Hey Tom. Completely agree.

The minutes for the incident we've been discussing have been published and appear now on the website.

Two of the Stewards voted to leave the result as is.

The third voted for a disqualification.

Frankly I think they could have been more expansive in their explanation.

But every Steward is different. Some old school types believe less is more in many cases.

As I said before. I would have voted for a DQ.

Now it's 2-2. I'll leave it to you guys to break the tie.

INQUIRY- NO CHANGE
The Stewards posted the inquiry following the sixth race to review two incidents; both involving
the same horse, #1 Pleasure Seeker (1st- V. Salazar). Pleasure Seeker began his adventure
shortly after the break when he drifted into the path of #2 Carlisle Champ (6th- A. Cervantes)
causing him to check. He then continued on his wayward path out requiring both #3 True
Freshman (4th- O. Peinado) and #4 Confusion (5th- H. Lopez) to steady. In a majority vote,
Steward Dreyer dissenting with a vote to disqualify Pleasure Seeker, the original order of finish
stood.

I would have liked to see the minutes disclose which incident was the one Steward Dreyer was dissenting on.

Dreyer voted to disqualify in the incident we've been kicking around all this time.

The other two voted for the result to stay as is.

A majority 2-1 decision.

That's what the minutes say after re-capping what happened.

I copied it straight off the CHRB website at www.chrb.ca.gov

Haven't looked at too many of these - do they often have these kind of literary elements "began his adventure" "wayward path"?? :)

Fancy!

This is why these reports server little purpose for bettors. They don't really tell you anything. Same thing goes for the NYRA reports. They just echo the basic facts everyone that cares already knows.

Here's what you wrote earlier in this thread:

So, my disappointment is in the failure to disclose which horses the dissenting steward felt were fouled to the point of DQ.

No, I sometimes enjoyed having some fun when I wrote minutes. But not where a dispassionate, descriptive narrative is IMO more important.

I was taken aback by the aloof nature of that report.

Didn't think it was appropriate.

There are other ways to add levity.

I remember once when I was on minutes at Ferndale. The then Executive Director Kirk Breed showed up at the track unannounced for a visit.

I said something about catching my breath when I saw the boss out of the blue.

The current ED Scott Chaney was an elite Steward. I suspect he didn't find the Los Al report amusing.

Understandable, I agree the minutes on this incident could have been more case specific with a more detailed explanation.

OK Vic here comes my OPEN QUESTION # 2 . I thought about making it a separate thread but it kind of goes with the theme that has evolved on here.

Has a fan or gambler ever come after you because they didn’t like your decision on a race ? Obviously I just don’t mean this in a physical way but maybe hate mail ? Phone call? We see what people can post on these message boards so lord knows what goes on in the real world.

Thanks again sir ! Your responses have been priceless.

Phones calls come into the Stewards office all the time. Usually disgruntled bettors angry about the decision.

I never minded speaking to them.

If they were respectful and wanted to share their opinions. Or wanted an explanation of the decision or process I would always try to accommodate.

If they were rude or vulgar I would ask them to stop if they didn't want the call terminated. If they continued with vituperations I'd hang up.

I never had a player approach me face to face about any inquiries or decisions.

As for horsemen. Owners, trainers, jockeys. Conversations happen all the time.

Same rules of decorum apply.

If approached by someone any of the three of us would invite them into the Stewards office anytime that was convenient. They were free to ask any questions. Have us go over the process. And share their disagreements.

In the case of license holders I would never talk to them individually. Out of respect to my colleagues who contributed to the decision we would always make sure all three were available to hear what they had to say.

Sometimes people would vehemently disagree and storm out. However, many times when the decision was respectfully explained to them. Showing them not only the process but how the rules were applied. We would get respectful, thankful responses.

I am always was very gratified when it plays out that way.