-2009, 12:46 PM
I am going to add some more fuel to this issue. If you want to see a race that is really terrible, where the stewards took no action, look at the 6th race on 1/2/09. There is no question the 2 horse came over and bumped the 3 horse bad two different times, even the announcer said the jockey was having a hard time keeping the horse straight. There was no DQ.


You apparently aren't very familiar with that inquiry. There was some give and take in the stretch, no doubt, but you also need to watch the head-on of the backstretch, which thankfully the stewards did ( and showed repeatedly during the inquiry ). On the backstretch, the eventual second finisher came out very sharply and significantly interfered with Cellar Dwellar. There is a better case to be made that had the finish been reversed there would have been a disqualification.

Nmytwenties
01-13-2009, 05:36 PM
Joe Louis, your last sentence on the first post of this thread is pure wisdom and 100% fact. I can't be too critical of those who tolerate it out of love of the sport but I can be VERY critical of those who complain and still participate. I didn't see the incident in question but the lack of a uniform policy when it comes to takedowns and non-takedowns is no doubt causing the sport to lose fans. I was actually more miffed when the stewards took down horses for ticky tack infractions than failing to do anything. Also couldn't stand when DQ's occured for simple bumping in 4 1/2 or 5f races, as if the genuises thought that there would be no bumping when they wrote the damn things,as if runners have the time to be overly cautious in such a short sprint. Many of these I observed when I didn't even bet on the particular race but it still bothered me.

I think most bettors are willing to deal with the ups and downs of things, you can't win them all, but the sport seems not to recognize or care that even people who have a real fondness for the sport can be forced to make the decision to just quit after a series of particularly absurd happenstances. I was able to come out even or slightly ahead on most days but the frustration with the poor customer service in many facets (main issue), questionable DQ's (including observing ones that I didn't even bet on that were ridiculous), difficulty in gauging the form of horses going on or coming off of drugs (drugs as a rule were never a big deal for me, I made some big hits on pretty much guessing on the form of horses going to or from "questionable handlers"), poor payoffs for exotic wagers relative to how diffcult they can be, odds fluctuations, finally drove me to make the decision to just give it up.

You just get to the point, I know I did, where you just can't see yourself opening a form and taking the time to even bother. The nature of the sport is almost like baseball, you are a good hitter if you hit 300 but yet your failing 7 out of 10. When they fail to pay you what is deserved and when they outright rob you with questionable DQ's or non DQ's then they are just asking that bettor if he has the tolerance for it or not.

If the sport can't work up the energy to treat the customer with some kind of respect and appreciation, if they can't develop proper policies on DQ's,drugs,reducing takeout,then they will just continue to barely keep their head above water at best.

It is the time involved in really doing a complete job that makes you feel cheated when happenstances like this occur, this sport doesn't have the luxury to leave bettors feeling cheated, eventually they will run out of people I would say. I can't even imagine how people who regularly lose money keep participating when things like this occur.

I remember having the World Series of Poker on one night, even though I am not a card player I find this program to be a great one to turn on a "background noise" when your wanting to get some work done, and hearing Norman Chad refering to a horse player in the field and saying that he thought that the sport was the most frustrating and difficult one to master.

Again you made too much sense in your post, the only way it improves is if people take there time and money and go elsewhere. It is a shame that the folks who keep the sport running, those folks who tolerate the crap, can't be treated with more appreciation and respect by those at the top.

KirisClown
01-13-2009, 06:37 PM
Iron Gavel was originally a Phipps horse....right?

You have an elephant's memory when it comes to racing...

A few years after he left Shug's barn, Iron Gavel won the Excelsior Handicap.. beating the best Phipps horse that ever lived... :)

http://i39.tinypic.com/11udw7k.jpg

showbet
01-13-2009, 07:14 PM
It's the often-heard grouse of the losing horse player: something (cheating stewards, drugged horses, polytrack, fixed races, whatever) must be the reason I am losing money gambling on horses. It can't possibly be because I just haven't come up with a method of wagering that results in me winning more money than I lose.

I made just under 16,000 bets in 2008, and there were many times I was disqualified out of a winning wager, and there were many times I benefited from a stewards' decision. Anyone who has wagered on horse racing for any length of time knows calls will go for you and calls will go against you.

As others have pointed out in this thread, if the ones that go against you bother you so terribly then you probably shouldn't be betting on horse racing. If you think you are constantly being cheated, I'd suggest finding another hobby. I know I would if I felt that way.

cj
01-13-2009, 07:30 PM
It's the often-heard grouse of the losing horse player: something (cheating stewards, drugged horses, polytrack, fixed races, whatever) must be the reason I am losing money gambling on horses. It can't possibly be because I just haven't come up with a method of wagering that results in me winning more money than I lose.

I made just under 16,000 bets in 2008, and there were many times I was disqualified out of a winning wager, and there were many times I benefited from a stewards' decision. Anyone who has wagered on horse racing for any length of time knows calls will go for you and calls will go against you.

As others have pointed out in this thread, if the ones that go against you bother you so terribly then you probably shouldn't be betting on horse racing. If you think you are constantly being cheated, I'd suggest finding another hobby. I know I would if I felt that way.

I think you guys have way too much faith in the stewards. Why should we not have a reputable, consistent process for dealing with fouls? I can tell you over the years I've been taken down many more times than I have been put up. It isn't even close. People who complain about a poor system do not have to be "losers" or "crybabies." Some are for sure, but lumping everyone in together is silly. There is no way the system couldn't be overhauled for the better of everyone involved, including bettors.

My biggest complaint isn't that people are scamming anyone, just that many stewards are incompetent. It is obviously going to happen due the the various methods of appointment around the country.

Bruinswin
01-13-2009, 07:32 PM
I think you guys have way too much faith in the stewards. Why should we not have a reputable, consistent process for dealing with fouls? I can tell you over the years I've been taken down many more times than I have been put up. It isn't even close. People who complain about a poor system do not have to be "losers" or "crybabies." Some are for sure, but lumping everyone in together is silly. There is no way the system couldn't be overhauled for the better of everyone involved, including bettors.

My biggest complaint isn't that people are scamming anyone, just that many stewards are incompetent. It is obviously going to happen due the the various methods of appointment around the country.

I agree. Let's have a central control office kind of like the NHL does with its officiating.

twindouble
01-13-2009, 07:49 PM
If the sport can't work up the energy to treat the customer with some kind of respect and appreciation, if they can't develop proper policies on DQ's,drugs,reducing takeout,then they will just continue to barely keep their head above water at best. quote; Nmytwenties;

It's disheartening to hear young players throwing their hands up and quitting what I conceder to be a fantastic game. There isn't a sport in existence that doesn't have some negatives ESP if you want to gamble on them. Gambling and taking risks is human nature, you limit those risks by having knowledge about the game. When a player takes in just the negative aspects he's on the wrong foot to become a winner and really enjoy the sport. Horse racing is nothing like slots or just sitting there waiting for the right card to come up and only fools scratch lottery tickets. Racing offers a myriad other positive things that can capture your imagination and lift your spirits.

Looking at racing as just a means to gamble, you miss out on one of the most important things that make up the game, including your ability to handicap, that's the HORSE! Yes, It's all about the horse when you get right down to it. Once you understand and appreciate them you've opened the right door. All the other positive enjoyable things will come around providing you put the time and effort to learn from the right people. There's plenty of them right here on this forum. I had my mentors when I started out and I think I got schooled by two of the best handicappers "gamblers" in my area. Latching on to negative people will get you nowhere, not just with the horses. Just do a search here, you you'll see that fact has been hammered home by many successful players.

I do agree with what you posted that I put in bold and you'll find that the greater majority of players here agree also but we aren't going to "quit" the game. As a matter of fact I just printed out SA card for Wednesday, there's still room to enjoy the game and make money. There's many here and including people in the industry, that are just as concerned about the things you mentioned.

Keep in mind I'm only responding to one of your posts and I have no idea what your experience consists or if your just expressing your flustration. Horse racing needs young people more than ever to sustain it's self.

Regards,

T.D.

2low
01-13-2009, 07:50 PM
I agree. Let's have a central control office kind of like the NHL does with its officiating.

