7th race @ Hollywood Park 6-9. This horse has to come down and doesn't!

[only11]

I had a huge win bet on the 3 and i want my $%&$ back the 1 knocked the shit out of my horse and he stayed up...It never ends damn it...WTF are they looking at!!!

[andymays]

If you watch the head on there is no way you leave this horse up.

Unbelievable. He interfered with 4 horses in a chain reaction.

www.calracing.com

[only11]

If you watch the head on there is no way you leave this horse up.

Unbelievable.
i had a huge bet on the 3...what reasoning is behind this horse staying up ...someone anyone please give me a explanation on how thie %$#@! stays up..no excuse

[andymays]

i had a huge bet on the 3...what reasoning is behind this horse staying up ...someone anyone please give me a explanation on how thie %$#@! stays up..no excuse


There is no friggin way this horse stays up unless we are in bizarro world.

[only11]

If you watch the head on there is no way you leave this horse up.

Unbelievable. He interfered with 4 horses in a chain reaction.

www.calracing.com
Vic just explained that the 1 hit a horse that was dropping back....doesnt matter it effected my horse the 3...screw this

[andymays]

Vic just explained that the 1 hit a horse that was dropping back....doesnt matter it effected my horse the 3...screw this

One of the worst I've ever seen. Yes the 8 was probably quitting but not quitting that much. And how do you know you didn't cost one of the others a better placing that were caught in the chain reaction?

[Mineshaft]

clueless stewards

[Kimsus]

You are absolutely correct, that was one of the biggest bullshit calls I have seen ever. No different than having your wallet robbed. Hollywood Park should be ashamed of themselves, this is what racing is trying to sell? Vic's explanation made no sense either, because the horse that was side mugged fell back they are going to keep the <even money favorite stay up? The horse fell back abruptly because he was bumped so badly, regardless the stewards should not be speculating on horses finished. bejarano clearly forced himself into a hole that wasn't there, bumped a horse severely, causing another bumping on the 2nd place finisher. It's these type of calls or non calls that make bettors stop playing certain tracks. Hollywood park should be ashamed of themselves.

[andymays]

I would fire the stewards that voted to leave the horse up.


A moderator might as well combine the two threads. Thanks.

I was so flusterd by the call I got the date wrong in the thread title. :lol:

Maybe a moderator could change the date??? :ThmbUp: :D :blush:

[only11]

I would fire the stewards that voted to leave the horse up.


A moderator might as well combine the two threads. Thanks.Were the stewards even there..they made the decision pretty quickly

[andymays]

Were the stewards even there..they made the decision pretty quickly


I think the just listened to Ken R. in on TVG. He was saying no change from the start and I kept yelling at the TV what an idiot he was. :bang:

[Kimsus]

The stewards should be checked if they bet this race, then fired. It was the poorest excuse of bad decision making that I have ever seen in racing in quite awhile. I hope some of them read this board or Vic Stauffer to report back on how displeasing this non call was. Truly pathetic and typically inconsistent part of the game. But this one's squarely on Hollywood park.

[only11]

I think the just listened to Ken R. in on TVG. He was saying no change from the start and I kept yelling at the TV what an idiot he was. :bang:
Andy i just dont get it WTF are they watching honestly i had $150 win..why why why why..he bullied his way into a path that wasnt there...do you know the stewards there?

[thaskalos]

Are the stewards ever fined or suspended for "gross" incompetence?

[Kimsus]

Are the stewards ever fined or suspended for "gross" incompetence?

Basically what they are advocating is anything goes out there, for the rest of the meet. If they take down a horse for lesser there should be an inquiry and these buffoons should be walking the unemployment line. Someone should monitor if there are future dq's the rest of the meet. I know one thing if they didn't dq the horse today, as bad as it was. I don't know what constitutes a dq in their mind then. that's the precedent they set.

[andymays]

Andy i just dont get it WTF are they watching honestly i had $150 win..why why why why..he bullied his way into a path that wasnt there...do you know the stewards there?


Send Mike Marten an email. mikem@chrb.ca.gov

Don't go off on him. He is the spokesman for the CHRB and he will usually give you an answer. He may even put it on the list to review at their next meeting. That doesn't do you any good now though.

[andymays]

Are the stewards ever fined or suspended for "gross" incompetence?


If you work for the state or federal government they promote you when you screw up. It's unbelievable.

send Mike Marten an email. mikem@chrb.ca.gov

[Greyfox]

Race 7 not Race 8.

# 1 She'll Heir muscled through a hole that wasn't there and took # 7 Seethegirlgo completely out of the race.
# 1 should have been taken down and placed behind the # 7.
Everyone at our simulcast agreed. The Stewards should be ditched.

[andymays]

Race 7 not Race 8.

# 1 She'll Heir muscled through a hole that wasn't there and took # 7 Seethegirlgo completely out of the race.
# 1 should have been taken down and placed behind the # 7.
Everyone at our simulcast agreed. The Stewards should be ditched.

He put the wrong race in his thread title and I put the wrong date in my thread title.

Talk about "On Tilt"! Both of us were so flustered by the call we messed up the thread titles. :lol:

[parlay]

oh my god :bang:
there are no rules
if you find yourself locked in behind runners,
just feel free to push the whole field out 3 lanes
so you have a clear path.

[andymays]

oh my god :bang:
there are no rules
if you find yourself locked in behind runners,
just feel free to push the whole field out 3 lanes
so you have a clear path.


I know. It's not like he fouled one horse that was quitting. He interfered with at least 4 horses.

[Greyfox]

That Race should be for Steward Training School. The first class example for a course entitled DQ 101.
That is probably the worst call I've seen by Stewards at any track this year.
Absolutely the worst.
Of course # 1 was the favorite. Go figure.

[Kimsus]

If that wasn't a DQ then what exactly is to these stewards, short of knocking down another horse. There isn't much else left to the imagination you can get away with out there with what they didn't do today with the non call. Again this was one of the worst non decisions I have ever witnessed in the game.

[Greyfox]

I know. It's not like he fouled one horse that was quitting. He interfered with at least 4 horses.

I'm not so sure that # 7 was quitting and might have hung on for third or fourth.
The # 1 brushed # 7 and Flores took up. It could have impacted the tri and the super.

[andymays]

I'm not so sure that # 7 was quitting and might have hung on for third or fourth.
The # 1 brushed # 7 and Flores took up. It could have impacted the tri and the super.

I thought it was the #8 quitting but I don't want to go back and watch the video.

[andymays]

Thanks for combining the threads and correcting the date CJ! :ThmbUp:

[Kimsus]

That Race should be for Steward Training School. The first class example for a course entitled DQ 101.
That is probably the worst call I've seen by Stewards at any track this year.
Absolutely the worst.
Of course # 1 was the favorite. Go figure.

It was explained there was bumping, so they(the stewards admit to there being some wrong doing, going 1 path to 2 path)Then they decided the second horse was falling back, but this was only evident after the horse was bumped severely causing him to lose his balance, for these stewards to make a god like decision in determining the horse was done prior to the bumping is a clear misusage of authority, there should be hearing on their conduct concerning this race. This one incident has made me park my money, it has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I don't even want to play another Hollywood race any time soon.

[andymays]

It was explained there was bumping, so they(the stewards admit to there being some wrong doing, going 1 path to 2 path)Then they decided the second horse was falling back, but this was only evident after the horse was bumped severely causing him to lose his balance, for these stewards to make a god like decision in determining the horse was done prior to the bumping as a clear misusage of authority, and their should be hearing on their conduct concerning this race. This one incident has made me park my money, it has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I don't even want to play another Hollywood race any time soon.


You need to let them know. Send an email to mikem@chrb.ca.gov

Tell him Andy sent you. ;)

[Kimsus]

You need to let them know. Send an email to mikem@chrb.ca.gov

Tell him Andy sent you. ;)

I will.

[Greyfox]

Then they decided the second horse was falling back, but this was only evident after the horse was bumped severely causing him to lose his balance, for these stewards to make a god like decision in determining the horse was done prior to the bumping is a clear misusage of authority, there should be hearing on their conduct concerning this race..

Exactly what I saw. Whether it was # 7 or # 8, that horse was still competing until it was bumped. Then it was taken up. :ThmbUp:

[Seabiscuit@AR]

The best horse won the race

[andymays]

The best horse won the race


Since when does that matter when there is a foul that bad involving that many horses?

[Stillriledup]

Andy is right, e mail Mike at CHRB, he's a good guy, he'll respond to you if you send a nice e mail asking why there was no dq.

[Kimsus]

The best horse won the race
This is quizzable, so if you have the best horse in the race you can bump and interfere with another horse without inpunity out there. Basically there are different rules for different horses?

[the little guy]

I guess it could be argued that the 3 fouled the 1 on the turn....but other than that it does seem like a surprising non-takedown. I don't see how you can argue that the winner didn't cause a chain reaction.

[Kimsus]

Andy is right, e mail Mike at CHRB, he's a good guy, he'll respond to you if you send a nice e mail asking why there was no dq.

I sent an email, it was cordial, I stated my reasons on what I thought of the non call.

[Show Me the Wire]

The best horse won the race


Lots of times the best horse loses a race, because of being stopped on the rail. Having the best horse does not give a jockey the right to force his way off the rail, while impeding other horses.

Terrible betrayal of the public's trust by the stewards.

And yes I had skin in the game cost me the win and the late double.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

The 7 copped interference but it was never going to win. The 3 did not cop too much interference when the 1 moved out

Earlier on in the race when the 2 dropped back the winner was jammed in tight by pressure from horses on its outside. So it was a race where they raced tight and there was interference back and forth between runners

Winner won comfortably and was the best horse in the race on the day, you can never get too worked up when the best horse keeps the race. Save your anger for when the stewards promote a beaten horse to winner that never should have been given the win

[andymays]

The 7 copped interference but it was never going to win. The 3 did not cop too much interference when the 1 moved out

Earlier on in the race when the 2 dropped back the winner was jammed in tight by pressure from horses on its outside. So it was a race where they raced tight and there was interference back and forth between runners

Winner won comfortably and was the best horse in the race on the day, you can never get too worked up when the best horse keeps the race. Save your anger for when the stewards promote a beaten horse to winner that never should have been given the win


Hollywood Park Steward? ;)

[Show Me the Wire]

The 7 copped interference but it was never going to win. The 3 did not cop too much interference when the 1 moved out

Earlier on in the race when the 2 dropped back the winner was jammed in tight by pressure from horses on its outside. So it was a race where they raced tight and there was interference back and forth between runners

Winner won comfortably and was the best horse in the race on the day, you can never get too worked up when the best horse keeps the race. Save your anger for when the stewards promote a beaten horse to winner that never should have been given the win



There was no mutual interference, the eventual winner came off the rail and initiated the chain reaction.

Did it cost the the horse that copped interference a placing? The stewards allowed dangerous riding and the possibility of physical injury to another owners property, and more importantly to the other jockeys.

The horse being impeded doesn't have to be the projected winner, it only has to lose a placing. It is very evident from the replay the impeded horse was in contention for a better placing prior to being checked hard. Difficult to make the argument the checked horse would have finished second to last, without being checked.

I am sure many horses can win comfortably after pushing and carrying the other contenders wide and making others check hard.

Letting the result stand was not the correct call by any stretch of the imagination.

[Igeteven]

I had a huge win bet on the 3 and i want my $%&$ back the 1 knocked the shit out of my horse and he stayed up...It never ends damn it...WTF are they looking at!!!


People, out here in the S Cal racing, HP, Del Mar and Santa Anita, The Stewart's are afraid to open their mouth for losing their job.

When one plays out here, one takes a high risk on a inquiry when one sees something.

A major problem occur a few years ago, so the so called Stewart's who suppose to protect the player, protect themselves from the unemployment line, they just sit there, collect 400 dollars per day and keep their mouth shut.

[Greyfox]

The best horse won the race

Seabiscuit, no one is arguing that point.

Probably the best horse won the race. Certainly the public thought so before the race and were happy after.

The furor here is not about whether or not the "best horse won."

