Gulfstream To Provide Bettors More Information On Disqualifications

[Jeff P]

Press Release from Gulfstream Park Website - Feb 28, 2014

Gulfstream To Provide Bettors More Information On Disqualifications:
http://www.gulfstreampark.com/racing...qualifications

HALLANDALE BEACH, FL - Gulfstream Park announced today it will begin instituting changes to provide bettors more information and greater transparency whenever there is a disqualification or objection on any of its races.

"We truly believe the bettor deserves a detailed explanation as to why a horse has been disqualified," said Gulfstream President Tim Ritvo. "The bettor is not only the economic engine that drives this sport, but he and she is also the biggest fan of the sport. We need to continue to find ways to improve the integrity and transparency of the sport. We have not done a good job explaining why our stewards have disqualified a horse, and we're going to change that. We have a few changes we will implement immediately, but we are studying a number of other ideas, including a camera and microphone in the stewards' booth."

Track announcer Larry Collmus will provide a detailed explanation for the ruling while a replay of the infraction is highlighted and played from pan and head-on angles. A statement by the stewards will be posted on Gulfstream Park's website under disqualifications.

"I have talked to several track officials and respected stewards over the past week and we've discussed several ways of being more transparent when it comes to objections and inquiries," Ritvo said. "Obviously, there's never going to be a 100 percent consensus whether a horse should or should not be taken down. We want stewards to be consistent, but we also want them to treat each race individually because every scenario is different. We also want them to be quick, but sometimes decisions take longer, especially after a turf race because stewards must wait for the jockeys to come back. But we feel we can provide our bettors more information and information that's more timely.

"There will be things we add, maybe a few we eventually subtract, but our decisions will be based on what is best for our bettors," Ritvo said. "If these changes work at Gulfstream, we will roll them out across all Stronach Group tracks."

-jp

.

[Grits]

It DOES work when all come together to complain, vehemently and honestly. It'll take time, sure, but acknowledging the problems is the first step. Gentlemen, you should all be proud of your concern and your voice, there's no doubt Pace Advantage was well read. Too, for the first time, ever, that I recall, I see "she" in a reference to bettors. Wow. Thank you, Tim Ritvo!

"The bettor is not only the economic engine that drives this sport, but he and she is also the biggest fan of the sport. We need to continue to find ways to improve the integrity and transparency of the sport.

[lamboguy]

Tim Ritvo just proved he understands where the problem is. they should also post on their website the standard's that stewards use to judge races.

this is certainly what every bettor wants, so we finally got something.

[JustRalph]

Jeff

Was HANA involved in this?

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Jeff

Was HANA involved in this?

Sure. But we were hardly the only ones.

We ran a couple of write ups on our blog and made sure the story was mentioned in the HANA Monthly (which has 1000's of downloads.) There were posts made here at Paceadvantage and elsewhere. (If you'll recall Andy Beyer penned an article for the Washington Post quoting posts from the thread at Paceadvantage.) Ray Paulick also ran a story... and the day after that he ran a follow up story. There was also activity on Twitter and Facebook, email blasts, etc... And yes, behind the scenes some of our more vocal horseplayer members picked up the phone and spoke with Gulfstream track management (who to their credit didn't duck the calls and heard what they had to say.) If I had to hazard a guess I'd say Gulstream track management probably received lots of phone calls from horseplayers (HANA members or not.)

So yes, I'd like to think we played a small part in this. But again we were hardly the only ones.

In the end what I think they listened to were the voices of thousands of horseplayers calling for consistency in the calls and better transparency.

In the end I think it was you guys.



-jp

.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

At least they're going to put their ruling in writing and post it on their website.

However, this still doesn't address the major problem in this case - which is the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Hell, some of my customers are state employees and I can't even buy them lunch due to the appearance of a conflict of interest by accepting a gift from a vendor.

Other changes are needed - outlaw the jackpot style of pools, don't show the probable payouts, dog racing rules in the final leg of such pools, etc.....

[Seabiscuit@AR]

They televise stewards hearings sometimes in Australia, it does not stop strange decisions by the stewards

One of the issues with stewards decisions is there are so many rules and the stewards are able to highlight one rule in one case and then go silent on the same rule in another case and so reach seemingly inconsistent decisions based on this rule. The stewards are always able to make their decision first and then highlight whatever rules support that decision while ignoring those rules that don't support the decision

[Tom]

It is amazing that, when the results of a race are changed by three people, and tens of thousands of dollars are taken from some and given to others, stewards have not always felt an overwhelming responsibility to explain in detail why they did what they did and what rules was in play.

The pompous asses!

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Tom

It is amazing that, when the results of a race are changed by three people, and tens of thousands of dollars are taken from some and given to others, stewards have not always felt an overwhelming responsibility to explain in detail why they did what they did and what rules was in play.

The pompous asses!

Couldnt agree more.

I think the explanations "in detail" arent as important as consistency. If there's a bump or a brush or something we can all see on tape, we can assume that we know the reason for the DQ. But, when judges are inconsistent, like the judges at GP have been in recent days, that's the problem most bettors have. You're either going to call it tight, or not......if you go both ways, it looks REALLY bad, it looks like there was a hidden agenda against some of the human connections or maybe, in this case, making a DQ that favors the track to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.

You have to be consistent, you can't take a horse down and then a similar infraction gets let go. That stinks to high heaven.

Consistency. You gotta have it if you want to be taken seriously as judges and you don't want to have people call you out as someone who is less than 100% honest.

[BillW]

A while back I suggested to the Ky. commission that they employ a model similar to the NHL:

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=249243

Jeff, you may want to pass this on to GP.

[NTamm1215]

Nice to see Gulfstream doing something that the pre-eminent circuit in the country has done for years.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

At least they're going to put their ruling in writing and post it on their website.

However, this still doesn't address the major problem in this case - which is the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Hell, some of my customers are state employees and I can't even buy them lunch due to the appearance of a conflict of interest by accepting a gift from a vendor.

Other changes are needed - outlaw the jackpot style of pools, don't show the probable payouts, dog racing rules in the final leg of such pools, etc.....

we are never going to be able to prove conflict of interest in this case.

there is no chance that Gulfstream management had anything to do with the stewards ruling on this. but if the stewards were sitting on the edge, the fact that one way carries over and the other doesn't might have swayed them.

the stewards have no business knowing names of horses, names of trainers or owners and what payoffs are of rainbow pick 3's, 4's, 5's, 6's or 7's. their job is to deal with just the numbers on the saddle cloths and watch for infractions. and tell us ahead of time what rules they use to judge races.

none of the above will cost anyone a penny.

this new policy might help the handle going forward. this year seems to be a banner year for Gulfstream racing, the place is packed every day of the week probably because of the cold weather up north.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by BillW

A while back I suggested to the Ky. commission that they employ a model similar to the NHL:

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=249243

Jeff, you may want to pass this on to GP.

Any move by racing that gets Bill W back posting has to be a big thing

I agree with that. It would be so cool to have a control room of some sort...... hell, maybe even the control room could direct tracks not to run grade II stakes on top of each other......

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Tom

It is amazing that, when the results of a race are changed by three people, and tens of thousands of dollars are taken from some and given to others, stewards have not always felt an overwhelming responsibility to explain in detail why they did what they did and what rules was in play.

The pompous asses!

So you know the GP stewards have opposed such disclosure in the past? Or are you referring to other stewards?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

So you know the GP stewards have opposed such disclosure in the past? Or are you referring to other stewards?

If they have had the ability to oppose such disclosure in the past, why would they accept disclosure now?