CHRB investigating Rosario ride!

[andymays]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/107403.html

Excerpt:

Joel Rosario, the leading rider at Del Mar, has had a complaint filed against him by the California Horse Racing Board alleging he "did not put forward his best effort riding his horse to the finish line" in the final race at Del Mar on Sept. 6.

A hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday at Fairplex Park, according to Mike Marten, the racing board's spokesman, who confirmed on Friday night that the complaint had been filed.

[andymays]

You can watch the race at www.calracing.com


I thought Joel could have gotten a better placing but not won. Having said that we have not heard Joels explanation of events but it looked like he could have gotten third place money with a little urging.

My opinion is that he will get days!


Vic will probably comment after the stewards make their decision because he is part of the story as well!

It was also a Super Hi Five Race!

[bks]

Glenney is one of the trainers I watch closely, because of his propensity to strike at a huge price (can think of two examples from this spring in Kentucky alone, a horse named Gloria Goodbody and another, Orthodox, who paid over 90.00. His turfer, Transduction Gold, broke his maiden at Del Mar for a big mutual a couple years back, and won a G3 at Keeneland last year for 30.00+).

It's an odd story, because Glenney seems like an unlikely candidate to sell one of his young horses if they show any ability. He trains what he owns (exclusively, I think), and carries himself like 'gentleman' trainer . Given the breeding of some of his stock, he must pay big money for his horses, and he hits about 6% of the time or so - just enough to keep me paying attention. While he will drop his horses, he tends to keep his stock at MSW to long, which lI always assumed was because he didn't want to lose them. As if they're half pets to him.

If Stouffer and Rosario were playing a game, I think they picked a poor mark.

[toetoe]

Vic deserves better than that speculation, and a correct spelling of his name. :bang: .

[andymays]

Vic deserves better than that speculation, and a correct spelling of his name. :bang: .


I think Joel should have ridden a little harder in the stretch and got third. The rest of the stuff sounds worse than it probably is. I seriously doubt these two had anything going on. Things are goint to well for both so there just aint no motive!

[Imriledup]

I think Joel should have ridden a little harder in the stretch and got third. The rest of the stuff sounds worse than it probably is. I seriously doubt these two had anything going on. Things are goint to well for both so there just aint no motive!

Trevor made a comment that the horse 'stopped like he got shot' or something like that on the far turn.

[cj]

I think Joel should have ridden a little harder in the stretch and got third. The rest of the stuff sounds worse than it probably is. I seriously doubt these two had anything going on. Things are goint to well for both so there just aint no motive!

Who really knows if anything fishy was going on, but it once again points out another of the tons of conflicts of interest that are prominent in this game. No way a jockey agent should be involved in trying to purchase horses that his rider is riding.

[andymays]

Who really knows if anything fishy was going on, but it once again points out another of the tons of conflicts of interest that are prominent in this game. No way a jockey agent should be involved in trying to purchase horses that his rider is riding.


I have a feeling that Vic will give a good explanation after it's over.


I agree on the tons of conflicts in Racing. No doubt about it!

[cj]

I have a feeling that Vic will give a good explanation after it's over.


I agree on the tons of conflicts in Racing. No doubt about it!

I'm sure he will, but there is still no way in the world he should be asking about buying a horse his rider just gave a very mediocre effort aboard.

[andymays]

I'm sure he will, but there is still no way in the world he should be asking about buying a horse his rider just gave a very mediocre effort aboard.


It's probably a common practice that will not be so common from now on.

[bks]

Sorry to have misspelled your name, Vic. Since you're viewing the thread.

Love your work.

[pandy]

The CHRB (racing board) is investigating a ride by Rosario in the 11th race on Sept. 6, the horse was Cedros. The trainer John Glenney complained to the stewards because Vic Stauffer (Rosario's agent) asked him if the horse was for sale the next day. The story is at drf.com. Glenney says it wasn't a good ride, now I know why he hardly ever wins any races, he's clueless. First of all, when you question the leading rider you'd better have a good reason. Rosario is obviously a major talent.

The complaint filed against Rosario cited him for violations of three racing board rules. One pertains to unsatisfactory rides - "no jockey shall take his horse back without reasonable cause . . . or otherwise ride in a manner which is inconsistent with using the best efforts of the horse he is riding," the rule states in part - and another is titled "conduct detrimental to horse racing."

This is ridiculous. Cedros was dueling for the lead then a couple of horses rushed up outside of him so Rosario took him to the rail (rather than stay in a 4 way speed duel in a turf route). The horse rallied gamely to get the show by a nose and you can see Rosario go to the left hand whip in the lane. If they suspend or fine Rosario for this ride it will certainly go against the new idea of not abusing horses with the whip. You can't have it both ways, you can't accuse jockeys of using the whip too much then complain when they don't beat a horse to a pulp in the stretch. There is no way in the world that this horse could've done any better than third in this race, and if Rosario had followed Glenney's ridiculous advice and stayed outside of horses Cedros would've been caught wide in a 4 way speed duel around the final turn and would've certainly finished off the board.

[PaceAdvantage]

Merged Pandy's thread into this one to keep them all together...

[pandy]

I made a mistake in my post, Cedros ran 4th, not third, but again, if he had stayed wide battling for the lead he most likely finishes further back. When Arcodoro and Crazy Wager rushed up to challenge, they went right by Cedros, so I don't know what Glenney is complaining about in terms of the ride. This is typical of many trainers, blaming the rider. As for Vic asking if the horse was for sale, that is a separate issue and I doubt it breaks any rules. What's the big deal? He asked if the horse was for sale, how is that a crime?

[cj]

I made a mistake in my post, Cedros ran 4th, not third, but again, if he had stayed wide battling for the lead he most likely finishes further back. When Arcodoro and Crazy Wager rushed up to challenge, they went right by Cedros, so I don't know what Glenney is complaining about in terms of the ride. This is typical of many trainers, blaming the rider. As for Vic asking if the horse was for sale, that is a separate issue and I doubt it breaks any rules. What's the big deal? He asked if the horse was for sale, how is that a crime?

You don't see the obvious conflict of interest in a jockey agent also being involved in horse sales, particularly ones his guy is riding?

[pandy]

You don't see the obvious conflict of interest in a jockey agent also being involved in horse sales, particularly ones his guy is riding?

No, I think Glenney is acting like a baby.

[cj]

No, I think Glenney is acting like a baby.

Maybe he is. It doesn't change the fact that a jockey agent shouldn't be involved in buying and selling horses, especially those his rider is controlling.

[andymays]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52620/rosario-ride-questioned-in-chrb-complaint

Excerpt:

Trainer John Glenney, who owns Cedros with his wife, Kim, said he was "terribly upset" about losing the winning purse in the $67,390 maiden special weight race, which followed the Pacific Classic (gr. I) at the end of the program. In a phone interview from Kentucky, he noted that he had instructed Rosario to keep Cedros on the outside.

"I felt the only way (Cedros) could get beat was if he got in trouble, so I told (Rosario) to keep him in the middle of the track and I didn't think they'd be able to catch him (in the stretch)," Glenney said. "He had him in great position on the outside on the turn and then the horse dropped back.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Owner/Trainers argument about following instructions for the ride may not be valid because things change when the gates open and many times they do.

I thought the CHRB was looking at Joel not getting third money because he didn't appeared to ride for the best placing in the stretch.

This may come down to the appearance of impropriety rather than actual impropriety. Unless they give him days for not urging the horse to get third they can't give him days for the first 3/4 of the race! As far as Vic calling the guy it doesn't look good but if there are no rules against it then you can't consider that in the CHRB decision although they probably will factor it in.

I still think they will give Joel days even though they may be considering other stuff besides him not getting a better placing (should have gotten third money). With all the publicity they will feel that they have to do something at this point even though that shouldn't be taken into consideration.

[pandy]

If they have a problem with his agent that should be separate, it looks like they're picking on the rider here, not the agent. I didn't see anything wrong with the ride. Let's remember that the horse lost 3rd by a head, not a nose, and the replay shows Rosario going to a left handed whip in the stretch. He wasn't whipping at the wire, and I know that some people think that horses should be bludgeoned every step of the stretch, but this horse did the best he could under the circumstances.

[bisket]

whatever resario did or didn't do in the stretch to urge his horse it was better than using that new whip :lol: . they could give every rider days for using that new whip :D

[andymays]

They recently gave Norther California Jockey William Antongeorgi days for a questionable ride so I think they will probably do the same thing here.

One of the big outcrys against lowering field size for Tri's and Supers has been that Jockeys may be influenced to get a worse placing. They have received a lot of criticism for allowing this in California. I'm not saying that's what happened here but I believe it plays into what the CHRB is doing in this matter. They do not want the public to perceive that there is anything going on. The race in question was a Super Hi Five race so it was probably under more scrutiny.

[andymays]

Roger Stein explains the issue on his show this morning.

Archive show up about 10:00 AM PST.

http://www.rogerstein.com/radio/archive2.asp

He spoke to Vic who was in Maui according to Roger.

Roger does a good job explaining the situation!

Jay Privman the author has more to do with the situation than you might think. There is some bad history between Privan and Vic that maybe Vic will explain at a later date. I heard Vic tell the story on the Roger Stein show some months ago.

[bks]

andymays wrote:

This may come down to the appearance of impropriety rather than actual impropriety.

Yes, and as cj has ably noted, when the agent of a jockey who just underperformed on a horse then asks the horse's owner if said horse is for sale, the appearance of impropriety is there. It's a flat conflict of interest.

The story says Glenney complained only after being approached by Stauffer, not merely on the basis of Rosario's ride.

[andymays]

Roger Stein explains the issue on his show this morning.

Archive show up about 10:00 AM PST.

http://www.rogerstein.com/radio/archive2.asp

He spoke to Vic who was in Maui according to Roger.

Roger does a good job explaining the situation!

Jay Privman the author has more to do with the situation than you might think. There is some bad history between Privan and Vic that maybe Vic will explain at a later date. I heard Vic tell the story on the Roger Stein show some months ago.


On the show Roger tells a story about the supposedly solid gold diamond encrusted whip give to the winning Jockey of the Dubai World Cup. He met Aaron Gryder at a Jeweler. It was not solid gold and the diamonds were fake. Good Story!

[Imriledup]

I did some thinking about this last night and here's why there's really no conflict of interest and in fact, might be a BENEFIT to the Glenney camp.

If someone asks Glenney if the horse is for sale, it doesn't matter if its Vic or Joe Blow. Why you ask? Because Glenney is being asked if the horse is for sale and he has the opportunity to say no. No harm no foul.

Of course, if he gets the word out there that the agent of a top rider asked if the horse is for sale, that horse immediately goes up in value. People think "geez, if the agent wants to purchase this runner, the jock must think he's very good".

Glenney knows the value of his horse to him and that value isn't going to change regardless of what Rosario does in the race.

One more thing.....John Glenney is a 'nobody' as far as So Cal racing goes. He seldom runs horses here and he seldom wins. For him to 'instruct' a top rider like Rosario how to ride is just wrong. Top jocks don't have to listen to what trainers or owners tell them, they do what they want to do. If you 've ever owned a horse in any sport, whether its harness racing or Thoroughbreds, you understand that you 'cant tell' a top guy what to do. You just don't. They don't need your business and they don't have to listen.

Now, if you are Bobby Frankel in his prime and you tell Jose Valdivia what to do while riding a horse in the Arlington Million and you are Jose, you do exactly what Bobby tells you do to.

No way someone like John Glenney should be giving instructions to the leading rider at Del Mar. He should just be grateful he's got him to begin with.

[andymays]

I would wager that there is more to the Privman angle than people think! We shall see.

[pandy]

I totally agree with you, Glenney must think he is a Hall of Fame trainer and Rosario is a bug boy. You can try to tell a jockey how to ride, but they don't have to listen, and probably shouldn't most of the time because many trainers are horrible handicappers. In this case, you had one of the top riders in the sport, and as you said, most top riders are going to ride the race the way the see fit.

