The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Using the sample in this thread, let's see how realistic the claim is that stewards don't know the odds and therefore couldn't favor the favorite.


Discussed on 12/2/14.
Zia, R8. http://www.equibase.com/premium/char...14&cy=USA&rn=8

Horse DQ-ed: 6-1. New winner: 1-5.



Discussed on 12/9/14
TuP, R8, http://www.equibase.com/premium/char...14&cy=USA&rn=8

Horse DQ-ed from the place: 74-1.... Out of the money because of DQ.


Discussed on 12/13/14
Los Al. R7, http://www.equibase.com/premium/char...14&cy=USA&rn=7

Horse DQ-ed from place: 6-1. New place horse: 2-1


Updated through page 4. More later.

Discussed on 12/18/14:
TP, R7, http://www.equibase.com/premium/char...14&cy=USA&rn=7

Horse DQ-ed from win: 21-1. New winner: 4-1.


Discussed on 12/19/14:
TP, R1, http://www.equibase.com/premium/char...14&cy=USA&rn=1

Horse DQ-ed from place: 5-2. New place horse: 5-1


Discussed on 1/8/15:
GP, R4, http://www.equibase.com/premium/char...15&cy=USA&rn=4

Horse DQ-ed from win: 4-1. New winner: 1-2


Updated through 1/8/15 on page 6.

[Dark Horse]

Still very early, but 5 out of 6 (83%) in support of the chalk notion. For Vic's sake I hope it comes down to below 60%. Still biased, but at least not blatantly so.


My thinking is that in any non-unanimous decision, with a 1-1 score and the pressure all on one steward, that pressure will likely make him cave to public opinion. It's a lot easier to piss of a few people on a 20-1 horse than a crowd of people on a 1/2 horse. The human element...


Suggestions to sidestep the human element:

1) stewards should be in separate rooms, and be unaware of the opinions of the other stewards, nor be allowed to discuss the race with anyone.
2) only unanimous decisions can change the outcome. Any 2-1 count is as good as asking the guy next to you what he thinks.
3) the stewards have to represent a fair range of opinions. They can't all think the same way. Three squares is not going to work.
4) checks and balances. Following each decision, each steward has to file a report to a separate commission to explain his decision.

Of course most questionable decisions have a lower chance of being unanimous. It would help if the DQ record for each race would include if the decision was unanimous or not. Once this is included, and a clear relationship can be shown to chalk, it will be easy to demonstrate the weakness of the 2-1 decisions. Not horses, but 2-1 decisions should be tossed out. As imperfect as the present model is, I can live with 3-0 decisions.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

So I'm really trying not to come across as an a-hole on here but a lot of the people on this thread don't really understand what it is stewards do, the process behind their decisions and what the limitations are of what they can do.

Vic came on here and tried to explain all this and walk you guys through the process and explain what exactly a Steward does, how they are trained and what they are looking for and looking at. You guys promptly ran him out of town by making him the scapegoat for every bad DQ since Dancers Image and debated whether the earth is flat till he was ready to blow his brains out. And its a shame because you lost out on learning something.

To sum it up Vic's great race caller, a great agent, a great track executive and above a horse player and fan. Do you think when he went in the stewards booth his IQ dropped 50 points and he became the village idiot? Or do you think his hands were kind of bound by rules, technology, process and procedures?

No one ran Vic out of town. I don't know if you've been paying much attention to what goes on around here, but Vic likes to dish it out from time to time...so, he should be prepared to TAKE it from time to time too. It works BOTH ways. We are not much into idol worship around here...so Vic's accomplishments in the game do not necessarily entitle him to preferential treatment.

And, YES...I do know what the steward's job entails. And even if I didn't...it's unlikely that I would come to you for an explanation.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

So I'm really trying not to come across as an a-hole on here but a lot of the people on this thread don't really understand what it is stewards do, the process behind their decisions and what the limitations are of what they can do.

You bring in the situation Patins in Louisiana. I'm not sure what you think the stewards could have done. They're not empowered to change the order of finish after that happened nor declare the race a no-contestant. Rules vary state-to-state but even if there was a rumor they were fixing a race the stewards might even be powerless to prevent it. You guys you see stewards as some type of powerful Supreme Court like body. In reality they're closer to local police or even mall cops in some states.

Racing commissions which are generally run by states dictate what the rules and penalties are. They decide what a foul is and what a proper punishment is for that foul. The also oversee who gets licensed.

