The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[Dark Horse]

Adding.

From a numerical perspective I would think a jury of five preferable, and a requirement of 80% agreement (4 out of 5). That would allow for one extreme opinion to be ignored. The stewards would still not talk to each other, and the requirement for an inquiry would be 60% (3 out of 5).

As a player I would have no problem with an 80% decision, of five stewards, who were in separate rooms and not allowed to communicate with each other. But the current model is a disaster, because it often leaves the decision power in the hands of one, thereby rewarding, rather than sidestepping, inconsistency and extreme opinions.

[Dark Horse]

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.

You're a race caller. (You almost had me in tears when Paynter crossed the wire upon his return from the dead). I don't know how you guys remember all the horse names, at instant recall ability during the race, but there is no question that your short term memory must be far above the norm. And so, I would assume, is your ability to see who crosses the line first.

You had the #5 in second place. So did I. And so did, I believe, SRU. In some places that would be unanimous.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

You're a race caller. (You almost had me in tears when Paynter crossed the wire upon his return from the dead). I don't know how you guys remember all the horse names, at instant recall ability during the race, but there is no question that your short term memory must be far above the norm. And so, I would assume, is your ability to see who crosses the line first.

You had the #5 in second place. So did I. And so did, I believe, SRU. In some places that would be unanimous.

I didn't HAVE anything. I just mixed up the numbers for the purpose of responding on this forum. There's ZERO chance of that happening had I been in the stand because of the checks and balances I previously spoke of. You've had an under current in this thread questioning the photo finish itself. If that's your problem you're pissing up a rope. The photo finish infallible.

[cj]

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 sure this is the theory and what is taught, but in reality, this is not what happens. Those of us following the game for a long time know better.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by 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.

And, it doesn't even have to be dishonesty, it just can be human nature to be swayed. I agree with your judges in separate areas theory, what if one judge thinks !this should be no DQ' and another judge during discussion Says something that the first judge never thought about, it's possible to change your mind.

Also, why Do we need judges on site who have formed relationships (for good or bad) making the decisions? Why not have a national 'power room' like they do in the NHL that watch replays and make decisions? Seems like that would eliminate the need for stewards at every track, an inquiry is automatically looked at in the "war room" and a quick decision is made, no interviewing jocks either, if you can't make a DQ off video, you leave the result alone and pay the winners.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm sure this is the theory and what is taught, but in reality, this is not what happens. Those of us following the game for a long time know better.

I can only speak for myself and my observations.

I've been close to it all for 35 years. As both an announcer and steward.

I have worked with hundreds of stewards.

Not once. Not ever. Have I encountered one that I felt even had a tinge of being unethical.

I have worked with stewards that were totally unqualified or really lazy. Both can obviously result in poor and or inconsistent decisions.

Speaking specifically for the body of California stewards. I strongly believe as a group they are BY FAR the best I've ever had the pleasure of working with and for.

Dedicated, passionate, professional, ethical, unbiased, open minded. If you ever sat in on a California Stewards Committee meeting, especially now with the current CHRB leadership, Winner and Baedeker, you'd immediately know how fortunate we are to have these people regulating California racing.

[cj]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I can only speak for myself and my observations.

I've been close to it all for 35 years. As both an announcer and steward.

I have worked with hundreds of stewards.

Not once. Not ever. Have I encountered one that I felt even had a tinge of being unethical.

I have worked with stewards that were totally unqualified or really lazy. Both can obviously result in poor and or inconsistent decisions.

Speaking specifically for the body of California stewards. I strongly believe as a group they are BY FAR the best I've ever had the pleasure of working with and for.

Dedicated, passionate, professional, ethical, unbiased, open minded. If you ever sat in on a California Stewards Committee meeting, especially now with the current CHRB leadership, Winner and Baedeker, you'd immediately know how fortunate we are to have these people regulating California racing.

I wasn't for one second saying anyone was unethical. I'm saying they are human. Most of us are influenced by things and we don't even know it. I doubt any steward anywhere is any different. Such is life...

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I didn't HAVE anything. I just mixed up the numbers for the purpose of responding on this forum. There's ZERO chance of that happening had I been in the stand because of the checks and balances I previously spoke of. You've had an under current in this thread questioning the photo finish itself. If that's your problem you're pissing up a rope. The photo finish infallible.