[the little guy]

Jay Privman the author has more to do with the situation than you might think. There is some bad history between Privan and Vic that maybe Vic will explain at a later date. I heard Vic tell the story on the Roger Stein show some months ago.



You, self-appointed horseracing muckraker ( nothing wrong with that and the game could possibly use more of this ), have the audacity to suggest that a respected racing writer wrote a factual report, about the kind of story you often seem to think gets swept under the carpet, becuase of some sort of personal animus? What, did he make up the story?

It is sadly surprising to see you, truth seeker, shooting the messanger in this case.

[andymays]

You, self-appointed horseracing muckraker ( nothing wrong with that and the game could possibly use more of this ), have the audacity to suggest that a respected racing writer wrote a factual report, about the kind of story you often seem to think gets swept under the carpet, becuase of some sort of personal animus? What, did he make up the story?

It is sadly surprising to see you, truth seeker, shooting the messanger in this case.

According to Roger Stein Privman made the first call to the CHRB and Mike Marten. You can listen to the archived show!

I can confidently tell you that you are wrong because you don't know the story. I got it from the "Horses Mouth". When I have an opinion that seems a little out of the norm I have something to base it on. Usually! ;)

I tried to get Vic to tell the story here a while ago because he had told it on the Roger Stein show several months ago. If he chooses to do so you will have a different opinion. You can take my word for it or not!

[the little guy]

You should have thought longer before responding.

[andymays]

You should have thought longer before responding.


I'm not sure what you mean.

[Imriledup]

You, self-appointed horseracing muckraker ( nothing wrong with that and the game could possibly use more of this ), have the audacity to suggest that a respected racing writer wrote a factual report, about the kind of story you often seem to think gets swept under the carpet, becuase of some sort of personal animus? What, did he make up the story?

It is sadly surprising to see you, truth seeker, shooting the messanger in this case.

no not THAT respected racing writer, he wouldn't EVER inject some personal animus into anything. :lol:

[the little guy]

no not THAT respected racing writer, he wouldn't EVER inject some personal animus into anything. :lol:

He wrote a story completely filled with facts. If either of you can point out any part of this story that contains one iota of the writer's personal opinion please do so. Otherwise you are making no sense....or worse.

[andymays]

He wrote a story completely filled with facts. If either of you can point out any part of this story that contains one iota of personal opinion please do so.

I'm telling you that there is more to the story.

According to Roger Stein Privman called the CHRB. Do you think it's Privmans duty to call the CHRB about this matter or should he have let the Stewards handle it?

[the little guy]

I'm telling you that there is more to the story.

According to Roger Stein Privman called the CHRB. Do you think it's Privmans duty to call the CHRB about this matter or should he have let the Stewards handle it?


Boy am I confused. Here I was thinking you were interested in reporters uncovering truth. I apologize for my confusion...but thank you for clearing things up.

[andymays]

Boy am I confused. Here I was thinking you were interested in reporters uncovering truth. I apologize for my confusion...but thank you for clearing things up.


I believe I asked you a question in post #34. Maybe I imagined that.

[Imriledup]

I believe I asked you a question in post #34. Maybe I imagined that.

Don't bother arguing with that poster, its not worth it.

[andymays]

I guess we have to wait for replies in between races! :)

[cj]

I'm telling you that there is more to the story.

According to Roger Stein Privman called the CHRB. Do you think it's Privmans duty to call the CHRB about this matter or should he have let the Stewards handle it?

In my opinion, it doesn't matter who reported it, and hats off to Privman if he in fact did so. Most writers are too afraid of losing the free press box lunch to write about anything controversial. The reason for writing the story doesn't matter if it is indeed truthful.

[andymays]

In my opinion, it doesn't matter who reported it, and hats off to Privman if he in fact did so. Most writers are too afraid of losing the free press box lunch to write about anything controversial. The reason for writing the story doesn't matter if it is indeed truthful.


Of course he should have written the story there is no question about that. I don't see anything wrong with what he wrote either. I'm just saying that there is more to it! It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Imriledup]

In my opinion, it doesn't matter who reported it, and hats off to Privman if he in fact did so. Most writers are too afraid of losing the free press box lunch to write about anything controversial. The reason for writing the story doesn't matter if it is indeed truthful.

hats off to privman? :bang:

[cj]

hats off to privman? :bang:

I guess it would be much better to merely ignore it until it just went away.

Now imagine, as an owner, you get what you perceive as a bum ride. It doesn't matter if you are right or not about the ride. The next day, the guy that lobbied your employee to put that very rider up approaches you and asks if the horse is for sale. That stinks. It is so clearly a conflict of interest I can't believe some don't see it. Maybe if Vic didn't post here there would be more objectivity.

The story here isn't really the ride in my opinion. It is the next day.

[Imriledup]

I guess it would be much better to merely ignore it until it just went away.

Now imagine, as an owner, you get what you perceive as a bum ride. It doesn't matter if you are right or not about the ride. The next day, the guy that lobbied your employee to put that very rider up approaches you and asks if the horse is for sale. That stinks. It is so clearly a conflict of interest I can't believe some don't see it. Maybe if Vic didn't post here there would be more objectivity.

The story here isn't really the ride in my opinion. It is the next day.

Bum rides happen all the time. If you don't like the ride, get a new rider next time, no need to stamp your feet like a 5 year old.

As far as Vic asking the guy if the horse is for sale, what's the difference if Vic asks or Joe Blow asks? If there's no difference, there is no conflict of interest. If there IS a difference, please let me know what it is.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

As far as Vic asking the guy if the horse is for sale, what's the difference if Vic asks or Joe Blow asks? If there's no difference, there is no conflict of interest. If there IS a difference, please let me know what it is.

Are you serious?

Think about it for a while.

Maybe you'll come up with one of a few reasons.

[Imriledup]

Are you serious?

Think about it for a while.

Maybe you'll come up with one of a few reasons.

I'm not as good as you, why don't you tell me.

The only way there would be a conflict is if Vic were to tell Glenney that Joel said the horse stinks and he wants to buy him anyway. But, even so, Glenney can say "i disagree with Joel, the horse is good" and price him accordingly. (or, say he's not for sale)

[bks]

Glenney pops at big, big prices, with a fair degree of regularity (meaning a few times a year from 60-70 starts, I would estimate). The sport needs more people like him. He's an owner-breeder-trainer who spends a lot of money.

He's not the best at spotting his horses, for sure, and it appears he may have some vanity, but his 6% is not like Steve Knapp's 6%, for instance. Knapp's a guy who starts a million horses and can't win unless it's a claiming race, a short field or a class plunger.

Glenney is also the owner of Lady's Secret, I believe (check me on it). He's not a complete nobody.

Cedros narrowly missed in the race prior to this one at 25-1, or else he wouldn't have been eligible in the race that Rosario gave him a bad ride.

And I think we should hold off on admitting Rosario to the Hall of Fame for a little while, too. He's a great talent and I have no interest in knocking him. But now that he's won a couple of leading rider titles in CA, I hope he shows up less on the no-hopers that the riders on the edge of survival need mounts on, in order to stay in the SoCal colony.

[PaceAdvantage]

Don't bother arguing with that poster, its not worth it.I laughed.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not as good as you, why don't you tell me.Here's a hypothetical for you:

Let's say you're looking to buy a particular horse. Wouldn't it be GREAT to be in a position to be able to make that horse appear WORSE than he actually is in terms of ABILITY? All this right before you approach the current owner and inquire about purchasing said horse?

What do you think that would do to the selling price of the horse if indeed the owner decides to sell?

That was a no-brainer, now wasn't it?

[Java Gold@TFT]

I have no idea what the answer is to this but does Vic own horses or was he maybe acting as a go-between for someone else who may have been interested in the horse? I'm not saying that there isn't at least the appearence of impropriety. It's just that if I knew Vic personally and knew that he obviously had a relationship with the owner as Rosario's agent, then maybe I would ask him to inquire about the horse before I approached the owner myself. I tend to doubt that anything nefarious was planned in advance but I do understand that it may raise concerns.

[Imriledup]

Here's a hypothetical for you:

Let's say you're looking to buy a particular horse. Wouldn't it be GREAT to be in a position to be able to make that horse appear WORSE than he actually is in terms of ABILITY? All this right before you approach the current owner and inquire about purchasing said horse?

What do you think that would do to the selling price of the horse if indeed the owner decides to sell?

That was a no-brainer, now wasn't it?

Its up to the owner/trainer to know the exact value of what the horse is worth to them. Its not Anyone else's responsibility but the owner's to know how much his horse is worth. Every owner and trainer knows if his horse is better than the lines look. No one is going to say "gee, my horse ran 4th, i thought he was better than that, oh well, i guess he's no good, i may as well sell him for a song....IF i can find anyone who will buy such a slowpoke"

No one says that. Every owner and trainer knows how good their horses are and if they don't, shame on them.

Even if the agent tells the rider (or the rider does it on his own and tells the agent after the fact) that this horse is better than he looks, its still up to the owner to know how much that horse is worth to him.

If Vic wanted to pull a fast one, he would never have approached the guy himself, he would have hired someone else to do it. But, he approached the guy looking to make a fair deal for the horse, he just wanted to know if the horse was for sale, he wasn't looking to have his rider put a bad line on the horse so he can try and rip someone off.

[PaceAdvantage]

If Vic wanted to pull a fast one, he would never have approached the guy himself, he would have hired someone else to do it. But, he approached the guy looking to make a fair deal for the horse, he just wanted to know if the horse was for sale, he wasn't looking to have his rider put a bad line on the horse so he can try and rip someone off.Look, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT VIC.

You asked the question...you said "I'm not as good as you, why don't you tell me."

I responded with a very common sense hypothetical situation.

If you don't believe that poor performances impact a horse's value in a negative fashion, well then, that's your right I suppose.

Of course, if poor performances did not impact a horse's value in a negative fashion, we'd probably see more agents for Sheikh Mohammad roaming the backstretch of Finger Lakes.

[andymays]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52620/rosario-ride-questioned-in-chrb-complaint

Originally scheduled Sept. 23 at Fairplex Park, the stewards hearing has been reset for for Oct. 2 at Santa Anita, according to CHRB spokesman Mike Marten.


In my opinion it is a big mistake on the part of the CHRB to let this issue go until October 2 before they make a decision. This is the kind of story that has a negative impact on everyone involved the longer it stays in the news. Because of the publicity the CHRB will surely give days to Rosario and some type of warning to Vic even though he didn't violate the letter of the law (rules).

It shouldn't be that hard to resolve. After watching the video replay multiple times now Cedros came out of the chute from the 9 hole and anyone that knows Del Mar knows how severe the turn is bending onto the main track. Rosario appeared to try to get the best postition for Cedros early in the race but the pace was fast and contested. Cedros was most likely spent at the top of the stretch but appeared to come on again in the middle of the stretch and probably could have gotten third place. The only thing you could possibly give Rosario days for was the appearance that he did not urge Cedros nearing the wire and could have gotten third place. Cedros had no chance of winning the race in my opinion.

As far as Vic goes if there is no rule against asking the Trainer/Owner of a Horse your Jockey rode in a recent race then it's a mute point. Granted in this case it doesn't look good.

[Imriledup]

Look, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT VIC.

You asked the question...you said "I'm not as good as you, why don't you tell me."

I responded with a very common sense hypothetical situation.

If you don't believe that poor performances impact a horse's value in a negative fashion, well then, that's your right I suppose.

Of course, if poor performances did not impact a horse's value in a negative fashion, we'd probably see more agents for Sheikh Mohammad roaming the backstretch of Finger Lakes.

Ok, i see what you are saying, you never mentioned Vic, it was silly of me to assume that you were talking about him in your 'hypothetical example' my bad, i'll try and do better next time.

