Stettin: Pardise Lost: Most of the negativity in racing is well founded.

[Prioress Ply]

You choose to bet, you take the risk.>>


And more and more people are choosing not to bet. So what now?
This is the familiar refrain of the apologist.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Prioress Ply

You choose to bet, you take the risk.>>


And more and more people are choosing not to bet. So what now?
This is the familiar refrain of the apologist.

If you believe that stewards rulings are the cause if this, it is unfixable and the sport would be doomed.

In reality stewards rulings are at best a minor issue.

[ultracapper]

It just looks ugly when the house so obviously gains by the ruling.

A number of years ago I was watching a small stake at Penn. It was a 5 horse field with the monster 1/5 fav with 98% of the show pool on her. She was in the 5 hole. At the break, she bears in ever so slightly, barely making contact with the 4 horse. Race is over, she wins for fun running around the track in the 6 path, the 4 horse finishes 4th, and guess what. Stewards inquiry. Never guess what they did? Yep, moved the winner down to 4th. I had no dog in the fight, but it was the most self serving DQ I have ever seen in my life, and I haven't placed a bet on a Pennsylvania track since, not that I had that often anyway.

I will never ever forget that race, and I'll bet there were a couple bridge jumpers that will never come back there again also.

[cj]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

It just looks ugly when the house so obviously gains by the ruling.

A number of years ago I was watching a small stake at Penn. It was a 5 horse field with the monster 1/5 fav with 98% of the show pool on her. She was in the 5 hole. At the break, she bears in ever so slightly, barely making contact with the 4 horse. Race is over, she wins for fun running around the track in the 6 path, the 4 horse finishes 4th, and guess what. Stewards inquiry. Never guess what they did? Yep, moved the winner down to 4th. I had no dog in the fight, but it was the most self serving DQ I have ever seen in my life, and I haven't placed a bet on a Pennsylvania track since, not that I had that often anyway.

I will never ever forget that race, and I'll bet there were a couple bridge jumpers that will never come back there again also.

You sure this wasn't Mountaineer? I remember it happening there for sure. Not saying it couldn't have happened at Penn also.

That said, I agree with dilanesp. Stewards decisions aren't perfect and never will be, but there are a lot more important things that should be addressed before worrying about something this minor in my opinion.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I interviewed a number stewards and was going to publish an article, but with no disrespect meant, there wasn't one of them who would concede there was inconsistency at their track. It would have really been a crap article, so the info just stays in my recorder.

They would talk a lot about all the training they have to take, and how they enforce the rules as strictly as they can. I had a video of a race at SA. On the backstretch one horse clearly goes over hard on another horse causing the horse to check sharply. Since it was a sprint, the horse that got "fouled" pretty much lost all chance while the culprit went on to win. I found that if you just showed the part of the race where the horse moves sharply toward the rail, most would agree it was a foul. But if you showed the whole race, most thought it was NOT worthy of disqualification.

The only way I think to solve the problem is to have a committee of impeccable experts on racing, and when there is an objection or inquiry, you let them make the decision. The stewards at the track will still have plenty to do, so they would still be needed. There aren't so many objections/inquiries that we need hundreds of stewards with different backgrounds and training.

[Zman179]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I interviewed a number stewards and was going to publish an article, but with no disrespect meant, there wasn't one of them who would concede there was inconsistency at their track.

So essentially you wanted a steward to admit something that would guarantee getting himself fired so that you could have a good article?

Then again that sounds like 75% of journalism.