The point is that there were three people who thought they were sure of what they saw. (you now say you mixed up the numbers, and we can all do that, but I would just observe that if anybody is not going to mix up numbers it's a race caller).

If the photo proved us wrong, then the same could easily be true for steward inquiries. They are too subjective.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Once there is an inquiry, stewards are placed in a position where they have to make a decision, one way or another. In such cases, in general (beyond the field of horse racing), people often forget the no-decision option. In other words, if there's a 1-1 split, the one with the greatest doubt about the situation should be free to abstain. Instead he becomes the decisive swing vote. Are 1-1 decisions allowed, and, if not, why not?

Wouldn't it be better to set a standard of unanimous 3-0 decisions, or, better, increase the number to five stewards and set the bar at 4-1? All the clouds and fog of 2-1 (or 3-2) decisions would be off the table.

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I have worked with stewards that were totally unqualified or really lazy. Both can obviously result in poor and or inconsistent decisions.

Thank you. So now a good handicapper, who could never get away with a similar lack of dedication, is left to essentially a coin flip. It screams unfairness.

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Speaking specifically for the body of California stewards. I strongly believe as a group they are BY FAR the best I've ever had the pleasure of working with and for.

Most of the time things are fine. But on some days it seems to rain stewards inquiries, as if they're suddenly rededicated to their art, and don't care one iota if it puts every handicapper on edge. It's not only the stewards decisions about the race outcome. The decision to go to inquiry mode is equally important, if not more so, and at Santa Anita it is far from consistent.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Also, why Do we need judges on site who have formed relationships (for good or bad) making the decisions? Why not have a national 'power room' like they do in the NHL that watch replays and make decisions? Seems like that would eliminate the need for stewards at every track, an inquiry is automatically looked at in the "war room" and a quick decision is made, no interviewing jocks either, if you can't make a DQ off video, you leave the result alone and pay the winners.

Absolutely. A national room with highly trained professionals. Aside from nationwide consistency, it would also allow for a greater number of opinions, and a better percentual chance at the right decision.

And no more talking to jockeys either. What is that about? Riders pleading their cases? lol

[Dark Horse]

One last note. The integrity of the judges is important, of course, but not the most important. For neutrality a ref can't be too far off the median. Especially not in racing, where you're dealing with the same refs at the same track day after day. Compare to NFL. I forgot the guy's name, but him and his crew would call pass interference far more often than others. I hated to see him on the field. Did he have integrity? Absolutely. But he was bad for the game just the same. Because his opinion was too far removed from the widely accepted standard.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I can only speak for myself and my observations.

I've been close to it all for 35 years. As both an announcer and steward.

I have worked with hundreds of stewards.

Not once. Not ever. Have I encountered one that I felt even had a tinge of being unethical.

I have worked with stewards that were totally unqualified or really lazy. Both can obviously result in poor and or inconsistent decisions.

Speaking specifically for the body of California stewards. I strongly believe as a group they are BY FAR the best I've ever had the pleasure of working with and for.

Dedicated, passionate, professional, ethical, unbiased, open minded. If you ever sat in on a California Stewards Committee meeting, especially now with the current CHRB leadership, Winner and Baedeker, you'd immediately know how fortunate we are to have these people regulating California racing.

I think we aren't talking ethics, like CJ said even the most honest person can be swayed by human nature and possibly by forces they don't even know are working. Also, stewards are not outsiders, they are people who entrenched within their jurisdiction and community, they have formed long lasting friendships and maybe have come across a few horsemen that might have rubbed them the wrong way on occasion.

When zenyatta won the breeders cup classic in calif and trevor said this is un believe a ble but Z angled out and brushed a horse (hypothetically) there's zero chance she comes down, but if it was an 8 claimer who was 50-1 and he angled into a 1-9 shot on a sleepy Thursday, the 8k claimer would come down at least 1 out of 100 trials where as Zenyatta in the BC classic comes down 0 out of 100 for the exact same thing.

There's a reason there are no DQs in the ky derby, the race is judged differently than an 8 claimer. I can't even sit here and say its an integrity issue, it's just an accepted part of racing issue that we all understand exists.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Absolutely. A national room with highly trained professionals. Aside from nationwide consistency, it would also allow for a greater number of opinions, and a better percentual chance at the right decision.

