Open steward question for Vic Stauffer
 

Vic since it is my understanding that you have been a racing steward in the past I have a question(s)

Why do stewards sometimes have conversations with jockeys if an inquiry or objection is in progress ? What types of questions are asked and have the answers ever swayed the decision making process? Personally I can’t think of any reason why the stewards should ever talk to the jockeys. If the replay doesn’t show enough evidence to prove without a reasonable doubt then no change. Let me give an example. A horse coming down the stretch suddenly veers out and causes another horse to lose a placing. On the replay it is clear that the horse veered out but after talking the offending jockey he explains a rat ran across the track and spooked the horse. You obviously can’t see this on video but does this jockeys explanation hold any merit in not making a change ? I appreciate all the answers and responses in advance . Thanks !

Stewards pretty much know jockeys are going to advocate their position. It's expected. They're human beings. On very rare cases I've heard a few say. "Yeah, I did it. I could have done better. Do what you think is right" (RUSSELL BAZE).

Personally, I find what they have to say VERY important. We're not on their backs. In discussing what happened I've had numerous times when what they say will cause me to look at the replay differently. From a different angle. Or consider something that may look another way until it's explained at the crucial moment of the incident. From people who were in the middle of it. Cameras, even well placed can only provide so much coverage.

Other stewards don't like working with me because I'm laboriously slow. When I'm SURE I know what did or did not happen. I'll still double and triple check to feel totally comfortable with my decision.

One thing I think very few horse players don't realize. We watch the HORSES and nothing else when conducting an INQUIRY for the purposes of placings. Literally as though the jockey's weren't on their backs. Did a horse have a clear and unobstructed path? Was that path compromised by another horse crossing over, bumping or impeding? Had the horse gained it's maximum placing in our SUBJECTIVE opinion when the incident occurred?

The actions of the jockeys are meaningless. That aspect is brought up at film review the following morning.

Then comes number one of the two the magic words. SUBJECTIVE. Stewards very often have to use their experience from seeing thousands of races and replays and rule on what they "think" may or may not have happened. There are no absolutes. A decision MUST be made. That's the way the rules are written and until better ones come along it's what we have to work with. "WAS A HORSE COST AN "OPPORTUNITY" at a better placing?

That's what drives players crazy. Because it's SUBJECTIVE!

The other option is A FOUL IS A FOUL. That rule is so bad it doesn't even exist anywhere that I know of anymore. It's not practical or fair or frankly even realistic. It plain and simple doesn't work. 4/5 shot slightly brushes a 50-1 shot on it's way to a 10 length win. While the longshot is clearly tiring and backing through the field. By the strict letter of the law a foul occurred. But did it change the eventual outcome? Not at all. Would it be just to the people who all bet the obvious best horse to lose on a technicality? Of course not. That's why A FOUL IS A FOUL doesn't work and never has.

Which brings us to the 2nd even more magic word. The real "C" word. CONSISTENCY.

Every day players bemoan Stewards lack of consistency. What they actually should change the word to is AGREE.

If you AGREE with 5 or 6 consecutive calls we make then we're wonderfully consistent. However, if on the 7th inquiry you strongly believe we got that one wrong. Suddenly our consistency is shot and out the window. Now we've blown our consistency. What?

As Stewards we know no matter the decision some people will be 100% sure we got it spot on correct. While others will be 100% sure we're incompetent idiots. That will never change. Comes with the territory. Someone is always going to be pissed.

We try our best to provide a level, fair, unbiased playing field and judge each incident on it's individual merits.

It can be a thankless job. But for the most part I think U.S. Stewards do a good job. Do we always get it right? No. What officials do? But with 3 in the stand I think justice is usually served in most cases.

Hope that helps.

VJS

Hey Vic.

On a day when I have nothing good to say about the sport (Arlington Park) I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to discuss racing with us horseplayers. You're the coolest dude around as far as I'm concerned. Fan for life.

Your last three words describe how I feel abut OUR great sport Jeremy.

It pays to be old. Which I am. Since I've been at this since I was 15. I guess I've learned a few things just through the passage of time.

I will ALWAYS try to share with true fans, which we have many here on PA, the way things really work inside the ropes.

Thanks for the very kind words.

V J S

This may be the post of the year here. Excellent insight, communicated clearly. Thanks, Vic.

Vic, Appreciate your post. I have a major issue with the lack of a DQ on this race. The #1 was the 5-2 second favorite. The #2 was the 2-1 favorite. In my opinion, the #1 interfered with 3 different runners and a DQ looked obvious. Do you agree or do you think I'm missing something?

:ThmbUp: Very cool to hear your input


Generally true. And that's how the crowd is going to treat stewards. :jump:or:mad:




There are some legitimate gripes about inconsistent calls. :coffee:

The 'cost-a-placing' rule interpretation comes to mind, but everything is in play

Best post of 2021.
Thanks Westernmassbob & Vic

What was the date of this race?

If you have the ability to post the chart I would appreciate it.

Seeing the pan shot would also be helpful.

While seeing only the head on isn't IMO sufficient.

