Charlatan Stripped Of Arkansas Derby??

[airford1]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I do know why they say they do it, but I still think it's an obvious attempt to protect jockeys as well. If it weren't that way, they could, after all, say that the jockey can ride but can't get a percentage of the purse.

Other sports DO NOT do this. If you get yourself suspended for 5 games by the baseball commissioner, while your team is in the pennant race, the baseball commissioner does not say "well, I will let you serve the suspension in spring training next year, because it's really unfair to make the owner get another second baseman on short notice".

Same in football. Same in boxing- they don't let suspended boxers fight just because their promoters have invested a ton of money that they stand to lose.

ONLY horse racing does this. Which demonstrates my exact point- that horse racing is run as if the only people who matter are the insiders.

Dude Buy a race horse before you act the part.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

The process for a race riding appeal is complicated.

The original board of Stewards that issued the sanction can't hear the appeal.

They've already revealed their opinion with the ruling.

They have to convene a different panel of 3 stewards from the same state which has logistical constraints.

Often expert witnesses are called, former stewards or ones from other jurisdictions or often times other riders and the Jockey's Guild reps.

I'm not sure about the bond posting idea. Where would the money go if it later had to be forfeited?

The expert witness issue is a rule of evidence. There's no particular reason why a state needs to allow expert witnesses on a riding infraction appeal. That, again, is something racing does, but it doesn't need to do.

Why do I know this? Because most states don't allow expert witnesses on disqualifications. Maximum Security's owners, famously, did not get to call any expert witnesses to opine on Luis Saez's ride. Obviously, it wouldn't make sense to say that expert opinion is relevant to whether Luis Saez fouled other horses with respect to a suspension, but it's irrelevant to the issue of whether he fouled other horses with respect to a disqualification. I realize the decision is a little different (in a DQ, the foul has to affect the placing, and can sometimes be unintentional), but in both cases the jockey's explanation for what happened is taken into account.

So if a state wants to allow expert witnesses, that's a pro-jockey decision, a decision that makes suspensions harder to stick. And I am not sure it's a particularly good one, especially since racing officials ought to watch enough videos of races to be expert themselves, and jockeys can, of course, offer their own testimony as to what they did.

You could do any number of things with a forfeited bond. States and localities use forfeited bonds to fund law enforcement; maybe forfeited jockey bonds could be used to help fund the racing commission's enforcement activities. Or maybe it could be thrown back into the purse fund where it can be used to pay for future races. Or donated to an equine retirement charity. It's a nice problem to have.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by airford1

Dude Buy a race horse before you act the part.

My mother owns racehorses.

But I also don't see how this matters. The reason the sport is regulated by the state is not to protect owners. It's to protect bettors.

That's really fundamental. Owners take the game, and the risks that it holds, as they find it. State regulators are supposed to be there to protect the public. That's their mandate.

It's just like any other form of regulatory capture. The insurance commissioner is supposed to regulate insurance companies and protect the public, not protect the business investments of insurance companies. We had some insurance commissioners who forgot that a few decades ago, and in response made the insurance commissioner an elected official. Maybe we should replace the CHRB with an elected horse racing commissioner as well.

[clicknow]

I don't know much about lidocaine in horses. I do know that since I cannot take NSAIDS for my nerve pain with inflamed arthritis joints, my doctor will get me lidocaine for these issues.

When I apply, it has a definite numbing effect, as any local anesthetic would. First the area feels warm, and then it gets numb. I've also used the patch.... it works by causing a temporary loss of feeling in the area where you apply it.

One of the warnings for the TOPICAL kind says this medication passes into breast milk. And to not to drink any alcohol. So I assume that this topical drug is absorbed by the body and may enter the bloodstream.

I never use it when I am "well". I used it when I had shingles (for nerve pain), and when knees or back is having an acute arthritic episode (swelling, stiffness, pain).

I have never had the injectible kind, as that is used to treat heart rhythm problems. When used as a local anesthetic, lidocaine is injected through the skin directly into the body area to be numbed.

Oh wait, I did have the injectible kind at dentist once. For anesthesiology, My heart started beating out of my chest. That was pretty bad. He must have given too much. Maybe there was epinepherine in there, too, though.


So........not sure why a horse who is in top fit shape (and without an injury) would be needing this med?

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Re: The bolded part of the above quote --

That's not the way it works in California.

It's not terribly hard to find examples where the CHRB has allowed suspended riders to begin serving a well deserved suspension during the down-time between meets.


-jp

.

Actually there are similar protocols in place in Ca. When I was a steward we gave a jock days for careless riding the last week of Del Mar. He wanted to take them at Los Alamitos which we well knew he wasn't going to ride. We wrote the ruling for the first week at Santa Anita.

Many times we even went as far as assigning similar days of the week. If a rider was Dq'ed on a Saturday. He had to serve his days starting also on Saturday rather than Wednesday or Thursday when the available purse money was significantly less.

So to respond I think it WOULD be terribly hard to find suspensions served during down time.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The expert witness issue is a rule of evidence. There's no particular reason why a state needs to allow expert witnesses on a riding infraction appeal. That, again, is something racing does, but it doesn't need to do.