There's a difference between a poor performance and a good performance/bad ride. This horse didn't race poorly, so his value would not have been negatively impacted.

[cj]

As far as Vic goes if there is no rule against asking the Trainer/Owner of a Horse your Jockey rode in a recent race then it's a mute point. Granted in this case it doesn't look good.

Andy, I like you, but that will end if you use 'mute' instead of 'moot' in the future.

[andymays]

Andy, I like you, but that will end if you use 'mute' instead of 'moot' in the future.


I'm on the west coast and it was 3:48 AM and hadn't had any coffee. I was still half :sleeping: !

I'm surprized The Little Guy didn't hit me over the head with that one! :eek:

[CBedo]

Its up to the owner/trainer to know the exact value of what the horse is worth to them. Its not Anyone else's responsibility but the owner's to know how much his horse is worth. Every owner and trainer knows if his horse is better than the lines look. Actually, the last economics class I took taught me that the value of something is set by supply & demand. So the perception of the value by outside buyers would most definitely affect the selling price , especially if the owner is in a position where he needs to sell the horse. You don't always get full "value" for products you sell.

[turfnsport]

Andy, I like you, but that will end if you use 'mute' instead of 'moot' in the future.

Obviously, Andy must be a TVG viewer and it was a Freudian slip.

[so.cal.fan]

Good one, Turf and Sport!

CJ? Is that what you call a malapropos?

Maybe Andy meant MUTE. :lol:

[andymays]

Obviously, Andy must be a TVG viewer and it was a Freudian slip.


That works! :ThmbUp:

[JimHunter]

I watched this ride and I think Rosario was not thrilled with what he felt under him. Horse looked a little erratic with its action on the far turn epsecially.

[PaceAdvantage]

Ok, i see what you are saying, you never mentioned Vic, it was silly of me to assume that you were talking about him in your 'hypothetical example' my bad, i'll try and do better next time.

There's a difference between a poor performance and a good performance/bad ride. This horse didn't race poorly, so his value would not have been negatively impacted.It's also silly of me to assume your question was a genuine one. It's obvious you have little interest in participating in any sort of meaningful manner.

My hypothetical example could easily apply to a vet, a jockey, a jockey's agent, even a trainer who might want to pull a fast one on his owner ("I'll take him off your hands....")

Next time don't ask the question if you don't want an answer.

[Imriledup]

Actually, the last economics class I took taught me that the value of something is set by supply & demand. So the perception of the value by outside buyers would most definitely affect the selling price , especially if the owner is in a position where he needs to sell the horse. You don't always get full "value" for products you sell.

What outside buyers think doesn't matter in this case, this is just a case of one man asking another man how much he would sell the horse for. If there were actually several outside buyers and this guy got numerous calls for this specific horse, than the value might rise because of the competition of so many people wanting to buy said horse. If the owner needs the money and hypothetically sells the horse for less money than he's worth on the open market, than that isn't anyone's fault but the owners. Whether a high profile jocks agent or just some person who loved the horse off of video tape calls, its all the same thing.

[CBedo]

What outside buyers think doesn't matter in this case, this is just a case of one man asking another man how much he would sell the horse for. If there were actually several outside buyers and this guy got numerous calls for this specific horse, than the value might rise because of the competition of so many people wanting to buy said horse. If the owner needs the money and hypothetically sells the horse for less money than he's worth on the open market, than that isn't anyone's fault but the owners. Whether a high profile jocks agent or just some person who loved the horse off of video tape calls, its all the same thing.So you're saying what outside buyers think doesn't matter, but if there were other interested parties (outside buyers), then it would? :confused: Don't you think that if there was outside interest, then the answer to what one man asking another how much he would sell for would possibly be a different answer? And wouldn't a poor performance possibly affect how much outside interest there was, and how much interest they might have? :bang:

[PaceAdvantage]

Whether a high profile jocks agent or just some person who loved the horse off of video tape calls, its all the same thing.Not if, as in my hypothetical situation, the high profile jocks agent instructed his jockey to make sure the horse finished back of the pack....

Not saying that's what happened in this case, but surely you can see the potential conflict of interest and the potential fraud something like this can produce.

It's not all the same thing, and I don't understand how you can think so. A person who "loved the horse off a video tape" does not have the ability to try and make the horse look worse than he actually is, ability-wise, and thus directly affect the selling price of the horse.

[Robert Goren]

This was a maiden race. The horse would have worth less if he had won. If he had ran second he would been worth more. I watch the race several times and imo the horse was on his own at the top of stretch. I do not know if he would have won with a little urging, but he could have easily ran third. The whole thing has a bad smell about it. Another black eye for racing. Many of us that wager on horse have become use to this sort of thing. It is just sad.

[andymays]

Cedros had no chance of winning the race given the early contested pace. He should have gotten third money though. Rosario appeared to give Cedros a normal ride until the 3/8 when he dropped back only to come on again in the stretch. Glenney is the type of Trainer who's horses rarely hold their form and he usually spots them over their head. For him to say Cedros would have won the race given the contested early pace is just wrong. He has a right to be mad that he didn't get third money and the offer the next day added insult to injury so he has a right to be mad about that as well.

The ride isn't even close to the "non-ride" given by William Antongeorgi at Golden Gate a couple of months ago for which he was given seven days. I can't imagine Vic even asking to buy the Horse if he knew Glenney was so pissed about the ride but that's just speculation. It is obvious that there are offers made for Horses every day, and we need someone on the Board who knows to tell us how it works. On the Roger Stein show he said this sort of thing is done all the time but under certain circumstances it could be seen as shady and he cited an example during the radio show. He also seemed to think this one looked bad.

It is a potential conflict and it does look bad given the circumstances. I have a feeling there will be some new rules made over this and it will be interesting to see what shakes out.

The only way this blows up is if Rosario says that someone told him not to ride the Horse too hard because someone else wanted to buy him. I can't see him saying that!

[Imriledup]

So you're saying what outside buyers think doesn't matter, but if there were other interested parties (outside buyers), then it would? :confused: Don't you think that if there was outside interest, then the answer to what one man asking another how much he would sell for would possibly be a different answer? And wouldn't a poor performance possibly affect how much outside interest there was, and how much interest they might have? :bang:

A poor performance would affect outside interest. Just because a horse finishes 4th on paper, doesn't mean that what you see on video is 'poor'. This particular horse (in our hypothetical example) raced well. He's better than looked. (which means he's better than he looks on paper).

The key to what you say is the ability of the rider to make the horse actually look bad on VIDEO. In this case, of our hypothetical example, the horse in question looks great on tape. He looked great in the previous race storming from the back at 25-1 galloping out 10 in front also.

If a jock was instructed to make the horse look bad on paper, our hypothetical jock did a bad job because the entire world saw the horse running out of his skin after battling in a speed duel and being very wide on turn one.

[v j stauffer]

Want you guys to know I'm watching, listening and learning. Appreciate all the input both negative and positive. Would love to comment but out of respect to Joel, Mr. Glenny and all involved I will not. The hearing is Oct. 2nd. We're looking forward to presenting our testimony and moving forward. Joel is enjoying his much deserved vacation. Tina and I are celebrating our marriage a week ago Saturday in Marin at Brent Sumja's house. What a blessed man I am that such a wonderful caring woman has chosen to be with me. I'll be back to work either Wednesday or Thursday morning. Probably Friday for Joel. We're both very focused and dedicated to the goal of Joel achieving his third consecutive So. Cal. riding title.

All the best.

Vic Stauffer

[CBedo]

Congratulations and good luck the rest of the year. Thanks for checking in with us.

[pandy]

Congratulations Vic and good luck, keep up the good work, we all love hearing your calls.

[so.cal.fan]

Congratulations, Vic and Tina!
See you at Oak Tree.

[JimHunter]

Jock Agents often broker deals to sell horses, but the morning after a race is a little odd. But we do not know the premise of the conversation. Perhaps the trainer said something like "If he can't beat that field, I might as well give him away" (not being 100% serious but more out of disappointment) and Stauffer said, "really, if you want to sell him let me know".

[Mineshaft]

Jock agents sell horses, buy horses, and own horses. They all do it. Anything to make some money.

[Hanover1]

Some feel it was a stiff job, while others just saw a horse that was a little short, or to close to the pace. Other insinuations should be irrelevant.

[Imriledup]

Seemed like this is a tough horse to ride, he's big and gangly and his legs are flying all over the place, he's not exactly the most 'correct' specimen out there. Not sure why anyone would want to buy a horse with a funky gait, but to each his own.

[Barney Rubble]

Jock agents sell horses, buy horses, and own horses. They all do it. Anything to make some money.

This may be the case, but it certainly does create potential conflicts of interest.

[andymays]

This may be the case, but it certainly does create potential conflicts of interest.


Kinda like if the Rubbles or the Flintstones tried to buy a brontosaurus! ;)

Just Kidding. I agree with you! :ThmbUp:

[Imriledup]

This may be the case, but it certainly does create potential conflicts of interest.

It can be said that most everyone in horse racing is seperated by the 6 degrees of seperation. That means you can concoct some sort of conflict if you wanted to. Bottom line remains that no matter who asks you to sell a horse, its your responsibility to know the value of your animal.

[jotb]

Jock agents sell horses, buy horses, and own horses. They all do it. Anything to make some money.

Please don't use the word "all". This is not true. I don't own, buy or sell horses. It's not good to get involved in that type of business if you are a jock agent. I once helped a trainer sell a horse to a friend of mine (didn't make a dime from the purchase) and it didn't work out well for my friend. I felt really bad. So, I made it my business never to get involved again.

My job is to sell a jock and that's it. I don't go around asking trainer's if they are selling such and such horse. Why in the world would a jock agent ask a trainer after his rider just rode the horse if he is for sale the very next day? It really makes no sense to do that especially after the trainer was suspicious about the ride to begin with. The other thing to take into consideration is the relationship between the trainer, agent, and jockey. It's not like they have been doing business a long time. Trainer has ridden Joel only twice. Usually the trainer rides Court on his horses but he's no longer there. So, how well does Vic know Glenney business wise? Would Vic feel comfortable enough to ask Glenney if the horse is for sale? I know Joel and Vic have plenty of clients but if you are trying to get into another outfit this would not be a good approach. JMHO.

Joe

[Mineshaft]

Please don't use the word "all". This is not true. I don't own, buy or sell horses. It's not good to get involved in that type of business if you are a jock agent. I once helped a trainer sell a horse to a friend of mine (didn't make a dime from the purchase) and it didn't work out well for my friend. I felt really bad. So, I made it my business never to get involved again.

My job is to sell a jock and that's it. I don't go around asking trainer's if they are selling such and such horse. Why in the world would a jock agent ask a trainer after his rider just rode the horse if he is for sale the very next day? It really makes no sense to do that especially after the trainer was suspicious about the ride to begin with. The other thing to take into consideration is the relationship between the trainer, agent, and jockey. It's not like they have been doing business a long time. Trainer has ridden Joel only twice. Usually the trainer rides Court on his horses but he's no longer there. So, how well does Vic know Glenney business wise? Would Vic feel comfortable enough to ask Glenney if the horse is for sale? I know Joel and Vic have plenty of clients but if you are trying to get into another outfit this would not be a good approach. JMHO.

Joe






Correct not ALL do it but some do it. Should of worded it better.

[LottaKash]

I totally agree with you, Glenney must think he is a Hall of Fame trainer and Rosario is a bug boy. You can try to tell a jockey how to ride, but they don't have to listen, and probably shouldn't most of the time because many trainers are horrible handicappers. In this case, you had one of the top riders in the sport, and as you said, most top riders are going to ride the race the way the see fit.