YES! Then they can handle the purse reallocations at a later date while order of finish remains unchanged for wagering purposes:jump::jump::jump:

joelouis
01-14-2009, 02:21 AM
Joelouis,


Please think before you post about a bad call from the stewards. I didn't see this race, but there are enough posts on this thread that indicate to me that this was an inquiry that was either the right call, or a call who could go either way. Reading the heading of your post, i was expecting to see a fairly unanimous concensus that this was a criminally negiglent call by the judges. After reading every post on this thread, that doesn't seem to be the case.

When you post stuff like this, it just hurts any horseplayer who has a legitimate beef on a dq. Posts like this is why horseplayers get the reputation of being complainers and complain on every dQ that hurts them regardless of anything.

With all that said, i'm a huge proponent of leaving the results stand. I think that the posters who say leave the results up no matter what are on the right track, but there needs to be a little wiggle room for judges to disqualify obvious egregious fouls.

As successful horseplayers, which most of us are aspiring to be, we would like to let results stand for the most part. I've found in my vast experience and knowing horseplayers really well, the ones who aren't very good are the ones who really cry about horses who are NOT disqualified. Successful bettors want results to stand because they don't want their great handicapping decided by a bunch of half blind 70 year old political appointees who sit up there in their teflon don suits and laugh down at the suckers and saps who pay 8 dollars admission and 8 dollars to park their cars in order to gamble at a 20-25 pct takeout rate.

If you spend hours per night handicapping these races and doing painstaking work, you want the results to stand. A very high percentage of horses who get interfered with are getting bothered because they are too slow and can't keep up. If you don't want to get bumped, find a way to bet on a faster animal. The faster animals are usually the ones circling and running past tiring rivals and not the ones who 'take up' in traffic when the leader and the sweeping closer are passing them like they are tied to a pole.

Its unfortunate that everytime there is a DQ, its at the expense of a player who wagered on a faster horse than the guy who benefits from the dq. A DQ, by definition, means that a better handicapper (better handicapper on that particular race) gets punished and his money is given to a worse handicapper (on that particular race).

DQs are an ugly part of racing, whether they are legit or not. If i was a steward i would only disqualify the most obvious calls, i would not nitpick and disqualify horses in 50/50 situations (calls that could go either way). Every call that could go 'either way' needs to stay up.

We need to protect the integrity of the result. They run the race in order to see who can get to the line first. Only the most obvious stuff should come down.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz exuse me for snozzing, if you did see the race you would see that the horse on the rail came out, I did not gamble anymore I just happened to watch this race and believe me I am so glad I gave up this so called sport. Next time you want to write a bio send it to someone who cares. :sleeping:

joelouis
01-14-2009, 02:29 AM
I think you guys have way too much faith in the stewards. Why should we not have a reputable, consistent process for dealing with fouls? I can tell you over the years I've been taken down many more times than I have been put up. It isn't even close. People who complain about a poor system do not have to be "losers" or "crybabies." Some are for sure, but lumping everyone in together is silly. There is no way the system couldn't be overhauled for the better of everyone involved, including bettors.

My biggest complaint isn't that people are scamming anyone, just that many stewards are incompetent. It is obviously going to happen due the the various methods of appointment around the country.

Finally someone with brains on here. Good post.:ThmbUp:

Thomas Roulston
01-14-2009, 03:33 AM
While not intending to comment one way or the other on the actual incident in question, let me say that I've never liked this now-apparent requirement that the offending horse had to cost the fouled horse a placing in order to be taken down.

To me at least, a foul is a foul, and should be penalized accordingly.

But then again, if every placing received its own unique share of the purse (as I have come with a method for doing in my recent post on the "Purse Money" thread), there would be more frequent DQs even if the prevailing mindset did not change.

twindouble
01-14-2009, 07:01 AM
I wouldn't want to be a steward. Many people are effected by a dq, not just the players of course. That I would think is a tough decision to make and get it right. Plus they have to keep the jocks straight and narrow when it comes to safety.

When someone is betting a lot races they will experience more dq's but even then I'd say it's a very small percentage of their overall play. Some will go in his favor others won't, only he knows if it balances out. Hey I had a 39-1 shot moved up and I got the whole pool along with many other good scores over the years. Hard to forget them. Then there was the other ones that would have been heart breakers for some. I let it roll off because there's nothing I can do to change it. I think just about anything anyone comes up with to make it "fair", I've heard it.


It's one thing to be disappointed, it's another to get all bent out of shape and think you can do a better job because for whatever the reason you can't stand losing or everything has to measure up to your perceived standards. Those that set very high standards that can't be met by others are a step away from the nut farm anyway, no one measures up in their minds. People that try to meet those standards more than likely just got released from the farm. Speaking of farms once in a while I would get stung by a bee, the first time I thought it was painful, then I got immune to it. It was those yellow jackets that swarmed me that made me run like hell. I don't feel that way when it comes to the stewart's.

Transparency may help the public get a better understanding of the process in making those decisions. By putting yourself in that seat I don't think anyone would be so quick to judge. Either way I've learned to live with it.

Well, I've been up sense 3:30 so this is what you get when I've got nothing better to do. I have my horses picked for this afternoon, I hit reply to this thread then went on to finish my handicapping. When you wake up and your still running a race in you mind your a horse player for sure.


Good luck,

T.D.

JimG
01-14-2009, 08:00 AM
I happened to be watching this race on TVG but did not have any money on it. Like many in this thread I have watched tens of thousands of horse races over my lifetime. 2 things struck me odd...1)The stewards did not call for an inquiry. An objection was lodged. To the naked eye, it was clear the two horses bumped, even on the pan shot. 2) I thought Ken Rudolph (who I generally like) of TVG was overboard in his criticism of the stewards for not disqualifying the winner.

After watching the head-on numerous times, I felt the inside horse was 75% responsible and the outside horse 25% responsible for the bumping. Since I felt the outside horse had some responsibility, I would have voted "no change" to the order of finish.

Jim

onefast99
01-14-2009, 09:12 AM
I agree. Let's have a central control office kind of like the NHL does with its officiating.
The NHL promotes fighting in the regular season, during the playoffs it is not tolerated at all. So maybe you would like to see the same thing in horse racing, the 5k claimers can bump the crap out of each other but in a stakes or even in an allowance race they should be scrutinized even more? The only way to correct the problems associated with the stewards is to have one uniform system for every track. In horse racing there is instant replay from a few different angles,let the outriders call the stewards also they have a track view of the races, the stewards need to be more consistent that is the issue today!

ClockerQ
01-14-2009, 09:58 AM
Jim, u are the only one here i think, besides me, that saw the outside horse come in. Nobody broke stride and jockeys persevered to the wire. What bothers me is thenidea that a lot of people here want dq's,,dqued. no disqualifications. i think thats ridiculous. maybe its an age thing. i take it you're not a young guy anymore like me. i'm 58. my guess is that these guys calling for no dq's are in their 20's.

JCB
01-14-2009, 11:33 AM
Jim, u are the only one here i think, besides me, that saw the outside horse come in. Nobody broke stride and jockeys persevered to the wire. What bothers me is thenidea that a lot of people here want dq's,,dqued. no disqualifications. i think thats ridiculous. maybe its an age thing. i take it you're not a young guy anymore like me. i'm 58. my guess is that these guys calling for no dq's are in their 20's.

Count me in. I saw the outside horse come in twice before the winner did a thing.

ClockerQ
01-14-2009, 01:51 PM
I posted whats going on in this thread on another board. I specifically mentioned the "no dq" idea u guys have. as u know i think its ridiculous. well, so does everybody else i've talked to outside of this thread.

cj's dad
01-14-2009, 02:15 PM
DQ's would still happen - it just would not effect the bettor. Penalize the owner,trainer and rider only to be followed with suspensions after repeated violations.

I posted whats going on in this thread on another board. I specifically mentioned the "no dq" idea u guys have. as u know i think its ridiculous. well, so does everybody else i've talked to outside of this thread.

ClockerQ
01-14-2009, 03:52 PM
Of course I realize that CJ's dad. That would be grossly unfair. U should read my other posts. I wonder what your son and others here would do if they had an IRS ticket winner mugged and lost it because theres no more dqing for the bettor. why should the bettor get screwed? whats right is right and whats wrong is wrong. if they ever did that the game would lose its REAL fans,,the REAL horseplayers.