The furor is about "how the best horse" won.

Simply stated: # 1 She'll Heir should have been taken down and placed behind the horse she interfered with.

# 3 Swiss Wild Cat won that race. The connections and bettors were robbed of that outcome. It's just that simple.

(Bejarano who normally is an excellent rider, endangered other riders by bullying that horse through a hole that wasn't there until he created it.The Stewards who passed that move are idiots.)

[jamey1977]

Are the stewards ever fined or suspended for "gross" incompetence?
They disqualified Rosario the other day. This was as bad as that. Some fool has some money on the favorite. I always suspected this. Why would the same stewards Disqualify Rosario for the same foul or even worse and leave this horse up. ? Some moron has put down 800 dollars to Win. I don't know who. The horse should have been taken down.

[mostpost]

I have watched the replay several times, both the head-on and the pan shot. Sorry, you guys are all wrong. You are letting your wallet cloud your judgement.
First of all, the seven was indeed dropping back. She was on even terms with the five at the top of the stretch. At the time of the incident, she was a length back. There is no way she was going to win the race.
As for the three, it appeared that she was moved out one or two paths, but she never changed stride, she never stopped running. More importantly after the incident the three actually gained ground on the one. She moved from having her nose at the rear of the saddle cloth of the one to having it at the front of the saddle cloth. Then the one responded and drew away to win by a length.
The stewards must determine not only did a foul take place, but did it effect the outcome of the race. In this case it did not.

[6furlongs]

I have watched the replay several times, both the head-on and the pan shot. Sorry, you guys are all wrong. You are letting your wallet cloud your judgement.
First of all, the seven was indeed dropping back. She was on even terms with the five at the top of the stretch. At the time of the incident, she was a length back. There is no way she was going to win the race.
As for the three, it appeared that she was moved out one or two paths, but she never changed stride, she never stopped running. More importantly after the incident the three actually gained ground on the one. She moved from having her nose at the rear of the saddle cloth of the one to having it at the front of the saddle cloth. Then the one responded and drew away to win by a length.
The stewards must determine not only did a foul take place, but did it effect the outcome of the race. In this case it did not.

It is this line of reasoning that insures that nothing will ever change as far as these inquiries go. A blatant foul took place, and an automatic dq should have followed.

[mostpost]

It is this line of reasoning that insures that nothing will ever change as far as these inquiries go. A blatant foul took place, and an automatic dq should have followed.
An automatic DQ? How is that fair? Supposing horse A bumps horse B on the backstretch. Badly enough that Horse B drops back one length. Then horse B recovers and races on even terms with A to the top of the stretch. At which point horse A draws off to win by six. Should Horse A be disqualified?

Your horse didn't win. Your horse didn't deserve to win. Get over it.

[6furlongs]

An automatic DQ? How is that fair? Supposing horse A bumps horse B on the backstretch. Badly enough that Horse B drops back one length. Then horse B recovers and races on even terms with A to the top of the stretch. At which point horse A draws off to win by six. Should Horse A be disqualified?

Your horse didn't win. Your horse didn't deserve to win. Get over it.

It wasn't my horse, and perhaps you are seeing things wrong here because you were backing the 3/5 shot? This horse came off the rail and compromised the 7.
No question about it. 7 was still competing when this happened. Definite effect on the outcome of this race. Automatic DQ... easy call.

[6furlongs]

An automatic DQ? How is that fair? Supposing horse A bumps horse B on the backstretch. Badly enough that Horse B drops back one length. Then horse B recovers and races on even terms with A to the top of the stretch. At which point horse A draws off to win by six. Should Horse A be disqualified?

My answer to this question would be yes. You don't know how much the early bump cost the horse. Perhaps without the bump, the horse B runs right to the wire with horse A.

[Stillriledup]

I'm usually an advocate for leaving it all stand, but in this instance, this should have been a disqualification and here's why.

Because you can't bull your way out if there's no room.

This is like a harness racing pylon violation. Most stewards let your wheel go inside a pylon if you are just going inside the pylon accidentally. BUT, if you maneuver your horse to gain an advantage, than you come down.

Even though this horse bumped a tiring horse, she has to come down because she used that other horse's tiring to her advantage, she bumped to gain a better postion.

At the very point in the race when she moved out to bump, she was boxed for her life and wasn't getting out and wasnt going to win. The only way she was going to win was to push another horse across the racetrack. Judges can't be rewarding jocks who just smash out like that.

I can't tell you how many times i was disqualified for a situation like this where the judges DQ'd be and punished my jockey for being reckless.

Singer Daughtry just wrote a song TODAY about this winning horse. Amazing how these artists can whip up songs when they are hurting over a DQ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5uArjOj5fk

[duncan04]

I had a win, place bet on the #3. I could not believe there was no DQ there. Someone next to me had the tri and he thought for sure the #1 was coming down. :bang:

[shouldacoulda]

What a hard knocking race. The 8 really got battered around between the 1 and the 3 and then the 5 bore in and hit the 7 from the outside. I liked the way the 3 dug in and battled back too. I'm surprised there was no objection from the 8. I lost a triple from a DQ at Delaware a while back for a lot less than that.

[Kimsus]

I have watched the replay several times, both the head-on and the pan shot. Sorry, you guys are all wrong. You are letting your wallet cloud your judgement.
First of all, the seven was indeed dropping back. She was on even terms with the five at the top of the stretch. At the time of the incident, she was a length back. There is no way she was going to win the race.
As for the three, it appeared that she was moved out one or two paths, but she never changed stride, she never stopped running. More importantly after the incident the three actually gained ground on the one. She moved from having her nose at the rear of the saddle cloth of the one to having it at the front of the saddle cloth. Then the one responded and drew away to win by a length.
The stewards must determine not only did a foul take place, but did it effect the outcome of the race. In this case it did not.

You need to watch the replay a few more times then, if that wasn't a DQ, then no horse should be taken down the rest of the meet.

[PhantomOnTour]

This thread should be combined with all those 'Why Horseracing Is In Decline' threads and we will have our answer.

If the public thinks chicanery is afoot, then there is no way they will put their money in a position to be stolen.

[rwwupl]

Something to consider....

Yes, I saw a foul.

There was absolutely no question that the best horse won the race.

The foul was caused by an error in riding judgement by the Jockey.

Should the Pari-mutuel Customers be punished for backing the best horse,when they had absolutely nothing to do with the foul? Should the owner be denied the purse when his horse demonstrated he was best, and he had nothing to do with the foul? Should someone else be rewarded for a victory when they did nothing to deserve it?

Once a Pari-mutuel D.Q. is made, there is no recourse...but the Stewards retain the authority to review,for purposes of safety and riding practices the race long after it is made official. I would guess that the review will include the Jockey judgement in this case,and we will see some action.

The Pari-mutuel result should allways stand and punish the people who caused the foul to maintain order, unless it is so bad and obvious that all agree that the result should be changed.

In days past, the real victims of "a foul is a foul" approach is the pari-mutuel customer...the injustice was that once the result was changed it could not be corrected for the customer...your bet was lost forever. Then you would read where the owner and jockey appealed with a lawyer and the D.Q.was reversed and the purse restored and the only loser was the pari-mutuel fan and his money.

It works both ways...but this approach takes into consideration the pari-mutuel customer.

rwwupl

[Greyfox]

Something to consider....

Yes, I saw a foul.

There was absolutely no question that the best horse won the race.

The foul was caused by an error in riding judgement by the Jockey.

Should the Pari-mutuel Customers be punished for backing the best horse,when they had absolutely nothing to do with the foul? Should the owner be denied the purse when his horse demonstrated he was best, and he had nothing to do with the foul? Should someone else be rewarded for a victory when they did nothing to deserve it?
rwwupl

No one is arguing whether or not the best horse won. It likely did.
The bottom line is a foul occurred.
Bejarano endangered other horses and riders.
DQ's are not about fairness to customers. They are about the rules of racing.
You can't have a situation where anything goes.
The horse should have been taken down and put behind # 7.

[Greyfox]

I have watched the replay several times, both the head-on and the pan shot. Sorry, you guys are all wrong. .




"Everybody's out of step but my Johnny." eh Mosty? I think not.:lol:

[Greyfox]

Then you would read where the owner and jockey appealed with a lawyer and the D.Q.was reversed and the purse restored and the only loser was the pari-mutuel fan and his money.


rwwupl

All the lawyers in Boston couldn't make a case for that horse not coming down.

[andymays]

If they're gonna use the "best horse won the race standard" then they should do it all the time.

I have a feeling if Kerwin John was on the horse he would have been taken down in about 10 seconds. Not Bejerano though.


We need consistency and we rarely get it from the Stewards.

[Show Me the Wire]

If they're gonna use the "best horse won the race standard" then they should do it all the time.

I have a feeling if Kerwin John was on the horse he would have been taken down in about 10 seconds. Not Bejerano though.


We need consistency and we rarely get it from the Stewards.


Absolutely. Based on consitency no way does Repo get disqualified and Southern fireball gets put up as the winner.

The Hollywood stewards apply the rules arbitrarily to the detriment of the public.

[rwwupl]

No one is arguing whether or not the best horse won. It likely did.
The bottom line is a foul occurred.
Bejarano endangered other horses and riders.
DQ's are not about fairness to customers. They are about the rules of racing.
You can't have a situation where anything goes.
The horse should have been taken down and put behind # 7.


Sorry..D.Q's are about fairness to customers and all concerned. The safety issue will be reviewed.

In most races , if you look hard enough you can spot an incident that some will claim is a foul...they could D.Q. a lot of horses based on those observations. I do not think you would like it that way if you were denied a rightful victory and held tickets on the winner. It is said that you can see a foul on most every play in football...but only those are called by the referee that are important in their judgement.

No one denies the best horse won.. and the jockey judgement will be reviewed. Not everyone thought the horse should come down. The rules of racing are being upheld.

What more do you want?

[Kimsus]

If they're gonna use the "best horse won the race standard" then they should do it all the time.

I have a feeling if Kerwin John was on the horse he would have been taken down in about 10 seconds. Not Bejerano though.


We need consistency and we rarely get it from the Stewards.

Who says he was the best horse, the 3 was gaining after being bumped. These Stewards made a god like decision without regard for 3 other betting interests involved with the race, this is unforgivable with the position of protecting the public's interest and trust. Hollywood park should be made accountable and I don't mean the weak explantion Vic had to deliver yesterday.

[exiles]

I have watched the replay several times, both the head-on and the pan shot. Sorry, you guys are all wrong. You are letting your wallet cloud your judgement.
First of all, the seven was indeed dropping back. She was on even terms with the five at the top of the stretch. At the time of the incident, she was a length back. There is no way she was going to win the race.
As for the three, it appeared that she was moved out one or two paths, but she never changed stride, she never stopped running. More importantly after the incident the three actually gained ground on the one. She moved from having her nose at the rear of the saddle cloth of the one to having it at the front of the saddle cloth. Then the one responded and drew away to win by a length.
The stewards must determine not only did a foul take place, but did it effect the outcome of the race. In this case it did not.


The race in question is the 7th , are you sure you watched the right race?
take a look again,clean your glasses this time.

[Show Me the Wire]

...............................No one denies the best horse won.. and the jockey judgement will be reviewed. Not everyone thought the horse should come down. The rules of racing are being upheld.

What more do you want?


The rules of racing to be enforced. In this instance the rules were not enforced. The rules do not let a horse come off the rail to repeatedly bump and impede other horses to create an opening. The checked horse lost a chance for a better placing due to RB's bumping and pushing.

The rules were not followed, unless you are saying the rules are totally subjective, and if that is so why have the appearance of rules?

No way can the Hollywood stewards justify, in fairness to the customer, the dq of Repo, as he was the best horse. Southern Fireball would have never caught him. There was no contact and the Stewards assumed that Southern Fireball would have passed Repo on the inside along the rail. To justify that specific dq the stewards made a very large presumption and totally subjective decision, just like they did yesterday.

As of today the public is not confident that there really are rules which are arbitrarily enforced or just whimsical subjective rulings by the Hollywood Stewards.