In the case of an inquiry stewards are forced to apply the rules dictated by the racing commission and use their judgement if their was a foul within those rules. They just don't get to make it up. There's processes and rules.

On punishment their hands are kind of tied. If a jockey commits a foul there's punishment decided by the racing commission of usually 3-10 days depending on the state and infraction. Last year when Junior Alvarado dumped Raj in the Jockey Club Gold they tried to give him 15 days because Raj was out for months and even that got knocked down on appeal. That's why when SRU says if he owned a track he'd give out big suspensions that's not reality. The reality is the state decides suspension lengths so no he wouldn't. He doesn't want his own track. He wants his own state.

If a jockey does something horrendous like pull a horse, or murder a horse or show up high as a kite in most places the most stewards can do is suspend him pending a hearing by the racing commission. Racing commissions do things like suspend Dutrow for a decade. Stewards do things like fining people for having dogs on the backstretch and the never ending parade of trying to help trainers get paid by owners and vendors paid by trainers.

Vic came on here and tried to explain all this and walk you guys through the process and explain what exactly a Steward does, how they are trained and what they are looking for and looking at. You guys promptly ran him out of town by making him the scapegoat for every bad DQ since Dancers Image and debated whether the earth is flat till he was ready to blow his brains out. And its a shame because you lost out on learning something.

To sum it up Vic's great race caller, a great agent, a great track executive and above a horse player and fan. Do you think when he went in the stewards booth his IQ dropped 50 points and he became the village idiot? Or do you think his hands were kind of bound by rules, technology, process and procedures?

Great passion and write up, appreciate the effort, let me address a few things from your post.

1) The Patins. What some were suggesting is that this has been going on for a while, this isn't the first time they have pulled shenanigans, we know about buzzers back 15 years ago, they probably got more brazen because 'nobody was watching' and nobody really was because if the trainer of one of the stiffed horses didn't throw a fit or bettors didnt call or e mail the track (don't know if this happened but it might have) do you think these judges of their own with 0 prompting from outside forces came down on these guys? I'm going to say probably not.

If these judges were watching races carefully and studying them like serious bettors do and had some balls they might have gotten rid of these bad apples long ago, but it seems that they weren't really paying much attention.

As far as my track ownership goes, if there was a DQless rule there of course the state would have to be on board and increased punishments would be discussed before anything like that was implemented.

Onto Vic.

If Vic became a scapegoat that was on him, we were just arguing our points and he was the only one who was on the other side so it SEEMED like he was being ganged up on, but if you want to try and argue a side that very few if any agree with, tht stuff might not happen.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

I'll just go page by page, but slowly, because I have other stuff to do. lol

My reason is to prove or disprove, through a neutral sample, the hypothesis that stewards are as square as they come. They may not even realize that the chalk is coming out of their ears. Similar to Jon White, who until recently was both a linesmaker and prerace analyst at SA. Thankfully, he's only the first now.

But I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong by the sample. We'll see...

Disqualifications that people complained about on a message board are hardly a "neutral sample"...but let the clown show continue.

[cj]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

You bring in the situation Patins in Louisiana. I'm not sure what you think the stewards could have done. They're not empowered to change the order of finish after that happened nor declare the race a no-contestant. Rules vary state-to-state but even if there was a rumor they were fixing a race the stewards might even be powerless to prevent it. You guys you see stewards as some type of powerful Supreme Court like body. In reality they're closer to local police or even mall cops in some states.

The stewards could have posted the inquiry and declared the race null and void, or done the same for any of the horses. They did nothing. If they aren't going to act in the most blatant case of a race fix known to man, when are they going to act?

I'm not going to compare what happens at a bush track (how can it not be called that now) like Evangeline to the top circuits. I think just as riders and trainers are better on top circuits, so are stewards and racing officials. If this type of thing happened in New York or Southern California, I think action would have been taken immediately. Maybe that is wishful thinking on my part.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

The stewards could have posted the inquiry and declared the race null and void, or done the same for any of the horses. They did nothing. If they aren't going to act in the most blatant case of a race fix known to man, when are they going to act?

I'm not going to compare what happens at a bush track (how can it not be called that now) like Evangeline to the top circuits. I think just as riders and trainers are better on top circuits, so are stewards and racing officials. If this type of thing happened in New York or Southern California, I think action would have been taken immediately. Maybe that is wishful thinking on my part.

Good point that should have been a no contest.

[EMD4ME]

If this was any other sport, the 3 blind mice at EVD would have been interviewed all over Sportscenter and alike shows.