The head on looked VERY damning for the :1:

I can't, for the life of me, understand how this head-on shot could be deemed "insufficient" in determining the level of interference that the rail horse caused in this race. What additional information could the chart of the race possibly provide?

The Los Alamitos stewards who allowed this race result to go official should have been led away in handcuffs...IMO.

Three things.

1) I'm interested in the owner/trainer connections of #:1

2) The pan will show me how close to the wire the second and third "apparent" interference took place in relation to the finish line.

3) Anyone who has multiple angles to look at an incident would be foolish to not avail themselves to them all. Why not?

Vic,

I'm having trouble figuring out how to turn an image (jpg) into the code needed to add the screen shot here. (If someone can tell me how to do that, I'll do it on the next post).

However, it was 9-19-21 (race 6). The winning trainer was Scott Willoughby and the winning owner was Edward C Allred (the owner of the track itself).

Pan shot here:

Well then, there you go.:D

That is a DQ from any angle.

Vic,


I don't recall if you ever weighed in on the Category 1 vs Category 2 debate from a few years back and apologize if you did and I missed it.



https://racingthinktank.com/reports/...changing-rules



Do you think North American regulators adopting Category 1 rules would be better for fans and bettors, worse, or not much different?


Thanks

I would have voted to DQ. But the decision isn't nearly as obvious as the head on first appears.

The rule reads a DQ is warranted if a rival was cost an "opportunity" at a better placing.

:1: fouled multiple horses. Each horse in a race is entitled to clear and unobstructed path. Numbers :2: :3: & :4: all did not get that and were fouled.

Each foul is an incident exclusive to itself. So let's take them in order.

Not long after the start :1: shifts outward into the path of :2:. That horse checks "briefly" in tight quarters. Then drops far behind the field in obvious physical distress. Here's where Stewards must make their first of several SUBJECTIVE decisions. Was :1: the cause for :2: apparent injury?

Impossible to know with 100% certainty but IMO the answer is no. Quarter Horse racing is much more rough and tumble than TB racing. What happened to number :2: was clearly a foul. However, did it cause the horse to not be persevered with. My vote is NO. So :1: is still in the clear.

The next incident is when :1: continues to drift outward and solidly bumps :3:. That very bump, MR. JUDGE THASKALOS, is why I wanted to see the pan shot. :3: was bumped and forced to check sharply causing it to lose position and start a chain reaction involving :4:. However did that incident cause :3: an opportunity at a better placing? Here comes SUBJECTIVE decision #2. IMO no it didn't. When :3: was forced to take up it happened VERY close to the wire. Perhaps as little 30 or 40 feet from the line.

Here's where it gets VERY tricky. Because of the very difficult angles and optical illusions that exist at Los Alamitos. If two horses appear from the pan shot absolutely dead even with 100 yards to run. I can assure you having seen thousands of races there the outside horse is actually WELL IN FRONT of the horse near the rail. Often as much as a full length. Our eyes are very much deceived. It's the Los Al angles and they're a bitch!

That being said. I "think" when :3: took up. :5: & :6: were in fact already in front of :3:. I'm 100% sure regarding the :5: and somewhat sure regarding the :6: ( That one is very close ). The :6: is where experience and feel come into play.

Ok, now let's bring :4: into the equation. His trouble of being bumped and jostled in very tight quarters actually began to manifest itself well before the :3: started to react. ( Some horses and jockeys are more resilient and braver than others) :4: was much further back from the wire when all the dysfunction began to impact him. So again we ask the same question was :4: cost an opportunity at a better placing. This one for me is the easiest. YES he was. IMO :4: would NOT have been passed by :6: had he not been bothered.

Ok now we know what we think happened. Time to place blame. That part is a no brainer. :1:. His outward drifting actions caused the entire mess.

Now let's apply those fouls to placings.

:2: wasn't cost NO CHANGE

:3: is the hair splitter. My gut feeling is he had already been passed when his trouble happened. NO CHANGE (but really close). Remember we gotta decide. It's either YES or NO. I've heard people say well if it's that close why change? Because it's our job to MAKE A DECISION.

:4: was clearly cost. (DISQUALIFICATION)

So what appears VERY obvious actually isn't. I think I know why they left :1: up. It's because of the SUPER CLOSE proximity to the wire when the fouls and reactions occurred.

Personally I would have voted to DQ :1: and place him behind :4:. For failure to maintain a straight course.

I tell riders all the time. In 150 years of pari-mutual racing there's never been a horse DQ'ed that ran straight. GO STRAIGHT!! Don't make me have to decide SUBJECTIVELY aka known as guess about what happened. If you do I'm going to lean towards giving the benefit of the doubt to the rivals you impacted because you didn't RUN STRAIGHT.

IMO this INQUIRY was a VERY CLOSE call. I could not say to a fellow Steward I'm sure they were wrong. I would disagree but can also understand the reasoning of those who left it as is.

Hope this helped.

Ahh..the age old debate. Category 1, btw, needs worded in more precise and encompassing fashion.

