The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[cj]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

Your 1-9 analogy makes no sense. The Masochistic. situation on last year's derby day proves you can put a horse over and it not be 1-9. Everyone "knew" and he still paid $6. The amount of money his connections made at the window is now "urban legend." People have said even now that he's a graded one winner the connections still have made more money at the windows that in purses. You will always be able to put horses over and cash at the windows. Thats never going away.

Also the idea that no one would risky their career to win a race has kind of been debunked to. Patrick Biancane with cobra juice. The various jockeys with buzzers. Lots of people have proven they are willing to risk huge penalties to win this sport. Billy Patin used a buzzer in a Grade One race on national TV. So the idea that people won't has kind of been destroyed.

So while you claim my scenario can never happen I just cited real situations where it did happen. People putting horses over and cashing big. And people risking their careers to win.

I'm not fully understanding what you're saying but are you really saying that if we eliminated the stewards jockeys would ride the same way? Again I'm not sure you're saying that but if you are there's simply no ways its true.

That horse paid $6 because it was Derby Day. Any other day of the year he pays $3. So, if you want to wait for that one day a year for a put over, that is the day.

[SuperPickle]

You're right if that's at SA on a Friday he's 4-5, 3-5. But if Omar hadn't been so blatant or they raced him as a FTS starter on Derby Day they could have gotten $10 or $15. At least you can't call them greedy.

The point is you can always find a way to put over a horse. It's even easier now with training centers, especially on the east coast.

We've had several instances in NY the last weeks where ordinary horses have been pounded and jogged. The Wesley Ward NYBred last week. The Pletcher NY Bred filly on the turf the week before. Andy Sterling has been tweeting about it a lot about this.

There's been around five instances this Belmont meet where "everyone knew."

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

You're right if that's at SA on a Friday he's 4-5, 3-5. But if Omar hadn't been so blatant or they raced him as a FTS starter on Derby Day they could have gotten $10 or $15. At least you can't call them greedy.

The point is you can always find a way to put over a horse. It's even easier now with training centers, especially on the east coast.

We've had several instances in NY the last weeks where ordinary horses have been pounded and jogged. The Wesley Ward NYBred last week. The Pletcher NY Bred filly on the turf the week before. Andy Sterling has been tweeting about it a lot about this.

There's been around five instances this Belmont meet where "everyone knew."

There's a difference between hiding a star horse and betting on him to win vs instructing someone to crash the field, do you really think there's a possibility that an 'exercise rider' can make a crash that wipes out every other horse to guarantee that you win? Or is it more likely that the exercise rider would go to the racing commission and tell them that a licensed owner wants to take advantage of these new rules to cash a big bet?

Jockeys aren't going to risk long suspensions or bodily injury, it's just not reality.

[SuperPickle]

So I guess you never saw what Victor Espinoza did against Shared Belief?

It's kind of silly to say on one hand "eliminate the rules" and then on another talk about what people won't do once there are no rules. Human nature says once you make it a free for all, all options are open. We've had three jockeys accused of using buzzers in the last 6-9 months along. That doesn't take into account the jockey who use them and have not gotten caught. After that its kind of hard to say "jockeys won't risk a lifetime suspension." They've proven they will.

Where you argument goes off the rails is openly admit there's a dishonesty in the sport among trainers and even jockeys. It's kind of hard after that to make a case for getting ride of the stewards. While not mutually inclusive they do kind of take the wind out of the sails of your argument.

"The sport is crooked but I want less oversight."

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

So I guess you never saw what Victor Espinoza did against Shared Belief?

It's kind of silly to say on one hand "eliminate the rules" and then on another talk about what people won't do once there are no rules. Human nature says once you make it a free for all, all options are open. We've had three jockeys accused of using buzzers in the last 6-9 months along. That doesn't take into account the jockey who use them and have not gotten caught. After that its kind of hard to say "jockeys won't risk a lifetime suspension." They've proven they will.

