Open steward question for Vic Stauffer

[ubercapper]

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

[v j stauffer]

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.

fouled multiple horses. Each horse in a race is entitled to clear and unobstructed path. Numbers & 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 shifts outward into the path of . 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 the cause for 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 was clearly a foul. However, did it cause the horse to not be persevered with. My vote is NO. So is still in the clear.

The next incident is when continues to drift outward and solidly bumps . That very bump, MR. JUDGE THASKALOS, is why I wanted to see the pan shot. was bumped and forced to check sharply causing it to lose position and start a chain reaction involving . However did that incident cause an opportunity at a better placing? Here comes SUBJECTIVE decision #2. IMO no it didn't. When 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 took up. & were in fact already in front of . I'm 100% sure regarding the and somewhat sure regarding the ( That one is very close ). The is where experience and feel come into play.

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

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

Now let's apply those fouls to placings.

wasn't cost NO CHANGE

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.

was clearly cost. (DISQUALIFICATION)

So what appears VERY obvious actually isn't. I think I know why they left 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 and place him behind . 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.

[mountainman]

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

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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

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.

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.

[Boomer]

Whether one agrees or disagree with Vic's analysis ( and I do agree with Track Phantom here regarding # . Due to the contact caused by the it should be assumed he caused an injury to the . 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!

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

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.

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 looked tentative and ouchy even before the got near him. But am I 100% sure 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.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Boomer

Whether one agrees or disagree with Vic's analysis ( and I do agree with Track Phantom here regarding # . Due to the contact caused by the it should be assumed he caused an injury to the . 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 right 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!

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.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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 looked tentative and ouchy even before the got near him. But am I 100% sure 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.

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.

[Boomer]

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.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Boomer

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.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

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.

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 to go wrong and pull up in distress or if the the two things were unrelated.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by cj

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

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.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by westernmassbob

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 !

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.

[dilanesp]

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.

[CryingForTheHorses]

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!!