Thanks for the detailed response. I understand your individual breakdown but I do not agree at all about the action with #2. The #1 clearly impacted #2 for quite a few yards and (before the 2 dropped far back) the #2 was right in the race (as the favorite) and applying overt subjectivity to the incident NOT contributing to the #2 going on is faulty. You, me or the stewards will never know exactly what caused the #2 to drop back but I can certainly tell you he was not backing up when the incident occurred. Thus, you must error on the side that the incident was a contributing factor.

Saying it another way, if the #2 had re-rallied for 4th you would have DQ'd the #1 on that incident (I think you're saying). If so, what the #2 does after the incident is way too much subjectivity for my liking. What if the #1 had forced the #2 to drop the rider during that incident? We'd have never seen the rest of the race for #2 and DQ would have happened.

I understand subjectivity is a part of this but only to a logical degree. Once extrapolation delves into the guessing territory it becomes illogical to me.

Whether one agrees or disagree with Vic's analysis ( and I do agree with Track Phantom here regarding # :2:. Due to the contact caused by the :1: it should be assumed he caused an injury to the :2:. As you tell the jocks Vic...Keeping a straight line avoids this.


My recommendation though is how hard would it be for the judges to write up an explanation of their opinion and make it public.


JUST LIKE VIC TOOK THE TIME TO DO HERE! ON HIS OWN TIME.



Would that be so difficult? It sure would be a teaching moment for the bettors and what is wrong with transparency!

I can't say you're wrong about anything you wrote. I disagree. That's why we have three judges in the stand. I thought :2: looked tentative and ouchy even before the :1: got near him. But am I 100% sure :1:didn't contribute to his problems? No not 100%. Guessing may be illogical to you. But it's a very big part of many inquiries. Absent a better rule it always will be and IMO they are no better rules available. The one thing I would say is I believe my knowledge and experience do contribute to my guesses being right more often than not. There are no absolutes. We're paid to make a decision and we make them. As I said in a different post in this thread. I'm very well aware the people who disagree are going to be passionately pissed. I respect that and try to defuse it with my explanations. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes not. Nature of the job.

Many jurisdictions do have stewards write up the reasoning for the decisions they make. At NYRA I'm pretty sure it's right there on the website. For California everything that happens is memorialized in the official Steward Minutes which can be viewed by anyone at www.chrb.ca.gov . The three Stewards rotate writing the minutes each week. One handles scratches and changes. One writes rulings and the third produces the minutes. If a Steward has a dissenting opinion he can and does tell his colleague to include that in the minutes.

Understood. No problem in disagreeing and I appreciate the time you took. It's helpful for those of us who have never been in your seat.

Thanks for the link Vic. I see nothing in the stewards ruling about the race 10-19 race 6.


Was there even an objection or inquiry on the race? And if yes, It would be great to see the judges opinion of why there was no change.

Doesn't look like they've published that one yet, only goes through the 12th.

Also, remember back in this thread when WESTERNMASSBOB asked about talking to the riders involved in incidents? Here's an example of where the testimony of a credible jockey could be very helpful.

We could ask him if in his opinion the incident caused :2:to go wrong and pull up in distress or if the the two things were unrelated.

It typically takes a while. The other two Stewards will proof read it. Then it's submitted to the Stewards secretary who sends it to the CHRB. Sometimes the Executive Director, Chief Steward and General Counsel will take a look to make sure there's nothing that could cause a legal hassle. Eventually it will show up on the website.

When I re-read this initial set of questions I realized I may have buried the lead a bit. Because I didn't specifically address one of your example questions. As you've now read when Stewards look at replays during an inquiry or objection regarding the placings the actions of lack of actions by the jockeys are completely meaningless. We watch as though the horses are rider less, running freely. Therefore regardless of the reason for the interference. Be it a rat running across the track. A Tetradactyl swooping into to catch prey. Or a sonic boom. What the horses do to each other is all that matters. Even if the jockey did a GREAT job at trying to control his mount when that RAT scampered across.

It reminds me of MAXIMUM SECURITY'S disqualification in the Derby. While we'll never know for sure. IMO something spooked him from the inside. Perhaps someone or something in the infield which is wild and crazy on Derby Day. Unlike any other CD afternoon.

To me that's much more plausible than Luis Saez steering his horse into harms way. Or riding carelessly and fouling those horses deliberately. In fact I thought he did a remarkable job of controlling him, after the duck outward, or the incident could have been much much worse with multiple horses falling.

Was the DQ warranted? 100% yes. It would have taken about 2 minutes if the same thing happened on a sleepy Thursday.

Did Saez deserve a suspension? IMO absolutely not. I see no visual evidence that what happened was deliberate on his part. In fact as I said I think he attempted to correct his mount as quickly as humanly possible.

IMO losing the winning mount in the Derby with all it entails. Was clearly punishment enough. Tacking on days was IMO overkill.

But I'm not a Steward at Churchill Downs and I respect their decision.

FWIW I think when you watch the head on all the way it is clear Saez was herding runners all around the track. So I do think it was deliberate.

A jockey must have full control of his horse at all times and to maintain a straight path. Yes horses do veer but many times, It's the jock not paying attention to what's going on around him .I have seen riders do some things in my career.

Hello Vic!!

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.