Well said Pandy.....:ThmbUp:

Perhaps, the horse just wasn't good enough on the day...That would explain much...

best,

[Imriledup]

Its funny how the best rider right now in So Cal is being accused of something that can be described as less than full effort. Normally, from an economic standpoint, jockeys who are struggling and going from paycheck to paycheck are the ones who need to be looked at more closely on an everyday basis.


Jocks like Rosario have too much to lose, they make too much money to toss everything away on something like this.


I'm not sure i'm totally on board with trying to tarnish the reputation of a jock who's been riding the hair off horses on an everyday basis.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not sure i'm totally on board with trying to tarnish the reputation of a jock who's been riding the hair off horses on an everyday basis.And who is doing that? We're all commenting on a story in the nationwide racing press.

[andymays]

And They're Off! Hosted by Lenny Shulman and Steve Haskin, “And They’re Off” is a bi-monthly online video series sponsored by Darby Dan Farm.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/videos/watch/D9B17071-4006-4254-B809-40C57F4DEAAF

Excerpt:

Lenny and Steve discuss the California Horse Racing Board complaint against Joel Rosario, Woodbine results and their Breeders' Cup implications, and the Keeneland September Yearling Sale, including comments from Keeneland Director of Sales, Geoffrey Russell. Plus, a Rachel Alexandra factoid.

[andymays]

from Mike Marten (CHRB)

Jay Privman called me on or about September 11 to tell me about Rosario, Glenney, and Stauffer and to ask whether the Board was investigating this matter. I made inquiries, and then I called Jay back and advised him the CHRB does not confirm or deny investigations until a complaint has been filed. I told him I would let him know if and when one was filed. We discussed how one year earlier he had approached the Board concerning another complaint and that we had given him the same response about not confirming or denying and the same assurances, only that time he wound up reading about it in the Blood-Horse before he received official word of the complaint from the CHRB. I promised him that I would not let that happen again.


No one else called me about this matter.


I received that complaint on Wednesday, September 16, from the investigator. I placed it in my file of cases to include in the weekly update. I wrote the weekly update on Friday, September 18, and sent it to the executive director and others to approve. Around 9 p.m. Friday, I spoke with Kirk Breed and he said we needed one more OK and that we should complete the update early Saturday morning. I reminded him that Jay Privman had approached us a week earlier and was waiting on confirmation. I said I was concerned that if Jay left for the track very early Saturday, he might get to the track and hear about the complaint from someone else – and be right back where he was a year ago. Kirk Breed authorized me to contact Jay.


I called Jay at a little after 9 p.m. Friday and told him we would be releasing this complaint first thing in the morning. I read the complaint to him. He asked me some other questions that I could not or would not answer. He thanked me and said he would write something in the morning.


Shortly after 7 a.m. Saturday I received authorization from Kirk Breed to release the weekly update, which I then provided to our Website manager, commissioners, investigators, executives, and stewards.



To this date, I have not discussed Vic Stauffer or John Glenney with anyone, including Jay Privman. When Jay asked me about Vic Stauffer, I said I had no knowledge of Vic Stauffer other than what Jay himself had related to me. Everything Jay wrote about Vic Stauffer he got on his own. My only statement is that the CHRB has filed a complaint against Joel Rosario for the reasons cited in the complaint and weekly update.



I hope this answers your questions.

[Imriledup]

from Mike Marten (CHRB)

Jay Privman called me on or about September 11 to tell me about Rosario, Glenney, and Stauffer and to ask whether the Board was investigating this matter. I made inquiries, and then I called Jay back and advised him the CHRB does not confirm or deny investigations until a complaint has been filed. I told him I would let him know if and when one was filed. We discussed how one year earlier he had approached the Board concerning another complaint and that we had given him the same response about not confirming or denying and the same assurances, only that time he wound up reading about it in the Blood-Horse before he received official word of the complaint from the CHRB. I promised him that I would not let that happen again.


No one else called me about this matter.


I received that complaint on Wednesday, September 16, from the investigator. I placed it in my file of cases to include in the weekly update. I wrote the weekly update on Friday, September 18, and sent it to the executive director and others to approve. Around 9 p.m. Friday, I spoke with Kirk Breed and he said we needed one more OK and that we should complete the update early Saturday morning. I reminded him that Jay Privman had approached us a week earlier and was waiting on confirmation. I said I was concerned that if Jay left for the track very early Saturday, he might get to the track and hear about the complaint from someone else – and be right back where he was a year ago. Kirk Breed authorized me to contact Jay.


I called Jay at a little after 9 p.m. Friday and told him we would be releasing this complaint first thing in the morning. I read the complaint to him. He asked me some other questions that I could not or would not answer. He thanked me and said he would write something in the morning.


Shortly after 7 a.m. Saturday I received authorization from Kirk Breed to release the weekly update, which I then provided to our Website manager, commissioners, investigators, executives, and stewards.



To this date, I have not discussed Vic Stauffer or John Glenney with anyone, including Jay Privman. When Jay asked me about Vic Stauffer, I said I had no knowledge of Vic Stauffer other than what Jay himself had related to me. Everything Jay wrote about Vic Stauffer he got on his own. My only statement is that the CHRB has filed a complaint against Joel Rosario for the reasons cited in the complaint and weekly update.



I hope this answers your questions.


I never realized Jay Privman was so interested in stuff like this. There are dozens and dozens of complaints, accusations, drug positives and other weird stuff involving trainers, owners, grooms, exercise riders, jockeys and other people in the industry to fill up pages and pages, i didn't realize Jay was some watchdog for bad behavior. The reason i didn't realize this was because i seldom ever read a Jay Privman authored article that talks about anything that isn't a positive racing story.

Who knew.

[statepierback]

I wonder what went down at the meeting this morning?

[Marlin]

It appears Mr. Privman must have a beef with the parties in question. Very interesting that a member of the "media" would not only press this issue but instigate it. As a poster stated "it doesn't smell right". To me the stench comes from Privman and an apparent personal vendetta. Good luck Mr. Privman. I hope the CHRB "hangs" Rosario and Stauffer for you.

[andymays]

As I said earlier in the thread maybe Vic will come out and tell the board about the feud. He spoke about it on the Roger Stein show many months ago.

Hey, we can kick off a "Famous Feuds in Racing" series. ;)

[Mineshaft]

Yep sounds like Privman has a beef with the people in question.

Is Privman the same guy who does some ESPN work also?

[cj]

It still doesn't mean he wrote anything false.

[andymays]

It still doesn't mean he wrote anything false.


Privman didn't write anything false and the article reported the facts of the case.

As a journalist he probably should have reported that he had a conversation with Mike Marten about the incident. I understand that on face value the story looks one way but there is a back story. Privman probably shouldn't have interjected himself into the story. He may have even let someone else from the DRF report the story. The statement by Mike Marten speaks volumes about the situation and there will be more to come out.

[cj]

Reporters are supposed to investigate. The reason really doesn't matter.

That said, I doubt the whole story will EVER come out.

[andymays]

Reporters are supposed to investigate. The reason really doesn't matter.

That said, I doubt the whole story will EVER come out.


Vic told the back story on the Roger Stein show. Maybe he can PM me with the date if the archived show is still up.

It's a predicament for the CHRB because of the publicity. I think Rosario will get 3 days and there may be some rule changes or adjustments.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I say he gets zero days and no fine regardless of the actual opinions -

To substantiate the question regarding his effort must substantiate the merit of a claim regarding his intent in so doing.

I really don't believe that anyone wishes to travel down the second path, therefore I will speculate that the stewards will announce "how seriously" they take these matters, but that in speaking with Mr. Rosario and his attorneys they have concluded that there was no "clear intent" to cost his horse a better placing or to "cause the mount to shorten stride".

Concurring that the rider could have used better judgement, which likely may have resulted in a better placing, the stewards will offer a stern warning to the rider about decision making while race riding and the unfortunate perception problems that can occur due to poor decisions.

Or something like that...

[statepierback]

My guess no days, maybe a fine $100 - $300.

[Imriledup]

Regardless of Privman reporting nothing but the truth, why was it that Vic was tossed into this article for trying to buy a horse? From where i see it, Vic didn't break any racing rules, did he?

Lets talk about the racing rule/law that Vic broke and we can go from there.

[PaceAdvantage]

Lets talk about the racing rule/law that Vic broke and we can go from there.Isn't that why the stewards met this morning? To decide what, if any, rules were broken?

[Imriledup]

Isn't that why the stewards met this morning? To decide what, if any, rules were broken?

I don't know. I was wondering if anyone knew of a rule that said a jockeys agent is not allowed to ask an owner or trainer if a horse that his jock rode is for sale. If no one knows the answer than yes, we will let the judges sort this out.

If there IS a rule that says no jock agent is allowed to inquire if a horse his jock rode is for sale than i haven't ever heard of it and was wondering if anyone has.

[cj]

I don't know. I was wondering if anyone knew of a rule that said a jockeys agent is not allowed to ask an owner or trainer if a horse that his jock rode is for sale. If no one knows the answer than yes, we will let the judges sort this out.

If there IS a rule that says no jock agent is allowed to inquire if a horse his jock rode is for sale than i haven't ever heard of it and was wondering if anyone has.

Lots of rules aren't made until somebody tries to do something stupid. Nobody can think of rules to cover every situation before the fact.

[statepierback]

As a gambler if you had that horse in the third hole you would be ticked off. Kent D. got several fines for not riding out races to the finish once beaten. Its called protecting the public. There may be a logical explanation. Perhaps Joel thought the horse was starting to bleed. Who knows? I watched the race again and with some more effort third place was very achievable.
As for the sales inquiry that isn't anything the stewards should rule on imho

[MakinItHappen]

What was the resolution to this issue?

Thank You!

MakinItHappen

[andymays]

I don't think they ruled on it yet.

[MakinItHappen]

Thank You, Andy! Appreciate the response.

MakinItHappen

[andymays]

Thank You, Andy! Appreciate the response.

MakinItHappen


I just sent an email to Mike Marten. He might know when the ruling is coming out.


Just got this back from Mike:

No, Andy, the hearing was postponed and probably will not take place until after the Breeders’ Cup.

[CBedo]

I just sent an email to Mike Marten. He might know when the ruling is coming out.


Just got this back from Mike:

No, Andy, the hearing was postponed and probably will not take place until after the Breeders’ Cup.At least they're timely......

[andymays]

At least they're timely......


Mike Marten is a great guy with a tough job. It's not his call but he has to deal with people like me asking questions (and sending him anti-synthetic articles every other day :)). This situation is one of those deals that they just don't want to address and hope people will forget about. It's becoming obvious that they think this one looks much worse than it really is.

[picojim]

Cedros is running tommorow in the grade 3 BRYAN STATION S
at keenland

Glenney must be really high on this horse :D

[bks]

TVGFan wrote:

Cedros is running tommorow in the grade 3 BRYAN STATION S
at keenland

Glenney must be really high on this horse

Laugh if you like. But how did you like Orthodox's chances earlier this year in a Kentucky grade 3?

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/50566/orthodox-45-1-lights-up-american-turf?id=50566&source=rss

[Mineshaft]

Cedros is running tommorow in the grade 3 BRYAN STATION S
at keenland

Glenney must be really high on this horse :D






Dude should have his license taken away. What a dumbass move for running this horse in a stakes race. There are some dumb people in this business.

[andymays]

Rosario hearing starts (Halfway down the page and underneath another article)

http://www.drf.com/news/article/109059.html


A long-delayed hearing into charges by the California Horse Racing Board that jockey Joel Rosario "did not put forward his best effort riding his horse to the finish line" in a race at Del Mar on Sept. 6 began Thursday at Hollywood Park. But testimony dragged and only three witnesses were called in nearly two hours before the hearing was adjourned until Dec. 3.

Luis Jauregui, a former jockey who is now the local safety steward, testified as a witness for the racing board, while retired Hall of Fame jockey Gary Stevens - now a trainer - and Darrell Haire, the Western regional manager for the Jockeys' Guild, testified on behalf of Rosario.

