The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Nobody would be Killed or hurt because the jocks arent going to risk long suspensions and fines To 'casha bet'

In all my years of video watching and following the game I've never gotten any inkling that jocks are doing anything more than riding for their purse share and riding so they can keep the mount. I promise you nothing will change at all in the way these guys ride. Think of all the minus show pools at small tracks where a jock could make 10k or more just by "accidentally" falling off his mount at the start and give up that "1,800 " to my knowledge that's never happened if jocks had predispositions to ride recklessly and make dangerous moves, how come this doesn't happen w minus pools? Never happens, not one time.

How much would Gonzalo Nicklas (los al)have made in the 2nd today if he hopped off his mount at the start while sticking a grand to show on all the others?

The fines and suspensions for dangerous riding would have to increase but I don't believe there would be any change at all in the way guys ride.

OK pal. I hear your logic and respect that. When you open SRU Downs, I'll be there to support ya and your ideas!

In the meantime, how about we go out and interview all the stewards who tick us off?

You do the interviewing, I'll hold the camera (my little cell phone). I'll even get you a micrphone with PASP written over it (in green). Pace Advantage Steward Police.

Start with vic?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

OK pal. I hear your logic and respect that. When you open SRU Downs, I'll be there to support ya and your ideas!

In the meantime, how about we go out and interview all the stewards who tick us off?

You do the interviewing, I'll hold the camera (my little cell phone). I'll even get you a micrphone with PASP written over it (in green). Pace Advantage Steward Police.

Start with vic?

Lets get a show called "to catch a steward" we can get Adam Corolla to host and we can set up 'sting' operation to confront judges who made bad calls

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Lets get a show called "to catch a steward" we can get Adam Corolla to host and we can set up 'sting' operation to confront judges who made bad calls

I'm in. When do we start? Do we need any other assistance?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

I'm in. When do we start? Do we need any other assistance?

We need Vic.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

There was a hole....Huger than a prostitute's....

Christ man...STOP

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Lets get a show called "to catch a steward" we can get Adam Corolla to host and we can set up 'sting' operation to confront judges who made bad calls

SRU, you crack me up. Is this the plan for SRU Down's next meet?

I'm in favor of the "pay the winners/dog racing" approach, because it's the only consistent and qualitative method. We know exactly how the horses finished. Yes, there will the occasional "obvious" DQ where you have to live with the outcome in lieu of introducing human judgement, but it seems to be a very rare event, based on the contents of the DQ threads.

As for more talent in the steward's box, I'm in favor of that and think nature would run its course simply by adopting the public vetting model of the process. Why does the jockey's phone conversation with the stewards need to be private? For all we know, they're talking about the women's soccer game on TV the previous day.

Any steward not willing to have their analysis and reasoning made public, well, should not be a steward.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

SRU, you crack me up. Is this the plan for SRU Down's next meet?

I'm in favor of the "pay the winners/dog racing" approach, because it's the only consistent and qualitative method. We know exactly how the horses finished. Yes, there will the occasional "obvious" DQ where you have to live with the outcome in lieu of introducing human judgement, but it seems to be a very rare event, based on the contents of the DQ threads.

As for more talent in the steward's box, I'm in favor of that and think nature would run its course simply by adopting the public vetting model of the process. Why does the jockey's phone conversation with the stewards need to be private? For all we know, they're talking about the women's soccer game on TV the previous day.

Any steward not willing to have their analysis and reasoning made public, well, should not be a steward.

Tracks just need separate pools, the dqless pool and the Normal pool. Here's a question, would you ever bet into the pool where judges can make decisions?

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

We need Vic.

I'm in Vegas. My WSOP group starts at 12:00pm tomorrow at the Rio. I'll be available for interviews roundabout 12:08pm.

Or if you like you can ask me any stewarding questions you'd like right here. Maybe that might give you a better feel for what it's like to be a racing official.

Why so you suck as a steward? Is not a question.

I can answer them tonight. Right now feeling like I'm not likely to sleep much. Even though I know I should.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I'm in Vegas. My WSOP group starts at 12:00pm tomorrow at the Rio. I'll be available for interviews roundabout 12:08pm.

Or if you like you can ask me any stewarding questions you'd like right here. Maybe that might give you a better feel for what it's like to be a racing official.

Why so you suck as a steward? Is not a question.

I can answer them tonight. Right now feeling like I'm not likely to sleep much. Even though I know I should.

Go get em tomorrow, have fun, enjoy the moment.

Here's a stewarding question.(or just me rambling without asking an actual question ) My own personal opinion is that the best judges try really hard to leave up the winners. Of course we all know there are situations that you're just forced to act, but my favorite judging is when I'm blinking and I feel like I have a fighters chance to get paid. I feel it's good to have an open mind that sometimes slight interference is just "part of the game" and horses can't be expected to maintain perfectly straight lines all the time, I believe it's too high of a standard considering the nature of the sport.

