Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder
I did not realize I was employing any tactics or trying to be politically correct. "Cloaking" infers the intent to mislead, but my intentions are to express a blunt opinion. If anyone is using tactics here they are of "distraction" from the main topic, which is of course complaints about DQs/non-DQs. I reserve my right to complain as long as I'm offering up ideas on how to improve the system.
It's obvious to the most casual observer that the human element of the steward's observations and opinions brings a qualitative aspect to the whole process. There's questionable (or difficult) calls made every week, if not every day. The emotions displayed in this thread simply add to the irony. Apparently some hold that view that the system is just fine, and people who disagree with this view are whiners, morons and blowhards. Years of race watching experience are no substitute for the rarefied air of the steward's box, and any suggestions for changes are "poo-pooed" as the babbling of the naive.
Watch the inquiry/objection process in Australia or Hong Kong some time. They have very few of these, and when they do the interviews of the jockeys and trainers are in public and can take quite a while. Their system isn't perfect, but it's significantly better than what we have in North America. A better system would potentially be the "pay the winners" method, leaving the DQs affect the purse distributions and leaving the parimutuels intact.
In a business that's showing a steep decline like horse racing, one would hope to that change for improvement would be pursued by all parties. At this stage, passion for the game is in direct conflict with "business as usual".
|
In my opinion, the problem isn't the system-it's the criteria by which stewards are selected, and the lack of close, stern oversight and regular monitoring of their decisions. I could expound much more, but that's the simplified version of my take on this.