[Greyfox]

Sorry..D.Q's are about fairness to customers and all concerned. The safety issue will be reviewed.

The first concern should be safety.
How was it fair to those of us who had bets on other horses? We're customers too.




I do not think you would like it that way if you were denied a rightful victory and held tickets on the winner.

Of course I wouldn't like it. But that wasn't a rightful victory.

No one denies the best horse won.. and the jockey judgement will be reviewed.

The best horse probably won but in an unfair manner.
Who says "the jockey judgement will be reviewed."
I can guarantee you had that been a 15-1 long shot that Bejarano was on,
it would have been taken down. The only reason the horse stayed up is because she was a heavily bet favorite.

[surfdog89]

I agree with you that if the horse was not the betting favorite it would have been taken down. I have watch thousands of races and I thought that the one was going to be taken down because of the way she muscle her way thru the opening.........causing a chain of events and she did not have a clear open to close in........


http://handicapperscorner.blogspot.com

[JustRalph]

If they're gonna use the "best horse won the race standard" then they should do it all the time.

I have a feeling if Kerwin John was on the horse he would have been taken down in about 10 seconds. Not Bejerano though.


We need consistency and we rarely get it from the Stewards.

You know, I try like hell to be fair and impartial.......but the first thing that came to mind when I saw the replay (wasn't watching live) was

"they won't take bejerano down for that"

just a gut reaction. You gotta admit......he has balls pushing that horse through that hole............

[mostpost]

It wasn't my horse, and perhaps you are seeing things wrong here because you were backing the 3/5 shot? This horse came off the rail and compromised the 7.
No question about it. 7 was still competing when this happened. Definite effect on the outcome of this race. Automatic DQ... easy call.
I had no money on the race. The first time I saw the race was when I looked at the link Andymays provided. (As of this morning that link no longer provides the race). Another thing I noticed last night was that the five, the horse on the rail, moved out at least one path. The head on clearly shows that horse straddling the first dark line out from the rail as they entered the stretch. She themn moved across a lighter area to straddle a second dark line. She did this as the one was moving between horses. If anything the five initiated the chain reaction.

[lamboguy]

this thread has 5 pages to it, and should have 500 by after that "stay up"


just another thing wrong with racing. i guarantee they lost a few patrons yesterday after that monstrosity.

my posts have been and will continue to be very repetetive on these matters. i really can see why.

[Kimsus]

I had no money on the race. The first time I saw the race was when I looked at the link Andymays provided. (As of this morning that link no longer provides the race). Another thing I noticed last night was that the five, the horse on the rail, moved out at least one path. The head on clearly shows that horse straddling the first dark line out from the rail as they entered the stretch. She themn moved across a lighter area to straddle a second dark line. She did this as the one was moving between horses. If anything the five initiated the chain reaction.

The stewards have already admitted in their explanation that the 1, came over and bumped the 7 causing a chain reaction, this is the problem. What they have asserted was the bumping incident which was a breach of the rules of racing, had no impact on the results of the race. That is why there was no change.

Now anyone who saw the head on and race, would certainly not agree that the bumping had no influence on the results of the race. Think about the tri and super betters, this goes farther than the simplistic view of the best horse won, anyone promoting this idea has no clue how racing works. There are all sorts of betting, and to ignore exotics wagerers is plain wrong.

[andymays]

I had no money on the race. The first time I saw the race was when I looked at the link Andymays provided. (As of this morning that link no longer provides the race).

http://www.calracing.com/replays.php

The video is still there. You can see the pan or the head on view.

[6furlongs]

I had no money on the race. The first time I saw the race was when I looked at the link Andymays provided. (As of this morning that link no longer provides the race). Another thing I noticed last night was that the five, the horse on the rail, moved out at least one path. The head on clearly shows that horse straddling the first dark line out from the rail as they entered the stretch. She themn moved across a lighter area to straddle a second dark line. She did this as the one was moving between horses. If anything the five initiated the chain reaction.

I don't think you were watching the right race. Maybe explains your confusion here.

[Greyfox]

IAnother thing I noticed last night was that the five, the horse on the rail, moved out at least one path. The head on clearly shows that horse straddling the first dark line out from the rail as they entered the stretch. .

Race 7 Hollywood June 9.
You obviously watched the wrong race.
:5: sits two wide most of the way around the track.

[mostpost]

I don't think you were watching the right race. Maybe explains your confusion here.
I watched the right race, Race seven..the Cinderella stakes. My confusion was caused by the saddle cloths. In Chicago the yellow cloth belongs to the five and the green to the four. In California it is apparently the opposite. So it was the four who drifted out from the rail.
Repeated viewings of the stretch run both pan and head on have done nothing to convince me the stewards were wrong. The three actually gained on the one immediately after the bumping. It was only when they were in the clear that the one asserted herself to draw clear and win by a length. As for the horse in the middle , who did have to check, she was finished and would not have been a factor.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... My confusion was caused by the saddle cloths. In Chicago the yellow cloth belongs to the five and the green to the four...

Your confusion goes much deeper.

http://www.trainergame.com/images/WS_Small/USC_AP1_40.jpg

[johnhannibalsmith]

And just to limit any further confusion:

http://www.daretodreamstable.com/images/pullafastoneap090108.jpg

[andymays]

I watched the right race, Race seven..the Cinderella stakes. My confusion was caused by the saddle cloths. In Chicago the yellow cloth belongs to the five and the green to the four. In California it is apparently the opposite. So it was the four who drifted out from the rail.
Repeated viewings of the stretch run both pan and head on have done nothing to convince me the stewards were wrong. The three actually gained on the one immediately after the bumping. It was only when they were in the clear that the one asserted herself to draw clear and win by a length. As for the horse in the middle , who did have to check, she was finished and would not have been a factor.


C'mon Mosty. Your'e reaching the point of no return on this one.

[JustRalph]

no wonder my mail is so ****ed up............

[cj]

I finally got around to watching. In Gallop Racer, that is a great move. In real horse racing, that is a foul.

[Roy C]

Bejarano set down for 5 days due to this!

[the little guy]

I finally got around to watching. In Gallop Racer, that is a great move. In real horse racing, that is a foul.

Herding is the way to go in Gallop Racer......and real horse racing, apparently, as well.

[Greyfox]

IMy confusion was caused by the saddle cloths. In Chicago the yellow cloth belongs to the five and the green to the four. In California it is apparently the opposite..

Mosty by now you should have seen the photos above posted by JHS.
Your credibility has now fallen significantly on this board to a new low.

[6furlongs]

Watch Golden Gate's 7th race replay. A very similar move is made by the place horse. Although, in my opinion, not 1/2 as bad. After a 10 minute inquiry, guess what? Down it comes.

[Hedevar]

I watched the right race, Race seven..the Cinderella stakes. My confusion was caused by the saddle cloths. In Chicago the yellow cloth belongs to the five and the green to the four. In California it is apparently the opposite. So it was the four who drifted out from the rail.
Repeated viewings of the stretch run both pan and head on have done nothing to convince me the stewards were wrong. The three actually gained on the one immediately after the bumping. It was only when they were in the clear that the one asserted herself to draw clear and win by a length. As for the horse in the middle , who did have to check, she was finished and would not have been a factor.

Arlington is my home track and I have no idea where you got those saddlecloth colors.

[johnhannibalsmith]

no wonder my mail is so ****ed up............

:D

I've got to admit, I had this vision of Mosty as the guy at the track that is illogically screaming for the four to "...come on... you got 'em... run, come on, run... you son of a bitch... ONE time!!!" - all the way from the quarter to the wire -- when in fact, the four hasn't been within fifteen lengths of the leader since the first nine strides of the race.

[only11]

:D

I've got to admit, I had this vision of Mosty as the guy at the track that is illogically screaming for the four to "...come on... you got 'em... run, come on, run... you son of a bitch... ONE time!!!" - all the way from the quarter to the wire -- when in fact, the four hasn't been within fifteen lengths of the leader since the first nine strides of the race.
absolute classic... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Greyfox]

absolute classic... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't laugh too hard. I've done it with :1: :7: :8: several times.
On TV they are not always that distinct at certain tracks.

[mostpost]

Just looked at Maywood Park. Green is the color for the four horse. Some other colors are different too. But that is irrelevant. The inside horse did move out. You guys ignored that fact and made a huge deal over the fact that I got the number wrong. The experts (the stewards) and I agree. Whatever contact that occured did not change the result of the race.
Trying to be conciliatory, let me say if I had a bet on the three (I had no bets on the race) I would probably be agreeing with you. Our emotions cloud our judgement.

P.S. I think some of the saddlecloth colors were changed within the last few years.

[Greyfox]

The experts (the stewards) and I agree. Whatever contact that occured did not change the result of the race.
.


Eggsperts? :lol: :lol:
If you've read this thread so far and comprehend it,
I'd hazzard to say that most of us think these guys are incompetents.

[rrpic6]

I finally was on the right end of a bizarre Cali Steward's decision. I had a few bucks left after not hitting the 550K pick 6 at Belmont (I thought the will pay said 55K not 550K on the #11, talk about a gift). I played the last pick 3 at Hollywood: ALL/1/2,4,5,7,8/. You gotta know when to push the "ALL" button.;).

RR

[johnhannibalsmith]

Just looked at Maywood Park...

To be fair to you (which I always try to be...) I figured you were making a standardbred reference. It isn't just the four and five - I was trying to point out that you weren't confused about jurisdictions and saddletowels, but breeds and saddletowels.

Here's a yellow six for you:

http://z.about.com/d/horseracing/1/0/O/b/2/mpace08-1a.jpg

[overthehill]

years ago at the saratoga meet, my friend who posts here, had a winner in a maiden race. after a couple of minutes there is a stewards inquiry and they disqualify the horse. A couple of minutes after that they show the replay and the DQed winner wasnt even in the picture of the incident that caused the DQ! Later on the powers that be had a closed hearing about the matter, Cuomo, the governor at the time decided that there was no reason to let the pubic in on this, and they ended up transferring two of the stewards and a third one retired. No explanation was ever provided as to how all three could have made such a ridiculous error. There was talk of passing a bill to payoff people who had kept losing tickets on the DQed winner but nothing came of it.

As a bettor I would have been happy if there had never been any DQs for betting purposes. It seemed to me that the stewards always seemed to favor the more heavily bet horses anyway. I remember the Neruds had a filly named Mochilla in a stake race at New York. she was the 5-2 favorite. I had a 7-1 shot who ran second. Following the race there was a Stewards inquiry and 3 claims of foul against the winner who carried several horses wide into the parking lot. They let the results stand.

[bobbyt62]

allemeuse ?

[v j stauffer]

Lots of passionate opinions. Let me chime in one point. Whether you feel there should have been a DQ or not I can assure you the stewards DO NOT CARE if the horse in question was 3/5 or 100 to 1. In most cases they don't even know. The commissions that the track makes and the % the state gets in taxes doesn't change whether the horse stays up or is DQ'ed. A favorite winning does cause a bit more churn which the track doesn't mind but that's it. Agree or disagree with the call the horses odds are not a factor in the process.

[Greyfox]

Lots of passionate opinions. Let me chime in one point. Whether you feel there should have been a DQ or not I can assure you the stewards DO NOT CARE if the horse in question was 3/5 or 100 to 1. In most cases they don't even know. The commissions that the track makes and the % the state gets in taxes doesn't change whether the horse stays up or is DQ'ed. A favorite winning does cause a bit more churn which the track doesn't mind but that's it. Agree or disagree with the call the horses odds are not a factor in the process.

I know that you know more about this than the rest of us. You've reported what is ideally supposed to happen. But a couple of comments need expansion.

1. In most cases they don't know the odds?? Don't they ever see the pre race betting? Aren't they reviewing the screen that we are and the odds are usually right up there? Sorry, Vic....I don't believe that.

2.What you are saying is the ideal. Whether or not it happens at Southern California is debateable. Over the years a chi square analysis would show that favorites are less likely to get taken down in Southern California than any other venue. Perhaps I'll do one someday.