The charges were filed by the state racing board more than two months ago, following a complaint by John Glenney, who trains and co-owns Cedros, Rosario's mount in the 11th race on Sept. 6. According to the race's official chart, Cedros "fell back some leaving the second turn and angled in, continued along the rail in the stretch and was edged for the show." He finished a head behind the third-place finisher, Never.

[andymays]

Roger Stein explains the issue on his show this morning.

Archive show up about 10:00 AM PST.

http://www.rogerstein.com/radio/archive2.asp

He spoke to Vic who was in Maui according to Roger.

Roger does a good job explaining the situation!

Jay Privman the author has more to do with the situation than you might think. There is some bad history between Privan and Vic that maybe Vic will explain at a later date. I heard Vic tell the story on the Roger Stein show some months ago.


This is an update on the original thread comment.


By Ray Paulick
http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/eclipsed-voting-process/#comments

Excerpt:

I quit the National Turf Writers Association after the 2001 media Eclipse Awards were announced and then-NTWA president Jay Privman of the Daily Racing Form unfairly, in my opinion, questioned the eligibility of a piece written by one of the winners, Laura Hillenbrand. Hillenbrand, author of the best-selling book “Seabiscuit: An American Legend,” had previously won an Eclipse Award in 1998 for an article on Seabiscuit published in American Heritage magazine. Her 2001 award was for an original adaptation from the Seabiscuit book that appeared in Equus magazine.
As I recall, Privman, as NTWA president, sent an email to members criticizing the awarding of a second Eclipse to Hillenbrand and suggesting it was “unseemly” of her to even submit the piece for consideration. It was my understanding he was trying to have her stripped of the award.
I had never met Hillenbrand but admired her work, believing that her treatment of Seabiscuit (which was made into a wildly popular movie) was one of the biggest boosts in positive publicity Thoroughbred racing had received in many, many years. I even wrote that Hillenbrand be given an Eclipse Award of Merit, in part because of her personal circumstances: she was afflicted with chronic fatigue syndrome and often struggled to even sit upright and work on her computer while writing the book.


Comments below article:

1. Vic Stauffer Says:
November 16th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Thanks for writing about Jay Privman and his continuing inapropriate behaviour. I was also personally effected by his agendas and bias. A few years back I submitted a radio feature that I wrote, produced (along with Kip Hannon) and narrated. It was a tribute to the great Laffit Pincay Jr. We submitted it for Eclipse consideration and WON! 2nd Eclipse for me and first for Kip. We were thrilled. When it aired it I made a small facutal error regarding the date of a certain incident. I played it for Jay who at the time was masquerading as my friend and collleague. He pointed out the mistake and suggested we re-air the segment correcting the error. I explained to him that since it centered around Laffit’s birthday that would not work. He understood and said that he loved the tribute despite the error. Little did we know that Jay was laying in wait to try to have our award recinded. Both he and Jennie Rees a racing writer from Louisville launched a behind the scenes campaign to have our Eclipse taken away. Letters were sent to the membership of the National Turf Writers ( not well recieved by the rank and file)and pressure was put on Keith Chamblain of the NTRA contending that both Kip and I had acted fraudulently by submitting the piece knowing there was an error. Only one problem. Neither of them had any official say over the voting or certification process. They simply took it upon themeselves to interject their opinion in a matter they had no juristiction over. It caused such a firestorm that Chamblain and the NTRA panicked. They re-opened the voting ,which there was totally no protocol for. Ultimately a radio station in Baltimore (WBAL) was also given the Eclipse and two awards were presented that year. In my opinion Privman who at the time was very close friends with Kip Hannon (that ended) couldn’t see past his long standing disdain for me and felt compelled to take this action. Knowing full well that it couldn’t be in the best interest of our sport. The Eclipse awards are a time to rejoice all that is good about horseracing. Not a venue to let petty jealousy and longtime misguided hatred sully the celebration. Oh BTW at the time Privman had a competing radio show in the very same market that our piece aired and ultimately won. Perhaps a case of “production envy”?

I could give you ten other examples of his pettiness involing myself and others but I don’t feel like wasting more of my time thinking about such a sad, vindictive, jealous person. Thanks for having the courage to walk away from him as well and follow the same path myself and many others have chosen. Vic Stauffer

[hazzardm]

There are many in the media that feel reporting of the news gives them a superior moral compass. They feel personal opinions are more highly formulated, but in reality their opinions are no better or worse then anyone elses. Look to todays politics and often the buzz is focued on HOW an incident is reported, versus the incident itself.

[andymays]

There are many in the media that feel reporting of the news gives them a superior moral compass. They feel personal opinions are more highly formulated, but in reality their opinions are no better or worse then anyone elses. Look to todays politics and often the buzz is focued on HOW an incident is reported, versus the incident itself.


Good points! :ThmbUp:

When I put up the original thread some were questioning my bringing up Privman and I understand where they were coming from. The thing is I knew there was some bad blood involved and thought it curious that Privman invovled himself in the story by calling the CHRB and not originally reporting that in the first story.

Anyway, this one could go down in the "Famous Feuds in Racing" series that someone ought to do! It hasn't reached the level of Jamgotchian vs. Shapiro yet. :)

At the very least if gives those of us on the Boards something to talk about! :D

[foregoforever]

[/B]
This is an update on the original thread comment.


If you're going to quote all that, why didn't you include Jennie Rees' comments about her involvement in the issue? I'd encourage those interested to read the entire thread. My opinion changed about half way through it.

Privman may or may not be a jerk -- I have no information either way -- but my many friends from Louisville all swear by Jennie, and I've swapped a few emails with her as well. She states her concerns very clearly, and I'm with her on it. When an Eclipse nominated piece has a fundamental error in fact, and the author knew about it but didn't feel the need to correct it, that's a problem. Jennie's a professional journalist; Vic isn't, and it's clear that they have different takes on the need for factual accuracy vs. the emotional appeal of a story.

I encourage everyone to read the entire thread.

[andymays]

If you're going to quote all that, why didn't you include Jennie Rees' comments about her involvement in the issue? I'd encourage those interested to read the entire thread. My opinion changed about half way through it.

Privman may or may not be a jerk -- I have no information either way -- but my many friends from Louisville all swear by Jennie, and I've swapped a few emails with her as well. She states her concerns very clearly, and I'm with her on it. When an Eclipse nominated piece has a fundamental error in fact, and the author knew about it but didn't feel the need to correct it, that's a problem. Jennie's a professional journalist; Vic isn't, and it's clear that they have different takes on the need for factual accuracy vs. the emotional appeal of a story.

I encourage everyone to read the entire thread.


Go ahead and post the quote (comments) here like I did in the other post. You can use the link above to find it. The diversity of opinion makes for a better discussion! :)

[foregoforever]

Go ahead and post the quote (comments) here like I did in the other post. You can use the link above to find it. The diversity of opinion makes for a better discussion! :)

Absolutely. When I wandered over there Sunday - also prompted by Stein's comment - I didn't expect to spend nearly that much time reading. It's quite interesting, and not at all a slam dunk.

I also accept the notion that a complete jerk -- and perhaps Privman is one -- can act on principle once in a while, and a fellow who seems like a really nice guy -- like Vic -- can be off base once in a while.

[andymays]

Absolutely. When I wandered over there Sunday - also prompted by Stein's comment - I didn't expect to spend nearly that much time reading. It's quite interesting, and not at all a slam dunk.

I also accept the notion that a complete jerk -- and perhaps Privman is one -- can act on principle once in a while, and a fellow who seems like a really nice guy -- like Vic -- can be off base once in a while.


You're right of course.

My opinion is that given the history of their relationship Privman should recuse himself from any reporting on Rosario/Stauffer and let another reporter for the DRF handle it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Who cares who puts pen to paper as long as the facts are documented accurately. Every writer has a bias to some degree; personally, I'd rather see someone with an axe to grind compelled to follow up on the story than have it squashed by those that have a need to be loved by 'celebrity'.

If Privman engages in editorial misconduct - hold him accountable.

If Stauffer engaged in professional misconduct - hold him accountable.

Isn't that the type of scenario that the skeptical racing cynics are always hoping for?

I think Stauffer is a fantastic race caller, one of my favorites, and it is refreshing that he is accessible on forums such as this.

But, he isn't inviting me or anyone else here for dinner and a movie because we 'love' him, so there isn't any reason to bend over backwards treating him any different than people would anyone else in the industry... and I think he seems to really get the benefit of the doubt from message board regulars WAY more than anyone else would in a similar situation.

This story isn't about Jay Privman and Vic Stauffer - don't make it as such - it's merely a distraction from facts or lack thereof. It's about Vic Stauffer, Joel Rosario, John Glenney, and Cedros. Wait for the ruling, if there is one.

Honestly - It's a little odd that Stauffer writing a diatribe about how he was wronged by Privman is heralded like some badge of honor, yet when Privman reports on an actual, documented news story, he's portrayed as some kind of instigator with a bone to pick... maybe he does... but as near as I can tell, his story was factual and topical and of public interest - he did his job.

[andymays]

The incidents in question had more of an appearance of impropriety than actual impropriety in my opinion. It's more than obvious that the CHRB really wants this to go away. They should have ruled quickly on the matter and been done with it.

The secondary story about Privman and Stauffer is interesting to me because there are more than a couple of people with unflattering stories about Privman. Ray Paulicks' story would be a good example.

[the little guy]

The secondary story about Privman and Stauffer is interesting to me because there are more than a couple of people with unflattering stories about Privman. Ray Paulicks' story would be a good example.




OMG.....people working in racing who are disliked by others in the game???? This must be a first.

Are you suggesting, it seems like it, that nobody in racing has unflattering stories about either Vic Stauffer or Ray Paulick?

[andymays]

OMG.....people working in racing who are disliked by others in the game???? This must be a first.

Are you suggesting, it seems like it, that nobody in racing has unflattering stories about either Vic Stauffer or Ray Paulick?


First of all thanks for admitting you were wrong early in the thread when you hit me over the head for writing that there was more to the story because of the Privman/Stauffer relationship. :rolleyes:

I'm not suggesting anything so don't put words in my mouth. Read the thread and form your own conclusions.

Since I started the thread I feel an obligation to move it along and update it. If you are upset by that I'm sorry. :(

[cj]

It is always dangerous to take one side of the story as gospel, especially when one guy is a frequent internet poster and the other is not.

Since the Eclipse was in fact later "shared", wouldn't it indicate Privman and Rees were deemed to be right?

[the little guy]

First of all thanks for admitting you were wrong early in the thread when you hit me over the head for writing that there was more to the story because of the Privman/Stauffer relationship. :rolleyes:



I honestly hope you're joking.

[andymays]

The eclipse award thing and their personal animus is a side item to the main story that kicks the whole story up a notch.

Everyone can draw their own conclusions.

Since I brought up the Privman thing earlier in the thread I thought I should follow up when I caught the information from earlier in the month on the Paulick Report.

If anyone thinks the story is too one sided I have no problem having the thread locked up since I was the one who started it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Lock it?

This is a worthwhile exchange and a topical subject. If people are worried about getting the shaft with their gambling dollars and integrity issues, then this is a very pertinent discussion regardless of the outcome.

The only travesty is when there is controversy that isn't controversial because it isn't mentioned and people are left making their own assumptions.

Personally, I'd like to believe that there isn't much to the complaint and that after careful scrutiny and testimony, (most of) the people that feel wronged will emerge feeling as though there was a plausible explanation and that the system worked effectively in protecting their interests.

PS - good thread Andy.

[andymays]

It is one sided though and maybe that isn't fair to Privman.

Or maybe I'm getting soft! :D

[foregoforever]

It is one sided though and maybe that isn't fair to Privman.

Or maybe I'm getting soft! :D

OK, I'll stick up for him, going back to the apparent origin of this "feud".