Where you argument goes off the rails is openly admit there's a dishonesty in the sport among trainers and even jockeys. It's kind of hard after that to make a case for getting ride of the stewards. While not mutually inclusive they do kind of take the wind out of the sails of your argument.

"The sport is crooked but I want less oversight."

Nobody is saying to eliminate the rules. Jockeys aren't crashing fields so their owner can cash a bet. If there's a 1-9 shot in a race, why can't the jock and his trainer throw out the 1-9 shot and throw out their own horse and box up the others in tris and supers? How come that doesn't happen? You crush the 1-9 at the start, you guarantee that your horse will be disqualified so you can toss yourself and the heavy chalk out of all the numbers, this stuff hasn't happened so why would jockeys now all of a sudden start the 'crash for cash' stuff?

They can play crash for cash now, and yet they don't do it and if they do, it's subtle enough where nobody knows about it or has been outed.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

So I guess you never saw what Victor Espinoza did against Shared Belief?

It's kind of silly to say on one hand "eliminate the rules" and then on another talk about what people won't do once there are no rules. Human nature says once you make it a free for all, all options are open. We've had three jockeys accused of using buzzers in the last 6-9 months along. That doesn't take into account the jockey who use them and have not gotten caught. After that its kind of hard to say "jockeys won't risk a lifetime suspension." They've proven they will.

Where you argument goes off the rails is openly admit there's a dishonesty in the sport among trainers and even jockeys. It's kind of hard after that to make a case for getting ride of the stewards. While not mutually inclusive they do kind of take the wind out of the sails of your argument.

"The sport is crooked but I want less oversight."

Your reading comprehension skills are as poor as Castaway's, and with 24 posts to your credit, it appears to me you are one and the same, Pickle.

"Pay the winners" no way implies less oversight. In fact, with more time to review each race at leisurely pace AND IN PUBLIC, one would hope the oversight would improve. Let a jockey or two be part of the review board to help improve the process. If, and it's a big if, properly policed, then the "Rollerball" scenario you describe would not occur.

As for buzzers, you bring up a good point. The current enforcement of the rules in the U.S. is laughable if jocks are doing it, and not too worried about getting caught. Yes, the sport is crooked, and apparently the "status quo" is desired by those benefiting from it. You wouldn't see that in Hong Kong.

[SuperPickle]

What cracks me up about the "pay the winners" crowd is when you bring up a plausible scenario of a massive violation (a horse badly interfering with another, a horse taking out multiple horses at the break or even a whip infraction with is typically an automatic DQ's) they immediately morph into "well in those circumstances then we probably need to DQ the horse ." So that's not paying the winners. It's the slippery slope to what we have.

Then you bring up the point that if you "just paid the winners" jockeys might be tempted to ride rough or commit infractions knowing that for betting purposes all you had to do was cross the wire first. You're told that jockeys would never risk the punishment to do this. But then three jockeys alone this year have been caught with buzzers (in Iowa, Philly and Texas) and probably ten times as many are using them. We had three jockeys fix a race last week. I think the ship has sailed on "jockeys would never risk doing ________"

I'm realist. I think the stewards get some right and get some wrong and there's some like the race at Saratoga yesterday that are 6-5 and pick'em.

I do know that when I go to the track my horse can break bad, he can get a bad ride, he can get blocked and he can get DQed. It's part of the game. It's part of what you signed up for. If you don't like it try chess.

This idea that it drives people away from the game isn't reality. Yesterday just as many people got put with the 10 who got taken down with 4. Maybe some who had the 4 never come back and maybe some who had the 10 come back. It's a wash. DQ's aren't new. We had them in the 50's and 60's at the height of the sport and the business boomed.

The NFL has stuff like the Des Bryant ruling, NBA fouls are totally subjective you can can call one on any play, MLB strike zone is subjective.

The stewards are no better or worse than the refs in the NFL, NBA or MLB. All four can swing the outcome of a game from time-to-time.

The systems are the same. It's not perfect but its what we got.

