The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

50/50 doesn't exist. Stewards are paid to make a decision. The public is wrong about heavily bet horses most of the time. It has ZERO to do with film analysis.

You misunderstood what i meant by 50/50. I meant that the decision wasnt obvious either way, you could make an equal case to dq and an equal case to stay up.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

...The arbitrary nature of DQ's is not acceptable, to me, in the modern age. How hard could it be to write a program to mathematically establish speed, power of impact/bump, and so on, with precise calculation of the amount of hindrance and effect on the final result. There is nothing in there that can't be measured scientifically and entered into a program.

I don't believe this would be as trivial as you make it sound, and it wouldn't be cheap to implement. You'd need to use something like Trakus, and ensure the transmitters were mounted on the horse/rider/saddle very consistently, and even then horses vary in size which would start to introduce errors in the measurements. And how would you account for the "gradual drift" of 1/3 of a path over 50 yards versus the more obvious hard bump at the 1/8 pole?

A better solution is to "pay the winners", and let the arbitrary nature of the process play out in post race decisions, much the way a horse is DQ'ed from purse money today for a positive drug test.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

...As for the odds. I can tell you from experience in most cases the stewards have no idea what odds each horse is. They are horses, numbers and jockeys. Nothing else. On the times they are aware of the odds which happens sometimes. 4/5, 5-2, 5-1, 50-1 is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Many will not buy that. I promise you it is true.

Put me in the group that does not buy it. While I would not question your integrity, or even that of most stewards, I do not share in your assurances and your promise that it's all on the up-and-up, every track, every race. How soon we forget the bogus DQ last year that kept the GP Jackpot growing? How many examples of similar inquiries for a G1 race versus a $3K claimer where the outcome is different do we have to see to know there are inconsistencies? There's no reason to think that the horse's odds or connections don't also come into play, especially with the tote board right there in front of them.

Even in the "ideal" world where the stewards are infallible and trustworthy, it's the appearance of inconsistency that hurts the reputation of the sport - and the unwillingness to change doesn't help.

When watching foreign races, especially in Australia and Hong Kong, I see far fewer objections and what appears to be a more consistent, open and thorough process for the reviews and decisions. It's far superior to what goes on in North America. And guess where I bet the majority of my races?

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

# 5 finished 2nd. The heavy favorite #4 finished 3rd. # 5 was disqualified from 2nd and placed 3rd for bumping #4 costing him an opportunity at a better placing.

As for the odds. I can tell you from experience in most cases the stewards have no idea what odds each horse is. They are horses, numbers and jockeys. Nothing else. On the times they are aware of the odds which happens sometimes. 4/5, 5-2, 5-1, 50-1 is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Many will not buy that. I promise you it is true.

Vic, did you watch this race?

The unofficial placings were:

2
6
4
5

The 6 was DQ'd for his 'interference' with the 4.

Results became:
2
4
6
5

The 5 was never in the same zip code as the 4. (in terms of possible violations to the 4)

The poster was also asking you if you thought the 5 actually finished 2nd in the running of the race.

Finally, please add me to the list of people who absolutely believe the stewards know the odds of the horses and the connections involved. It's impossible NOT to know.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

I don't believe this would be as trivial as you make it sound, and it wouldn't be cheap to implement. You'd need to use something like Trakus, and ensure the transmitters were mounted on the horse/rider/saddle very consistently, and even then horses vary in size which would start to introduce errors in the measurements. And how would you account for the "gradual drift" of 1/3 of a path over 50 yards versus the more obvious hard bump at the 1/8 pole?

A better solution is to "pay the winners", and let the arbitrary nature of the process play out in post race decisions, much the way a horse is DQ'ed from purse money today for a positive drug test.

It would be a project, for sure. But it's doable with modern technology. Once all the measurements are in you could compare the influence of interference over a large number of races. Then you could set a median value. Below it there would no interference. This would solve half the problem, that of stewards arbitrarily picking horses to look at (yesterday we had a blanket finish for second, which is not going to happen without bumping in most cases, and sure enough the stewards pick the favorite to evaluate).

The second half of the problem would, admittedly, be more difficult to solve: in case of interference above the median, how much interference exactly was caused? It would require a serious study, but it can be done, and eventually you would have a program that would be infinitely more reliable than the three stooges. Plus it could be used at all tracks, so you would have build in consistency.

The point is that the technology is there. Did you see the America's Cup. Sailing. All the measurements that were relevant were easily available, and put on the screen. Wind speed and direction, water flow strength and direction across the bay, the other boat's influence on the wind, etc. It changed a boring sailing race into something far more exciting. Larry Ellison from Oracle had much to do with this vast improvement, so if horse racing were interested (a big if), he would be the guy to talk to about the technology. It needs to be done, but horse racing always seems to drag its feet, and that's why the sport has fallen behind so far, where other sports eagerly embrace such opportunities.

[Dark Horse]

Santa Anita creates its own poor image, by the way. I know of no other track that will give the results of a photo, without simultaneously showing the photo. They didn't show the photo. Maybe they did much later, but not when everybody was on the edge of their seat waiting for the outcome. And we're supposed to accept that this is all honest? Why? Because Wall Street is honest?

If Vic was one of the stewards, -sorry Vic, I have no idea if you were, but it's not impossible - , and he comes back saying that the 5 was second, that would just be the icing on the cake. Because the 5 was nowhere near the alleged interference to the 4.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

I don't believe this would be as trivial as you make it sound, and it wouldn't be cheap to implement. You'd need to use something like Trakus, and ensure the transmitters were mounted on the horse/rider/saddle very consistently, and even then horses vary in size which would start to introduce errors in the measurements. And how would you account for the "gradual drift" of 1/3 of a path over 50 yards versus the more obvious hard bump at the 1/8 pole?