2low
01-14-2009, 04:07 PM
Of course I realize that CJ's dad. That would be grossly unfair. U should read my other posts. I wonder what your son and others here would do if they had an IRS ticket winner mugged and lost it because theres no more dqing for the bettor. why should the bettor get screwed? whats right is right and whats wrong is wrong. if they ever did that the game would lose its REAL fans,,the REAL horseplayers.

As one of the "others", I'd be perfectly fine with it, so long as the punishment fits the crime.

ClockerQ
01-14-2009, 04:45 PM
Yeah right,,,you got a 40-1 shot overtaking the fave deep in the stretch and the fave comes out and slams your horse and u just get beat.maybe u got him in the tri too!! yeah, you'll be fine with it,, :lol: :D

2low
01-14-2009, 04:51 PM
Yeah right,,,you got a 40-1 shot overtaking the fave deep in the stretch and the fave comes out and slams your horse and u just get beat.maybe u got him in the tri too!! yeah, you'll be fine with it,, :lol: :D

Clocker, it's nothing personal, we just disagree.

You think in terms of the race. Some of us think in terms of the races. It's really that simple.

onefast99
01-14-2009, 08:44 PM
DQ's would still happen - it just would not effect the bettor. Penalize the owner,trainer and rider only to be followed with suspensions after repeated violations.
I cant believe people are actually saying dont dq. I do agree that if a jock is a careless rider he should be suspended or fined, but doesnt every track do that now?

Thomas Roulston
01-15-2009, 04:53 AM
Jim, u are the only one here i think, besides me, that saw the outside horse come in. Nobody broke stride and jockeys persevered to the wire. What bothers me is thenidea that a lot of people here want dq's,,dqued. no disqualifications. i think thats ridiculous. maybe its an age thing. i take it you're not a young guy anymore like me. i'm 58. my guess is that these guys calling for no dq's are in their 20's.


Well I'm 50 - and I can't decide which is more lame: No DQs, or uncoupled entries, to which I am unalterably opposed, under any and all circumstances.

onefast99
01-15-2009, 08:32 AM
Well I'm 50 - and I can't decide which is more lame: No DQs, or uncoupled entries, to which I am unalterably opposed, under any and all circumstances.
Uncoupled entries are no doubt something we all have issues with. Especially when a trainer sends a rabbit out for his closer and they are under seperate entries. Good point.

Jeff P
01-15-2009, 02:36 PM
There's been many a thread here over the years where the topic has been incompetence of the stewards. Here's a recent one:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51502

My personal belief is that the current system in place needs to be changed. I gave my reasons why in post #10 of the above mentioned thread.

The biggest reason to change and allow on track results to stand almost no matter what is that Racing has a perception problem. A perception among non horseplayers that the game isn't on the up and up. It's one of the reasons - not the only one - that turns new fans away from the game - and prevents handle growth.


-jp

.

ClockerQ
01-15-2009, 02:43 PM
I agree Thomas,,,on all points. uncoupled entries is a sham. thats being allowed. thank god no dq's is just a pipe dream here. i never have heard anybody suggest that until i signed on to this board a week ago.

ClockerQ
01-15-2009, 02:45 PM
If you allow horses to win,,bettors to cash tickets on horses that unfairly won, don't you think you'd have a little MORE of a perception problem???

Jeff P
01-15-2009, 02:46 PM
No. I don't. Read the entire thread.

-jp

.

cj
01-15-2009, 02:47 PM
If you allow horses to win,,bettors to cash tickets on horses that unfairly won, don't you think you'd have a little MORE of a perception problem???

It already happens!

ClockerQ
01-15-2009, 07:44 PM
Yes, but very rarely. It would be utter chaos, on the track, in the jocks room and on the grandstand side of the track. This reminds me of people i have to deal with that just won't admit they were wrong in supporting bush and the republican policies that have ruined our economy and standing in the world. This small handful of people here are in their own little world on this issue. I can't imagine anyone who has had actual race track experience supporting this issue. I know I have talked to many and nobody agrees with this no dq's for the bettor. I'm done now with this topic. We just disagree and its pointless to pursue this anymore. Time to move on. I joined this board to find more intelligent horse racing discussions and I end up on this ridiculous topic.

cj
01-15-2009, 08:19 PM
I happen to know quite a few people that think it is a great idea, and I'd be willing to bet at least a few are smarter than you are (hard as that may be to fathom).

twindouble
01-15-2009, 08:42 PM
I happen to know quite a few people that think it is a great idea, and I'd be willing to bet at least a few are smarter than you are (hard as that may be to fathom).

cj; What's the reasoning behind supporting "no dq for betters"? I can't recall that ever being proposed over the years.



T.D.

BlueShoe
01-15-2009, 08:43 PM
In the race under consideration,a terrible one for bottom level mclm'ers,thought that the five horse was very solid on the drop to the bottom,so made a rather large wager.At the otb site just about all the other patrons said "inquiry".My surprise was that the rider had to claim foul,not the stewards.Oh well,about a week before that race was involved in another inquiry at Aqu. in which they let my horse stay up at 7-1 instead of moving up the 8-5 favorite.Imo my horse should have come down.Watching the reruns on TVG the next am,Jason Blewwitt commented that the fav. fouled the winner on the far turn,so who knows who is right?

onefast99
01-15-2009, 08:46 PM
In the race under consideration,a terrible one for bottom level mclm'ers,thought that the five horse was very solid on the drop to the bottom,so made a rather large wager.At the otb site just about all the other patrons said "inquiry".My surprise was that the rider had to claim foul,not the stewards.Oh well,about a week before that race was involved in another inquiry at Aqu. in which they let my horse stay up at 7-1 instead of moving up the 8-5 favorite.Imo my horse should have come down.Watching the reruns on TVG the next am,Jason Blewwitt commented that the fav. fouled the winner on the far turn,so who knows who is right?
Its very easy to say your horse should of come down after you cashed the ticket. Most people think the other way, thats why there is plastic garbage cans to take your frustrations out on.

the little guy
01-15-2009, 08:58 PM
In the race under consideration,a terrible one for bottom level mclm'ers,thought that the five horse was very solid on the drop to the bottom,so made a rather large wager.At the otb site just about all the other patrons said "inquiry".My surprise was that the rider had to claim foul,not the stewards.Oh well,about a week before that race was involved in another inquiry at Aqu. in which they let my horse stay up at 7-1 instead of moving up the 8-5 favorite.Imo my horse should have come down.Watching the reruns on TVG the next am,Jason Blewwitt commented that the fav. fouled the winner on the far turn,so who knows who is right?



Jason was right and all you have to do is watch the head-on replay of the backstretch. The stewards showed it a minimum of ten times as well.....before going to the stretch head-on.

NY BRED
01-16-2009, 03:18 AM
[QUOTE=Bruddah]and I have reached a monumental conclusion. Poker Players are second only to Horse Players as CRY BABIES and WHINERS. Get over it!! When you gamble your money you take your chances. Even a chance that the decion makers might not be on the up and up. If that's what sticks in your Craw, don't bet the next race or that track. In other words shake off the loss and go on, or quit. :D[

When you have an authority that is supposedly out there to protect you
as a bettor, and demonstrates inconsistency you should question why
you are subjecting yourself to such insanity.:eek:

Guess what, I've taken your advice and quit betting NYRA tracks,and
feel great about it.

LottaKash
01-16-2009, 03:59 AM
[QUOTE=Bruddah] Horse Players as CRY BABIES and WHINERS. Get over it!! .

What some call whining and crying, others call Venting, and I think it is ok to try find a wee bit of sympathy from like-minded individuals, from time to time.....

After all, isn't that some of what a forum may be good for ?......:kiss: ...Healthy grieving on any level is a process.....

I have been there a time or two, and it was always comforting to have someone to just listen, and whether lip-served or genuine, I took some comfort in it, and moved on....

These days I just grin at bad beats.....:cool: ...but hey that's just me

best,

ezrabrooks
01-16-2009, 07:20 AM
I happen to know quite a few people that think it is a great idea, and I'd be willing to bet at least a few are smarter than you are (hard as that may be to fathom).

Who? You and your Dad..and a couple other close relatives?

Ez

cj's dad
01-16-2009, 08:04 AM
Who? You and your Dad..and a couple other close relatives?
Ez

I have my own opinions as I'm sure you do. Mine are always ( I hope) structured around what I believe to be a reasonable approach to an ongoing issue, in this case the stewards lack of uniformity and the occasional appearance of impropriety.