The 2 situations that drive me crazy are DQs that happen when a horse gets bothered because he's slower, here's an example. Lets say there two horses circling up 3w and one horse is right behind him circling 4 wide, the 4 wide runner runs past the 3w runner and when he clears off and doesn't see a horse to his inside, he lugs in a bit and the 3w horse has to steady briefly. To me, that's part of the game, horses lug in sometimes when the other horse can't keep up, I get mad if I have the faster horse because I know the only reason that incident happened is because the 3w horse couldn't keep up.

The other situation I get peeved about is when a horse is in front and there's a horse directly behind him and angling out to one side and the front runner shifts one way by an inch or 2 and the guy behind him (in his blind spot) takes up. I don't think it's fair to the front runner (or horse in front) to force him to maintain an exact straight line, now if there's a dramatic shift that's one thing but a slight drift or lug needs to be allowed. I'm talking about a few inches, Not a foot, I've seen too many DQs where the horse shifted one inch and came down.

I guess it comes down to judging philosophy, leaving a horse up is not a situation where the judge is 'not doing his job' by leaving the result alone but I can see how a judge might feel that he (or she) did their job more 'successfully' if they righted a perceived wrong.

To me, the integrity of the actual result needs to be held to a higher standard and I think that a judging philosophy that tries really hard to pay the winners puts themselves in a much better position to have rulings that are consistent from week to week, year or year. A DQ on march 1st 2015 shouldn't be a 'leave up' on march 1st 2016 and vice versa. If you rarely take a horse down its much easier to maintain consistency as there's way less of the 'borderline' stuff to have to deal with.

That's my 2 cents.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This DQ created a lot of controversy in 1978. Does he come down given today's stewards? Would the idea of maintaining the integrity of the original result hold water here?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2rg5ABMOkdw

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

The idea is that you pay the winners, or on the order of finish. You remove the human element and inconsistent judgments we see today - for the benefit of the bettors. Threads like this disappear. It's a natural extension of the "quick official".

The race can then be reviewed, at a leisurely pace, for any infractions that occurred - be it rough riding, failure to maintain a straight path, drug violations, improper weights, etc. The order of finish can then be adjusted if necessary, thereby affecting the owners, trainers, and jockeys - but not the bettors. Purses would be distributed based on this second, "more official" order of finish. Ideally, the race reviews could be held in public, once per week, to help improve the transparency of the process.

The premise of this would rely on strict enforcement of very tough rules and penalties to keep the jockeys in line with safety requirements, and would need the owners and trainers to support it as well. Based on how the industry polices itself today, that's a longshot, but it's a potential solution.

Do you have a different idea on how to improve the system as it stands today, or are you happy with the way things are?

In what other sport are there no fouls and you just "pay the winners"? The NFL? The NBA? They seem to be doing pretty well compared to racing---you might have noticed the NFL is pretty popular----and they even have fouls and replays. The "pay the winners" idea is moronic and would lead to bedlam on the track, and no more fair results than we have now.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by castaway01

In what other sport are there no fouls and you just "pay the winners"? The NFL? The NBA? They seem to be doing pretty well compared to racing---you might have noticed the NFL is pretty popular----and they even have fouls and replays. The "pay the winners" idea is moronic and would lead to bedlam on the track, and no more fair results than we have now.

Both sports pay the winning bettors. When the final horn sounds and a winning team is the winner, the officials don't huddle up with Vegas casinos and decide to pay the bettors of the losing team. if your team wins you get paid.

[Thomas Roulston]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

This DQ created a lot of controversy in 1978. Does he come down given today's stewards? Would the idea of maintaining the integrity of the original result hold water here?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2rg5ABMOkdw

I say the stewards didn't go far enough: Affirmed should have been placed last, and with 4th money reverting to the Association - because the foul was not only flagrant, but also intentional. And there is a precedent: In I believe the Spinaway Stakes, also at Saratoga, in 1963, Crown Silver was disqualified from second and placed last for repeatedly fouling the winner, Petite Rouge, in the stretch.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Both sports pay the winning bettors. When the final horn sounds and a winning team is the winner, the officials don't huddle up with Vegas casinos and decide to pay the bettors of the losing team. if your team wins you get paid.

I don't recall any race being stopped so that infractions could be penalized 10 yards. With all respect-and I do enjoy your posts, sir, bad ideas can't be defended just by saying : "Well, we need SOME kind of change."

Given the tone of this thread, I'm waiting for somebody to propose that the jocks carry lances and joust out there.

[castaway01]

Football and basketball games have hundreds of plays, but when one missed or controversial call does decide a game, the "winners still get paid" and life goes on. They have fouls and penalties, they still have rules, sometimes called incorrectly, and guess what, it's better than players being crippled by cheap shots on every play. And there's a hell of a lot more money bet on those games than on the 5th from Presque Isle.

The fact that the best idea the anti-stewards group can come up with is to throw out the rules altogether shows you they're not the sharpest group in the world.