His posting, which was corroborated by Rees, indicates that the two take their chosen profession seriously. They were disturbed that the highest award in their corner of journalism was going to a piece that contained a very fundamental error in fact and, probably more importantly, that the error had been pointed out ahead of time, by Privman, and Vic didn't feel the need to correct it ... and then submitted it for Eclipse consideration.

If I were a professional journalist, I'd feel the same way, and apparently at least two of the key voters did as well, as they changed their vote when informed of the error.

Vic's postings indicate that he feels they had no business raising the issue, and he shrugs off the error as irrelevant, since no one else seems to have been bothered by it. I disagree on both counts. Vic's not a journalist, of course, and his motives were great and the error unintentional, so he shouldn't be flayed alive for the flaw. But when you submit something for Eclipse consideration, you're stepping into that professional realm and should expect to be judged on that level.

What I find most objectionable about Vic's position is that he translates Privman's and Rees' professional concerns into some sort of personal vendetta, implying that jealously or other personal motives were involved. I see no evidence of that.

But if I were Privman, and raised the concerns on professional grounds, only to be accused by Vic of having a personal agenda, I probably would develop a grudge, being the imperfect person that I am. It's incredibly frustrating to argue anything on principle these days, for that very reason.

As far as the Hillenbrand episode, I was a bit puzzled back when she won the second award for the same reasons. They may have been different articles, but they were products of the same overall project, and the scenario that Privman puts forth, of a single book being parceled out to different magazine articles, is a legitimate concern, and one appropriate for the president of the organization that oversees the award to consider.

None of this is negative toward Hillenbrand in the least. I'm a great admirer of her work, and aware of her personal circumstances that make it even more remarkable. But she also seemed to take the questions as a personal attack on her integrity. This is really unfortunate. There are lots of issues facing us these days that are questions of principle, but if we continue to personalize all of them we're never going to get the right answers.

I know none of these people personally. I enjoy Privman's, Hillenbrand's and Rees' writing and Vic's announcing, and consider all of them to be at or near the top of their professions. I just tried to forget about the personalities and focus on the facts presented in the thread and, based on that, I think Priivman is getting a bum rap. His was the best written of all the postings in the thread, and he presented his case without personal references, sticking to the facts and principles involved. He also admitted to a few regrets, such as in not talking to Hillenbrand before raising the issue with her nomination.

Bottom line ... I started reading the thread expecting to conclude that Privman was the west coast version of Mike Lupica, but by the end I was on his side.

[Skanoochies]

It is one sided though and maybe that isn't fair to Privman.

Or maybe I'm getting soft! :D
Do you think for one minute Privman has not heard of PACE ADVANTAGE, or even more important,this thread. Hell, it`s by far the most popular racing site on the web.

V. Staufer has responded, why hasn`t Privman? :confused:

[andymays]

And I thought the fuse I had lit a some hours ago was faulty. :D

Good stuff foregoforever. :ThmbUp: Vic should probably respond to you and give you some anwers.

Skanoochies, I think Privman comes here once in a while but I'm not positive.

[cj]

Do you think for one minute Privman has not heard of PACE ADVANTAGE, or even more important,this thread. Hell, it`s by far the most popular racing site on the web.

V. Staufer has responded, why hasn`t Privman? :confused:

Privman has responded, as has Rees. If it were a fight, Vic loses by TKO. Check the original link.

[PaceAdvantage]

In the interest of fairness....a link to the Privman comment:

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/eclipsed-voting-process/#comment-18325

and a link to the Jennie Rees comment:

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/eclipsed-voting-process/#comment-18362

[Stillriledup]

Here's the problem that i see. Once Vic didn't heed Privman's advice to make the changes, did Privman have an interest to see the piece lose? Did he go out of his way to make sure it lost.? I don't know if this is true or not, i'd love to hear more on this.

Privman makes it out to seem that he has no grudges or agendas, but there are too many people who are coming out against privman and kind of painting a negative picture about him.

According to Vic, Privman comes out on his radio show
and talks about Vic's racecalling mistakes, that's kind of interesting to me because that seems to show that he has a agenda to embarrass Vic (also, there was something with this cedros incident, i don't know how Privman is involved in an exchange between a horse agent and trainer). Does Privman come out on his show and talk bad about Trevor Denman? For every mistake Vic makes, Denman makes 10. If Privman truly has no personal vendetta against Vic, he would make fun of Trevor's mistakes also, right?

[andymays]

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/eclipsed-voting-process/#comment-18325

Plenty of good points and counter points in the comments section of the article. It makes for good reading and by extension a good thread with the Board adding to it.

As I said in an earlier comment this Famous Feud is just another chapter in the Famous Feuds in Racing series! :ThmbUp:

[Dahoss9698]

Here's the problem that i see. Once Vic didn't heed Privman's advice to make the changes, did Privman have an interest to see the piece lose? Did he go out of his way to make sure it lost.? I don't know if this is true or not, i'd love to hear more on this.

Privman makes it out to seem that he has no grudges or agendas, but there are too many people who are coming out against privman and kind of painting a negative picture about him.

According to Vic, Privman comes out on his radio show
and talks about Vic's racecalling mistakes, that's kind of interesting to me because that seems to show that he has a agenda to embarrass Vic (also, there was something with this cedros incident, i don't know how Privman is involved in an exchange between a horse agent and trainer). Does Privman come out on his show and talk bad about Trevor Denman? For every mistake Vic makes, Denman makes 10. If Privman truly has no personal vendetta against Vic, he would make fun of Trevor's mistakes also, right?

Too many people coming out against Privman? Seriously? Did we read the same blog and comments?

I don't think anyone has to try and go out of their way to embarrass Vic. He does a pretty good job of that himself.

[andymays]

Maybe Vic has his faults like we all do but the bottom line is that he got the award, the Jockey, the announcers booth, and all the money that comes with that stuff!

He's pretty good at all those things and he must be a good handicapper to get all those live mounts for Joel.

[BillW-mod]

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program. :)

[Indulto]

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program. :)Gee, BW, gone from that mix was the only post from IRU/SRU I ever agreed with. I was going to frame it. ;)

[v j stauffer]

Too many people coming out against Privman? Seriously? Did we read the same blog and comments?

I don't think anyone has to try and go out of their way to embarrass Vic. He does a pretty good job of that himself.

Can't argue with that. Sharp post.

[Dahoss9698]

Can't argue with that. Sharp post.

Thanks man.

I know you can't help yourself (Obviously I can't either), but in my opinion it was pretty unprofessional of you to air your dirty laundry like that on a public blog. I don't know all of the details and like every story there are two sides. But, it just didn't seem like the right place to go about trying to smear someone.

[Robert Fischer]

I totally agree with you, Glenney must think he is a Hall of Fame trainer and Rosario is a bug boy. You can try to tell a jockey how to ride, but they don't have to listen, and probably shouldn't most of the time because many trainers are horrible handicappers. In this case, you had one of the top riders in the sport, and as you said, most top riders are going to ride the race the way the see fit.

while we're draggin this thread out to the maximum may as well comment on this too...

Instructions require "advanced" communication, and a reasonable request. If these two major bases are covered, then the trainer can weigh his options and make a business decision.

Even if you take the leap that Joel is a "Top rider in the sport" the same thing applies - the communication has to be there and the request reasonable - if you(or your translator) can't communicate with Joel(or his agent) then you the trainer have the choice to ride him anyway or look elsewhere. If the jock says "OK" and communicates well with English and then disregards the instructions - a trainer worth his salt files that and applies it to his future decisions.

[Stillriledup]

while we're draggin this thread out to the maximum may as well comment on this too...

Instructions require "advanced" communication, and a reasonable request. If these two major bases are covered, then the trainer can weigh his options and make a business decision.

Even if you take the leap that Joel is a "Top rider in the sport" the same thing applies - the communication has to be there and the request reasonable - if you(or your translator) can't communicate with Joel(or his agent) then you the trainer have the choice to ride him anyway or look elsewhere. If the jock says "OK" and communicates well with English and then disregards the instructions - a trainer worth his salt files that and applies it to his future decisions.

I agree with Pandy and put this in another thread, Guys like John Glenney aren't in a position to tell Joel Rosario how to ride or give instructions. They should just keep quiet and be glad they got the leading rider at Del Mar. If Joel listens to Glenney than that should be considered gravy, but he shouldn't expect him to listen. Top riders don't have to listen, that's the benefit of being a top rider. Glenney has used guys like Jon Court and other guys who can't ride at an elite level because those guys have to listen if they want to retain mounts.

I don't know about you guys, but if i was an agent for another top So Cal rider i wouldn't be breaking down JG's door trying to get mounts. Why would you want to ride for him if he has the desire to smear you and your agents name and act like a 5 year old stamping his feet because he didn't like the way the leading rider rode his horse? If i was an agent for a top 5 rider and Glenney wanted my guy i'd tell him i'm not available.

[the_fat_man]

Guys like John Glenney aren't in a position to tell Joel Rosario how to ride or give instructions. They should just keep quiet and be glad they got the leading rider at Del Mar. If Joel listens to Glenney than that should be considered gravy, but he shouldn't expect him to listen. Top riders don't have to listen, that's the benefit of being a top rider.

Having seen quite a few of Rosario's RETARDED RIDES, I'd think he's not exactly in a position, YET, where he can't follow instructions. Maybe when he's able to carry Dominguez' jock, for example, he might then be able to make the argument that he actually has a CLUE when it comes to setups. You really have to be kidding me with this TOP JOCK BS.

Gomez BLOWS a ton of rides (witness his COMICAL performance in the BC, for example) and even he's not at the level where he shouldn't 'listen'. And, lately, even Bejarano has started emulating some of his PREMATURE cohorts out there.

With all the rides these MIDGETS blow for connections, the last thing I want to read is that they shouldn't listen to instructions. Of course, most of the connections are cluless themselves, and thus have no idea what a good or bad ride is. Which goes a long way towards explaining why this game is so dificult.

'Put him on the OUTSIDE, without COVER and come WIDEST on the turns": the most common trip in racing.:bang:

[v j stauffer]

Having seen quite a few of Rosario's RETARDED RIDES, I'd think he's not exactly in a position, YET, where he can't follow instructions. Maybe when he's able to carry Dominguez' jock, for example, he might then be able to make the argument that he actually has a CLUE when it comes to setups. You really have to be kidding me with this TOP JOCK BS.

Gomez BLOWS a ton of rides (witness his COMICAL performance in the BC, for example) and even he's not at the level where he shouldn't 'listen'. And, lately, even Bejarano has started emulating some of his PREMATURE cohorts out there.

With all the rides these MIDGETS blow for connections, the last thing I want to read is that they shouldn't listen to instructions. Of course, most of the connections are cluless themselves, and thus have no idea what a good or bad ride is. Which goes a long way towards explaining why this game is so dificult.

'Put him on the OUTSIDE, without COVER and come WIDEST on the turns": the most common trip in racing.:bang:

Just curious. What exactly do you LIKE about our game?

[Stillriledup]

Having seen quite a few of Rosario's RETARDED RIDES, I'd think he's not exactly in a position, YET, where he can't follow instructions. Maybe when he's able to carry Dominguez' jock, for example, he might then be able to make the argument that he actually has a CLUE when it comes to setups. You really have to be kidding me with this TOP JOCK BS.

Gomez BLOWS a ton of rides (witness his COMICAL performance in the BC, for example) and even he's not at the level where he shouldn't 'listen'. And, lately, even Bejarano has started emulating some of his PREMATURE cohorts out there.

With all the rides these MIDGETS blow for connections, the last thing I want to read is that they shouldn't listen to instructions. Of course, most of the connections are cluless themselves, and thus have no idea what a good or bad ride is. Which goes a long way towards explaining why this game is so dificult.