I simply believe that the bettors should not be punished or rewarded for jockey infractions. Why is that such a ____________________ position.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
fill in the blank.

cj
01-16-2009, 08:09 AM
Who? You and your Dad..and a couple other close relatives?

Ez

It was hardly an original idea from me. I read it a few times in the press and have discussed it with many players, most of them not related to me believe it or not. Some agree some don't. My point was that it is hardly the ridiculous idea this ClockerQ guy is making it out to be.

Thanks for adding so much to the thread though.

ezrabrooks
01-16-2009, 08:30 AM
It was hardly an original idea from me. I read it a few times in the press and have discussed it with many players, most of them not related to me believe it or not. Some agree some don't. My point was that it is hardly the ridiculous idea this ClockerQ guy is making it out to be.

Thanks for adding so much to the thread though.

It is a moronic idea...and pointing that out, does add to the Thread.

Ez

cj
01-16-2009, 09:19 AM
I won't defend myself, since maybe I am a moron, but when very smart guys like JeffP bring it up I tend to think it has some merit.

Tom
01-16-2009, 09:33 AM
I think it is a great idea, and I think opposing it is moronic. So there! :rolleyes:

the little guy
01-16-2009, 10:52 AM
I think it is a great idea, and I think opposing it is moronic. So there! :rolleyes:


But, I think one thing we can all agree on is that CJ is a moron.

twindouble
01-16-2009, 11:28 AM
It was hardly an original idea from me. I read it a few times in the press and have discussed it with many players, most of them not related to me believe it or not. Some agree some don't. My point was that it is hardly the ridiculous idea this ClockerQ guy is making it out to be.

Thanks for adding so much to the thread though.

Ok, your saying just let the jocks and connections fight it out for purse money and leave the order of finish stand regardless of what happened in the race. No different than pulling the slots, what come up is what you get, done and over with. I think the potential dq adds another dimension to the excitement and suspense of racing. Sure some people are disappointed others jump for joy. More often today than ever I think the race stands as is and it's not that often the stewarts come down on the side of the jocks. I don't have stats on that, just what I've observed. All I know is I can look at many 9 and 10 race cards and not see a dq in any of the past performances, one or two crop up now and then.

I'm for some changes but this one is way down the list of priorities, maybe it can be tweaked some but doing away with it I don't think is a good idea. I'd say it's a 100-1 shot of that being instituted anyway.


Good luck,

T.D.

ryesteve
01-16-2009, 01:02 PM
On first thought, I've got to admit it sounds like a dopey idea, but the more I think about it, it starts to make more sense:

1) Jockeys are motivated to ride cleanly because of the effect on purse money, and potential fines and suspensions; so altering or not altering the wagering order of finish offers little incentive to the jockey one way or the other. It's not as if races would all of a sudden turn into a demolition derby.

2) In my experience, the majority of DQs do NOT result in the best horse being placed first. Either some other horse lucks into the first spot because the fouled horse did not finish second, and/or the horse that got DQ'd was going to win anyway, and/or the DQ was total BS that never should've been called in the first place. It's somewhat unusual to see a horse make a winning move, get fouled, finish second, and then get placed first.

So yeah, I can see why this isn't such a bad idea, since more times than not, the DQ results in a reversal that goes against the better horse.

the little guy
01-16-2009, 01:10 PM
As a " greater good " argument, the no DQs idea works, as rarely ( as the above post points out ) does the DQ make the final order of finish technically correct. However, there are situations like yesterday's 2nd race at Gulfstream where a DQ did legitimately correct the order of finish. The winner won by a nose after rather dramatically interfering with the runner-up in the stretch. In that kind of situation a reversal was completely equitable ( it cost me a few dollars as well by the way ). However, you can't really use one situation to necessarily say the entire system is just or unjust.

Thomas Roulston
01-17-2009, 05:28 AM
Those who like no DQs can enjoy greyhound racing.

ClockerQ
01-17-2009, 01:45 PM
Excellent point T.R. :D

Tom
01-17-2009, 04:17 PM
No, actually, it wasn't. But you were amused, so that must count for
something. :sleeping:

ClockerQ
01-17-2009, 09:11 PM
I've found 3 posts by Tom on this thread. The first one implies that the horse will die or something like that and the jock won't ever get anymore mounts if he purposely roughrides to get a win:lol: and the other 2 are just juvenile put downs, 1 complete with a jack in the box. just reinforces my opinion that I'm dealing with a lot of very young, immature and inexperienced horseplayers on this board. I don't want to discourage you kids. Hopefully you'll listen to the knowledgable people here so when you grow up and can drive yourself to the track you'll be able to pick some winners. :rolleyes:

Tom
01-17-2009, 09:23 PM
Hope your powers of perception work better on horses. You lose. :lol:

Tom
01-17-2009, 09:44 PM
But since you like to count posts, here are 10 of your 13....see a common thought in them? Like maybe you think we are all idiots and your are smarter than anyone else? You are a real helpful addition to this place. We needed another know-it-all here.

#9 -…what concerns me more were the other comments on this thread. let the result stand no matter what. are you kidding? that is such an unrealistic proposal that it doesn't merit a response. it just shows a lack of knowledge about how the track works.

#17 - thank u bighit. these guys have no clue.

#18 - these guys just won't admit that they are wrong and this thread is deteriorating to mindless juvenile arguments.

#20 - plenty for the owner or trainer he made $$$$$$ for. this is nuts. i'm done.

#59 -you misunderstood me supercap. i agreed with the stewards. go back to my first post. the guys who want race results unchanged no matter what are the ones i was referring to.

#106 - Jim, u are the only one here i think, besides me, that saw the outside horse come in. Nobody broke stride and jockeys persevered to the wire. What bothers me is thenidea that a lot of people here want dq's,,dqued. no disqualifications. i think thats ridiculous. maybe its an age thing. i take it you're not a young guy anymore like me. i'm 58. my guess is that these guys calling for no dq's are in their 20's.

#108 -I posted whats going on in this thread on another board. I specifically mentioned the "no dq" idea u guys have. as u know i think its ridiculous. well, so does everybody else i've talked to outside of this thread.

#110 - Of course I realize that CJ's dad. That would be grossly unfair. U should read my other posts*. I wonder what your son and others here would do if they had an IRS ticket winner mugged and lost it because theres no more dqing for the bettor. why should the bettor get screwed? whats right is right and whats wrong is wrong. if they ever did that the game would lose its REAL fans,,the REAL horseplayers. * Which ones would offer more than your put downs of other posters?????

#112 - Yeah right,,,you got a 40-1 shot overtaking the fave deep in the stretch and the fave comes out and slams your horse and u just get beat.maybe u got him in the tri too!! yeah, you'll be fine with it,, (snide reply to someone who disagreed with him)

#122 - Yes, but very rarely. It would be utter chaos, on the track, in the jocks room and on the grandstand side of the track. This reminds me of people i have to deal with that just won't admit they were wrong in supporting bush and the republican policies that have ruined our economy and standing in the world. This small handful of people here are in their own little world on this issue. I can't imagine anyone who has had actual race track experience supporting this issue. I know I have talked to many and nobody agrees with this no dq's for the bettor. I'm done now with this topic. We just disagree and its pointless to pursue this anymore. Time to move on.* I joined this board to find more intelligent horse racing discussions and I end up on this ridiculous topic.
* What, again?

cj
01-17-2009, 09:56 PM
The chances this guy in new to horse racing message boards is about 1,000,000,000,000 to 1.

ClockerQ
01-17-2009, 11:07 PM
Thanks Tom for reposting my previous posts. They are out of context, but as I read them I have to laugh that you would bring them up as I make a hell of a lot of sense. Please go to the post i juust made about 10 minutes ago. Please repost that one too!!!! Everybody should read it. Thanks for helping me spread the word that there are a lot of kindergarten level horseplayers here.

JustRalph
01-17-2009, 11:22 PM
Thanks for helping me spread the word that there are a lot of kindergarten level horseplayers here.

move on ..................if you don't like it here............ move on to another board............

Tom
01-17-2009, 11:39 PM
This fish has been hooked before.....same old same old.:sleeping:

2low
01-18-2009, 12:33 AM
Clocker,

I would like your opinion of my idea to have race announcers use numbers instead of horse names to make it easier to follow along. I never know the names, but I always know the numbers.

