Hollywood Park stewards vs Churchill stewards

[Stillriledup]

Hollywood lets them play and pays off the winners. If you cost a horse a placing, you can come down. If not, the bettors deserve to win, why play bingo numbers?

At Churchill, they DQ horses just because it looked rough, or looked dangerous. See the Clark Handicap at CD where Successful Dan was DQd from first position for 'bumping' a horse who was going nowhere and was going to finish 3rd anyway. For some reason, the judges over there just decided to pay off bingo numbers with TWO DQ's in the same race, the winner was DQd and the 4th horse was DQd.

I'm all for fair judging, but i want to get paid also if i win. I'd rather NOT have these guys flip flopping results and putting their 'stamp' on a race. Let the results stand if you can help it. We all understand that horse racing is a contact sport, we all also understand that most interference occurs because a slower horse is behind a drifting 'faster' horse.

If i get bumped, i'll have to live with it and just try harder to bet a faster horse next time so i dont get crashed into.

Kudos to the Hollywood Park stewards (and Cali racing rules) for leaving the results AS IS and actually paying the winning handicappers.

[Southieboy]

The horse should have been DQ'ed.

[Stillriledup]

The horse should have been DQ'ed.

The 1 horse was 2 lengths in arrears at the wire. He was going nowhere, why should those bettors be rewarded?

[andymays]

The racing is pathetic.

[Bullet Plane]

Not only was it a good DQ, but good suspensions on the jockeys also..., if anything, I thought three days was kind of light.

Nothing in this world is sweeter than watching a chalk-eater ripping tickets up.

[Southieboy]

You deserve to be DQ'ed if you betting that garbage.

[Stillriledup]

You deserve to be DQ'ed if you betting that garbage.

:bang:

[jballscalls]

I'm a big believer that a foul is a foul, even if it may not effect the actual outcome of a race. why have rules if you dont want to enforce them.

[cj]

I'm a big believer that a foul is a foul, even if it may not effect the actual outcome of a race. why have rules if you dont want to enforce them.

Aren't part of the rules that an incident might change the outcome to be a foul?

[Stillriledup]

I'm a big believer that a foul is a foul, even if it may not effect the actual outcome of a race. why have rules if you dont want to enforce them.

Racing is a contact sport. There's bumping every race, especially at the start. In the NFL, there's holding on every play, do you think the NFL should make 50 holding calls per game? Would you watch an NFL game that took 6 hours because there was a penalty every play? After all, a foul is a foul, right?

I love the 'if it didnt affect the outcome' stuff because bumps and interference is just part of racing, but we can't go and start changing results, people want to be paid if they have the faster horse.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...I love the 'if it didnt affect the outcome' stuff because bumps and interference is just part of racing, but we can't go and start changing results, people want to be paid if they have the faster horse.

You must be a HUGE quarterhorse bettor.

[jballscalls]

Racing is a contact sport. There's bumping every race, especially at the start. In the NFL, there's holding on every play, do you think the NFL should make 50 holding calls per game? Would you watch an NFL game that took 6 hours because there was a penalty every play? After all, a foul is a foul, right?

I love the 'if it didnt affect the outcome' stuff because bumps and interference is just part of racing, but we can't go and start changing results, people want to be paid if they have the faster horse.

i dont watch the nfl or football, so i dont know anything about your holding calls.

but a foul is a foul, no sense in having the rules if your going to allow folks to break them

[andymays]

A couple of years ago I made a big deal out of a similar situation and they said that because there was no contact the drifting out doesn't matter. The race I was involved with was way worse than that one. They carried my horse out about twice as much. It was absurd but they said that they never made contact. What is the Jockey on the horse getting carried out supposed to do? Should he crash into the other horse and jeopardize everyones safety? They even showed the race at a Stewards meeting and I was told that was the rule. A few months later they DQ'd a horse for doing the same exact thing. The Stewards are inconsistent to say the least and that's the biggest problem.

[FenceBored]

Racing is a contact sport. There's bumping every race, especially at the start. In the NFL, there's holding on every play, do you think the NFL should make 50 holding calls per game? Would you watch an NFL game that took 6 hours because there was a penalty every play? After all, a foul is a foul, right?

I love the 'if it didnt affect the outcome' stuff because bumps and interference is just part of racing, but we can't go and start changing results, people want to be paid if they have the faster horse.

Faster horse or fouler horse?

[Gapfire]

Hollywood lets them play and pays off the winners.

I've seen some of the craziest decisions made at Hollywood. The bottom line is that there is no consistency in these calls at any track.

[OTM Al]

Do you know the rules in each jurisdiction? Please cite them first before complaining that they are different as it is possible that they are.

[jballscalls]

Aren't part of the rules that an incident might change the outcome to be a foul?

don't know, you'd have to ask the stewards, i just repeat whatever they tell me to say

[Mike_412]

i dont watch the nfl or football, so i dont know anything about your holding calls.

Alright man, I'm a fan of your calls and think you're a very underrated announcer, but you're killing me with the above statement. Just lie next time and throw in a "those damn Seahawks" line with your next post and we're good.

In regard to stewards, I wish there was a national body with a uniform set of rules. I know that's a pipedream, but I literally have no clue what is a foul anymore.

[andymays]

A couple of years ago I made a big deal out of a similar situation and they said that because there was no contact the drifting out doesn't matter. The race I was involved with was way worse than that one. They carried my horse out about twice as much. It was absurd but they said that they never made contact. What is the Jockey on the horse getting carried out supposed to do? Should he crash into the other horse and jeopardize everyones safety? They even showed the race at a Stewards meeting and I was told that was the rule. A few months later they DQ'd a horse for doing the same exact thing. The Stewards are inconsistent to say the least and that's the biggest problem.


Seth the Candeyman 6-26-2008 race #2 is the race I was referring to.

[andymays]

I wish there was a national body with a uniform set of rules. I know that's a pipedream, but I literally have no clue what is a foul anymore.

Yes! :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

You guys are right, consistency is a huge deal. I'm not a fan of inconsistent calls. What Hollywood is doing right now is pretty much, paying the winners. There was a 30-1 firster who won 2 days ago and drifted like 5 lanes wide in the stretch, there was a long inquiry and they left her up. Today's first race at Hol was a very similar situation, the drifting horse came far wide, but in the views of the judges, didnt cost the other horse a better placing.

I like what Hol is doing right now, lets hope they stay consistent with this judging.

JBC, the problem with your foul is a foul belief is that you're taking the decisions OUT of the judges hands. You want the judges to be able to use their expertise to determine stuff. One bump doesnt equal another, all bumps are different and affect the race in different ways.

Sometimes a horse is hammered and it costs him the win, those are the times you need to make a change. Under your belief, there would be a TON of DQs.....in fact, you might have half the races per day seeing the results altered in some way. Is that what you want? Random results? Just having 50 minutes of inquiries per day (10 mins per race, avg of 5 races at jballscalls downs)

I know you want to keep law and order on the racetrack, but there's a way to do that without affecting the owners or the bettors.

[Gapfire]

Do you know the rules in each jurisdiction? Please cite them first before complaining that they are different as it is possible that they are.

The rulings are inconsistent from day to day at the same track. So posting rules for each circuit would be absolutely futile.

[ronsmac]

One of the best post that I've seen on this site. It's ridiculous some of the dq's I've seen over the yrs. Penalize the jocks, the owners or trainers but not the bettors when a foul dosen't affect the outcome.

[v j stauffer]

I'm a big believer that a foul is a foul, even if it may not effect the actual outcome of a race. why have rules if you dont want to enforce them.

You can enforce rules and still protect the betting public. Jockeys can be sanctioned. Why punish the betting public if they bet on the best horse? Often times a horse can be guilty of an infraction that did not alter the original order of finish. I think California has it right by writing a rule that at least attempts to be fair to all involved.

[Shelby]

Good Lord, it's a race with real live people and real live horses. The real live people that are in charge of the rules are going to have real live answers. The real live horses that are the ones doing the real live running are going to have their good days and bad days.


Let the horses run and let the humans do their best to make it fair.

[JohnGalt1]

In regard to stewards, I wish there was a national body with a uniform set of rules. I know that's a pipedream, but I literally have no clue what is a foul anymore.[/QUOTE]


Neither do NBA refs.

[Stillriledup]

You can enforce rules and still protect the betting public. Jockeys can be sanctioned. Why punish the betting public if they bet on the best horse? Often times a horse can be guilty of an infraction that did not alter the original order of finish. I think California has it right by writing a rule that at least attempts to be fair to all involved.

:ThmbUp:

[Relwob Owner]

You can enforce rules and still protect the betting public. Jockeys can be sanctioned. Why punish the betting public if they bet on the best horse? Often times a horse can be guilty of an infraction that did not alter the original order of finish. I think California has it right by writing a rule that at least attempts to be fair to all involved.


Right but by doing this, you are forcing the stewards to be extremely subjective....it is extremely hard to gauge that a horse "would have won" and doing so seems to give a huge advantage to a horse that looks the best on paper going in...........in every sport, often times the best team doesnt win because they commit too many penalties, why should horse racing any different?