A better solution is to "pay the winners", and let the arbitrary nature of the process play out in post race decisions, much the way a horse is DQ'ed from purse money today for a positive drug test.

I think the idea that people who would oppose this pay the winners theory is that they think jocks would ride in a different way if they knew they wouldn't be disqualified for betting purposes. My response to that would be that there's never really been any proof that horsemen do anything they wouldn't normally do because of the gamblers. Jocks are worried about their own pockets, they're not going to care about anything other than not getting days or getting fined.

Do you know how much less stressful every customers life would be if you knew that no matter what happened you were getting paid if you won.

Pay the winners.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Vic, did you watch this race?

The unofficial placings were:

2
6
4
5

The 6 was DQ'd for his 'interference' with the 4.

Results became:
2
4
6
5

The 5 was never in the same zip code as the 4. (in terms of possible violations to the 4)

The poster was also asking you if you thought the 5 actually finished 2nd in the running of the race.

Finally, please add me to the list of people who absolutely believe the stewards know the odds of the horses and the connections involved. It's impossible NOT to know.

Of course they know the odds and the ramifications. Vic's trying to tell us that an 8k claimer, who is 50-1 would be judged exactly the same as zenyatta at 1-9 in a grade 1 race if similar 'infractions' took place. If bayern was trained by Rick dutrow and owned by ieah do you think he stays up in the classic last year? It's possible, but if you bet bayern weren't you super glad that Teflon bob was the trainer? Of course you were.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Of course they know the odds and the ramifications. Vic's trying to tell us that an 8k claimer, who is 50-1 would be judged exactly the same as zenyatta at 1-9 in a grade 1 race if similar 'infractions' took place. If bayern was trained by Rick dutrow and owned by ieah do you think he stays up in the classic last year? It's possible, but if you bet bayern weren't you super glad that Teflon bob? Of course you were.

Absolutely right. If that's Dutrow, GOODBYE. They find a way to place him last.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Vic, did you watch this race?

The unofficial placings were:

2
6
4
5

The 6 was DQ'd for his 'interference' with the 4.

Results became:
2
4
6
5

The 5 was never in the same zip code as the 4. (in terms of possible violations to the 4)

The poster was also asking you if you thought the 5 actually finished 2nd in the running of the race.

Finally, please add me to the list of people who absolutely believe the stewards know the odds of the horses and the connections involved. It's impossible NOT to know.

I did watch the race. You're correct I have the incorrect numbers. That's why stewards have each other and the placing judges to triple check the numbers. Sorry.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Absolutely right. If that's Dutrow, GOODBYE. They find a way to place him last.

An 8k claimer WOULD be judged the same as Zenyatta at 1/9. Furthermore who the trainer of Bayern was or is would NEVER factor into the decision.

The very concept of the responsibility one takes when they become a steward would not allow for such a thing.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I did watch the race. You're correct I have the incorrect numbers. That's why stewards have each other and the placing judges to triple check the numbers. Sorry.

It wasn't my pleasure to point out the mistake Vic

It happens to all of us.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

An 8k claimer WOULD be judged the same as Zenyatta at 1/9. Furthermore who the trainer of Bayern was or is would NEVER factor into the decision.

The very concept of the responsibility one takes when they become a steward would not allow for such a thing.

I'm sorry but there is no way I will believe, after watching stewards do a terrible job in most jurisdictions, that any steward actually takes their "responsibility" seriously AND does a great job at it.

I also would bet my last penny that all Stewards are human and can be swayed even ever so little by a 1/9 being involved, by having to decide over a $5MM race or by the connections involved.

Are you telling me they ignore the toteboard as they watch a race? That they have no idea this upcoming race is worth $5MM? That they have no idea that's is Zenyatta out there in this race?

I was born during the day but not yesterday.

Sorry, just my humble opinion.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

I'm sorry but there is no way I will believe, after watching stewards do a terrible job in most jurisdictions, that any steward actually takes their "responsibility" seriously AND does a great job at it.

I also would bet my last penny that all Stewards are human and can be swayed even ever so little by a 1/9 being involved, by having to decide over a $5MM race or by the connections involved.

Are you telling me they ignore the toteboard as they watch a race? That they have no idea this upcoming race is worth $5MM? That they have no idea that's is Zenyatta out there in this race?

I was born during the day but not yesterday.

Sorry, just my humble opinion.

Of course your thoughts here are true, the born last nights are the only ones who disagree with you.

[Dark Horse]

I don't doubt that Vic is honest, but it only takes one compromised steward on every panel of three. Human beings are extremely flawed, and it doesn't matter if they've taken vows. If one of the three judges is dishonest, he'll often be the swing vote.

Do stewards discuss the race among themselves? Ideally, in an objective model the stewards wouldn't talk to each other. Because that comes with the power to convince others, which is an ability that has nothing to do with racing. In an objective model the stewards would be in separate rooms, pushing a yes/no button on both questions: 1) inquiry or not, and 2) decision. Only in case of a majority would there be an inquiry (a single steward could not start the process). And only in the case of a unanimous decision could the race outcome be altered (a single steward no longer is a swing vote).

I would suggest that much of the inconsistency that bothers so many horse players could be avoided with the removal of 1-2 and 2-1 decisions; two consistent judges and one inconsistent one is all it takes to produce a different outcome for the same situation; so the inconsistent one is 'rewarded' (!).

Also, the stewards would not know how the others voted (in non 3-0 decisions), and would not be allowed to discuss that afterwards. If they know each other well, that could undermine objectivity right from the start, because they would already know how others would vote.