Best regards,

2low.

cj's dad
01-19-2009, 12:07 PM
The chances this guy in new to horse racing message boards is about 1,000,000,000,000 to 1.

Maybe ZZ 46 is alive and well

ClockerQ
01-19-2009, 02:16 PM
Naa, then we'd miss moments like Tom Durkin calling do-re-me-faaaa-sooooo-laaa-teeeeee-doooooooooooooooooooooooo.

The race would lose drama too. Like "Secretariat moving like a machine" to "Number 2 moving like a machine". Just doesn't work for me.

Bruddah
01-19-2009, 07:18 PM
Who? You and your Dad..and a couple other close relatives?

Ez

I find myself agreeing with the old man and son about 85-95% of the time. When I don't, I have found them both to act like Gentleman and open to friendly debate. They have earned their respect here, unlike yourself.

I am not even a close relative but I truly dislike the tone of your post. Uncalled for, don't you think? :ThmbDown:

ClockerQ
01-19-2009, 10:22 PM
Aren't we being a little too sensitive bruddah? this is a forum for debate. oh, ezra said that only cj and his dad and a few close relatives,,,, OH MY GOD, HOW AWFUL THAT WAS,,SHAME ON YOU EZRA,,YOU'RE SUCH A BAD GUY :rolleyes:

PaceAdvantage
01-19-2009, 10:34 PM
What are you, five?

ezrabrooks
01-20-2009, 07:56 AM
I find myself agreeing with the old man and son about 85-95% of the time. When I don't, I have found them both to act like Gentleman and open to friendly debate. They have earned their respect here, unlike yourself.

I am not even a close relative but I truly dislike the tone of your post. Uncalled for, don't you think? :ThmbDown:

Tone? You must be either tone death, or your signature line is really correct. Try reading the posts. The response was in jest to the use of "quite a few people".

If you want to jump my a$$ because I think that allowing the betting order of finish to stand without benefit of DQ's is crazy...OK, but, not due to my off hand attempt at humor.

BTW, what are you, five?

Ez

onefast99
01-24-2009, 10:40 AM
Clocker,

I would like your opinion of my idea to have race announcers use numbers instead of horse names to make it easier to follow along. I never know the names, but I always know the numbers.

Best regards,

2low.
If you want numbers just look at the monitor. The horses names make up about 40% of the thrill of the race call. How about Dave Johnson making an historic stretch run call "and the 1 and 7 are neck and neck here comes the 5 and now on the rail the 3 and 8 are moving in tandem" Just isnt the same. Especially in the Kentucky derby last year should we all refer to Big Brown as number 20?

ArlJim78
01-24-2009, 10:45 AM
If you want numbers just look at the monitor. The horses names make up about 40% of the thrill of the race call. How about Dave Johnson making an historic stretch run call "and the 1 and 7 are neck and neck here comes the 5 and now on the rail the 3 and 8 are moving in tandem" Just isnt the same. Especially in the Kentucky derby last year should we all refer to Big Brown as number 20?
or how about, "the 3 is moving like a tremendous machine".

okay I don't know if Secretariat was number 3 in the Belmont, but you get the point. dumb idea.

or better yet, "the 5 wins one for America!"

The Bit
01-24-2009, 11:04 AM
Have to have names used in race calls! Would be pretty plain without them.

The Bit
01-24-2009, 11:10 AM
Order of finish was not affected in my judgement. they need to err on the side of not making changes in my opinion. I agree with the stewards in this case.

I wish they would let the order stand for betting purposes no matter what. It all evens out in the end. If they need to rearrange purse money, fine, but let the order they crossed the line be the order of finish for betting payouts.

I tend to agree with this. I'd rather the order of finish stand as is than be cost money due to the incompetence of the jockey or the mood of the day in the stewards room.

If a foul is commited, fine the jockey, trainer, and owner. Redistribute the purse based upon the decision of the stewards, but don't let it affect the betting public. That would keep the riders honest because they could still lose the purse but would give the game a bit credibility because a human isn't able to decide who gets paid after the race is run.

The Bit
01-24-2009, 11:16 AM
you misunderstood me supercap. i agreed with the stewards. go back to my first post. the guys who want race results unchanged no matter what are the ones i was referring to.

You keep saying that letting the results stand no matter what is such a bad idea, yet you really haven't given an explanation other than to say you don't want horse races to turn into roller derby.

As has been said already, if the jockeys, trainers and owners of the offending horse are held accountable by redistribution of purse money, how many times do you think this would happen?

The Bit
01-24-2009, 11:23 AM
I happen to know quite a few people that think it is a great idea, and I'd be willing to bet at least a few are smarter than you are (hard as that may be to fathom).

I have a friend who plays for a living who supports the No Dq idea.

the little guy
01-24-2009, 11:26 AM
Welcome back. :rolleyes:

If you actually think about it, it's surprising there aren't more trolls. And, when you consider that most trolls are really multiples, there are even less than we realize.

There's a very entertaining book ( in theory ) about internet trolls.

The Bit
01-24-2009, 11:34 AM
I have a brother who plays cards for some of his income. I introduced him to horses a while back and he enjoyed it a bit. That was until he had a horse taken down on what was a very debatable infraction. At that point, he quit. He didn't understand how a human beings "opinion" could somehow change the outcome of the race and affect whether or not he gets paid. Now he only plays cards.

I feel that this sentiment is shared by the majority of "new players", whether young or old, when they start playing. My brothers feeling was he is never going to be right at the poker table only to be told his Ace didn't count anymore.

Here is a post I made on Jan. 30th of '08 after Rated Fiesty's DQ. I made light of the no change to the order for the betting public in this post as well as Bob Bedeker of TVG's opinion.

http://horseracingtalk.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/rated-fiestys-dq-the-dq-process/

budbaby2
01-24-2009, 12:22 PM
I tend to agree with this. I'd rather the order of finish stand as is than be cost money due to the incompetence of the jockey or the mood of the day in the stewards room.

If a foul is commited, fine the jockey, trainer, and owner. Redistribute the purse based upon the decision of the stewards, but don't let it affect the betting public. That would keep the riders honest because they could still lose the purse but would give the game a bit credibility because a human isn't able to decide who gets paid after the race is run. This BS is not even worth debating. Will never happen.Are you guys for real?

onefast99
01-24-2009, 12:39 PM
Have to have names used in race calls! Would be pretty plain without them.
Or maybe MJ should be known as #23! I love hearing the horses names announced during a race.

A. Pineda
01-24-2009, 01:33 PM
If the winner interferes with my horse, and this incident affects the outcome of the race, I want him taken down. For example, if the winner bumps a tiring, fading runner, that is a no-call, and I would hope that the stewards see it this way, too.

The problem that I've always had is when the winner is placed behind a victimized horse that finishes back in the pack. That seems excessive, but what other punishment would be deemed fair?

The Bit
01-24-2009, 01:50 PM
This BS is not even worth debating. Will never happen.Are you guys for real?

I'm completely for real. You guys that think it is such a bad idea don't seem to make points as to why, just keep pointing out how crazy it is.

Pace Cap'n
01-24-2009, 02:06 PM
lf the announcers used numbers instead of names then you would have the same horses running in every race.

budbaby2
01-24-2009, 02:18 PM
I'm completely for real. You guys that think it is such a bad idea don't seem to make points as to why, just keep pointing out how crazy it is. See its like this there are rules in horse racing just like there are rules in all sports. Have you ever seen a TD called back because of holding? If its your team that got flagged, and it cost you a bet. Your going to be mad, so you think the refs should just note the penalty's, count the TD, and fine the player later. So you can win your bet. What about the guys on the other side of the ball? Wake up.

BIG HIT
01-24-2009, 02:45 PM
Happen's a lot in hocky two your team score goal you win.Then there is a review change no goal.Horse raceing problem is hdcprs have to admit there wrong and a lot of people have trouble with that.Granted the stewards piss you off at time's.One day loseing and last race of day bet longshot that would have made my day.He broke out of gate went wire to wire for win aft cross finish line inquiry sign went up.They took him down for bumping another horse comeing out of the gate.I watch the head on seen nothing although probably bias.Somebody all way's going to be unhappy when money is at stake

supercap
01-24-2009, 03:00 PM
Happen's a lot in hocky two your team score goal you win.Then there is a review change no goal.Horse raceing problem is hdcprs have to admit there wrong and a lot of people have trouble with that.Granted the stewards piss you off at time's.One day loseing and last race of day bet longshot that would have made my day.He broke out of gate went wire to wire for win aft cross finish line inquiry sign went up.They took him down for bumping another horse comeing out of the gate.I watch the head on seen nothing although probably bias.Somebody all way's going to be unhappy when money is at stake
Well Said! :

The Bit
01-24-2009, 03:13 PM
See its like this there are rules in horse racing just like there are rules in all sports. Have you ever seen a TD called back because of holding? If its your team that got flagged, and it cost you a bet. Your going to be mad, so you think the refs should just note the penalty's, count the TD, and fine the player later. So you can win your bet. What about the guys on the other side of the ball? Wake up.

