There's the 'cost a placing' justification for ruling, itself.
Sometimes this is the main emphasis of a ruling. Sometimes it is either incompetently applied or deemphasized.
Within the 'cost-a-placing' idea - I think it's crazy to suggest that if a horse proves best and wins, but happens to make the 2nd best horse finish 4th, or the the possibly 3rd best horse finish fourth (etc...), that the best horse should then be DQ'd due to 'cost a placing' concerns.
That is mind boggling to me. Betting has an emphasis on picking winners.
When you take down a horse that has proven best, you hurt bettors.
I'd like to see some more creative ideas.
If a jock like Cancel in the 6th causes the 2nd and 3rd best horses to possibly flip-flop positions? - Fine Cancel up to $10,000 (or a figure better calculated than 2seconds of RF's morning thoughtless rant) - use that Fine to then Pay both the 2nd and 3rd fuzzy best horses for PLACE (2ND money).
If it's a stakes race, and $10k or $30k or whatever they feel is a good hard fine to hit these jocks with when they recklessly endanger other horses/riders/bettors? - then compromise with the best distribution while using that $10k. I'd guess it should cover most purse distributions pretty well.
It's great to have nice reliable Stewards who have served the company, and check all the boxes, and have connections and history with the track, but if you keep the same people, they need to learn some fundamental common accepted practices to consistently enforce, and be able to pass testing on these, or undergo training until they pass.
Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe the owners aren't getting enough excitement in racing horses, and prefer or insist on the randomness that we get once race goes to the stewards? If that is the case, - disregard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayRandall
chimed in
|
are you back in town RR?