And no more talking to jockeys either. What is that about? Riders pleading their cases? lol

There's nothing a jock could say that should sway a steward, if you can't make a decision just from the replays and head ons, maybe just make the race official and pay the winners? I know, you're thinking 'novel concept"

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

The point is that there were three people who thought they were sure of what they saw. (you now say you mixed up the numbers, and we can all do that, but I would just observe that if anybody is not going to mix up numbers it's a race caller).

If the photo proved us wrong, then the same could easily be true for steward inquiries. They are too subjective.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Once there is an inquiry, stewards are placed in a position where they have to make a decision, one way or another. In such cases, in general (beyond the field of horse racing), people often forget the no-decision option. In other words, if there's a 1-1 split, the one with the greatest doubt about the situation should be free to abstain. Instead he becomes the decisive swing vote. Are 1-1 decisions allowed, and, if not, why not?

Wouldn't it be better to set a standard of unanimous 3-0 decisions, or, better, increase the number to five stewards and set the bar at 4-1? All the clouds and fog of 2-1 (or 3-2) decisions would be off the table.




Thank you. So now a good handicapper, who could never get away with a similar lack of dedication, is left to essentially a coin flip. It screams unfairness.



Most of the time things are fine. But on some days it seems to rain stewards inquiries, as if they're suddenly rededicated to their art, and don't care one iota if it puts every handicapper on edge. It's not only the stewards decisions about the race outcome. The decision to go to inquiry mode is equally important, if not more so, and at Santa Anita it is far from consistent.

1. I was sitting on my couch in my palatial Marin estate and glanced at the TV. Numbers mistakes cannot and would not happen with a full staff in the stand and placing.

2. Stewards are paid to make difficult decisions.

3. There is no lack of dedication and certainly no coin flips. Incompetent and or unenthused stewards are EXTREMLY rare. Almost non-existent. Also, they don't last.

4. Consistency. The real "C" word. Players think stewards are consistent in their decisions until one comes down that they vehemently disagree with. Then in the players mind consistency is out the door. That's the job stewards signed on for. Never easy.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

1. I was sitting on my couch in my palatial Marin estate and glanced at the TV. Numbers mistakes cannot and would not happen with a full staff in the stand and placing.

2. Stewards are paid to make difficult decisions.

3. There is no lack of dedication and certainly no coin flips. Incompetent and or unenthused stewards are EXTREMLY rare. Almost non-existent. Also, they don't last.

4. Consistency. The real "C" word. Players think stewards are consistent in their decisions until one comes down that they vehemently disagree with. Then in the players mind consistency is out the door. That's the job stewards signed on for. Never easy.

As a response to #4:

I know you don't work for NYRA but please show me in these 2 inquiries where the "C" word is?

https://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/videos...0150626/1/pan/

https://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/videos...0150625/2/pan/

[EMD4ME]

I don't know a player alive, EVER, who has said to me that the Steward's decisions are consistent....So, saying that players think the Steward's decisions are consistent until they vehemently disagree with one is far fetched.

Yes, as horseplayers, we are passionate about this. This is not about some stupid ref calling a foul that cost some stupid team a game and our heart was broken that our team lost.

Literally, millions are on the line in these decisions. For many of us, one decision can turn a year around.

The real "C" word here, as you call it, is an insult to players. (That we hide behind the word consistency in some negative way).

I ask you to look at the Thursday's and Friday's inquiries at Belmont. Both were ridden by Irad (Iherd as he's known among many knowledgeable players) Ortiz. He was on a horse who turning for home was trying to stave off an outside attempt to pass. In both races he herded TWICE to obstruct the momentum of the outside horse.

In the June 25th race, he impacted the 1/5 chalk. He was taken down.

In the June 26th race, he impacted a 9/1 shot while he rode the 3/5 chalk. He stayed up despite ruining the momentum of the outside horse (who was ridden better and rode his cover till the 3/16's patiently) TWICE.

Please tell me how us players are using the real "C" word unfairly.

I am not attacking you. I LIKE you, I value your opinion. However, I can't stand by and listen to you critique horse players as if we're crazy or jaded.

We bitch because WE'RE right too bitch.

We boycott because tracks deserve to be boycotted.

We brings things up as we are right to do so.

If no one sees how we are right in what we say, then the game loses. Not just us (because we won't play anymore) but everyone (as handle drops/tracks are boycotted, players or owners leave due to disgust).