I'm awake, trust me.

The NFL isn't struggling for new fans. The NFL isn't cutting the schedule due to lack of players or money to pay them, etc. In the NFL, once the clocks read 00:00, no one goes back to a replay and overturns a decision that than affects who won the game.

You need to wake up.

And this has nothing to do with me being a losing horse player. I've had no monetary interest in any of these recent debatable decisions. And everyone is probably correct, it all evens out in the end. I've been on both ends, trust me.

This is more about the public perception of a corrupt game with corrupt people taking part. If a human being can ultimately decide the outcome of the race based upon his opinion, that may or may not change depending upon whether he got laid the night before, most people, especially new players, won't take it seriously or won't take the risk.

Take a ride to Atlantic City and walk into the poker room. What do you see? 200 people playing cards, 75% of them under 30 years old. Go to the left corner and check out the horse room. What do you see? 25 people playing horses, 90% of them over 40 years old.

2low
01-24-2009, 03:48 PM
If you want numbers just look at the monitor. The horses names make up about 40% of the thrill of the race call. How about Dave Johnson making an historic stretch run call "and the 1 and 7 are neck and neck here comes the 5 and now on the rail the 3 and 8 are moving in tandem" Just isnt the same. Especially in the Kentucky derby last year should we all refer to Big Brown as number 20?

I'm just goofing around, onefast. While I'd find numbers more convenient for non-stakes racing, I'd vote against a change to numbers in real life.

budbaby2
01-24-2009, 03:58 PM
I'm awake, trust me.

The NFL isn't struggling for new fans. The NFL isn't cutting the schedule due to lack of players or money to pay them, etc. In the NFL, once the clocks read 00:00, no one goes back to a replay and overturns a decision that than affects who won the game.

You need to wake up.

And this has nothing to do with me being a losing horse player. I've had no monetary interest in any of these recent debatable decisions. And everyone is probably correct, it all evens out in the end. I've been on both ends, trust me.

This is more about the public perception of a corrupt game with corrupt people taking part. If a human being can ultimately decide the outcome of the race based upon his opinion, that may or may not change depending upon whether he got laid the night before, most people, especially new players, won't take it seriously or won't take the risk.

Take a ride to Atlantic City and walk into the poker room. What do you see? 200 people playing cards, 75% of them under 30 years old. Go to the left corner and check out the horse room. What do you see? 25 people playing horses, 90% of them over 40 years old.I guess you didn't see the regular season game between the Steelers and the Chargers. The Steeler defense scored on the last play of the game. 0:00 on the clock. TD was called. Replay was used to overturn it. Pitt wins 11-10. They were a 6 point fav. Latter the officials said it should have been called a TD. Vegas paid the SD bettors. You win some you lose some. Thats why they call it gambling. Your brother is the first person I have heard of that quit because they have rules. Sounds like sour grapes. I'd love to play cards with someone that weak.

The Bit
01-24-2009, 04:24 PM
I guess you didn't see the regular season game between the Steelers and the Chargers. The Steeler defense scored on the last play of the game. 0:00 on the clock. TD was called. Replay was used to overturn it. Pitt wins 11-10. They were a 6 point fav. Latter the officials said it should have been called a TD. Vegas paid the SD bettors. You win some you lose some. Thats why they call it gambling. Your brother is the first person I have heard of that quit because they have rules. Sounds like sour grapes. I'd love to play cards with someone that weak.

My brother would eat you alive playing cards, trust me. You can't even make a valid point about this discussion, how good could you be at cards? The outcome of the game wasn't changed, Steelers still won. The NFL doesn't care about who or how much is wagered on the games! If the sport books and bookies failed to exist, do you think the NFL would go under? No!

You still haven't told me why exactly the current system is effective either. Your argument is that is they way it is. That is not good enough. The NFL, NHL, NBA all amend rules every year.

Come on, wake up!

Tom
01-24-2009, 04:28 PM
If you actually think about it, it's surprising there aren't more trolls. And, when you consider that most trolls are really multiples, there are even less than we realize.

There's a very entertaining book ( in theory ) about internet trolls.

There are only 6 people on the internet, total!
And 650 of them post here! :lol:

Shemp Howard
01-24-2009, 08:54 PM
And two of them are Al Gore:rolleyes:

Charlie D
01-24-2009, 09:24 PM
If you leave results as is, you'll probably end up with a damn the consequences win at all cost situation, which could result in dangerous situation


Do you really want this type of thing

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dWtnJbcM1Eo

The Bit
01-25-2009, 12:38 AM
If you leave results as is, you'll probably end up with a damn the consequences win at all cost situation, which could result in dangerous situation


Do you really want this type of thing

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dWtnJbcM1Eo




If enough people believe that the mentality you speak about will become the norm, than just be more aggressive with suspensions for the riders. Can't make a living when they are sitting on the sidelines.

Charlie D
01-25-2009, 01:36 AM
US rules are already aggressive

Dylan Thomas would have probably been thrown out in US and that would have been the right decision.

The problems surface when the interference in borderline, interpretation then rears it's head

we may not agree with some of the decisions made by the stewards, but your rules on interference seem the correct ones to me

onefast99
01-25-2009, 02:25 PM
I'm just goofing around, onefast. While I'd find numbers more convenient for non-stakes racing, I'd vote against a change to numbers in real life.
I knew that, just pointing out the blahness in a race where you hear a number and not a horse.

toetoe
01-25-2009, 07:00 PM
Bit,

I don't want to jinx you, but I agree with your proposal.

When a horse is compromised, AND his attacker wins, AND he himself finishes third, the racing gods put the place horse up to first, conveniently neglecting to notice that:

1) he couldn't beat the perpetrator fair and square, and

2) he presumably needed help from the perpetrator to finish ahead of the victim (otherwise, how could one argue that the third horse is better than the winner ?).

Okay, the stewards and their apologists would have us believe that fairness has been restored, the public and racing's integrity have been protected, the lousy handicappers who cashed win tickets deserved their spoils, blah, blah ...

The only logical way to do it within the "protect the public" pipedream is to place the third horse first, and the first horse third. What, they may play God, but just not such a mighty God ?

The argument that it would encourage rough riding and make enforcement difficult leads me to ask whether we even have that desired safety and integrity now, and why we have no faith that we could make a new system work.

The scenario wherein the two affected horses finish in consecutive places is the only one that corresponds to the example of Chargers versus Steelers, i.e., "a match race," and might be handled in the present way.

The philosophy of "pay ya money, take ya chances, and quit bellyachin" applies just as well under Bit's proposed system.

The Bit
01-25-2009, 07:43 PM
Bit,

I don't want to jinx you, but I agree with your proposal.

When a horse is compromised, AND his attacker wins, AND he himself finishes third, the racing gods put the place horse up to first, conveniently neglecting to notice that:

1) he couldn't beat the perpetrator fair and square, and

2) he presumably needed help from the perpetrator to finish ahead of the victim (otherwise, how could one argue that the third horse is better than the winner ?).

Okay, the stewards and their apologists would have us believe that fairness has been restored, the public and racing's integrity have been protected, the lousy handicappers who cashed win tickets deserved their spoils, blah, blah ...

The only logical way to do it within the "protect the public" pipedream is to place the third horse first, and the first horse third. What, they may play God, but just not such a mighty God ?

The argument that it would encourage rough riding and make enforcement difficult leads me to ask whether we even have that desired safety and integrity now, and why we have no faith that we could make a new system work.

The scenario wherein the two affected horses finish in consecutive places is the only one that corresponds to the example of Chargers versus Steelers, i.e., "a match race," and might be handled in the present way.

The philosophy of "pay ya money, take ya chances, and quit bellyachin" applies just as well under Bit's proposed system.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm still waiting for a valid argument from the supporters of the current system other than "that is the way it is".