Why do I know this? Because most states don't allow expert witnesses on disqualifications. Maximum Security's owners, famously, did not get to call any expert witnesses to opine on Luis Saez's ride. Obviously, it wouldn't make sense to say that expert opinion is relevant to whether Luis Saez fouled other horses with respect to a suspension, but it's irrelevant to the issue of whether he fouled other horses with respect to a disqualification. I realize the decision is a little different (in a DQ, the foul has to affect the placing, and can sometimes be unintentional), but in both cases the jockey's explanation for what happened is taken into account.

So if a state wants to allow expert witnesses, that's a pro-jockey decision, a decision that makes suspensions harder to stick. And I am not sure it's a particularly good one, especially since racing officials ought to watch enough videos of races to be expert themselves, and jockeys can, of course, offer their own testimony as to what they did.

You could do any number of things with a forfeited bond. States and localities use forfeited bonds to fund law enforcement; maybe forfeited jockey bonds could be used to help fund the racing commission's enforcement activities. Or maybe it could be thrown back into the purse fund where it can be used to pay for future races. Or donated to an equine retirement charity. It's a nice problem to have.

We are talking about appealing a suspension and designated races.

You're now talking about appeals of disqualifications which you are correct are not allowed in most jurisdictions.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Actually there are similar protocols in place in Ca. When I was a steward we gave a jock days for careless riding the last week of Del Mar. He wanted to take them at Los Alamitos which we well knew he wasn't going to ride. We wrote the ruling for the first week at Santa Anita.

Many times we even went as far as assigning similar days of the week. If a rider was Dq'ed on a Saturday. He had to serve his days starting also on Saturday rather than Wednesday or Thursday when the available purse money was significantly less.

So to respond I think it WOULD be terribly hard to find suspensions served during down time.

Wasn't terribly hard to find a recent case --

Golden Gate: Pair Of Jockeys Suspended 30 Days For Mid-Race Whip Exchange:
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...whip-exchange/

There was a thread here at Paceadvantage (starting with post #8) that saw a few of us discussing the "timing" of when the CHRB allowed the riders to begin serving out their suspensions:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s....php?p=2544641



-jp

.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

We are talking about appealing a suspension and designated races.

You're now talking about appeals of disqualifications which you are correct are not allowed in most jurisdictions.

You are saying what "is"- and I get that, you are an absolute expert on these procedures, having been a steward at multiple tracks (plus close to the action as an announcer and jockey's agent).

I am saying that what "is" is a result of choices that racing regulators made to be nicer to jockeys than was necessary and appropriate, and that being nice in that way has the effect of making suspensions less punishing than they could be.

I am glad that jurisdictions are cracking down on the shenanigans as to when to serve suspensions. But the fact remains jockeys can drag these things out with appeals, and the designated race rule is a gaping loophole that no other sport would permit (and that horse racing didn't permit in the old days, as seen from the 1955 Californian).

[jay68802]

Saez began serving his suspension for last years Derby on May 20th, of this year.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Wasn't terribly hard to find a recent case --

Golden Gate: Pair Of Jockeys Suspended 30 Days For Mid-Race Whip Exchange:
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...whip-exchange/

There was a thread here at Paceadvantage (starting with post #8) that saw a few of us discussing the "timing" of when the CHRB allowed the riders to begin serving out their suspensions:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s....php?p=2544641



-jp

.

You have to decide if the days served was appropriate to the infraction. I'm sure since it was 30 "calendar" days taking advantage of the timing was likely given consideration.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Saez began serving his suspension for last years Derby on May 20th, of this year.

Was his suspension appealed? Was it adjudicated? Was it dropped?

For what it's worth IMO his serving 1 minute of suspension for his ride in the Derby is a travesty.

Jocks get days for careless riding. There was nothing careless about what happened. Maximum Security clearly ducked away from something on his inside.

Saez did his very best to correct as soon as possible.

While I think the DQ was unfortunately correct.

Losing the purse and notoriety is more than enough punishment.

[AMPHAR]

Derby 145 was stolen!

I’m not sure about the extra strength Ben Gay in Arkansas.

[Tom]

It was stolen, but the thief was DQ's in a nick of time!

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Was his suspension appealed? Was it adjudicated? Was it dropped?

For what it's worth IMO his serving 1 minute of suspension for his ride in the Derby is a travesty.

Jocks get days for careless riding. There was nothing careless about what happened. Maximum Security clearly ducked away from something on his inside.

Saez did his very best to correct as soon as possible.

While I think the DQ was unfortunately correct.

Losing the purse and notoriety is more than enough punishment.

Yes, it was appealed. My point is that taking over a year to get this done, is absurd. I agree with you about the ride in the Derby. Some of this stuff takes way to long, a year for careless riding, three years for a drug violation. And, IMO, way to much "buddy buddy" crap in this game.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by AMPHAR

Derby 145 was stolen!

I’m not sure about the extra strength Ben Gay in Arkansas.

Well, if you stand at the paddocks for many of the lower level races, you can pretty much smell the linament coming off horses. Paddocks are indoors so smells tend to linger.

But I have not experienced that smell in the high level stakes races. I have a pretty good sniffer.