3. Breakage. The track can make the Stewards daily wages in one race if they don't toss a favorite vs a longshot. At some level of awareness the Stewards know that.

4. How can a jockey get a 5 day suspension and a horse not come down?
We're not that convinced that the best horse won.

[cj]

Lots of passionate opinions. Let me chime in one point. Whether you feel there should have been a DQ or not I can assure you the stewards DO NOT CARE if the horse in question was 3/5 or 100 to 1. In most cases they don't even know. The commissions that the track makes and the % the state gets in taxes doesn't change whether the horse stays up or is DQ'ed. A favorite winning does cause a bit more churn which the track doesn't mind but that's it. Agree or disagree with the call the horses odds are not a factor in the process.

There is no way they don't know the odds on the horses. That is a really big stretch. Unless you can climb inside the heads of the stewards, or provide statistics showing the % of DQs/non DQs based on odds you are just shooting from the hip.

[cj]

4. How can a jockey get a 5 day suspension and a horse not come down?
We're not that convinced that the best horse won.

All good points. I will add that it doesn't even matter if the best horse won. All that matters is if said horse cost another a placing.

[andymays]

This deal is as cut and dried as it gets as far as disqualifying the winner given the current rules and what has been done in the past. Multiple horses were interfered with and nobody on earth can say with confidence that it didn't cost one of the others a placing in the Tri's and Supers. The win spot isn't the only placing that was affected. Yes, with a clear trip the 3 probably wins but that doesn't matter given the number of horses that were fouled.

If they want to change the rules to the best horse won standard irregardless of what other placings are affected then go ahead but until then this was one of the most imcompetent calls in recent memory.

Con-friggin-sistency is all we need.

[comet52]

Passionate opinion is what you get here. Informed judgement, no so much.

I agree with you Vic, but I didn't play the race and lose $. There is a shadowy conspiracy around every corner according to this forum - horsemen, stewards, timers, racing execs, the track janitor, jocks, even the horses themselves are meeting in secret before the race and discussing who'll take a dive.

I am reminded of my days as a sportsbetter when I would constantly encounter people on forums crying "fix!". I would have to ask, since you cry foul every day, why do you keep coming back to bet into these rigged games when you don't even know which side is getting juiced in? And somehow it's always the side you didn't bet!

It's easier to blame mysterious conspiracies than accept that life has its ups and downs and strange twists, and our failures are mostly about our own shortcomings, not the nefarious dealings of others. Somehow every steward is a crook, along with the guys who run the track. The poor bettor is the only honest guy left, sitting there in his undershorts in front of the computer, railing at the unfairness of it all.

Lots of passionate opinions. Let me chime in one point. Whether you feel there should have been a DQ or not I can assure you the stewards DO NOT CARE if the horse in question was 3/5 or 100 to 1. In most cases they don't even know. The commissions that the track makes and the % the state gets in taxes doesn't change whether the horse stays up or is DQ'ed. A favorite winning does cause a bit more churn which the track doesn't mind but that's it. Agree or disagree with the call the horses odds are not a factor in the process.

[andymays]

Passionate opinion is what you get here. Informed judgement, no so much.

I agree with you Vic, but I didn't play the race and lose $. There is a shadowy conspiracy around every corner according to this forum - horsemen, stewards, timers, racing execs, the track janitor, jocks, even the horses themselves are meeting in secret before the race and discussing who'll take a dive.

I am reminded of my days as a sportsbetter when I would constantly encounter people on forums crying "fix!". I would have to ask, since you cry foul every day, why do you keep coming back to bet into these rigged games when you don't even know which side is getting juiced in? And somehow it's always the side you didn't bet!

It's easier to blame mysterious conspiracies than accept that life has its ups and downs and strange twists, and our failures are mostly about our own shortcomings, not the nefarious dealings of others. Somehow every steward is a crook, along with the guys who run the track. The poor bettor is the only honest guy left, sitting there in his undershorts in front of the computer, railing at the unfairness of it all.


Hey Comet did you watch the pan and the head on?

[Greyfox]

Passionate opinion is what you get here. Informed judgement, no so much.

So we may consider you opinion passionate but uninformed too. :rolleyes:

[comet52]

So we may consider you opinion passionate but uninformed too. :rolleyes:

You may consider it whatever you like, my friend. ;)

[comet52]

Hey Comet did you watch the pan and the head on?

Would it prove the stewards are corrupt if I did?

[Pick6]

My only explanation for this: some serious backside money on the horse who should have been DQd.

Trainers run the show, unfortunately.

[andymays]

Would it prove the stewards are corrupt if I did?


I'm talking incompetence not corruption. Why would you weigh in on an incident you didn't see? www.calracing.com

[BetCrazyGirl]

4. How can a jockey get a 5 day suspension and a horse not come down?
We're not that convinced that the best horse won.

I don't know if this is true or not but this is what was explain to me once by another horseplayer. I heard they won't take a horse down at times if its clear the horses would still finish in the order they did or sometimes they won't notice what had happened until after the prices are posted (the race offical) so that is when they would suspend a jockey, when they find out after race or as I just said if they were going to finish that way anyways but the jockey did something he/she shouldn't had then the horse may not be taken down and a suspension is placed on the jockey.

If this is not how the rules work I would like to know since this is all which was explained to me before when I had questioned about it.

[Deepsix]

....just as the #1 started a right oblique move for the 'potential hole' (materialising for a moment in space/time) the inside horse appears to react to left-handed whip and moves to the right... thus nudging the #1 and closing the anticipated room; making it much tighter and the bump occurs. Given that... I simply suck it up and move on. Others don't.

[Greyfox]

I heard they won't take a horse down at times if its clear the horses would still finish in the order they did or .

It was not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that they would still finish in the same order.

[rwwupl]

Please read posts #54,#60,#64("who says the Jockey judgement will be reviewed" ) and give your lungs a rest .

The best horse won the race...the Jock who created the problem has been given 5 days...and justice was done.


http://hollywoodpark.com/news/shirreffs-to-run-zardana-vs-zenyatta-in-vanity

Excerpt from Stable Notes, Hollywood Park

Meet-leading rider Rafael Bejarano was issued a five-day suspension by track stewards from June 16-20 for failure to make the proper effort to maintain a straight course in the stretch and causing interference with winner She’ll Heir in the Cinderella Stakes Wednesday.

[v j stauffer]

I know that you know more about this than the rest of us. You've reported what is ideally supposed to happen. But a couple of comments need expansion.

1. In most cases they don't know the odds?? Don't they ever see the pre race betting? Aren't they reviewing the screen that we are and the odds are usually right up there? Sorry, Vic....I don't believe that.

2.What you are saying is the ideal. Whether or not it happens at Southern California is debateable. Over the years a chi square analysis would show that favorites are less likely to get taken down in Southern California than any other venue. Perhaps I'll do one someday.

3. Breakage. The track can make the Stewards daily wages in one race if they don't toss a favorite vs a longshot. At some level of awareness the Stewards know that.

4. How can a jockey get a 5 day suspension and a horse not come down?
We're not that convinced that the best horse won.

1. Depends on the stewards and their backround. Of course they would know if Zenyatta was running and she was the favorite. As for a day to day race they could go several races with no mind whatsoever who the favorite was. They might look afterward when they choose who to send for post race testing. The winner always goes. After that it's at the descretion of a singular designated steward to choose who if any also goes for a screening. Lots of factors go into this choice. One of which might be if a very short price favorite performs poorly. that might be the one time price may be noticed.

2. Perhaps you should. Would be interesting.

3. The stewards are not paid by the track. They are independant contractors and paid by the State of California.

4. It can happen and does all the time. There are two totally seperate decisions the stewards have to make. Interestingly one is made on the spot before the race is made official. The other after film review with the jockey present the following morning. First they must decide if any other horse was cost an "opportunity" at a better placing as a result of the incident. In this case they decided no. The next morning they must decide if the rider failed to maintain a proper course or acted carelessly. In this case they feel that Bejarano did not and issued a 5 day sanction.

[v j stauffer]

This deal is as cut and dried as it gets as far as disqualifying the winner given the current rules and what has been done in the past. Multiple horses were interfered with and nobody on earth can say with confidence that it didn't cost one of the others a placing in the Tri's and Supers. The win spot isn't the only placing that was affected. Yes, with a clear trip the 3 probably wins but that doesn't matter given the number of horses that were fouled.

If they want to change the rules to the best horse won standard irregardless of what other placings are affected then go ahead but until then this was one of the most imcompetent calls in recent memory.

Con-friggin-sistency is all we need.

Actually 3 on earth can and did say in their confident opinion that the incident did not cost any other runners an opportunity at a better placing. It's their job to make that judgement call and that's how they ruled.

[v j stauffer]

Passionate opinion is what you get here. Informed judgement, no so much.

I agree with you Vic, but I didn't play the race and lose $. There is a shadowy conspiracy around every corner according to this forum - horsemen, stewards, timers, racing execs, the track janitor, jocks, even the horses themselves are meeting in secret before the race and discussing who'll take a dive.

I am reminded of my days as a sportsbetter when I would constantly encounter people on forums crying "fix!". I would have to ask, since you cry foul every day, why do you keep coming back to bet into these rigged games when you don't even know which side is getting juiced in? And somehow it's always the side you didn't bet!

It's easier to blame mysterious conspiracies than accept that life has its ups and downs and strange twists, and our failures are mostly about our own shortcomings, not the nefarious dealings of others. Somehow every steward is a crook, along with the guys who run the track. The poor bettor is the only honest guy left, sitting there in his undershorts in front of the computer, railing at the unfairness of it all.

Extremely sharp post!!!

[v j stauffer]

My only explanation for this: some serious backside money on the horse who should have been DQd.

Trainers run the show, unfortunately.

Extremely lame post!!

They are competing against each other. How can "they" run the show??

[andymays]

Actually 3 on earth can and did say in their confident opinion that the incident did not cost any other runners an opportunity at a better placing. It's their job to make that judgement call and that's how they ruled.

Well Vic, the three on earth have their heads up "you know where".

Nobody could say that the placings to 5th place (purse money) were not affected. Nobody. Do you really think this call (didn't affect the order of finish) was consistent with past calls?

Let's see if they stay consistent now that this is the new standard.

You've been around a long time as have I so what do you think the odds of them staying constistent on this new rule?

[Show Me the Wire]

Actually 3 on earth can and did say in their confident opinion that the incident did not cost any other runners an opportunity at a better placing. It's their job to make that judgement call and that's how they ruled.


That is the problem, they could not have made that decision in any reasonable manner. The 7 horse, which was impeded the most and had to be taken- up finished next to last. He finished next to last and lost all opportunity to finish in a better placing due to Bejarano's bumping and pushing. The decision was not reasonable or logical in any way shape or form, especially as it relates to precedent and the recent dq of Repo.

It may have been the stewards "confident" opinion and that is a problem for the public, because it is an arbitrary "confident" opinion.

[v j stauffer]

Well Vic, the three on earth have their heads up "you know where". Nobody could say that the placings to 5th place (purse money) were not affected. Nobody. Do you really think this call (didn't affect the order of finish) was consistent with past calls?

Let's see if they stay consistent now that this is the new standard.

You've been around a long time as have I so what do you think the odds of them staying constistent on this new rule?

Again with "nobody". The 3 somebodys that matter most ruled that the placings were not affected. Consistency is a total non-factor in this debate. Each incident is exclusive unto itself. One mans consistency is another mans totally random and inconsistent decisions based on each individual case and each persons viewing of what happened.

[Deepsix]

Yeah Vic.... I've uttered those, or similar words myself.

[andymays]

Again with "nobody". The 3 somebodys that matter most ruled that the placings were not affected. Consistency is a total non-factor in this debate. Each incident is exclusive unto itself. One mans consistency is another mans totally random and unconsistent decisions based on each individual case and each persons viewing of what happened.


Are you serious? You don't want the Stewards to be consistent and apply the rules uniformely no matter who the connections or the jockey are?