Jeff P
01-25-2009, 10:35 PM
Charlie, I see that you hail from the UK. The primary reason I'm an advocate for mandating that the results stand (almost) no matter what is that stewards here in the US have repeatedly proven themselves to be incompetent.

Here's a video of a DQ at HAW that took place in April, 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMxV65iy7eo

Watch the replay and judge for yourself whether or not a foul took place.

I'm told that this particular DQ was later overturned - but that the reversal affected purse distribution only. The winning connections got paid. But the bettors who played the #4 in this race took it in the shorts.

IMHO this is the kind of blown call that gives racing the "it's fixed" perception problem that I talked about in my earlier post.

Ask yourself: Would a would be new racing fan have a reason to think twice about coming back after seeing this call?


-jp

.

The Bit
01-26-2009, 12:27 AM
Jeff,


I already alluded to that DQ on my blog also.

http://horseracingtalk.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/catching-up-on-some-recent-news/

Still hear nothin' but crickets from the other side.

Thomas Roulston
01-28-2009, 05:26 AM
Bit,

I don't want to jinx you, but I agree with your proposal.

When a horse is compromised, AND his attacker wins, AND he himself finishes third, the racing gods put the place horse up to first, conveniently neglecting to notice that:

1) he couldn't beat the perpetrator fair and square, and

2) he presumably needed help from the perpetrator to finish ahead of the victim (otherwise, how could one argue that the third horse is better than the winner ?).

Okay, the stewards and their apologists would have us believe that fairness has been restored, the public and racing's integrity have been protected, the lousy handicappers who cashed win tickets deserved their spoils, blah, blah ...

The only logical way to do it within the "protect the public" pipedream is to place the third horse first, and the first horse third. What, they may play God, but just not such a mighty God ?

The argument that it would encourage rough riding and make enforcement difficult leads me to ask whether we even have that desired safety and integrity now, and why we have no faith that we could make a new system work.

The scenario wherein the two affected horses finish in consecutive places is the only one that corresponds to the example of Chargers versus Steelers, i.e., "a match race," and might be handled in the present way.

The philosophy of "pay ya money, take ya chances, and quit bellyachin" applies just as well under Bit's proposed system.


In a 2-year-old filly stakes race at Saratoga in 1963, the perpetrator, Crown Silver, finished second, and the victim, Petite Rouge, finished first; and Crown Silver was DQ'd and placed last!

twindouble
01-28-2009, 11:35 AM
Why not just turn horse racing into a video game and make everyone happy. No dq's, no getting boxed in, no whip, no stumbling, no break downs, jocks are glued to the horses, no saddle slipping, loss of irons, loss of shoes or reins. They all break from the perfectly and the gate will never malfunction. The track will always be fast. Pick your owners, trainers, jocks, horses, class, build your own stable like they do in other sports and select your conditions to compete in, then top it off with Betfair type wagering with 2% takeout. :jump:


T.D.

Tom
01-28-2009, 11:49 AM
Not too many here able to intelligently discuss an idea, are there? :rolleyes:

cj
01-28-2009, 11:55 AM
He's Rusty, Tom. He is just returning from a self imposed "I'm never coming back" exile. He'll return to his old form soon enough, if he had any old form.

The Bit
01-28-2009, 12:20 PM
Not too many here able to intelligently discuss an idea, are there? :rolleyes:

No they are far and few between it seems. Twindoubles response makes about as much sense as screen doors on a submarine. Just another supporter of the current system who can't make a rational argument as to why it should be left in place. Instead they go on unintelligible rants about nothing in particular.

twindouble
01-28-2009, 12:36 PM
Not too many here able to intelligently discuss an idea, are there? :rolleyes:

I never questioned your intelligence when you toss out many off the wall comments, why question mine? I have many posts on this forum and no one ever called me stupid, well tlg inferred it with his unquestionable brilliance and mastery of the English language. Well I'll get over like I did before, all it takes is the post parade for the first race I bet.



T.D.

twindouble
01-28-2009, 01:00 PM
He's Rusty, Tom. He is just returning from a self imposed "I'm never coming back" exile. He'll return to his old form soon enough, if he had any old form.

Ah yes, the peanut gallery got right on the bandwagon, nothing has changed here. The truth is PA more or less brought about my decision not to "post" not anyone else on this forum. Take note of what I said in my early posts on my return, I never left. I become one of those 8,000 viewers on some threads. Not all is wrong with this forum. Put my presence here to a vote, maybe I'll be viewing again, that's would be fine with me. I Won't lose any sleep over it.


T.D.

twindouble
01-28-2009, 01:54 PM
No they are far and few between it seems. Twindoubles response makes about as much sense as screen doors on a submarine. Just another supporter of the current system who can't make a rational argument as to why it should be left in place. Instead they go on unintelligible rants about nothing in particular.

Your handle is right on, with so few posts your mouth must be sore chomping on the bit waiting for the opportunity join the intellectuals here.

T.D.

Tom
01-28-2009, 02:04 PM
It wasn't just you I was talking about......

twindouble
01-28-2009, 02:22 PM
It wasn't just you I was talking about......

I gave an opinion on dq's in this thread. Everyone can pick that post apart if they want to, I was "serious" in that one.

T.D.

The Bit
01-28-2009, 03:34 PM
Your handle is right on, with so few posts your mouth must be sore chomping on the bit waiting for the opportunity join the intellectuals here.

T.D.

Please ... you still can't argue your point. To me, that speaks volumes and tells me all I need to know about you. :)

twindouble
01-28-2009, 03:42 PM
Please ... you still can't argue your point. To me, that speaks volumes and tells me all I need to know about you. :)


I don't need to argue my post on dq's, go back and read it before draw your sword on a relatively meaningless post. Your next move will be correcting my spelling to get more points. I wasn't born yesterday.


T.D

Indulto
01-28-2009, 03:56 PM
Interesting thread. Some of those who want to let the order of finish always stand justify it on the basis of taking the decision out of human hands. When did the jocks stop being human beings? ;)

The deal breaker for me is the separation of results for bettors and owners which, by itself, is just asking for trouble. Secondly, it doesn’t address enhancing the preparedness and performance of stewards or ensuring the consistency of DQs.

What I would like to see is a horseplayer-designated “alternate” steward with access to a database of DQ deliberations videos and decision factors who could influence the “primary” stewards toward greater consistency by ensuring they were always aware of what conclusions had been drawn previously under similar circumstances.

That person would only vote when a decision to disqualify was not unanimous.

ryesteve
01-28-2009, 05:56 PM
The deal breaker for me is the separation of results for bettors and owners which, by itself, is just asking for trouble.As Jeff's earlier post pointed out, that already happens... and when it does, it's the bettor that gets stuck abiding by the wrong decision.

The Bit
01-28-2009, 06:44 PM
Interesting thread. Some of those who want to let the order of finish always stand justify it on the basis of taking the decision out of human hands. When did the jocks stop being human beings? ;)

The deal breaker for me is the separation of results for bettors and owners which, by itself, is just asking for trouble. Secondly, it doesn’t address enhancing the preparedness and performance of stewards or ensuring the consistency of DQs.

What I would like to see is a horseplayer-designated “alternate” steward with access to a database of DQ deliberations videos and decision factors who could influence the “primary” stewards toward greater consistency by ensuring they were always aware of what conclusions had been drawn previously under similar circumstances.

That person would only vote when a decision to disqualify was not unanimous.

Wow ... an intelligent post. I'm floored.

My stance all along has been that we already have enough humans that influence the races. Lets eliminate one. Trainers may still cheat, some jockeys will always be incompetent, but lets eliminate atleast one human element. Especially when that one human element has proven over and over again to be inconsistent.

Charlie D
01-28-2009, 06:59 PM
Jeff, only just seen your post, so apologies for late response

#4 cuts corner, causing #7 on it's inside to close gap on two horses inside , both of whom had to be snatched up, particularly the horse on rail, #3


The horse on rail (#3) could have been brought down on a different day injuring both horse and jockey


Would that be ok and would you let the result stand if that had happened???

twindouble
01-28-2009, 07:23 PM
Wow ... an intelligent post. I'm floored.

My stance all along has been that we already have enough humans that influence the races. Lets eliminate one. Trainers may still cheat, some jockeys will always be incompetent, but lets eliminate atleast one human element. Especially when that one human element has proven over and over again to be inconsistent.