Have they said a peep? Did I miss it? Why is it ok that they haven't?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

If this was any other sport, the 3 blind mice at EVD would have been interviewed all over Sportscenter and alike shows.

Have they said a peep? Did I miss it? Why is it ok that they haven't?

[YT=""]5uGF6641cv8[/YT]

[EMD4ME]

SRU,

We get that and 'You're crazy, your just a horseplayer, you have no idea what your looking at'....etc.

EMD4ME

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

SRU,

We get that and 'You're crazy, your just a horseplayer, you have no idea what your looking at'....etc.

EMD4ME

Exactly. I'm not 'trained' to watch video, maybe someday I can be as observant as a steward.

[EMD4ME]

I personally would love to be taught how to watch races.

I'll say this before I make my next comment:

I hear people say "I've been driving for 40 years". DOESN'T MAKE YOU GOOD AT IT.

"I've been practicing". Doesn't mean you'll get better because practice does not make perfect, PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT.

So, my comment is the following: In the last 8 years, I have probably watched 8320 hours of tape (416 weeks times a CONSERVATIVE average of 20 hours a week).

That doesn't count, the infinite number of hours watching live racing.

That doesn't count the countless hours watching replays on the replay centers at NYRA back in the day. That doesn't count the countless hours watching race replays that I taped on a VCR off of sportschannel back in the day.

Not to sound like a jerk but not only do I watch a lot of tape, I blanken do it real well.

I do not classify myself as a pace handicapper, a trip handicapper, a number handicapper etc. I involve ALL aspects of work into my game.

However, I will say, my trip handicapping is my favorite. I will pull up a tape to see how well a horse changed leads in races where the horse DUMPED the jock. I will watch a head on replay of a horse who ran 30 lenghts behind the field (the entire way) to see if the horse was climbing, being ridden or in the Patin's cases, not ridden .

I would love to spend 5 minutes at that Steward School. But I probably would need 5 years....


Not because I learn at a slow pace but because I think the IDIOTIC STUPID OBTUSE MORONS in those positions would need 5 years to learn 1 thing from me.

And I say that as humbly as I can.

Now, off topic a bit. I agreed with both decisions this weekend (Rudy Saturday and Coralina Sunday). So, great job with those 2 decisions Stewards, sincerely. Now, STAY CONSISTENT.

SRU, I know you hate DQ's so sorry to throw 2 points in this long response but I couldn't contain myself.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Disqualifications that people complained about on a message board are hardly a "neutral sample"...but let the clown show continue.

Of course they are for this purpose, which you would know if you would take the trouble to read before deciding how you would respond.

People can complain as much about favorites being DQ-ed as about longshots. There is no bias in the manner this sample was taken.

You are invited to add a bigger, more neutral sample. Go ahead. Find all the DQ races for the past year, and I'll slowly catalog them here one by one.

[Stillriledup]

25,000 views, closing in on 40 pages of debate and suggestions and guess what? Not a single thing will be done about inconsistent rulings or nitpick rulings or getting head on cameras to work with and so on and so forth. According to the industry nothing is broken. You'll just keep taking it in the shorts as these 70 year old political appointees play god with your cash. If I asked you to name the judges at all the tracks could you name even ONE? Other than Scott Chaney who is on tvg once in a blue moon i can't tell you one name of any judge at any track and yet, these are the people, unchecked and unrated, tossing around your cash on whatever whim strikes their fancy on that particular morning.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Of course they are for this purpose, which you would know if you would take the trouble to read before deciding how you would respond.

People can complain as much about favorites being DQ-ed as about longshots. There is no bias in the manner this sample was taken.

You are invited to add a bigger, more neutral sample. Go ahead. Find all the DQ races for the past year, and I'll slowly catalog them here one by one.

I don't think its as biased as it out of context. So you when take into account favorites win from 25% to 35% of races depending on circuit which means in some places they probably come in top two up to 40-50%. (I'm far from a math expert.)

This mean mathematically most of the time a price horse wins the second place horse is going be one of the top two betting choices. Again I'm not a math expert I would guess the amount of times one of the two betting choices finishes second behind a longer shot is probably greater than 50% at some tracks.

So taking this into account its not that your data is "biased" it just doesn't reflect the outcome you're saying which is prices get DQed at a higher rate when a favorite runs second because you're not taking into account that the top two betting choices run second very often. In layman terms it runs longshot/top two favorites more than top two favorites/longshot. It's not a 50/50 split.

It's not biased its just meaningless. You're just posting random DQ's out of context.