Do you really think that if Kerwin John is on the #3 he stays up?

If the same thing happens tomorrow and they rule differently then that would be OK with you?

[v j stauffer]

BTW I'm certified as a California State steward. I would have voted to DQ. That of course means nothing more or less than all of your opinions. The only opinions that matter are those of the three stewards working that day. They made their call and I respect their expertise to do so.

[Deepsix]

I relate this argument to Football replays...... even after the painful process of reviewing the video, from many angles, very many calls seem inconclusive, OR are regarded as without dispute. You move on.....

[rwwupl]

That is the problem, they could not have made that decision in any reasonable manner. The 7 horse, which was impeded the most and had to be taken- up finished next to last. He finished next to last and lost all opportunity to finish in a better placing due to Bejarano's bumping and pushing. The decision was not reasonable or logical in any way shape or form, especially as it relates to precedent and the recent dq of Repo.

It may have been the stewards "confident" opinion and that is a problem for the public, because it is an arbitrary "confident" opinion.



The "Repo" incident was different....


http://www.chrb.ca.gov/Minutes_Hollywood_Park/Minutes_HP_10_06_05.pdf


From The Stewards minutes:
05/31/102 ROSARIO RULING (ref. 5/30/107)
HRTH #044
Jockey JOEL ROSARIO, who rode “Repo” in the eighth race at Hollywood Park on May 30, 2010, is suspended for three (3) racing days (June 6, 9, and 10, 2010) for failure to make the proper effort to maintain a straight course in the stretch, causing interference which resulted in the disqualification of his mount. This constitutes a violation of California Horse Racing Board rule #1699 (Riding Rules-careless riding).
Term of suspension shall not prohibit participation in designated races pursuant to California Horse Racing Board rule #1766 (Designated Races).
This ruling was issued after a film review of the race with Joel Rosario. It was in the Stewards’ opinion that Mr. Rosario chose to ride close and his decision to do so created the infraction. He accepted his penalty without argument

[andymays]

BTW I'm certified as a California State steward. I would have voted to DQ. That of course means nothing more or less than all of your opinions. The only opinions that matter are those of the three stewards working that day. They made their call and I respect their expertise to do so.


You mean to tell me you would have voted to DQ and here you are arguing with other people who agree with you?

As far as respecting their expertise what is that? This call is not worthy of respect. When people place a bet they should have confidence that the Stewards are competent. This was an incompetent "non call".

[thaskalos]

Again with "nobody". The 3 somebodys that matter most ruled that the placings were not affected. Consistency is a total non-factor in this debate. Each incident is exclusive unto itself. One mans consistency is another mans totally random and inconsistent decisions based on each individual case and each persons viewing of what happened. Vic...you say "the placings were not affected".

How many times have we seen the winner taken down for a foul commited against the second place finisher RIGHT ON THE WIRE. It's obvious that the winner would have won even if the foul did not occur...but they take him down anyway.

Why can't the rulings of the stewards be more consistant? They have multi-view replays and unlimited time to get it right...is their job THAT difficult?

Does the horseplayer need more chaos and aggravation in this game?

[v j stauffer]

Are you serious? You don't want the Stewards to be consistent and apply the rules uniformely no matter who the connections or the jockey are?

Do you really think that if Kerwin John is on the #3 he stays up?

If the same thing happens tomorrow and they rule differently then that would be OK with you?

People only think umpires or stewards are consistent with their calls when they "agree" with them. When they don't so called consistency flies out the door.

I am 1000% percent sure if Kerwin John had been on the horse it would not have factored into the stewards perception of whether any other horses were cost opportunities at better placings.

[andymays]

People only think umpires or stewards are consistent with their calls when they "agree" with them. When they don't so called consistency flies out the door.

I am 1000% percent sure if Kerwin John had been on the horse it would not have factored into the stewards perception of whether any other horses were cost opportunities at better placings.


By the way, how competent was the investigator that never interviewed Joel for the incident at Del Mar but still wanted to crucify him? Please don't tell me everyone that works for the CHRB is competent. This was a bad non call and everyone should be outraged by it.

Do you know if it was unanimous?

[andymays]

People only think umpires or stewards are consistent with their calls when they "agree" with them. When they don't so called consistency flies out the door.

I am 1000% percent sure if Kerwin John had been on the horse it would not have factored into the stewards perception of whether any other horses were cost opportunities at better placings.


Do you really expect people to believe that when Kerwin John gets on the phone to be interviewed by the Stewards he gets the same respect as Bejerano?

[v j stauffer]

You mean to tell me you would have voted to DQ and here you are arguing with other people who agree with you?

As far as respecting their expertise what is that? This call is not worthy of respect. When people place a bet they should have confidence that the Stewards are competent. This was an incompetent "non call".

I'm not arguing with anybody. I'm simply telling you how the process works. All calls must be respected whether we agree or not. The three stewards who made this call are long standing well respected officials. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them incompetent.

[Greyfox]

That is the problem, they could not have made that decision in any reasonable manner. The 7 horse, which was impeded the most and had to be taken- up finished next to last. He finished next to last and lost all opportunity to finish in a better placing due to Bejarano's bumping and pushing. .

Exactly right SMTW. :ThmbUp:
Hence if they decided against # 1 She'll Heir they would have had to place that filly behind # 7 right out of the money.
Placing that horse right out of the money would have cost the track thousands and thousands of nickels in breakage across all wps and exotic bets.
Maybe 50,000 nickels or more?? Do the math. ;)
At any rate, anyone who has played Southern Cal racing for a long time knows that in an incident between the heavy favorite and another horse, it is a rare occurrence that the favorite is going to be tossed right out of the money, unless maybe it's a Mullins or Mitchell horse.
So they are paid by the CHRB? They are still aware of the impact on a track of their decisions.
These are not cloistered monks sworn to vows of poverty who don't see the tote board and have no idea of the odds.
(Oh. They know when Zenyatta's running but don't know the odds on the others in other races.:rolleyes: )

[thaskalos]

Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them incompetent. What if we ALL disagree? Does THAT make them incompetent?

[v j stauffer]

Vic...you say "the placings were not affected".

How many times have we seen the winner taken down for a foul commited against the second place finisher RIGHT ON THE WIRE. It's obvious that the winner would have won even if the foul did not occur...but they take him down anyway.

Why can't the rulings of the stewards be more consistant? They have multi-view replays and unlimited time to get it right...is their job THAT difficult?

Does the horseplayer need more chaos and aggravation in this game?

"I" didn't say anything. "I" was explaining what the stewards ruled.

[andymays]

I'm not arguing with anybody. I'm simply telling you how the process works. All calls must be respected whether we agree or not. The three stewards who made this call are long standing well respected officials. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them incompetent.


Why should Horseplayers respect this call? I had the winner singled and still felt he should have come down. This business of wanting Horseplayers to respect incompetent decisions is B.S.

What was the vote? Was it unanimous?

[v j stauffer]

By the way, how competent was the investigator that never interviewed Joel for the incident at Del Mar but still wanted to crucify him? Please don't tell me everyone that works for the CHRB is competent. This was a bad non call and everyone should be outraged by it.

Do you know if it was unanimous?

It was unanimous.

[andymays]

It was unanimous.

:bang:

Enough said.

[v j stauffer]

By the way, how competent was the investigator that never interviewed Joel for the incident at Del Mar but still wanted to crucify him? Please don't tell me everyone that works for the CHRB is competent. This was a bad non call and everyone should be outraged by it.

Do you know if it was unanimous?

Stewards and investigators routinely have their work critiqued and reviewed. There's a mandatory stewards meeting once a month where new rules and tough decisions are gone over and discussed. I attended a couple of them. Very intense.

As for the actual process for investigators I'm not sure how that works. Their are reviews though. In fact less than a month after Rosario was exonerated of all charges in the Del Mar incident the buffoon who conducted the investigation was gone.

[thaskalos]

"I" didn't say anything. "I" was explaining what the stewards ruled.Sorry...

The stewards ruled that the placings were not affected.

How many times have we seen the winner get DQed because of a foul commited against the second place finisher RIGHT ON THE WIRE?

It's obvious that the winner would have prevailed even if the foul did not occur...but they take him down anyway.

Why can't the stewards be more consistent with their calls? They have multi-view replays and unlimited time at their disposal to get it right!

Do the players need more chaos and aggravation in this game?

[v j stauffer]

Do you really expect people to believe that when Kerwin John gets on the phone to be interviewed by the Stewards he gets the same respect as Bejerano?

Absolutely!!!

[thaskalos]

Stewards and investigators routinely have their work critiqued and reviewed. There's a mandatory stewards meeting once a month where new rules and tough decisions are gone over and discussed. I attended a couple of them. Very intense.

As for the actual process for investigators I'm not sure how that works. Their are reviews though. In fact less than a month after Rosario was exonerated of all charges in the Del Mar incident the buffoon who conducted the investigation was gone. Are you aware of any other cases where the stewards were reprimanded for their "mistakes"?

[v j stauffer]

Exactly right SMTW. :ThmbUp:
Hence if they decided against # 1 She'll Heir they would have had to place that filly behind # 7 right out of the money.
Placing that horse right out of the money would have cost the track thousands and thousands of nickels in breakage across all wps and exotic bets.
Maybe 50,000 nickels or more?? Do the math. ;)
At any rate, anyone who has played Southern Cal racing for a long time knows that in an incident between the heavy favorite and another horse, it is a rare occurrence that the favorite is going to be tossed right out of the money, unless maybe it's a Mullins or Mitchell horse.
So they are paid by the CHRB? They are still aware of the impact on a track of their decisions.
These are not cloistered monks sworn to vows of poverty who don't see the tote board and have no idea of the odds.
(Oh. They know when Zenyatta's running but don't know the odds on the others in other races.:rolleyes: )

Ridiculous post.

[andymays]

Stewards and investigators routinely have their work critiqued and reviewed. There's a mandatory stewards meeting once a month where new rules and tough decisions are gone over and discussed. I attended a couple of them. Very intense.

As for the actual process for investigators I'm not sure how that works. Their are reviews though. In fact less than a month after Rosario was exonerated of all charges in the Del Mar incident the buffoon who conducted the investigation was gone.


As he should have been gone.

Yes, I've had some of my complaints about call sent to Mike Marten and they were reviewed by the Stewards at a couple of their meetings. The thing is that within a few months when the exact same incident occurs you usually get a different result. It's always been that way and probably always will be.

[Greyfox]

Ridiculous post.

Sharp reply. :lol:

[TheGhostOfOscarB]

At 3/5 you're allowed to do that, it's in the rules. If the horse had been 20-1 it would have been dq'd back to last Sunday.

I want some of the weed they were smoking in the booth.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

In fact less than a month after Rosario was exonerated of all charges in the Del Mar incident the buffoon who conducted the investigation was gone.

But you MUST respect his decision to investigate and bring charges.

[v j stauffer]

At 3/5 you're allowed to do that, it's in the rules. If the horse had been 20-1 it would have been dq'd back to last Sunday.

I want some of the weed they were smoking in the booth.

Incorrectomundo!!

Please refer to previous posts.

Stewards DO NOT CARE what price a horse is. It means NOTHING to them.

BTW welcome aboard five post rookie!!:)

[v j stauffer]

But you MUST respect his decision to investigate and bring charges.

I did. Joel and I truthfully testified to a board of stewards and he was exonerated. Only cost "ME" $8000 in legal fees:mad:

[thaskalos]

BTW I'm certified as a California State steward. I would have voted to DQ. That of course means nothing more or less than all of your opinions. The only opinions that matter are those of the three stewards working that day. They made their call and I respect their expertise to do so. The track announcer, who is also certified as a steward would have voted to DQ...but the stewards were UNANIMOUS in their decision to let the result stand!

Well...I guess that makes about as much sense as anything else in this game...

[Greyfox]

The stewards are three independent contractors.

http://www.iwritenewyork.com/jan07/mice3.gif.

[Stillriledup]

The placings WERE affected. They were affected this way. If the 1 doesnt illegally crash out to get room, she's probably unplaced, which means all the other horses behind her move up one place. She affected a bunch of placings the way i see it.

