Phone calls to the stewards during an inquiry

[Market Mover]

Bob Baffert was able to call and talk directly to the stewards during the Big Cap inquiry. It had been reported and witnessed, as written by DRF and others.

My question is this: How easy is it to reach the stewards in the middle of an inquiry and objection?

Had the proper protocol been followed in terms of inteviewing the jockeys involved during the 12 minutes following the race?

And what would prevent, hypothetically speaking, an owner/agent of an owner/ or even other trainers not directly involved in the inquiry from picking up the phone and speaking directly to a steward in the middle of any inquiry/objection?

I am not contesting the stewards' decision. I am, as any serious racing fan/patron/customer would be, highly disturbed about this apparent easy access route of communication to the stewards' box. Are there no published rules or regulations in soCal to prevent this?

[cj]

Why would they be accepting phone calls? Man this sport is jacked up.

[Southieboy]

Money Talks!

[098poi]

Baffert discussed that on At the Races yesterday. Chantal is on also (in the second segment, the site has her in the third) You can listen here

http://www.thoroughbredracingradionetwork.com/index.php?option=com_events&task=view_detail&agid=944&year=2011&month=03&day=07&Itemid=35

[CryingForTheHorses]

Why would they be accepting phone calls? Man this sport is jacked up.

A trainer may talk to the stewards when there is a claim of foul regarding their horse after the race.A trainer may also claim foul on another horse right after the race before it becomes official.The clerk of scales has a phone you can use and there is also one in the grandstand.All tracks have them..You may also call the stewards anytime except during the running of a race.

[cj]

I know they can claim foul. However, there is nothing a trainer should be able to say that a jockey can't, or that they stewards can't see for themselves.

[CryingForTheHorses]

I know they can claim foul. However, there is nothing a trainer should be able to say that a jockey can't, or that they stewards can't see for themselves.

When the money is on the line there is a lot of chirping.I do agree with you but it is done.I have never done it,I just hold my breath and hope I dont come down

[Zippy Chippy]

I've never seen anything more morally wrong in my life. There is absolutely no way a trainer should be able to call the stewards to talk during an inquiry. That is absurd. Bob Baffert could absolutely have an influence on stewards. I dont understand what could have possibly been said.

[onefast99]

When the money is on the line there is a lot of chirping.I do agree with you but it is done.I have never done it,I just hold my breath and hope I dont come down
An owner can also claim foul. The trainer may have seen something during the race that the jockey cannot explain to the stewards, I find nothing wrong with a trainer calling and discussing the race.

[Greyfox]

The rules allow owners and trainers to talk to Stewards during an inquiry.

Can you imagine if the NFL, Baseball, Hockey, Soccer, had a similar rule?
Wouldn't that be a mad house. :lol:

The rules should be changed.
The Stewards should have the option of:

a. reviewing with out talking to anyone
b. talking to the jockey
c. or anyone else.
But it should be the STEWARDS CALL on who they talk to.

[cj]

An owner can also claim foul. The trainer may have seen something during the race that the jockey cannot explain to the stewards, I find nothing wrong with a trainer calling and discussing the race.

I'll keep an open mind. How about a few examples?

[melman]

Craig---Let's go way back in time. When Garden State Park was a first line track. When Liberty Bell Park had t-bred racing in the summer. It was then uncommon to see a trainer on the phone to the stewards. But it did happen, and more than just once or twice. Same thing with the old Delaware Park. Remember Dennis "Goose" Heimer?? He must have known the stewards pretty well. :D

[Relwob Owner]

The rules allow owners and trainers to talk to Stewards during an inquiry.

Can you imagine if the NFL, Baseball, Hockey, Soccer, had a similar rule?
Wouldn't that be a mad house. :lol:

The rules should be changed.
The Stewards should have the option of

a. reviewing with out talking to anyone
b. talking to the jockey
c. or anyone else.
But it should be the STEWARDS CALL on who they talk to.


I totally agree and will take it a step further. I don't think the stewards should talk to anyone. Every person they talk to will be biased due to their own rooting interest.....your analogies to other sports are spot on, as the participants don't get a chance to plead their case or influence things and that is how it should be in racing IMO.

[onefast99]

I'll keep an open mind. How about a few examples?
January 14th at GP the owner put an objection in several minutes after the race was over, Larry Collmus announced it over the public address system. 2008 at MP Greg Sacco went to the stewards office when his horse Cachinnated ridden by Jose Lezcano was involved in an inquiry with one of Frank Stronachs horses ridden by Joe Bravo to discuss the inquiry and eventual takedown of Cachinnated.

[cj]

January 14th at GP the owner put an objection in several minutes after the race was over, Larry Collmus announced it over the public address system. 2008 at MP Greg Sacco went to the stewards office when his horse Cachinnated ridden by Jose Lezcano was involved in an inquiry with one of Frank Stronachs horses ridden by Joe Bravo to discuss the inquiry and eventual takedown of Cachinnated.