Btw... We've run 37 races at Saratoga as of me writing this and had one winner DQed . That's about 2% of the races. This topic gets tons of posts on this board from a handful of people that make it seem like stewards are subjectively taking down horses every other race. It needs to be put back in context.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

What cracks me up about the "pay the winners" crowd is when you bring up a plausible scenario of a massive violation (a horse badly interfering with another, a horse taking out multiple horses at the break or even a whip infraction with is typically an automatic DQ's) they immediately morph into "well in those circumstances then we probably need to DQ the horse ." So that's not paying the winners. It's the slippery slope to what we have.

Then you bring up the point that if you "just paid the winners" jockeys might be tempted to ride rough or commit infractions knowing that for betting purposes all you had to do was cross the wire first. You're told that jockeys would never risk the punishment to do this. But then three jockeys alone this year have been caught with buzzers (in Iowa, Philly and Texas) and probably ten times as many are using them. We had three jockeys fix a race last week. I think the ship has sailed on "jockeys would never risk doing ________"

I'm realist. I think the stewards get some right and get some wrong and there's some like the race at Saratoga yesterday that are 6-5 and pick'em.

I do know that when I go to the track my horse can break bad, he can get a bad ride, he can get blocked and he can get DQed. It's part of the game. It's part of what you signed up for. If you don't like it try chess.

This idea that it drives people away from the game isn't reality. Yesterday just as many people got put with the 10 who got taken down with 4. Maybe some who had the 4 never come back and maybe some who had the 10 come back. It's a wash. DQ's aren't new. We had them in the 50's and 60's at the height of the sport and the business boomed.

The NFL has stuff like the Des Bryant ruling, NBA fouls are totally subjective you can can call one on any play, MLB strike zone is subjective.

The stewards are no better or worse than the refs in the NFL, NBA or MLB. All four can swing the outcome of a game from time-to-time.

The systems are the same. It's not perfect but its what we got.

Btw... We've run 37 races at Saratoga as of me writing this and had one winner DQed . That's about 2% of the races. This topic gets tons of posts on this board from a handful of people that make it seem like stewards are subjectively taking down horses every other race. It needs to be put back in context.

But in racing they CHANGE the outcome, in sports if you lose because of a penalty or foul, you didn't have enough of a cushion to overcome it. In racing a DQ is the death penalty, in sports most times it's a minor inconvenience.

[cj]

I think you are wrong about it driving people away. I have never left, but I have stopped betting certain tracks and taken long breaks from betting all tracks after what I viewed as bad DQs.

As for the riders, if the stewards do their jobs it is a non-issue.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

I think you are wrong about it driving people away. I have never left, but I have stopped betting certain tracks and taken long breaks from betting all tracks after what I viewed as bad DQs.

As for the riders, if the stewards do their jobs it is a non-issue.

I agree with this.
I think if a person has a main track they won't be 'driven away' completely, but they could bet less. Now, in this simulcast era, plenty of players bet smaller amounts on many different tracks, a bad DQ or too many DQs can get people off that track just because its a much worse 'customer experience' to think you won and have it taken away ( even if its justified) than if you thought you lost and then had a 'free roll'.

[alf1380]

well..this one in the CCA Oaks cost me a big bet and likely a pick4 and you know what?....

don't foul with 30 yards to go and win by a nose.

im pissed, but its the game.

[SuperPickle]

I'm dying to know if SRU would have left the up or should have paid tickets on the ?

[alf1380]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

I'm dying to know if SRU would have left the up or should have paid tickets on the ?

i vote...pay them! lol

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

I'm dying to know if SRU would have left the up or should have paid tickets on the ?

Under the current format, I leave everything up unless its something drastic, so at my place you would know that if you crossed the line first you were getting paid in almost all cases.

Under the proposed format, I make the race official and you get paid if you win no matter what' happens and jocks get dealt with after the fact. Penalties for on purpose rough riding would result in LONG suspensions, I'm pretty sure that would be a pretty big deterrent to jocks to stay on the straight and narrow.

[SuperPickle]

SRU, That's great and all but can you tell me exactly what you would do in the CCA? Would you leave the up? Suspend the jockey?

Walk me through what happens...