[TheGhostOfOscarB]

Incorrectomundo!!

Please refer to previous posts.

Stewards DO NOT CARE what price a horse is. It means NOTHING to them.

BTW welcome aboard five post rookie!!:)

I'd take note of my join date, no rookie here, and I was there when Secretariat won the Belmont (and not with my daddy), so I've seen a bit.


I say the price had a lot to do with it, if not, then the ruling was evidence of inebriation. You can't push horses out of the way, which was clearly done here. Maybe you get away with that on the backside or at the start, but late in the race, you have clear running or you EAT DIRT.

That's the price you pay for saving ground, you might get shut off. What the jock did was illegal and dangerous. Kudos for the will to win, but that was a clear DQ that didn't happen.

PS My comment about 'in the rules' was tongue in cheek' in case that escaped anyone.

[Kimsus]

BTW I'm certified as a California State steward. I would have voted to DQ. That of course means nothing more or less than all of your opinions. The only opinions that matter are those of the three stewards working that day. They made their call and I respect their expertise to do so.

Maybe you should add steward to your resume too then, I commend you for your honesty, good to get an admission from someone that works for HP that the decision was erroneous. Regardless of how fast 8 horse fell back after being mugged, did the stewards ever consider the fact that the lack of action could have cost exotics wagerers? What they neglected was a total dis-service to exotics bettors IMO.

[andymays]

http://www.equidaily.com/

Excerpt:

Eventual winner She'll Heir [red arrow] bulls through and clearly interferes with Rockin Heather [yellow arrow], and, as can be seen on the head-on, actually moves most of the field into close-quarters. As Gary West notes in his piece linked below, "After an inquiry, the stewards made no change, ruling that the incident didn't affect the outcome. Do these stewards have such amazing powers of perspicacity that they can peer with clear vision through time, back and forth, and into possible outcomes?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West Points: An unfortunate precedent

http://startelegramsports.typepad.com/west_points/2010/06/an-unfortunate-precedent.html

Excerpt:

Their claim to clairvoyance would be amusing if it weren't coupled with an alarmingly dangerous precedent. By not disqualifying She'll Heir, the 3-5 favorite, from winning Wednesday's Cinderella Stakes at Hollywood Park, the stewards there basically have given the best horse license to run over and through anybody on the way to the winner's circle

That's what She'll Heir did. With about a furlong remaining in the Cinderella, She'll Heir, bursting with energy and with want-to, had nowhere to run. And so Rafael Bejarano sent the filly into a sliver of space, a mere crack in the wall of horses in front of him, and without hesitation she bulled her way through, initiating a bumping incident that ricocheted four-horses deep. She'll Heir, by the way, already had dropped over on Trick Skate in the turn and caused that one to steady, and so she directly or indirectly bothered five of the other seven horses in the race. Rockin Heather, who was the first and hardest to be bumped, immediately retreated and finished seventh. Trick Skate ran last.


Read more: http://startelegramsports.typepad.com/west_points/2010/06/an-unfortunate-precedent.html#ixzz0qaKuEh65

[v j stauffer]

I'd take note of my join date, no rookie here, and I was there when Secretariat won the Belmont (and not with my daddy), so I've seen a bit.

I say the price had a lot to do with it, if not, then the ruling was evidence of inebriation. You can't push horses out of the way, which was clearly done here. Maybe you get away with that on the backside or at the start, but late in the race, you have clear running or you EAT DIRT.

That's the price you pay for saving ground, you might get shut off. What the jock did was illegal and dangerous. Kudos for the will to win, but that was a clear DQ that didn't happen.

Please don't take offense. I just saw that you had only posted 5 times. Often times I wish I had never posted but I'm addicted. What can I say?

The stewards agree with you that what the jockey did was a violation. That's why he was issued a five day suspension.

[andymays]

http://www.equidaily.com/

Excerpt:

>>> Paceadvantage racing forum:

"Unbelievable. He interfered with 4 horses in a chain reaction."
"That was one of the biggest bull*** calls I have seen ever. No different than having your wallet robbed."
"That is probably the worst call I've seen by Stewards at any track this year."

>>> TVG board:
"What are the stewards suggesting by not DQ'ing She'll Heir[?]"
"She'll Heir should have been taken down because while she was the best horse she had to commit the foul in order to win."
"That bump caused 5 others to move over."

>>> Hollywood Stable Notes, 6/10/10: "Meet-leading rider Rafael Bejarano was issued a five-day suspension by track stewards from June 16-20 for failure to make the proper effort to maintain a straight course in the stretch and causing interference with winner She’ll Heir in the Cinderella Stakes Wednesday."

[v j stauffer]

Maybe you should add steward to your resume too then, I commend you for your honesty, good to get an admission from someone that works for HP that the decision was erroneous. Regardless of how fast 8 horse fell back after being mugged, did the stewards ever consider the fact that the lack of action could have cost exotics wagerers? What they neglected was a total dis-service to exotics bettors IMO.

I never said the decision was erroneous. I said that I would have ruled differently. Futhermore where I work has NOTHING to do with this discussion. :bang:

[TheGhostOfOscarB]

I never said the decision was erroneous. I said that I would have ruled differently. Futhermore where I work has NOTHING to do with this discussion. :bang:

Let me ask you, what WOULD constitute an erroneous decision?

What you are saying is no matter WHAT they ruled, it would be CORRECT since they are the almightly stewards.

Sorry, but in cases as clear cut as this, their omnipotence is not the question, but their competence is.

You can watch this all you want at the cal racing site.

Horse went from the 1 path to the THREE path in 3 strides. The more you watch it, the more this was a BAD and unexplainable call. I say again, the 3/5 was a factor, they thought they were making the most customers happy.

[v j stauffer]

Let me ask you, what WOULD constitute an erroneous decision?

What you are saying is no matter WHAT they ruled, it would be CORRECT since they are the almightly stewards.

Sorry, but in cases as clear cut as this, their omnipotence is not the question, but their competence is.

You can watch this all you want at the cal racing site.

Horse went from the 1 path to the THREE path in 3 strides. The more you watch it, the more this was a BAD and unexplainable call. I say again, the 3/5 was a factor, they thought they were making the most customers happy.

That seems to be the consensus on this blog. But remember it's still a judgement call. I guess the only way it could actually be considered erroneous is if the call was appealed and overturned.

[v j stauffer]

Off to work guys. Been enjoyable trading views. I respect you all. Good luck if you play HP tonight. Go TYLER!!!!:ThmbUp:

[andymays]

That seems to be the consensus on this blog. But remember it's still a judgement call. I guess the only way it could actually be considered erroneous is if the call was appealed and overturned.


Posts #149 and #151 seem to say it's the concensus almost everywhere.

[exiles]

Off to work guys. Been enjoyable trading views. I respect you all. Good luck if you play HP tonight. Go TYLER!!!!:ThmbUp:

Good luck Vic.

[thaskalos]

Good luck Vic. You should be wishing good luck to the stewards. They need it more...

[exiles]

You should be wishing good luck to the stewards. They need it more...

Good point, THASKALOs

[Greyfox]

That seems to be the consensus on this blog. But remember it's still a judgement call. I guess the only way it could actually be considered erroneous is if the call was appealed and overturned.

It was erroneous.
We don't need an appeal to prove that.
Personally, I'm tired of your "Sharp Post" - "Ridiculous Post" responses in many threads. You're coming across as if King Arthur was dubbing a Knight or cutting his head off. Give that some thought. Pleeese.
You are a very good race caller for sure.
You may be a good Steward... but the bottom line is the Stewards who made this call were up a gum tree.
As an announcer...keep up the good work.

[v j stauffer]

It was erroneous.
We don't need an appeal to prove that.
Personally, I'm tired of your "Sharp Post" - "Ridiculous Post" responses in many threads. You're coming across as if King Arthur was dubbing a Knight or cutting his head off. Give that some thought. Pleeese.
You are a very good race caller for sure.
You may be a good Steward... but the bottom line is the Stewards who made this call were up a gum tree.
As an announcer...keep up the good work.

Sharp, Ridiculous, Stupid, Erroneous, post.

[PaceAdvantage]

Passionate opinion is what you get here. Informed judgement, no so much.

I agree with you Vic, but I didn't play the race and lose $. There is a shadowy conspiracy around every corner according to this forum - horsemen, stewards, timers, racing execs, the track janitor, jocks, even the horses themselves are meeting in secret before the race and discussing who'll take a dive.I love it when certain individuals take great pride in indicting the entirety of this forum. I find such people very interesting.

[Greyfox]

Sharp, Ridiculous, Stupid, Erroneous, post.

You might think that you are using irony. I'm more inclined to believe that you think you are above the need for constructive advice. Maybe you do have something in common with most stewards in that department. Have a good day.

[comet52]

How do you know I didn't see it? This is the second time you've attributed actions to me that didn't occur. First you felt I was saying that you made all the insults in the Zenyatta thread, while nowhere did I claim they were yours. Now you think because I ask a rhetorical question it means I didn't watch the replay. I watched the race live actually, as I was betting Hollywood that day.

It's not my opinion that Hollywood stewards are incompetent or corrupt.

I'm talking incompetence not corruption. Why would you weigh in on an incident you didn't see? www.calracing.com

[comet52]

BTW I'm certified as a California State steward. I would have voted to DQ. That of course means nothing more or less than all of your opinions. The only opinions that matter are those of the three stewards working that day. They made their call and I respect their expertise to do so.

Yup. And when someone loses money because of it, they are here slinging mud at those guys whom they've never met and whose decision they have no information about. It might be nice for stewards decisions to be published somewhere, but every time a call goes against you, you needn't start crying like a baby that the whole world is unfair and it's all about shady conspiracies to rip you off. That's just sad.

[comet52]

I'm glad I've got your attention. Your forum could use less nastiness and more civility. Get to work.

I love it when certain individuals take great pride in indicting the entirety of this forum. I find such people very interesting.

[andymays]

How do you know I didn't see it? This is the second time you've attributed actions to me that didn't occur. First you felt I was saying that you made all the insults in the Zenyatta thread, while nowhere did I claim they were yours. Now you think because I ask a rhetorical question it means I didn't watch the replay. I watched the race live actually, as I was betting Hollywood that day.

It's not my opinion that Hollywood stewards are incompetent or corrupt.


Post #99 I asked the question and you decided not to answer. In an earlier post you said you didn't bet the race but knocked everyone for thinking it was a bad call. You decided to be a little cute with your answers.

Watch the friggin pan and head on and then get back to me.

[Greyfox]

but every time a call goes against you, you needn't start crying like a baby that the whole world is unfair and it's all about shady conspiracies to rip you off. That's just sad.

Come off it.
There are DQ's every day. Very few get mentioned on this board.
Bejarano committed such a flagrant foul in this race that it has drawn a lot of attention. This race was an "outlier" among disqualifications (or lack of them)and deserves thorough comment and analysis.
For horseplayers to remain mute on the disgraceful decision would be absolutely wrong. Your always free to take your toys and gripes to your own sand box.

[v j stauffer]

You might think that you are using irony. I'm more inclined to believe that you think you are above the need for constructive advice. Maybe you do have something in common with most stewards in that department. Have a good day.

Or maybe I just want to have lighthearted fun. Trade views with other racing fans. And not take things to personally.

[Greyfox]

Or maybe I just want to have lighthearted fun. Trade views with other racing fans. And not take things to personally.

:ThmbUp: At least you didn't reply with one of your two word Arthurian dubs here.

[andymays]

Or maybe I just want to have lighthearted fun. Trade views with other racing fans. And not take things to personally.


A little off topic but you're getting a little jazz from Roger Stein this morning about your last race call yesterday 6-11. He's playing the call.

Accuracy damnit! ;)

[v j stauffer]

A little off topic but you're getting a little jazz from Roger Stein this morning about your last race call yesterday 6-11. He's playing the call.

