Lezcano, Ortiz, Jr. and L. Saez suspended

[Tom]

Customers seldom matter to the association.

How about this - an owner gets a second positive within 90 day, ALL of his horses are suspended for 90 days and the owner may not transfer them to anyone else.

At some point racing needs to acknowledge who the customer is.

It is NOT the owners.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Tom

Customers seldom matter to the association.

How about this - an owner gets a second positive within 90 day, ALL of his horses are suspended for 90 days and the owner may not transfer them to anyone else.

At some point racing needs to acknowledge who the customer is.

It is NOT the owners.

Owners IMO should be exalted nearly as much as the customers.

I agree the customers should be first priority.

However without the owners, many of whom are true sportsmen, who are fully aware they'll be hard pressed to make money. Our game couldn't survive.

[Tom]

All they have to do is race honestly and hire honest people.
Then they would have nothing to worry about.

When it come to the betting pools, the owners should not be a consideration at all, other than to the extent of their wagers, on their own horses, of course, so no exactas, tris, supers, and their horse must be a singe in any horizontal.

If that is too much for them, maybe the game is not worth saving. We bettors will fin other venues to gamble on.

Then Chad and Todd can race each other in the field on Sundays.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Owners IMO should be exalted nearly as much as the customers.

I agree the customers should be first priority.

However without the owners, many of whom are true sportsmen, who are fully aware they'll be hard pressed to make money. Our game couldn't survive.

Whether owners should be exalted, and whether they should receive special protection from regulators are two separate questions

[Robert Fischer]

How 'bout we start by simply having experts call the #@$!! fouls??
and use Purse Distribution not joke-suspensions and wrist-slaps to impose an actual Penalty??

They don't have to be 'perfect' 100% of the time. Just 'experts' who can do a competent job.

Then we take away the incentive to herd and foul.

Instead of being REWARDED 1/3 of the time, and nothin' to lose, we have the judges get 85% of the calls correct.

Then for the purse distribution (not the wagering ticket) 'fine' the guilty party by deducting an additional placing for Purse Considerations.



Case Example:

• Ortiz has the lead and his horse is hanging
• So Ortiz decides to pretend to whip the horse away from the closer that Santana is trying to pass with, while at the same time actually steering into Santana's charge in order to herd/impede the closer
• Ortiz holds on for the win!

Current way = 33%-50% of the time the stewards guess, or roll dice, or whatever it is in there that generates a random number for them and they award Ortiz the win in spite of the foul. If fined later, on a winner, the owners laugh it off with a charitable donation in the jockey's name for that massive $1,000. When they happen to see the foul and take him down, he gets 2nd instead of a win (not a punishment, considering he had the 2nd fastest horse), and maybe after the meet is over, they tack on unpaid day's vacation of his choosing.

Proposed way =85% of the time, the competent stewards, (who are actually experts within their profession) get it right. They place Ortiz 2nd. The wagering tickets are paid NORMALLY after the DQ and the race is made 'Official'. HOWEVER, The purse distribution is paid to Ortiz and the owner for 3RD. The 3rd-place finisher gets paid for 2nd purse money. This way there is an actual penalty for fouling, rather than an INCENTIVE, as in our current practice.
.

No exaltation needed.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

How 'bout we start by simply having experts call the #@$!! fouls??
and use Purse Distribution not joke-suspensions and wrist-slaps to impose an actual Penalty??

I think the answer would be...

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

That will never fly with the association.

Until the "Associations", weather it be for owners, trainers, or jockeys, change their views, the game will remain the same. In a decline, and losing customers.

The influence of these "special interest" groups is probably the largest hurdle horse racing has to overcome. The owners want short fields and large purses, so the take out goes up. The jockeys get to pick and choose when their suspensions will be served. Thus rendering any suspensions to be useless. The trainers can "transfer" a horse to their assistant, and avoid any suspensions that way.

And the racing commission's do not have the ball's to man up, and write the rules in a effective manner.

[JohnGalt1]

Originally Posted by Tom

Topic for a whole new thread, but in a Reader's Digest version, Stewards should not talk to the jockeys involved at. Right off the bat, jocks who do not speak good English are at a huge disadvantage.

Using today's technology, I can see a whole radical new concept of policing racing, using technology and "blind officialiating" as opposed to blind officials. I may start a new thread tomorrow and invite suggestions - too late tonight, time to grill my steaks and chill my beers.

I totally agree with this whole post.


