Wow! High Tension at CHRB Meeting Today. Listen to early part. Some want Stews Fired.
 

http://www.selectstreaming.com/live/chrb/archives.php

Thursday May 24th, 2018

Starts off a little slow with first public comment but then Bob Ike says he's not betting So. Cal racing anymore until significant changes are made. The Nick Alexander calls them out forcefully and says the Stewards need to go. Also admonished the CHRB Board for making excuses. Then Ritvo agrees that changes are needed.

Was music to my ears.:headbanger:

Pretty sure they'll have to make changes prior to Del Mar.

I listened to it.

I disagreed with that call. I appreciate how hard the job is. People want consistency, and right now they cant figure out their own rules.

You cant take McKinzie down and not take that horse down.

I would say in general CHRB has been better about taking horses down when fouls have occurred. In other jurisdictions there is some serious herding down the stretch and bumping out of the gates.

They should change it a foul is a foul, would clean a lot of this up and there would be zero ambiguity.

Rules, consistency, McKinzie...none of that matters. If the stewards do not DQ Achira from the race in question they need to be fired on the spot. That was a disgrace to the game and the only conclusion that can be drawn was they had another agenda for not taking the horse down.

No excuses. That was an impossible one to miss.

Its that whole "did it cost a horse a placing"...that can create a lot of wiggle room for the stewards to make bad decisions.

They are morons if they don't know when to apply that statement. There is just ONE application of that statement. That is when the foul occurs after the race positions have already been decided. When you see a horse surge away in the final 100 yards but create an infraction in the process on a tiring horse and the positions don't change, that is the ONLY time that statement can be applied.

That is for protection against a situation where there is a foul but it clearly and with virtually no doubt did not alter the outcome. Applying that rule in the infraction that prompted this discussion is among the stupidest things ever uttered in the history of the planet. The only thing more insane is saying the infraction that Bayern caused out of the starting gate "did not cost a horse a better placing".

If an adult that went past the third grade can't figure out when (and how absolutely rare it is) to apply the "it didn't cost a horse a better placing" then they need to call 1-800-mcdonalds for their next gig.

I am in the foul is a foul camp, the cases where a horse wins so overwhelmingly that the foul is meaningless is pretty small, and again riders would clean up a lot of this stuff if they started getting dq'd regularly with longer and longer suspensions. No one could argue anything from their "own" personal view point.

I disagree. I think it is very important that non-outcome determinative fouls be dealt with via suspensions and fines.

It would be entirely unfair to bettors to disqualify a horse who would have won anyway for a foul. California's rule is the right one.

Now, is it always correctly applied? No. But you don't solve this problem by disqualifying horses who would have won anyway for jockey tactics.

Rule is fine but the were blatantly inconsistent in that particular call and they make these inconsistent calls far too often. If you listened you know California has had enough. Nick Alexander is the TOC Chairman.

Any rule that creates this much ambiguity, across multiple jurisdictions, cannot be fine, it defies logic.

The argument is that if its fine all stewards are incompetent, and that is not the case either.

The rule is as open to interpretation as a impression style painting.

They've changed the language before. The only issue is one of consistency. Did you listen to Nick Alexander? He's a big owner and head of the Thoroughbred Owners of California. What he said and how he said it was EXTRAORDINARY

i listened to him, he more or less said those guys are 3 blind mice and need to be "turned over".

Thing is, same thing will happen with "three more blind mice".

The concept of did it cost a horse a placing is just very questionable. Its why we NEVER see out of the gate dq's. How do you know it cost a horse a placing, they may have run last or 5th. Yet a horse like Bayern clearly fouled the other horses.

Always let the results stand.

Unless a foul can be known to be intentional, which is close to impossible to determine.

Don't punish bettors who backed a winner.

Your desired scenario, of course, would lead to a lot of speculation about a jockey who fouls another horse to possibly cash a bet...knowing the bet won't be taken down. Sure the jock might get fined and/or suspended, but it would be very easy for someone or some group to grab a hold on a jockey and basically force him to fix a race in that manner...foul the favorite out of the race...if you know the favorite isn't going to win, you can easily make a lot of money no matter who wins.

PVAL would have had a field day with this interpretation.

fools and their conspiracy theories...