Accuracy damnit! ;)

Heard it. Last race on Friday nights can be very tough with a bunch of closely packed cheap maidens. Very tough to see. Didn't see The Skinny Man pull up on the backstretch. Not my best effort. He's entitled to his opinion.

[v j stauffer]

:ThmbUp: At least you didn't reply with one of your two word Arthurian dubs here.

Dudley Moore was really good in that movie.

[andymays]

Heard it. Last race on Friday nights can be very tough with a bunch of closely packed cheap maidens. Very tough to see. Didn't see The Skinny Man pull up on the backstretch. Not my best effort. He's entitled to his opinion.

It wasn't too bad.

[JustRalph]

Deputy!!!!

[JustRalph]

I'm glad I've got your attention. Your forum could use less nastiness and more civility. Get to work.

Check the IP Address on this one............Methinks it is coming down from a cloud on high............0.0.0.1

[Igeteven]

To some of you, think about it, all of you sound like you don't have both oars in the water

1. When a jockey is boxed in, what the hell do you want him to do?

2. When a jockey is trying to win the race, what the hell do you want him to do?

3. The horse was the far the best and the out come would have not changed.

4. All jockeys , try to win, however, if ordered to lose, I have seen that also, however in this race, the jockey tried to win and did.

5. I think it is only far, if a jockey is boxed in, he has the right to break out, the other jockeys, COULD have let him out, however they didn't.

So get over it, the jockey did right. The Stewart's did right by not taking the horse down. I hope the jockey appeals it and wins.

[JustRalph]

To some of you, think about it, all of you sound like you don't have both oars in the water

1. When a jockey is boxed in, what the hell do you want him to do?

2. When a jockey is trying to win the race, what the hell do you want him to do?

3. The horse was the far the best and the out come would have not changed.

4. All jockeys , try to win, however, if ordered to lose, I have seen that also, however in this race, the jockey tried to win and did.

5. I think it is only far, if a jockey is boxed in, he has the right to break out, the other jockeys, COULD have let him out, however they didn't.

So get over it, the jockey did right. The Stewart's did right by not taking the horse down. I hope the jockey appeals it and wins.

Wow.......what can you say............

[v j stauffer]

To some of you, think about it, all of you sound like you don't have both oars in the water

1. When a jockey is boxed in, what the hell do you want him to do?

2. When a jockey is trying to win the race, what the hell do you want him to do?

3. The horse was the far the best and the out come would have not changed.

4. All jockeys , try to win, however, if ordered to lose, I have seen that also, however in this race, the jockey tried to win and did.

5. I think it is only far, if a jockey is boxed in, he has the right to break out, the other jockeys, COULD have let him out, however they didn't.

So get over it, the jockey did right. The Stewart's did right by not taking the horse down. I hope the jockey appeals it and wins.

Heard you might be coming up to visit me tomorrow. Remember there's no padding on the walls of the announcers booth. :confused:

[Igeteven]

Heard you might be coming up to visit me tomorrow. Remember there's no padding on the walls of the announcers booth. :confused:


Oh Vic, I will be there, as Phil Silvers always said, Glad to see you. :)

[rwwupl]

Heard you might be coming up to visit me tomorrow. Remember there's no padding on the walls of the announcers booth. :confused:



Lester informs that he will give you a few pointers. :)

[Igeteven]

Lester informs that he will give you a few pointers. :)

oh, how did you know, I am calling the Breeder Cup at Santa Anita in the year 2929

:jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: :D

[v j stauffer]

Lester informs that he will give you a few pointers. :)

And I thought I was already gonna be nervous with Zenyatta running.:kiss:

[rwwupl]

From the Stewards Minutes...Justice was done.


THURSDAY
06/10/101 FILM REVIEW
Jockey RAFAEL BEJARANO met with the stewards this morning to discuss his ride in the seventh race yesterday during which his mount was the subject of an inquiry. Mr. Bejarano claimed that his mount was running up on the heels of the horse in front of him and that therefore he had to take action in order to avoid contact. In his view, that action meant pushing a horse out of the way and causing interference. This Board had a different view—that is, that Mr. Bejarano found himself trapped with a fresh horse and made a decision to win the race despite the consequences. The consequences were the following:
HRTH #046
Jockey RAFAEL BEJARANO is suspended for FIVE (5) RACING DAYS (June 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 2010) for failure to make the proper effort to maintain a straight course in the stretch and causing interference while riding “She’ll Heir” in the seventh race at Hollywood Park on June 9, 2010. This constitutes a violation of California Horse Racing Board rule #1699 (Riding Rules-careless riding).
Term of suspension shall not prohibit participation in designated races pursuant to California Horse Racing Board rule #1766 (Designated Races).

[Kimsus]

From the Stewards Minutes...Justice was done.

Not for all the bettors stiffed by this theft via the stewards. How am I going to get my money back or my winnings that rightfully belonged to the 2nd horse nevermind all the exotic wagerers.

[Hedevar]

I agree it was an injustice to bettors.

[6furlongs]

As the majority of people saw it here. An absolute travesty. In spite of what Mr. Stauffer says here, there was no way that any rational analysis of this infraction wouldn't result in a dq. The Stewards in this case need to be called in, and fined, at the very least.

[v j stauffer]

As the majority of people saw it here. An absolute travesty. In spite of what Mr. Stauffer says here, there was no way that any rational analysis of this infraction wouldn't result in a dq. The Stewards in this case need to be called in, and fined, at the very least.

If you'd taken time to read what Mr. Stauffer said instead of just spouting off you'd have discovered that like the majority of you I felt the horse should have been disqualified.

[senortout]

For you greater understanding then.
Also, I would be remiss if I neglected to tell you the situations which exist in the standardbred side of the track. Not sure if the saddle colors are the same as our thoroughbreds use! Don't go that often! But I do know that pacers and trotters who warm up between races and PRIOR to their race, wear a cloth whose color IDENTIFIES THE RACE THEY are scheduled to APPEAR IN. Hoping to educate a few here. Someone tell me the colors during the race for standardbreds, are they the same as the thoroughbred?

senortout

[andymays]

Here's the explanation from Mike Marten of the CHRB just in. The problem is that they should just admit they blew the call and move on. Otherwise a precedent is set and they're gonna have egg on their face the next time the same thing happens and they call it differently. It's a matter of time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andy:

Yours was one of several complaints we received. Here is our response:

Mike


Thank you for your e-mail concerning the 7th race on June 9 at Hollywood Park and the unanimous decision by the stewards to let the original order of finish stand.

We concur that the winner, She’ll Heir, interfered with the seventh-place finisher, Rockin Heather. The stewards also agree on this point. In fact, they felt that Rafael Bejarano endangered himself and others by pushing his way through a narrow opening and causing the trouble, and they subsequently suspended him for five days for careless riding. (See ruling below.)

However, Rule 1699 (Riding Rules) requires more than interference for a disqualification. To warrant a DQ, the stewards also must determine that the trouble made a significant difference in the outcome. Specifically, the rule states: (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.

The stewards felt that Rockin Heather, who had led to midstretch, was tiring badly from the front-running effort and was about to be engulfed by the rest of the field when the trouble occurred. They felt that Rockin Heather would have dropped back even with a clear trip. Their opinion was reinforced during the inquiry when they spoke on the phone with the rider of Rockin Heather, Martin Garcia, who told them, “I was out of horse.” And the next morning they spoke with Rafael DeLeon, the trainer of Rockin Heather, who told them he thought his horse finished just about where she would have without the trouble.

The stewards felt the brushing and bumping between the horses outside of Rockin Heather was minor by comparison and, again, did not alter the order of finish.

We realize that Rule 1699 introduces subjectivity into the decision-making process by requiring the stewards to form an opinion about where a horse or horses were going to finish. However, we believe this rule, when properly applied, adequately protects all involved. We have confidence in our stewards and we trust them to make fair and reasonable decisions.

Periodically, the Stewards Committee meets with all of the stewards in the state and reviews films of selected races and decisions. During the review, the three stewards who made the decision are asked not to speak and influence the other stewards, who then vote on how they would have ruled in the matter. We intend to include this race in the review. We will let you know the outcome of the review. The next meeting is not yet scheduled.

While you might not agree with this decision of the stewards, we hope this explanation provides a better understanding of the process and an appreciation for the difficulty of making such a decision.

With appreciation,

Mike Marten
Public Information Officer/ Analyst for Pari-Mutuel Operations Committee California Horse Racing Board



Official Ruling
of the
Board of Stewards
Hollywood Park Racing Association
(Association)
June 10, 2010
(Date)
HRTH #046

Jockey RAFAEL BEJARANO is suspended for FIVE (5) RACING DAYS (June 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 2010) for failure to make the proper effort to maintain a straight course in the stretch and causing interference while riding “She’ll Heir” in the seventh race at Hollywood Park on June 9, 2010. This constitutes a violation of California Horse Racing Board rule #1699 (Riding Rules-careless riding).

[Phantombridgejumpe]

situation.

What if they talked to the guy the next day and he said his horse was going to re-rally and win? They couldn't do anything about the result at that point.

PS - I'm against the stewards talking to anyone before making their decision. Watch it on tape and make the call based on what you see.

[andymays]

situation.

What if they talked to the guy the next day and he said his horse was going to re-rally and win? They couldn't do anything about the result at that point.

PS - I'm against the stewards talking to anyone before making their decision. Watch it on tape and make the call based on what you see.

There were multiple horses affected by the incident. It's impossible to know if one of them wasn't cost a placing down to 5th.

This is what happens. They make a mistake and then compound the mistake with B.S. and the public has less and less confidence in their competence and integrity.

Mike Marten is a good guy and just passing on what they told him to pass on. He's the one who gets to take all the heat.

[Show Me the Wire]

There were multiple horses affected by the incident. It's impossible to know if one of them wasn't cost a placing down to 5th.

This is what happens. They make a mistake and then compound the mistake with B.S. and the public has less and less confidence in their competence and integrity.

Mike Marten is a good guy and just passing on what they told him to pass on. He's the one who gets to take all the heat.


Only confirms subjective and arbitrary decisions result from the appearance that objective enforceable rules exists.

[only11]

:rolleyes: This explantion is crap, I can think of better expletives to use but will refrain. Plus they never gave me a personal explanation even when I asked them nicely to, goodluck Hollywood racetrack, you are down to 4 days of racing, with this 'crap' you will lose even more fans. I hope you are reading this.
Wheres my Fing money i had 150 win @7-1,,,WTF the bettor always gets the shaft...
What happens to me and the rest that had the winner we forget and move on like them...

The sad thing of all this IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN..

[v j stauffer]

Kismus

I work for Hollywood Park and I'm reading your words. We are just as frustrated as you about having to run 4 days some weeks. Horse inventorys continue to decline and this is the result.

As for hoping for a response about the non DQ of She'll Heir. You do understand that Hollywood Park has NOTHING to do with that correct?

The stewards are independant contractors paid by the state. Many have contacted the CHRB through their excellent information director Mike Martin. Perhaps you should try that at chrb.ca.gov.

[v j stauffer]

Wheres my Fing money i had 150 win @7-1,,,WTF the bettor always gets the shaft...
What happens to me and the rest that had the winner we forget and move on like them...

The sad thing of all this IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN..

See this kind of post is one that I'll never understand. You say that the bettor as in ALL bettors got the shaft. What about the bettors who benefitted by there being no DQ? They didn't get the shaft at all. I'm sure they were pleased by the decision. Maybe the next one will go your way. It's not mathematically or pari-mutually possible for all bettors to get the SHAFT as you say AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

[only11]

See this kind of post is one that I'll never understand. You say that the bettor as in ALL bettors got the shaft. What about the bettors who benefitted by there being no DQ? They didn't get the shaft at all. I'm sure they were pleased by the decision. Maybe the next one will go your way. It's not mathematically or pari-mutually possible for all bettors to get the SHAFT as you say AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
every bettor got the shaft EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO CASHED....

[Greyfox]

every bettor got the shaft EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO CASHED....

She'll Heir was a heavy favorite so a lot of people cashed, a lot.
Unfortunately, I wasn't one of them.
My players ran second and third. If the Stewards had done their job, I'd have had a juicy exacta. The foul was flagrant.
However, we're whipping a dead horse here. Time to move on for me.