Jerry Bailey on one of the NBC broadcasts said he knew when an inquiry involved him and someone whos' second language was English, that he had an advantage when interviewed by the stewards.


Other officials of other sports don't interview the players.


Batter do you think this was a strike, pitcher do you think this was a strike?


Do you think you were held, did you hold?


Hockey player do you think you were tripped, or did you fall?


For our sport we now have the technology to make rulings. If the camera's don't show anything definite---leave the results alone.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

I totally agree with this whole post.


Jerry Bailey on one of the NBC broadcasts said he knew when an inquiry involved him and someone whos' second language was English, that he had an advantage when interviewed by the stewards.


Other officials of other sports don't interview the players.


Batter do you think this was a strike, pitcher do you think this was a strike?


Do you think you were held, did you hold?


Hockey player do you think you were tripped, or did you fall?


For our sport we now have the technology to make rulings. If the camera's don't show anything definite---leave the results alone.

Many people agree there is no reason to speak to the jocks during an inquiry. I understand your arguments and frankly think they are legit.

When I was a steward I thought talking to them was useful. Of course I knew they would advocate for their position**. Can't blame them for that. But I found value in hearing what they said. Often times it would help me see something that I hadn't considered to that point.

** There were actually a few who would be totally honest even if they knew it was going to go against them. For me that established massive street cred. I would always listen even closer if I knew I had one of the fact tellers. Russell Baze was like that. Mike Smith, Chad Schvaneveldt, Jake Barton, Jack Kaenel, Ken Tohill.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

** There were actually a few who would be totally honest even if they knew it was going to go against them. For me that established massive street cred. I would always listen even closer if I knew I had one of the fact tellers. Russell Baze was like that. Mike Smith, Chad Schvaneveldt, Jake Barton, Jack Kaenel, Ken Tohill.

This is a dynamic I am very familiar with as a lawyer.

A lawyer who develops a reputation as no-BS with judges is incredibly valuable to a client. Because if that lawyer needs a quick ruling on something and tells the judge that the law is X, the judge will likely trust him or her and grant the relief.

In contrast, a lawyer who develops a reputation as someone who spins everything and misrepresents facts and law, that lawyer is never going to get that same courtesy. The judge will never give that lawyer anything without checking it out first and probably holding a fully noticed hearing.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Many people agree there is no reason to speak to the jocks during an inquiry. I understand your arguments and frankly think they are legit.

When I was a steward I thought talking to them was useful. Of course I knew they would advocate for their position**. Can't blame them for that. But I found value in hearing what they said. Often times it would help me see something that I hadn't considered to that point.

** There were actually a few who would be totally honest even if they knew it was going to go against them. For me that established massive street cred. I would always listen even closer if I knew I had one of the fact tellers. Russell Baze was like that. Mike Smith, Chad Schvaneveldt, Jake Barton, Jack Kaenel, Ken Tohill.

I agree and it is a good thing that jockeys who have a good reputation for honesty. I also believe that every rider has the right to have his side heard from his unique perspective.
As far as jockeys who have English as a 2nd language being at a disadvantage, I think that even these jocks would wan the right to be heard. I also think that given the relative frequency of foul claims, it behooves a rider to acquire a sufficient proficiency in English to explain himself to the stewards to add to his skill set.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I agree and it is a good thing that jockeys who have a good reputation for honesty. I also believe that every rider has the right to have his side heard from his unique perspective.
As far as jockeys who have English as a 2nd language being at a disadvantage, I think that even these jocks would wan the right to be heard. I also think that given the relative frequency of foul claims, it behooves a rider to acquire a sufficient proficiency in English to explain himself to the stewards to add to his skill set.

English hindering a jockey's chances in an inquiry is a total non starter. Any jockey who doesn't feel comfortable can use an interpreter. There are always plenty nearby. Valet's, Officials, other jockeys. The Stewards will always get the message and give it equal weight.

[Tom]

Not saying it never happens, but I have never seen anyone but the two jockeys on the phone after an inquiry.

BUt I have not been to a physical track in a long time.
Anyone else seen a third part on the phone?

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Tom

Not saying it never happens, but I have never seen anyone but the two jockeys on the phone after an inquiry.

BUt I have not been to a physical track in a long time.
Anyone else seen a third part on the phone?

Yes. I said I have. It happens all the time.

Not much in it for me to misrepresent this.

[Tom]

Not saying you were, just never seen it myself that I remember.