Right, but why was the input of a trainer or owner needed? They are not participants in the race itself. I don't see anything of value they could possibly add. I have no problem with them lodging an objection, though we all know 99.9% of the time they are dismissed. But as far as talking to the stewards, I just don't see what value they can add to the proceedings.

To be honest, I don't even think they should talk to jockeys most of the time. It gives an unfair advantage to a jockey that is a better speaker, or a native English speaker.

[melman]

Craig--I don't disagree with you on this. However it has happened both in the recent past and even more in the distant past. Not something I think should be allowed either but it is more than just Bob Baffert. You used to bet some harness well one thing I have NEVER seen is a harness trainer on the phone with the judges. They would sometimes talk with the drivers but never a trainer.

[cj]

Craig--I don't disagree with you on this. However it has happened both in the recent past and even more in the distant past. Not something I think should be allowed either but it is more than just Bob Baffert. You used to bet some harness well one thing I have NEVER seen is a harness trainer on the phone with the judges. They would sometimes talk with the drivers but never a trainer.

Yeah, I'm not picking on Baffert specifically. Harness does many things better than the flats side.

[onefast99]

Right, but why was the input of a trainer or owner needed? They are not participants in the race itself. I don't see anything of value they could possibly add. I have no problem with them lodging an objection, though we all know 99.9% of the time they are dismissed. But as far as talking to the stewards, I just don't see what value they can add to the proceedings.

To be honest, I don't even think they should talk to jockeys most of the time. It gives an unfair advantage to a jockey that is a better speaker, or a native English speaker.\
The trainer may have seen something as he has the opportunity to watch the race over and over again while the jockey is relying on what he thought may have or may not have occurred. If the trainer can give the jockey any information that can help his/her case or let the stewards know where the foul may have taken place then that is acceptable to me. I don't think an owner should be able to speak with the stewards unless they file an appeal with the stewards in writing within 24 hours of the race being run.

[Market Mover]

An owner can also claim foul. The trainer may have seen something during the race that the jockey cannot explain to the stewards, I find nothing wrong with a trainer calling and discussing the race.


Agreed. So there is no doubt that a trainer can phone stewards and lodge a claim of foul, aka trainer's objection, after the race.

Now let's say trainer Richard Mandella wants to voice HIS opinion of the race. But trainer Bob Baffert wants to do the same. We have 12 minutes that transpired between the start of the inquiry and then the final stewards' decision.

WHO gets to talk first? And for how long is this individual allowed to voice his opinion. And if Baffert was allowed to go first, woukd Mandella, or any other trainer, have a disadvantage going second?


And did Baffert use his cell phone or the common single phone located by the Clerk of Scales?

And what if the owners of Setsuko and Twirling Candy wanted to voice their opinions? And what if these owners comprised multiple partnerships where EACH partner wanted a say?

Its scary to think those 12 minutes could be limited to onlyne single trainer's opinion on the events that had transpired. Someone please tell me why Richard Mandella did not make a similar phone call? Surely he was watching the race and saw the stretch run. Do trainers have the stewards' box phone on speed dial?

[Stillriledup]

This goes back to the idea that the judges talk to jockeys about inquiries. Jocks will obviously plead innocence, this should not be ever allowed. If Jerry Bailey or Chris McCarron are talking to the judges, i like their chances better than someone who can't express themselves as well.

If you had Bailey talking to the judges and your money was on a jock who didnt speak english, would you feel 100 percent confident that your chances would be just as good if the jocks never talked to the stews in the first place? I know i wouldnt.

But, i guess its all part of handicapping....you have to factor in the political skills of the riders.

Personally , i have no idea why the judges need to talk to trainers or jocks, don't they have plenty of camera angles to make a decision? The NFL refs don't ask the players if they were holding, why would the judges in horse racing need to talk to a trainer or rider to make a decision?

My feeling is that if the judges need feedback from the biased participants to make a decision, they ought to just leave the results alone and not meddle and play god with other people's money.

[nijinski]

Agreed. So there is no doubt that a trainer can phone stewards and lodge a claim of foul, aka trainer's objection, after the race.

Now let's say trainer Richard Mandella wants to voice HIS opinion of the race. But trainer Bob Baffert wants to do the same. We have 12 minutes that transpired between the start of the inquiry and then the final stewards' decision.

WHO gets to talk first? And for how long is this individual allowed to voice his opinion. And if Baffert was allowed to go first, woukd Mandella, or any other trainer, have a disadvantage going second?


And did Baffert use his cell phone or the common single phone located by the Clerk of Scales?

And what if the owners of Setsuko and Twirling Candy wanted to voice their opinions? And what if these owners comprised multiple partnerships where EACH partner wanted a say?