[rwwupl]

She'll Heir was a heavy favorite so a lot of people cashed, a lot.
Unfortunately, I wasn't one of them.
My players ran second and third. If the Stewards had done their job, I'd have had a juicy exacta. The foul was flagrant.
However, we're whipping a dead horse here. Time to move on for me.


Thank You.

[Kimsus]

Kismus

I work for Hollywood Park and I'm reading your words. We are just as frustrated as you about having to run 4 days some weeks. Horse inventorys continue to decline and this is the result.

As for hoping for a response about the non DQ of She'll Heir. You do understand that Hollywood Park has NOTHING to do with that correct?

The stewards are independant contractors paid by the state. Many have contacted the CHRB through their excellent information director Mike Martin. Perhaps you should try that at chrb.ca.gov.

Vic,

I deleted my post because Mike Martin did send me an email, abeit it wasn't as fast as I would have wished but it did arrive. Though it is was good of them to have a further explanation, I cannot help but feel the bettors who wagered on this race were wronged, except the one's that wagered on the favorite.

Though the Stewards do not work for Hollywood Park directly, I do feel Hollywood Park has a responsibility to it's fans to uphold the integrity of it's wagers. By this I mean if a bad decision was made, and I believe you agreed with those that believed Bejarano should have been Dq'd, Hollywood should voice it's displeasure with the stewards decision. What the stewards did in this race does reflect on your product, and rightully or wrongfully it is guilt by association. Bettors don't care about who the stewards work for, what they care about are fair and consistent decisions, since Hollywood Park's reputation has been hurt by this incredibly bad call, they have a stake in this also.

[Stillriledup]

Vic,

I deleted my post because Mike Martin did send me an email, abeit it wasn't as fast as I would have wished but it did arrive. Though it is was good of them to have a further explanation, I cannot help but feel the bettors who wagered on this race were wronged, except the one's that wagered on the favorite.

Though the Stewards do not work for Hollywood Park directly, I do feel Hollywood Park has a responsibility to it's fans to uphold the integrity of it's wagers. By this I mean if a bad decision was made, and I believe you agreed with those that believed Bejarano should have been Dq'd, Hollywood should voice it's displeasure with the stewards decision. What the stewards did in this race does reflect on your product, and rightully or wrongfully it is guilt by association. Bettors don't care about who the stewards work for, what they care about are fair and consistent decisions, since Hollywood Park's reputation has been hurt by this incredibly bad call, they have a stake in this also.


I've always been a vocal advocate of leaving the results stand unless there is some really obvious and hard bump or interference. The consistency issue you speak of is really what makes players want to put their fist thru someone's face. Judges have a responsibility to LEAVE UP almost all incidences, except for the ones a blind man can see. If there is a situation where a jock did something dangerous, you fine and suspend him and pay off the bettors.

Judges need to repeat and chant the mantra "LEAVE THE RESULTS ALONE". Just err on the side of leaving things up. We don't stay up till 5am handicapping so these hacks can play god with our money. If i win, i want to get paid.....if a jock makes a mistake, take it out on him, not me.

[JustRalph]

Wheres my Fing money i had 150 win @7-1,,,WTF the bettor always gets the shaft...
What happens to me and the rest that had the winner we forget and move on like them...

The sad thing of all this IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN..

This is Out of bounds.....I call Bullshit on at least your phraseology here...... we all get it. You are pissed.... you been carrying this torch for two weeks now and cussing at Vic is a little over the top.

Get real would you? We have all been screwed by the Stews........it's part of the game.......if we had some Stewards for this board.......you would get a week off in my opine............

[rwwupl]

I've always been a vocal advocate of leaving the results stand unless there is some really obvious and hard bump or interference. The consistency issue you speak of is really what makes players want to put their fist thru someone's face. Judges have a responsibility to LEAVE UP almost all incidences, except for the ones a blind man can see. If there is a situation where a jock did something dangerous, you fine and suspend him and pay off the bettors.

Judges need to repeat and chant the mantra "LEAVE THE RESULTS ALONE". Just err on the side of leaving things up. We don't stay up till 5am handicapping so these hacks can play god with our money. If i win, i want to get paid.....if a jock makes a mistake, take it out on him, not me.


yes yes, I like that...
More and more players believe as you do,But some refuse to accept it ,and make a lot of noise,write e-mails,even after an explanation,depending which side they had their money on or where their heart is.

It is what is...I think we have heard enough from one side on this issue...not necessarily the majority either. It is what it is.

[rwwupl]

I've always been a vocal advocate of leaving the results stand unless there is some really obvious and hard bump or interference. The consistency issue you speak of is really what makes players want to put their fist thru someone's face. Judges have a responsibility to LEAVE UP almost all incidences, except for the ones a blind man can see. If there is a situation where a jock did something dangerous, you fine and suspend him and pay off the bettors.

Judges need to repeat and chant the mantra "LEAVE THE RESULTS ALONE". Just err on the side of leaving things up. We don't stay up till 5am handicapping so these hacks can play god with our money. If i win, i want to get paid.....if a jock makes a mistake, take it out on him, not me.



Horse players number one complaint about the Stewards is that they are inconsistent.

There is no better way to be consistent than leave the results alone and punish the person that created the problem..We do not want the Stewards to play God and rely on crystal ball officiating, and by definition be inconsistent.

Leave the results alone,unless a blind man can see it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Leave the results alone,unless a blind man can see it.But even in the blind man cases, the stewards can make some very unexpected calls...

[Space Monkey]

Oh God, here we go again. The No DQ theory. Its the most insane idea anybody can bring up here. So every once in a while we get screwed by the stewards. It happens. If you make the track a rodeo, or like a Nascar race at Bristol, you will get screwed a hell of a lot more, not to mention endangering the health and welfare of the horses and jocks. I can see it now, the last 16th of the Vanity, Garcia sees Z coming, lets St. Trinians drift out, Z clips heels, falls, Mike paralyzed, Z dead, but you cashed your bet on St. T. Whoopee :ThmbDown:

[Space Monkey]

I'm late to this party. I've read the basis of this thread and I have no doubt that you're probably right in your anger Only11. But it doesn't mean you throw the whole system down the toilet. I would like to see Stewards fired, suspended, etc, but thats not going to happen. I will say that besides small fields with little value, another reason why I don't play Cal tracks anymore is because the Stewards let almost everything go. Eastern racing officials, especially NY, are 1,000 times better than their Cal counterparts.

[Kimsus]

Since horseracing is not hockey last I looked, the no DQ, leave them up idea floated in this thread is one of the most ridiculous things I have read here yet. Unless body checking is allowed in the game, No, to the no DQ proposal.

BTW it has been almost 2 weeks, the non call stunk then and it certainly still stinks today. The stewards were wrong and the bettors were wronged even more.

[v j stauffer]

Since horseracing is not hockey last I looked, the no DQ, leave them up idea floated in this thread is one of the most ridiculous things I have read here yet. Unless body checking is allowed in the game, No, to the no DQ proposal.

BTW it has been almost 2 weeks, the non call stunk then and it certainly still stinks today. The stewards were wrong and the bettors were wronged even more.

There you go with the all encompassing group "the bettors". All of "the bettors" were wronged. That's not possible. Regardless if the stewards call was correct or incorrect. Some "bettors" benefitted and some were disapointed. That's why saying this nebulous totally intangible thing called consistency is so important. Stewards are only consistent as long as you agree with the decisions they make. Have one go against and suddenly what was consistent is now not.

[only11]

I wasnt cursing at Vic ...i was cursing on getting screwed...i have moved on ...i may have posted 3 times on this thread...and i apologize to you or anyone who may have been offended..
but i wasnt cursing Vic..

[Kimsus]

There you go with the all encompassing group "the bettors". All of "the bettors" were wronged. That's not possible. Regardless if the stewards call was correct or incorrect. Some "bettors" benefitted and some were disapointed. That's why saying this nebulous totally intangible thing called consistency is so important. Stewards are only consistent as long as you agree with the decisions they make. Have one go against and suddenly what was consistent is now not.

Vic,
Even if I had the shortpriced winner I would have made the exact same statement. I can be honest enough to say to myself to know when I received a gift from the stewards, I read the explanation Mr. Marten gave me, I appreciate him delivering it, but I don't think the stewards were thinking about all the betting interests in this particular race, especially the exotic bettors. I have watched this race a few times and there is no way I could conclude 100% that the tiring pace setter wouldn't have had an impact on the tri if he/she wasn't bumped. It was a poor decision taking the apparent word of a Jockey and basing the decision on it. You mean to tell me all Garcia would have had to say was I am not sure if my horse would have held on for a DQ to take effect, but from what I understand he said he I finished where I expected to finish. This I cannot understand at all or why he would even say this, something smells, I'm not accusing anyone here but how can bettors be sure Martin and Bejarano are not pals. The whole thing smells.

[rwwupl]

Vic,
Even if I had the shortpriced winner I would have made the exact same statement. I can be honest enough to say to myself to know when I received a gift from the stewards, I read the explanation Mr. Marten gave me, I appreciate him delivering it, but I don't think the stewards were thinking about all the betting interests in this particular race, especially the exotic bettors. I have watched this race a few times and there is no way I could conclude 100% that the tiring pace setter wouldn't have had an impact on the tri if he/she wasn't bumped. It was a poor decision taking the apparent word of a Jockey and basing the decision on it. You mean to tell me all Garcia would have had to say was I am not sure if my horse would have held on for a DQ to take effect, but from what I understand he said he I finished where I expected to finish. This I cannot understand at all or why he would even say this, something smells, I'm not accusing anyone here but how can bettors be sure Martin and Bejarano are not pals. The whole thing smells.


There are official calls in other sports, That if you argued like some on this thread, you would be put out of the game...such as argueing about a third strike to a batter when the game is on the line. It is a judgement call,and there will always be those who will take the opposing view, but this is being carried on by die hards who think their opinion should count more than anyone elses, and think they have a right to over rule, after the fact the people who are there to make the decision. Even after every reasonable attempt has been made to address the questions, including the Stewards Minutes being presented and a separate analysis by the CHRB Iinformation Officer.

This incident has been full in discussion,with all sides being presented. It seems some will accept nothing but their own opinion,and wish to carry things too far and that will not fly, so if you are one of those, you do have options,consider them.

[Kimsus]

There are official calls in other sports, That if you argued like some on this thread, you would be put out of the game...such as argueing about a third strike to a batter when the game is on the line. It is a judgement call,and there will always be those who will take the opposing view, but this is being carried on by die hards who think their opinion should count more than anyone elses, and think they have a right to over rule, after the fact the people who are there to make the decision. Even after every reasonable attempt has been made to address the questions, including the Stewards Minutes being presented and a separate analysis by the CHRB Iinformation Officer.

This incident has been full in discussion,with all sides being presented. It seems some will accept nothing but their own opinion,and wish to carry things too far and that will not fly, so if you are one of those, you do have options,consider them.

That's fine, all sides have been discussed, this is the purpose of a forum. I think people reading this thread who have seen the race will conclude the vast majority believe it was a very bad decision by the stewards. This will be the last I post on this thread barring anything new to add.

[Wright Stuff]

INQUIRY/NO CHANGE
Following the running of the seventh race, we posted the inquiry sign to
examine an incident in which the eventual winner appears to force his
way out of a spot in order to create a running lane. Films revealed that
the winner #1 She’ll Heir, ridden by Rafael Bejarano, forces his way out of
a difficult spot at the eighth pole, causing #8 Rockin Heather to take up
sharply and causing three additional horses to float out. Martin Garcia,
who rode seventh place finisher #8 Rockin Heather, stated that his horse
was tired at the time of interference and that he was not cost the
opportunity at a better placing. We agreed with his assessment and
additionally believed that each of the three other horses suffered only
minor interference and therefore were not cost the opportunity at better
placings. Therefore, although the interference was dramatic, it was our
unanimous decision that no change was appropriate.