In addition, it creates an extremely dangerous situation IMO because jocks know that if they are on the "best" horse, they can take more risks and get away with it.

[Stillriledup]

Right but by doing this, you are forcing the stewards to be extremely subjective....it is extremely hard to gauge that a horse "would have won" and doing so seems to give a huge advantage to a horse that looks the best on paper going in...........in every sport, often times the best team doesnt win because they commit too many penalties, why should horse racing any different?

In addition, it creates an extremely dangerous situation IMO because jocks know that if they are on the "best" horse, they can take more risks and get away with it.


Nobody is going to be right 100 percent of the time, but most times, you can be a pretty good judge on the cost the placing stuff. If a horse crashes and then the 2nd place finisher is rushing up at the wire and misses by a diminishing half length, the winner is coming down.

Sure, you're not going to always be right, but most times you can tell if a horse was compromised a position. The judges will be wrong a few times out of 100, but the other 95 times, they're going to be right, i'll take the 5 mistakes to get the other 95 right (as opposed to just randomly dq'ing horses because 'a foul is a foul'.

As far as riders taking risks...well, if the judges feel they're being too risky, they'll get fined or suspended, as a bettor, i don't worry about that end of things, that's up to the jurisdiction to dole out punishments, as a bettor, i just want to cash if i win.

[Stillriledup]

Agree to disagree.....your point of view will cause chaos IMO....a jock is rolling and looks like he will win. Under your way of doing it, he can bull throw any hole and isnt subjected to the same things the jocks that arent on the "best horse" have to worry about? Makes no sense and yes, is dangerous.........


The above statement clearly indicates you arent worried about the jocks or the horses, just your bets.....that point of view seems fine, but I have to say that it clearly contradicts your posts regarding Doug O'Neill and his moves with horses, doesnt it? I agree with you on O'Neill but I cant help but point out that it directly conflicts with your statement above.....I think you need to pick one side of the fence and stay on it.


Honestly, i only can control what i can control, which is my bets. If i lose too many of them, i won't even be IN the sport, i'll become extinct and leave the game. (then, i wont even be around to care deeply about the humans and equines).

As far as the O'Neill stuff goes, i'm not sure what you're talking about. How is what i say a contradiction?

[Gapfire]

In regard to stewards, I wish there was a national body with a uniform set of rules. I know that's a pipedream, but I literally have no clue what is a foul anymore.




Yes, and all the stewards would be trained by the same system. It wouldn't be perfect, but better than what we have now.

[Relwob Owner]

Honestly, i only can control what i can control, which is my bets. If i lose too many of them, i won't even be IN the sport, i'll become extinct and leave the game. (then, i wont even be around to care deeply about the humans and equines).

As far as the O'Neill stuff goes, i'm not sure what you're talking about. How is what i say a contradiction?




You are constantly tracking O'Neill, his horses and times when they have broken down.....yet, you say this:


As far as riders taking risks...well, if the judges feel they're being too risky, they'll get fined or suspended, as a bettor, i don't worry about that end of things, that's up to the jurisdiction to dole out punishments, as a bettor, i just want to cash if i win.


You dont see the contradiction here? On one hand, you are constantly criticizing a trainer implying that he does questionable things that would jeopardize the safety of the horses and the jocks......yet, the statement above clearly indicates you arent worried about the safety of them, just whether or not your wager wins....so, which is it?

[Stillriledup]

You are constantly tracking O'Neill, his horses and times when they have broken down.....yet, you say this:


As far as riders taking risks...well, if the judges feel they're being too risky, they'll get fined or suspended, as a bettor, i don't worry about that end of things, that's up to the jurisdiction to dole out punishments, as a bettor, i just want to cash if i win.


You dont see the contradiction here? On one hand, you are constantly criticizing a trainer implying that he does questionable things that would jeopardize the safety of the horses and the jocks......yet, the statement above clearly indicates you arent worried about the safety of them, just whether or not your wager wins....so, which is it?


I'm harsh on trainers who do shady things because it hurts the honesty of the product as far as my betting is concerned, its not a safety issue. I dont think i've ever said its about safety. If i have, i lied. Its about me and my betting. The rest is just conversation.

[Relwob Owner]

I'm harsh on trainers who do shady things because it hurts the honesty of the product as far as my betting is concerned, its not a safety issue. I dont think i've ever said its about safety. If i have, i lied. Its about me and my betting. The rest is just conversation.


Everything is about your betting, I guess....too bad. The betting part is great but there are a ton of other things that make it great. Also, unfortunate that the point of view you have displays a complete lack of respect and caring for the jocks and most importantly for the horses who make it possible for you to bet in the first place.