stewards are blind

[dansan]

5th rade santa anita that horse that cut off the 4 should have been taken down! give me a break :eek:

[therussmeister]

You got to make your own breaks. You should have bet that horse that cut off the 4. :D

[dansan]

didnt bet either just commenting on the horrible call

[startngate]

The Stewards called an inquiry and there was a Patrol Judge right there to assist in letting them know what happened. They had a good view of it, and there was no jockey's objection. IMO, they got it right in this case.

While there is no question the 3 came over, Talamo was trying to run up into a hole that didn't really exist to begin with. He also tried to maintain his position instead of taking the horse outside the 3 when he had the chance (and where there was plenty of room to go). Had he done that, he probably hits the board. He's lucky he didn't get hurt when he clipped heels. Bad judgement on his part, not the Stewards IMO.

[Igeteven]

5th rade santa anita that horse that cut off the 4 should have been taken down! give me a break :eek:

In California, all stewards are afraid to open their mouth to create waves

I will give you some reasons

1. To protect their jobs, in California, they are the highest paid in the nation.

I think they get around $350-$500 dollars per day. ( If some knows, please post. it)

2. If they open their mouth unless it is so obvious , they will let it pass.


3. Stewards can be replaced with a blink of a eye, there are 2 people to take their place.


4. Several years ago, they got their butts kick in at Del Mar and Hollywood Park and a lot of complaints went in and the policy was change.

None of these Stewards are not working at any major track. correct me if I am wrong on this.



Now you know why, does anyone else have any things to add.

[Relwob Owner]

In California, all stewards are afraid to open their mouth to create waves

I will give you some reasons

1. To protect their jobs, in California, they are the highest paid in the nation.

I think they get around $350-$500 dollars per day.

2. If they open their mouth unless it is so obvious , they will let it pass, all


3. Stewards can be replaced with a blink of a eye, there are 2 people to take their place.


4. Several years ago, they got their butts kick in at Del Mar and Hollywood Park and a lot of complaints went in and the change their policy.

None of these Stewards are not working at any major track. correct me if I am wrong on this.



Now you know why, does anyone else have any things to add.



Nice insight.....since you seemed dialed into Cali-question: are they supposed to go by purely if a foul occurred or if it cost a placing....I remember hearing it was the latter.....it is amazing that that isnt uniform from track to track. I also find it hilarious that they still ask for the jock feedback. I cant see a case where any feedback would or should change the minds of the stewards and it definitely opens the can of worms of a jock selling his position and trumping what the stewards see on video.....hopefully those who know ,more than me can comment on these things...

[startngate]

None of these Stewards are not working at any major track. correct me if I am wrong on this.Not sure what you are trying to say. Racing is conducted in SoCal basically year-round, so why would you expect any of them to be working elsewhere?
Nice insight.....since you seemed dialed into Cali-question: are they supposed to go by purely if a foul occurred or if it cost a placing....I remember hearing it was the latter.....it is amazing that that isnt uniform from track to track. Depends on the jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction usually has a rule(s) in place that define what constitutes a foul. Having said that, in most cases you will not see horses taken down unless there was a clear foul and order of finish would have been affected.

California's rule is as follows:

1699. Riding Rules.During the running of the race: (a) A leading horse is entitled to any part of the course but when another horse is attempting to pass in a clear opening the leading horse shall not cross over so as to compel the passing horse to shorten its stride. (b) A horse shall not interfere with or cause any other horse to lose stride, ground or position in a part of the race where the horse loses the opportunity to place where it might be reasonably expected to finish. (c) A horse which interferes with another and thereby causes any other horse to lose stride, ground or position, when such other horse is not at fault and when such interference occurs in a part of the race where the horse interfered with loses the opportunity to place where it might, in the opinion of the Stewards, be reasonably expected to finish, may be disqualified and placed behind the horse so interfered with. (d) Jockeys shall not ride carelessly, or willfully, so as to permit their mount to interfere with or impede any other horse. (e) Jockeys shall not willfully strike or strike at another horse or jockey so as to impede, interfere with, intimidate, or injure. (f) If a jockey rides in a manner contrary to this rule, the mount may be disqualified and the jockey may be suspended or otherwise disciplined by the Stewards. NOTE: Authority cited: Section 19562, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Sections 19461 and 19562, Business and Professions Code. HISTORY: 1. Amendment filed 4-21-83; effective 5-21-83. 2. Amendment filed 8-13-97; effective 9-12-97

So, if like me, the Stewards did not believe that the 4 was trying to pass in a 'clear opening', then the rule would actually prohibit the Stewards from taking the 3 down in California.
I also find it hilarious that they still ask for the jock feedback. I cant see a case where any feedback would or should change the minds of the stewards and it definitely opens the can of worms of a jock selling his position and trumping what the stewards see on video.....hopefully those who know ,more than me can comment on these things...It's not hilarious at all. There are times when what the jockey says is very informative when making these decesions, especially when they occur in a place where the camera coverage isn't the best (like on the turn). Granted, most of the time you just get a 'I didn't do anything' but occassionally it does help. Due process ... that's why judges also allow the parties in lawsuits to testify ... :)

[johnhannibalsmith]

Nice insight.....since you seemed dialed into Cali-question: are they supposed to go by purely if a foul occurred or if it cost a placing....I remember hearing it was the latter.....it is amazing that that isnt uniform from track to track. I also find it hilarious that they still ask for the jock feedback. I cant see a case where any feedback would or should change the minds of the stewards and it definitely opens the can of worms of a jock selling his position and trumping what the stewards see on video.....hopefully those who know ,more than me can comment on these things...