That sounds like my post that you attacked, no humans involved. LOL. What's in bold was so brilliant you left everyone behind, now your top man on this forum. Congratulations. I'm going to check out of this thread, your just to smart for me.

Charlie D
01-28-2009, 07:29 PM
My stance all along has been that we already have enough humans that influence the races


Humans do influence the races

watch the race Jeff posted and watch #4 jockeys delibrate manouvere almost cause the two horses on inside an accident

Indulto
01-28-2009, 07:50 PM
As Jeff's earlier post pointed out, that already happens... and when it does, it's the bettor that gets stuck abiding by the wrong decision.Yes it does, but "The Wicked North" and "Dancer's Image" are the only two cases I can recall instantly. I doubt there were enough occurrences by thenselves to warrant a change in current policy, and an "alternate steward" approach would likely do away with those as well.

Check out the following parallel discussion:

http://blog.trackmaster.com/?p=324 (http://blog.trackmaster.com/?p=324)
“There Will Be NO CHANGE in the Order of Finish
By Craig Walker January 26th, 2009 9:00 am…. There are different sets of rules depending upon the racing jurisdiction as to what warrants a disqualification. This fact alone makes the disqualification rulings seem inconsistent to many horseplayers. Even at a particular track, sometimes the same amount of contact or interference will result in a disqualification based on what point of the race the incident occurred. Some fans feel that the top jockeys and trainers or post-time favorites aren’t penalized in instances of interference when a lesser-known participant would be held accountable. Others feel that many of the judgment calls made are not reliable when compared with previous rulings. Also, one horse may interfere with another, but if the stewards deem it doesn’t cost the horse that is interfered with a better placing, then there is no change warranted.

… I am throwing out a radical idea for the “official” order of finish for payouts in thoroughbred races. What if all payouts were made according to the original order that the horses cross the finish line. There would be no disqualifications on the day the race is contested. The stewards would only have to judge any photo finishes in regards to any close calls to determine the finishing order. The stewards would also gather any information they deemed necessary for further review regarding any disqualifications made subsequent to race day. To protect the bettor, the stewards would still be able to declare a horse a non-starter and refund wagers per the current standards.

… In the long run, leaving the results “as is” for wagering purposes may be a benefit for all parties. Bettors will no longer be turned off by borderline decisions, or what they perceive as inconsistent disqualifications. The safety of horse and rider will be insured by diligent review by the stewards regarding any questionable riding tactics by jockeys. Harsh penalties would be handed out to any jockeys employing unfair riding tactics. Without a pressurized time situation, any disqualifications regarding purse money will receive the time deserved to making such decisions thus benefiting the horses’ connections as well. In the end, bettors would have one less complaint against management and would be more likely to stay in a positive frame of mind and hopefully wager more.... Responses

… VJ Says:Sound in theory, not so practical in practice.

Unfortunately, paying to the order of finish won’t keep jockeys and drivers honest. There has to be accountability to protect the horses from receiving a whip in the face, an unbalanced pilot, or other deterrents from running their best and putting in a competitive finish. ...
... add money to that equation and dishonest things happen. Unless of course all horses run in their own lanes with no chance of interference…?

Consider too that the payouts for a long-shot getting to the wire first can easily offset a fine levied for an infraction preventing a favourite from taking the lead.

Order of finish and payouts need to be kept regulated and the public needs to know that racing is kept honest through regulations and fair judging practices that deal with infractions and errors prior to payouts.… Jeff Says:I don’t think I’m going to be a more satisfied horse player if the trifecta I could have had on Saturday but didn’t turns out to have been ruled in my favor on Tuesday under this scenario.

We have to keep in mind that when all is said and done, this game is still gambling with all the inherent risks. If I bet on an NFL game at a sports book I run the risk of unfavorable and/or questionable calls just the same as if I bet at the race track and have a winning horse taken down on subjective interpretatiions of objective rules.

One aspect of objections and inquiries that needs to go the way of all things is the conference with the jockeys. ...
... If the stewards can’t make calls based upon the available video evidence, taking the oral testimony of the participants seems to me to suggest that in the end the decision might come down to which jockey made the more forceful or plausible argument. That, to me, more than the issue of when the stewards make a change in the order of finish, suggests that rules alone do not govern their decisions.…Jen Says:... There has to be repercussions if a jockey “breaks the rules” in a race. Otherwise, there are those who would do anything to win. You need to protect the horses as well as the jockeys in this instance. If you disqualify the horse for an illegal jockey ride, you are also taking away the purse for the jockey as well. Most don’t like that.

If the fans don’t like it, too bad. I’ve been the recipient on both sides, one, my horse taken away from me, and two, actually winning because of a disqualification! As long as it keeps the horses safer, and jockeys “honester”, than I’m all for it! PERIOD.

Heck, isn’t this why it’s called a “bet?”… EagleEye Po Says:... Horses are disqualified because they broke the rules. Your suggestion will REWARD CHEATERS! The game is suffering enough from credibility and integrity issues. No need to add more.

Instead why don’t we try to solve the root problem of, ‘unclear rules’ and ‘inconsistency in the way the rules are interpreted/applied’
Let’s hold the judges/stewarts responsible for their decisions. If they are deemed to have erred in their after race decisions, the association or commission they represent should be fined!

We need integrity, not prospering cheaters.

Indulto
01-28-2009, 08:00 PM
Wow ... an intelligent post. I'm floored.

My stance all along has been that we already have enough humans that influence the races. Lets eliminate one. Trainers may still cheat, some jockeys will always be incompetent, but lets eliminate atleast one human element. Especially when that one human element has proven over and over again to be inconsistent.Coming from you, that assessment does nothing to enhance my position. If that was an example of arguing your point well, then your own words are more applicable here:

"Please ... you still can't argue your point. To me, that speaks volumes and tells me all I need to know about you. :)"

Charlie D
01-28-2009, 08:08 PM
Horses are disqualified because they broke the rules. Your suggestion will REWARD CHEATERS! The game is suffering enough from credibility and integrity issues. No need to add more.

Instead why don’t we try to solve the root problem of, ‘unclear rules’ and ‘inconsistency in the way the rules are interpreted/applied’
Let’s hold the judges/stewarts responsible for their decisions. If they are deemed to have erred in their after race decisions, the association or commission they represent should be fined!

We need integrity, not prospering cheaters.



Eagle eye Po has it spot on imo

The Bit
01-28-2009, 08:25 PM
Coming from you, that assessment does nothing to enhance my position. If that was an example of arguing your point well, then your own words are more applicable here:

"Please ... you still can't argue your point. To me, that speaks volumes and tells me all I need to know about you. :)"

lol

I haven't really tried. However ... if you stick around, I may have to!

:)

toetoe
01-29-2009, 03:35 PM
Indulto and VJ,

All due respect (which is much ... :ThmbUp: ), but enhancing preparedness, ensuring consistency and keeping jockeys and drivers honest ? C'mon, do we have that now ? Could we lose something we never really had ?

In the meantime, we could throw the heartbreak at new victims --- the undeserving backers of the runners-up who just backed into victory, AND we could honestly say,
"These things even out over time." Can we say that now, with stewards zigging when they should zag ? Again, how can we say we have ensured consistency ?

jeebus1083
01-29-2009, 03:46 PM
I agree they should always let them stand for betting purposes, but the outside horse held his path and was slammed into, obviously costing the horse at least some chance.

The chart makers comments are comical.

If you let the results stand for betting purposes, and then DQ for purse purposes, you'll only have bettors bitching that they got screwed because the horse placed 1st for purse money doesn't return them a dime.

IMO, if there is a DQ, treat the race like a dead heat for pari-mutuel purposes. Pay both the DQd horse and the placed horse. It'll be a lower payout, but at least in this instance, the bettors will at least get some retribution.

toetoe
01-29-2009, 03:51 PM
The idea in my pipedream is that the stewards, so beloved and admired by the good proletariat of the hippodromes across this great land, would, in short order, be able to get rid of the bad apples, and to motivate the others to ride cleanly. How ? Through stiff punishment and wealth redistribution. Say ... let's ask our President about this. Fugeddabout da BCS.

When horses misbehaved on their own, the results would stand.

In one-on-one disputes involving consecutive placings, reversals might, and probably would, be allowed.