'Put him on the OUTSIDE, without COVER and come WIDEST on the turns": the most common trip in racing.:bang:


I didn't say they shouldn't listen, i said they don't have to listen. Big difference. Joel Rosario might not be Laffit Pincay as of yet, but he's good enough at what he does to not have to listen to someone like John Glenney. Now, if John Sadler gives him instructions, he might want to listen. Glenney on the other hand, no. Why would you listen to a guy who can't train a dog to bark?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Assuming that a point about Glenney not being "worthy" of providing instructions has any merit whatsoever...

Why solicit/accept mounts from a man from which you have so little faith and/or respect in/for?

Contrary to popular belief, riders are working for trainers when they accept a mount.

I wouldn't try to make the case myself, but that line about Glenney not being worthy of treatment due any other professional provides the complainant one hell of a query as to motive.

That or it shows a general lack of professionalism on the part of those solicting/accepting the mount.

If I had an intimate stake in this mess and was posting in these threads, I think I'd make my first post a rebuttal assuring readers that Glenney isn't any less entitled to the same treatment as anyone else.

[Dahoss9698]

I didn't say they shouldn't listen, i said they don't have to listen. Big difference. Joel Rosario might not be Laffit Pincay as of yet, but he's good enough at what he does to not have to listen to someone like John Glenney. Now, if John Sadler gives him instructions, he might want to listen. Glenney on the other hand, no. Why would you listen to a guy who can't train a dog to bark?

Well, when they don't listen, doesn't the trainer have a right to have a beef? If you own and train a horse and you instruct the jockey that is riding YOUR horse on how to ride the horse....well, I think you have a beef if he/she doesn't ride to your instructions. Who you are should not matter.

Obviously Vic/Joel thought the horse was good enough to ride, so why fault the trainer when the jockey doesn't ride to his instructions? Not to mention all of the questionable actions during and after the race.

[Robert Fischer]

I agree with Pandy and put this in another thread, Guys like John Glenney aren't in a position to tell Joel Rosario how to ride or give instructions. They should just keep quiet and be glad they got the leading rider at Del Mar.
That's bullshit, any trainer has the right to ask and communicate with any Jockey(and if there is a 'code' Joel ain't even that big or irreplaceable by any means). If the jock says "No" or can't communicate then the trainer has the right to make a business decision. Hypothetically the trainer may still prefer a jock who can't handle instructions - the trainer has to weigh the pros and cons. If a trainer has more insight than other trainers he has to attempt to use that insight, this shit is business.

It aint about "if he listens" either
If the trainer wants a certain ride and if he gets that communication and an agreement is made, that's an agreement.

If the trainer is a knucklehead and asks unrealistic instructions or acts like an ass when trying to communicate - he loses respect and burns bridges. The trainer has to know what the hell he is doing when he asks instructions but he certainly has the right.

[Stillriledup]

Well, when they don't listen, doesn't the trainer have a right to have a beef? If you own and train a horse and you instruct the jockey that is riding YOUR horse on how to ride the horse....well, I think you have a beef if he/she doesn't ride to your instructions. Who you are should not matter.

Obviously Vic/Joel thought the horse was good enough to ride, so why fault the trainer when the jockey doesn't ride to his instructions? Not to mention all of the questionable actions during and after the race.

No, he doesn't because he knows going in that if he's hiring an elite rider he just accepts what he gets. People who own horses know that if they hire an elite jockey or driver (harness racing) they are hiring that guy knowing you can' t say a word to them. Top jocks are taking the mount knowing that you aren't going to give them advice. If you are wayne Lukas in his prime, you can tell a jock what to do and get results. Jocks will listen to Wayne in his prime type trainers, but they're just not listening to John Glenney and his small stable of raceway horses.

Who you are shouldnt matter and i'm sure that some jocks will listen to any trainer's instructions. But, i don't think that a trainer should throw a **** fit when a top jock doesn't listen. This is just the way it is.

[Stillriledup]

That's bullshit, any trainer has the right to ask and communicate with any Jockey(and if there is a 'code' Joel ain't even that big or irreplaceable by any means). If the jock says "No" or can't communicate then the trainer has the right to make a business decision. Hypothetically the trainer may still prefer a jock who can't handle instructions - the trainer has to weigh the pros and cons. If a trainer has more insight than other trainers he has to attempt to use that insight, this shit is business.

It aint about "if he listens" either
If the trainer wants a certain ride and if he gets that communication and an agreement is made, that's an agreement.

If the trainer is a knucklehead and asks unrealistic instructions or acts like an ass when trying to communicate - he loses respect and burns bridges. The trainer has to know what the hell he is doing when he asks instructions but he certainly has the right.

You own horses, you know how it works. If you call on that top jock/driver, you hand him the lines and say good luck. If you don't like the ride, you replace him and get someone else. If you cry about a ride, you look like a crybaby, especially if you are a trainer who's a nobody who's not even california based.

The reason that elite riders and drivers don't listen to anyone is because they didnt' get to be leading riders/drivers by listening to trainers on how to ride horses. Why should we just assume that John Glenney knows more about riding horses than Joel Rosario? Rosario is the jockey, he knows more about riding and Glenney knows more about training. This particular horse had a bad post and got hung wide and lost. It happens. JG needs to stop his crying and take it like a man. If you come out and criticize Joel Rosario, what top rider is going to want to ride for you in the future? You just get the repuation of a trainer who's going to cry to the press about a bad ride, who needs it.

[PaceAdvantage]

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program. :)Wow...Bill even deleted one of my posts! :lol:

I like it when moderators get proactive like this...makes my job a little easier...:lol:

Now let this be a lesson to the next pair who think nothing of turning a perfectly reasonable thread into their own, REPETITIVE slugfest. A couple of jabs here and there are entertaining, but when you go back and forth FIFTEEN PLUS times, you have to know you're going to get deleted...

[johnhannibalsmith]

You own horses, you know how it works. If you call on that top jock/driver, you hand him the lines and say good luck. If you don't like the ride, you replace him and get someone else. If you cry about a ride, you look like a crybaby, especially if you are a trainer who's a nobody who's not even california based.

The reason that elite riders and drivers don't listen to anyone is because they didnt' get to be leading riders/drivers by listening to trainers on how to ride horses. Why should we just assume that John Glenney knows more about riding horses than Joel Rosario? Rosario is the jockey, he knows more about riding and Glenney knows more about training. This particular horse had a bad post and got hung wide and lost. It happens. JG needs to stop his crying and take it like a man. If you come out and criticize Joel Rosario, what top rider is going to want to ride for you in the future? You just get the repuation of a trainer who's going to cry to the press about a bad ride, who needs it.

Maybe I completely misread every single thing relating to the subject, but Glenney didn't get file a complaint because he got a bad ride. He filed a complaint after the agent for the rider who delivered what he believed to be a bad ride solicited to purchase the horse.

It seems a crucial component of the equation is conveniently being ignored.

I'm assuming that there wasn't any complaint filed prior to the action of Mr. Stauffer and up and until that point, he was willing to do as you stated, accept it as a poor ride and move along.

[the_fat_man]

The reason that elite riders and drivers don't listen to anyone is because they didnt' get to be leading riders/drivers by listening to trainers on how to ride horses. Why should we just assume that John Glenney knows more about riding horses than Joel Rosario? Rosario is the jockey, he knows more about riding and Glenney knows more about training. This particular horse had a bad post and got hung wide and lost. It happens. JG needs to stop his crying and take it like a man. If you come out and criticize Joel Rosario, what top rider is going to want to ride for you in the future? You just get the repuation of a trainer who's going to cry to the press about a bad ride, who needs it.

Let's take the example of Gomez, Juddmonte, Frankel, and Ventura. Gomez BLEW:

1) the GRADE I Kilroe Mile, by futzing around with the reins in the stretch and getting run down by Gio Ponti

2) the GRADE I Madison, but MOVING TOO SOON

3)the BC Filly SPRINT by being conscious of the premature move in 2 (or, at least the barn made him conscious of this, since in was mentioned by the commentators before the race) and FALLING ASLEEP in a PACELESS race. (His performance in the BC overall was just flat out COMICAL.)

Oh, and he also MOVED TOO SOON in the Woodbine Mile (GRADE I) but lucked out as there really wasn't anything much in the race to beat her.

Now, you'd think the connections would finally replace the IDIOT. But they're riding him back in the Matriarch because he's a TOP JOCK. :lol: (Luckily for them, SOLIS, of all people, gets the mount on Diamondrella, so we can make the reasonable assumption that he'll **** up a lot more than Gomez will. )

A TOP JOCK that's only cost them THREE GRADE I WINS this year.

I could show you countless cases where bad rides have cost horses multiple wins over the course of a year. I mean, there are horses that are considered to be HANGERS that would be prolific winners with better rides. But, it appears, that the connections would rather go with your approach than actually CRITICIZE a jock. :rolleyes: Look what happens on this forum when anyone dares to post something negative about a jockey.

This is the dumbass environment we bet into.

[Dahoss9698]

No, he doesn't because he knows going in that if he's hiring an elite rider he just accepts what he gets. People who own horses know that if they hire an elite jockey or driver (harness racing) they are hiring that guy knowing you can' t say a word to them. Top jocks are taking the mount knowing that you aren't going to give them advice. If you are wayne Lukas in his prime, you can tell a jock what to do and get results. Jocks will listen to Wayne in his prime type trainers, but they're just not listening to John Glenney and his small stable of raceway horses.

Who you are shouldnt matter and i'm sure that some jocks will listen to any trainer's instructions. But, i don't think that a trainer should throw a **** fit when a top jock doesn't listen. This is just the way it is.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. Who knows the horse better than the guy who owns and trains him? What if the horse has some quirky thing that the jock needs to know? If Glenney hires Gomez, he isn't supposed to tell him because it's Garrett Gomez? He is just supposed to get what he gets? But, if he has Iggy Puglisi ride, he can tell him about it? Ridiculous....

You're also leaving out the gigantic part of why Glenney really filed the complaint. The questionable actions during and post race. I also don't agree Rosario is in the company you are putting him yet, but that's just personal opinion. You need to win more than one grade 1 race in your career in my opinion to be considered an elite rider.

[foregoforever]

Maybe I completely misread every single thing relating to the subject, but Glenney didn't get file a complaint because he got a bad ride. He filed a complaint after the agent for the rider who delivered what he believed to be a bad ride solicited to purchase the horse.

It seems a crucial component of the equation is conveniently being ignored.

I think you're correct as far as the sequence of events go, but the actual complaint being processed by the CHRB only refers to the ride. No charges were made against Vic.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I think you're correct as far as the sequence of events go, but the actual complaint being processed by the CHRB only refers to the ride. No charges were made against Vic.

:ThmbUp: Thank you for clarifying.

[andymays]

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/stevens-chrb-case-against-rosario-a-joke/

Excerpt:

STEVENS: CHRB CASE AGAINST ROSARIO A ‘JOKE’
By Ray Paulick

Excerpt:

When Hall of Fame jockey Gary Stevens heard about the complaint against Rosario, he said he “immediately got on the computer and said I’ve got to see this.” After watching the film of the race, he contacted Stauffer and said “if you need me to testify I will because this is a joke. After seeing the patrol films, I said I’ve got to say something about this.”

Excerpt:

As for Stauffer allegedly asking if Cedros was for sale, Stevens said, “I can’t believe he would be stupid enough to say something to (the trainer). John was upset with the ride…we all get upset with riders. But you never do that (offer to buy a horse), even if you won the race.”

Stauffer has not been charged by the CHRB with any wrongdoing.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/stevens-chrb-case-against-rosario-a-joke/

[Dahoss9698]

Personal biases aside, in the day and age of superfecta and high 5 wagers, it is imperative for jockeys to ride out to the finish.

There are two sides to the story and my understanding is Luis Jauregui, a well respected former jock and assistant steward spoke on behalf of the CHRB. Hopefully we get to hear what he had to say.

[Stillriledup]

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. Who knows the horse better than the guy who owns and trains him? What if the horse has some quirky thing that the jock needs to know? If Glenney hires Gomez, he isn't supposed to tell him because it's Garrett Gomez? He is just supposed to get what he gets? But, if he has Iggy Puglisi ride, he can tell him about it? Ridiculous....

You're also leaving out the gigantic part of why Glenney really filed the complaint. The questionable actions during and post race. I also don't agree Rosario is in the company you are putting him yet, but that's just personal opinion. You need to win more than one grade 1 race in your career in my opinion to be considered an elite rider.

I have plenty idea what i'm talking about. You just are not understanding clearly what i'm saying.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Excerpt:

As for Stauffer allegedly asking if Cedros was for sale, Stevens said, “I can’t believe he would be stupid enough to say something to (the trainer). John was upset with the ride…we all get upset with riders. But you never do that (offer to buy a horse), even if you won the race.”

Stauffer has not been charged by the CHRB with any wrongdoing.

Although I agree 100% with Stevens when he says that a jockey's agent should never offer to buy a horse which his rider just rode, how could he possibly know how stupid Vic is or imply that Vic didn't ask if the horse was for sale based on that?

If Vic did ask Glenney if the horse was for sale, when the shiit hit the fan, he should have immediately said his rider had nothing to do with it, rode the horse to the best of his ability and that he shouldn't have done what he did. Whatever would have came from that is better than not saying anything and letting his rider be dragged through the mud all this time if he did ask about the horse being for sale which was the obvious trigger for this whole problem.

[andymays]

I think the hearing is tomorrow so we will see how it ends up.

It's one of those things that looks bad but technichally isn't. I do know the CHRB should have put it to bed early. Dragging it out isn't good for anyone.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

It's one of those things that looks bad but technichally isn't. I do know the CHRB should have put it to bed early. Dragging it out isn't good for anyone.

Correct. Give Vic a $50 stupidity fine and end it the day after the complaint was filed.

[andymays]

Correct. Give Vic a $50 stupidity fine and end it the day after the complaint was filed.


$50???????

As good as Rosario is doing Vic probably uses a roll of $50's instead of the Charmin. :lol:

[cj]

$50???????

As good as Rosario is doing Vic probably uses a roll of $50's instead of the Charmin. :lol:

Wow...I'm starting to sense a man crush!

[InsideThePylons-MW]

$50???????

As good as Rosario is doing Vic probably uses a roll of $50's instead of the Charmin. :lol:

Maybe not good enough. It's possible that Vic's yearning to be a bloodstock agent and make a few extra dollars caused this whole mess for his rider.

[andymays]

Wow...I'm starting to sense a man crush!


Here we go again! :lol:

[andymays]

Maybe not good enough. It's possible that Vic's yearning to be a bloodstock agent and make a few extra dollars caused this whole mess for his rider.


He's been paying attention to this thread and the curious ride thread since they started. He can answer that question. I have a feeling the deal will be over tomorrow. To tell you the truth I'm way more concerned about the Curious Ride incident than this one.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I didn't really want to start a new thread for just this and thought maybe Gary Stevens had a comment... but can someone enlighten me as to whether or not New York has a problem with jock agents holding owner licenses, even if it is in another jurisdiction?

*******************************

http://www.drf.com/news/article/109307.html

OZONE PARK, N.Y. - Richard Englander, who won the Eclipse Award as the leading owner in 2001 and 2002, will try his hand at a different aspect of the sport when he becomes a jockey agent for DeShawn Parker. Parker, whose 288 wins through Tuesday tied him for third nationally this year, will move his tack from Mountaineer Racetrack in West Virginia, where he is the leading rider at the fall meet, to Aqueduct after Christmas, according to Englander.

Englander plans to bring Parker to New York in the next few weeks to make introductions to some New York trainers.

"I wanted to do something different," Englander said. "All the expertise I've had dealing with the 80 or 100 trainers I've had, dealing with all of the racing offices, reading condition books . . . I thought being a jockey agent might not be a bad idea. I'm good with people, I'm a good communicator, and I think that's what you need to be successful. I'm excited about doing it."

Englander said he attempted to raise money to form a racing syndicate but that project "went a little stale." He is down to one horse, a 2-year-old that he owns half-interest in that will race this winter in Kentucky.

"I do plan on getting back on the owners' side of things, but right now this is what I want to do," Englander said.

******************************

(bold courtesy of yours truly)

[johnhannibalsmith]

Well, unless someone knows otherwise, as near as I can tell from the rulebook there is no specific restriction or prohibition that would preclude Englander from holding both licenses... though I can't quite see how he meets one of the criteria (admitting I haven't read his biography) under sec 4002.24... but it's a pretty poor excuse for a requirement to have that license anyway, soooo.... have fun Mr. Englander... :p

[Dahoss9698]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/109334.html


Request by Rosario's attorney to dismiss case is denied. Will be resumed December 11th.

Excerpt:

In testimony on Thursday, Chaney described Rosario's effort as a "chilly ride."

Thursday, deputy attorney general Kenneth Jones, arguing the case on behalf of the racing board, completed testimony on behalf of the racing board, calling exercise rider Jordan Springer, trainer John Glenney, racing board investigator Rick Amieva, and Rosario.

Glenney testified that Rosario was told to keep the horse in the clear in the Sept. 6 race and that he was upset that the horse was moved to the rail for the final three furlongs.

[Cardus]

Minus Vic's inquiry into the horse post-race, this is a situation in which a jockey did not ride to instruction. I suspect that that happens every day.

I would think that anyone's antenna would be raised by the combination of the jockey and jockey agent's actions.

[andymays]

Minus Vic's inquiry into the horse post-race, this is a situation in which a jockey did not ride to instruction. I suspect that that happens every day.

I would think that anyone's antenna would be raised by the combination of the jockey and jockey agent's actions.


As I said in the beginning of the thread somewhere the horse had a tough trip early dueling on or near the lead so winning was never gonna happen. Rosario should have ridden to get third though. For not riding hard for third he should get three days. The CHRB is amazing. How can this be that difficult a decision?

The whole thing looked even worse because of Vics offer to buy the horse. Not a good move.

[Cardus]

As I said in the beginning of the thread somewhere the horse had a tough trip early dueling on or near the lead so winning was never gonna happen. Rosario should have ridden to get third though. For not riding hard for third he should get three days. The CHRB is amazing. How can this be that difficult a decision?

The whole thing looked bad because of Vics offer to buy the horse. Not a good move.

Yes, it was not a good move, and it sparked an inquiry that otherwise probably not have occurred.

[andymays]

Yes, it was not a good move, and it sparked an inquiry that otherwise probably not have occurred.


Stevens said that it was stupid of Vic to ask to buy the horse and it was. I don't think anyone on the board has said whether or not it is a common practice or not. I have no idea but I know horses are bought and sold at the track all the time aren't they? If it is innapropriate why doesn't the CHRB make a rule against the practice or why wasn't there already a rule against it? Anybody know?

By the way has anyone ever heard of the Stewards taking this long to make a decision for a questionable ride?

[Dahoss9698]

Stevens said that it was stupid of Vic to ask to buy the horse and it was. I don't think anyone on the board has said whether or not it is a common practice or not. I have no idea but I know horses are bought and sold at the track all the time aren't they? If it is innapropriate why doesn't the CHRB make a rule against the practice or why wasn't there already a rule against it? Anybody know?

I doubt there is a rule against it, but maybe someone knows for sure. I'm just speculating, but I don't know if many jock agents are also bloodstock agents. It just leaves a lot of room for conflict of interest in my opinion.

[Cardus]

It's not about horses being sold after races.

This is about a suspicious combination of a jockey not riding to instruction and the jockey agent inquiring about the horse's availability for purchase shortly thereafter.

And I am not willing to believe blindly that since Vic was involved that there was nothing inappropriate or unethical about the series of events surrounding the race in question.

This is a legitimate CHRB inquiry.

[andymays]

I doubt there is a rule against it, but maybe someone knows for sure. I'm just speculating, but I don't know if many jock agents are also bloodstock agents. It just leaves a lot of room for conflict of interest in my opinion.


:ThmbUp: Exactly!

[andymays]

It's not about horses being sold after races.

This is about a suspicious combination of a jockey not riding to instruction and the jockey agent inquiring about the horse's availability for purchase shortly thereafter.

And I am not willing to believe blindly that since Vic was involved that there was nothing inappropriate or unethical about the series of events surrounding the race in question.

This is a legitimate CHRB inquiry.


The not riding to instructions part is a non issue. Once the gates open the Jock has to do what he thinks is best. If they gave Jockeys days for not riding to instructions you'd have 5 suspended every day at each track. The horse just had a tough trip early, then he looked done on the turn but stayed on the rail and came on again. Should have gotten third.

[Dahoss9698]

The not riding to instructions part is a non issue. Once the gates open the Jock has to do what he thinks is best. If they gave Jockeys days for not riding to instructions you'd have 5 suspended every day at each track. The horse just had a tough trip early, then he looked done on the turn but stayed on the rail and came on again. Should have gotten third.

You're right, the not riding to instructions alone isn't an issue. But when you combine it with the alleged offer after the race, it certainly looks suspicious.

Maybe it's just one big misunderstanding. But, it looks bad.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Stevens said that it was stupid of Vic to ask to buy the horse and it was. I don't think anyone on the board has said whether or not it is a common practice or not. I have no idea but I know horses are bought and sold at the track all the time aren't they? If it is innapropriate why doesn't the CHRB make a rule against the practice or why wasn't there already a rule against it? Anybody know?


Andy - in this case the only scenario that has been suggested is that there was an inquiry made as to whether or not the horse was for sale. I'm not inclined to consider that act the same as actually buying and selling horses, which would earn one the label of 'bloodstock agent'.

If I am not mistaken, California actually has a rule about 'bloodstock agents' that suggests those that make a practice of buying and selling should register themselves in some manner with the board identifying themselves as such. I'm not certain on the details, nor if it is even a rule that is enforced, but I'm pretty sure that would be the only actual rule that pertains to this matter.

I haven't found it uncommon for some agents to dabble in a variety of commission based endeavours, but many of those same agents find themselves burdened with the resulting suspicions that go with that territory.

[andymays]

Andy - in this case the only scenario that has been suggested is that there was an inquiry made as to whether or not the horse was for sale. I'm not inclined to consider that act the same as actually buying and selling horses, which would earn one the label of 'bloodstock agent'.

If I am not mistaken, California actually has a rule about 'bloodstock agents' that suggests those that make a practice of buying and selling should register themselves in some manner with the board identifying themselves as such. I'm not certain on the details, nor if it is even a rule that is enforced, but I'm pretty sure that would be the only actual rule that pertains to this matter.

I haven't found it uncommon for some agents to dabble in a variety of commission based endeavours, but many of those same agents find themselves burdened with the resulting suspicions that go with that territory.


Thanks! :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

Sorry to bump an old thread (ok, i'm not THAT sorry ;) ) but Cedros was late scratched at a million to one today in a late race from Saratoga. He galloped one lap around the track and a high cruising speed and then came bounding down the stretch and was scratched. This horse isn't worth much, i wonder why Glenney was so 'upset' that Vic asked if the horse was for sale, if Glenney knew what he was doing he would have sold this horse for 6 figures when he had the chance.

[Dahoss9698]

Sorry to bump an old thread (ok, i'm not THAT sorry ;) ) but Cedros was late scratched at a million to one today in a late race from Saratoga. He galloped one lap around the track and a high cruising speed and then came bounding down the stretch and was scratched. This horse isn't worth much, i wonder why Glenney was so 'upset' that Vic asked if the horse was for sale, if Glenney knew what he was doing he would have sold this horse for 6 figures when he had the chance.

Sharp post