I don't have any problems with the rider input in determining an objection/inquiry. Without posting a super long response detailing all of the reasons I actually think it is beneficial, I'll use one of your own instances from the post above.

In many jurisdictions, it isn't enough to have simply been victimized by a foul to be promoted. There is a standard that you alluded to regarding whether or not the foul cost another horse a placing. I really don't care much for this level of speculation, but it is the way a lot of rules are written. Riders can offer the type of insight from their perspective on just how much they were impacted by a foul to assist in the speculation. Riders aren't universally known to risk their credibility by exaggerating and there are many that are pretty honest men and women on these matters of "how much they were affected".

Again, I'm not a fan of the "...was not cost a placing, therefore..." manner of evaluating fouls, but since much of this relies heavily on theoreticals and conjecture, the films are often just misleading enough that a few perspectives from the participants can help clear up the subjectiveness in some cases.

[Relwob Owner]

I don't have any problems with the rider input in determining an objection/inquiry. Without posting a super long response detailing all of the reasons I actually think it is beneficial, I'll use one of your own instances from the post above.

In many jurisdictions, it isn't enough to have simply been victimized by a foul to be promoted. There is a standard that you alluded to regarding whether or not the foul cost another horse a placing. I really don't care much for this level of speculation, but it is the way a lot of rules are written. Riders can offer the type of insight from their perspective on just how much they were impacted by a foul to assist in the speculation. Riders aren't universally known to risk their credibility by exaggerating and there are many that are pretty honest men and women on these matters of "how much they were affected".

Again, I'm not a fan of the "...was not cost a placing, therefore..." manner of evaluating fouls, but since much of this relies heavily on theoreticals and conjecture, the films are often just misleading enough that a few perspectives from the participants can help clear up the subjectiveness in some cases.


I guess we agree to disagree on this and you must be much more trusting than I am:). Riders are competitors so they will naturally say and do anything to get their side represented. Yes, there are a few spots where it is hard for the video to see, as another poster rightly pointed out but the idea of their own bias strongly outweighs this IMO.....


I would ask you this: in what other sport do the refs ask for the opinions of those involved before they make their decision? The answer is none, I believe......they watch the play and make the decision.

[rwwupl]

My take...I wrote this in 2007 to the Stewards in California after a series of controversial calls. I think they are more or less following the suggestion from the change in approach I have observed. If not it seems that way.

Excerpt from rwwupl letter ,Aug,2007

CHRB Stewards:

I think it would be best for all concerned if we gave the stewards more latitude when looking at an inquiry. The stewards would be more popular and effective if they had options to penalize the purse distribution,or the jockey,or the trainer or any other licensed people,without necessarily changing the pari-mutuel result.

I understand that this would require a rule change from previous information I have received .

The fans should not be punished for betting on the winner without a clear cut,obvious and severe situation developing that can be explained with little doubt.The fans never create a foul on the playing field and should be the last ones to lose their money by a foul committed by others and judged by people who are honest but notoriously inconsistent. They read all the time that the jockey or trainer is absolved and the purse distribution is restored and they turn out to be the only real losers.The fans do not like the stewards talking to the jockeys or others after the race to see which one has the best story. The fans view this as unfair,what if their jockey can not speak english well?What do the stewards expect to hear except something self -serving from all parties? If the stewards did not see it clearly,or have it on tape why should they be influenced by participants with an axe to grind? If there is any doubt in the process--If there is any borderlineness at all, no maybe,no possible,no if`s ,no might haves,costing a position, you have to leave the pari-mutuel result alone.

The jockeys,trainers,purse distribution are interlocked in one sense,but worlds apart in terms of their interests and responsibilities.

You can police the game more effectively ,and without haste,less contoversy and gain more respect for the stewards,from the fans if you only change the pari-mutuel results when it is obvious to all.Punishment for licensed people can be done after the fact to achieve justice and prevent a repeat performance.




Rule 1699 does apply, but there are rules,policies and interpretations. I learned that Policies and interpretations do not require a rule change.

The current Stewards at Santa Anita are Scott Chaney,Kim Sawyer and Tom Ward. I can testify that there are fewer pari-mutuel changes today and less controversy then in the past. The game is still being policed well. I think the current policy is serving all concerned well,but it goes without saying that there are two sides to most questions. Just remember, the fans are never guilty of a foul on the playing field,and once there is a change to the pari-mutuels, it is permanent and can not be corrected ,but the licensed participants in the race are subject to further review...and there are corrections often...

rwwupl

[Show Me the Wire]

But and this is a big but, the wager amounts to more money than the purse for the barn sometimes. Para-mutuel and purse disqualification together discourage intentional interference.

[PaceAdvantage]

4. Several years ago, they got their butts kick in at Del Mar and Hollywood Park and a lot of complaints went in and the policy was change.

None of these Stewards are not working at any major track. correct me if I am wrong on this.What are you talking about? What policy? What stewards?

[toussaud]

i am not convinced after what i just saw you have to shoot someone to get dq'ed at santa anita. wow

[dansan]

i thought I was the only one who saw it, 4 horse almost goes down