Its scary to think those 12 minutes could be limited to onlyne single trainer's opinion on the events that had transpired. Someone please tell me why Richard Mandella did not make a similar phone call? Surely he was watching the race and saw the stretch run. Do trainers have the stewards' box phone on speed dial?

I mentioned in the thread regarding this race that Mandella was not happy
with Bafferts actions . He felt the jocks should handle it.

[Kevroc]

If there were just two stewards and they were split on the decision, I'd say let the jocks and trainers give some input.. but, 3 stewards whose living is watching races and making racing decisions.. no thanks.. they should be confident enough in their collective abilities to make the proper call, be it unanimously or not.

[JustRalph]

To be honest, I don't even think they should talk to jockeys most of the time. It gives an unfair advantage to a jockey that is a better speaker, or a native English speaker.

very interesting issue. This has got to come into play on a regular basis.

[rastajenk]

I've never seen anything more morally wrong in my life. .You oughtta get out more.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I think the Stewards should only talk to the jockey if it is a jockey's claim of foul, and only to find out when the alleged infraction occurred.

The reason for DQing should be based on visual evidence only. If the Stewards can't make decisions based on visual evidence alone, get new Stewards.

[rastajenk]

I can't help but think that if the stews were forbidden from talking to the participants, there would be some kind of outcry about them not having access to all the information available.
:p

[rwwupl]

Right, but why was the input of a trainer or owner needed? They are not participants in the race itself. I don't see anything of value they could possibly add. I have no problem with them lodging an objection, though we all know 99.9% of the time they are dismissed. But as far as talking to the stewards, I just don't see what value they can add to the proceedings.

To be honest, I don't even think they should talk to jockeys most of the time. It gives an unfair advantage to a jockey that is a better speaker, or a native English speaker.

If the owner,trainer,or jockey influences the stewards decision, why do we need stewards?..Just take a quick poll of observers.

If the owner,trainer,or jockey does not influence the stewards decision, why should they talk to the stewards?

Roger

[PhantomOnTour]

Now you guys know how the Steelers always get the calls.
Rooney picks up the red phone and it's all taken care of.

[BetCrazyGirl]

I don't understand why they would talk to a trainer, he wasn't in the race :/ . His horse should get disqualify just for him trying to sway their decision.

[Ray Paulick]

Scott Chaney talked about the Baffert phone call (stewards did not talk with him once they realized it was him and in fact admonished Baffert the next day) and other issues related to the Santa Anita Handicap in the first of a two-part interview on the Paulick Report.

http://www.paulickreport.com/features/the-breeders-cup-forum/the-breeders-cup-forum-stewarding-the-big-cap/

[rwwupl]

Scott Chaney talked about the Baffert phone call (stewards did not talk with him once they realized it was him and in fact admonished Baffert the next day) and other issues related to the Santa Anita Handicap in the first of a two-part interview on the Paulick Report.

http://www.paulickreport.com/features/the-breeders-cup-forum/the-breeders-cup-forum-stewarding-the-big-cap/

Ray,

I may not agree with the decision of Scott Chaney, but this is a good article.

Thanks, Roger Way

[Phantombridgejumpe]

I don't think they should talk to the Jockeys either.

They have multiple angles to look at and make the call that way.

Talking to the jocks gives a big advantage to those jocks who know what to say or even those who speak the language better.

[David-LV]

I've never seen anything more morally wrong in my life.
Just taking a look at some of our elected officials surely will change your mind.

_______
David-LV

[BetCrazyGirl]

Scott Chaney talked about the Baffert phone call (stewards did not talk with him once they realized it was him and in fact admonished Baffert the next day) and other issues related to the Santa Anita Handicap in the first of a two-part interview on the Paulick Report.

http://www.paulickreport.com/features/the-breeders-cup-forum/the-breeders-cup-forum-stewarding-the-big-cap/

Good article, are conversations recorded?

[rastajenk]

Not likely.

[nijinski]

Scott Chaney talked about the Baffert phone call (stewards did not talk with him once they realized it was him and in fact admonished Baffert the next day) and other issues related to the Santa Anita Handicap in the first of a two-part interview on the Paulick Report.

http://www.paulickreport.com/features/the-breeders-cup-forum/the-breeders-cup-forum-stewarding-the-big-cap/

Baffert should have texted them , would have been a little less obvious. :)

[Marlin]

I don't think they should talk to the Jockeys either.

They have multiple angles to look at and make the call that way.

Talking to the jocks gives a big advantage to those jocks who know what to say or even those who speak the language better.They really do need to talk to the jockeys IMO. Many steward stands do have somebody who is able to handle Espanol. Having been privy to a few of these phone conversations you would be surprised how honest some jockeys are. "No he didn't bother me" or "I was out of horse" or "he was clear" and so on. There are other circumstances other than the letter of the law that can aide in a decision. The jockeys are often the only participants who can identify these circumstances.

[JustRalph]

You oughtta get out more.

exact same thing I thought when I read it....... :lol: