Worst DQ ever?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Fuss

I'm not suggesting anything is Fixed.... at all. My personal opinion is that there are far to many inquires to begin with, and that racing is a tough racket, and horses are wild animals and shit happens and we should let it happen.

Isn't it the same racing experts who always remind us

• We are the only athletes who are followed around by an ambulance?

• We take our life in out hands everytime we get up on a mount!

• We are on a 1000 pound animal going 40 MPH while making split second decisions

And trainers.. "he has a lot to learn"... "he's head strong"... so on so on.....

But let one of them move laterally 2 feet and its DISQUALIFIED!....by a State employee. Who may or may not have ever made a wager in his or her life.


Let them run I say. And let it be rough out there...

Well said. Way too many DQs in North America.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

So, there must have been a few contentious split decisions among the Stewards that you've worked with.....Tell me about a heated split decision that you were involved with, and the outcome...

I will Randall. I've got a couple. Can't do it now. Due on the air on TVG2 at 1:00pm. But I promise I'll follow up later.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Fuss

I'm not suggesting anything is Fixed.... at all. My personal opinion is that there are far to many inquires to begin with, and that racing is a tough racket, and horses are wild animals and shit happens and we should let it happen.

Isn't it the same racing experts who always remind us

• We are the only athletes who are followed around by an ambulance?

• We take our life in out hands everytime we get up on a mount!

• We are on a 1000 pound animal going 40 MPH while making split second decisions

And trainers.. "he has a lot to learn"... "he's head strong"... so on so on.....

But let one of them move laterally 2 feet and its DISQUALIFIED!....by a State employee. Who may or may not have ever made a wager in his or her life.


Let them run I say. And let it be rough out there...

That's a recipe for dead horses and paralyzed jockeys.

[cj]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

That's a recipe for dead horses and paralyzed jockeys.

Doesn't seem to be a problem in other jurisdictions.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I can't speak to KY. I'd like to think that's not the case. I will say it's not that way in California. In fact the CHRB and the tracks often have contentious, adversarial discourse.

My first hand experience with the CHRB (California Horseracing Board) has been the complete opposite.

Despite all outward appearances:

The CHRB is not a true independent regulatory body.

The commissioners of the CHRB are appointed from a short list of candidates handed to the Legislature and Governor's Office by the TOC and the Tracks.

In my opinion, the commissioners of the CHRB have consistently done the bidding of those who got them appointed in the first place --

The CHRB may occasionally disagree with the tracks and the TOC.

But when it comes time to rule on an issue horsesplayers have put in front of them such as reversing the takeout hikes, allowing exchange wagering, scratching misreported first time geldings instead of allowing them to run for purse money only, changing the rule that allows trainers to dictate a convenient time to serve their drug suspensions, suspending riders for not trying, etc:

The CHRB consistently rules the way the TOC and the Tracks tell them to rule.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

That's a recipe for dead horses and paralyzed jockeys.

And yet -that hasn't been the case at all in other parts of the world (Hong Kong for example) where the stewards tend to let the results stand and call the rider in for a hearing afterwards.


-jp

.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

My first hand experience with the CHRB (California Horseracing Board) has been the complete opposite.

Despite all outward appearances:

The CHRB is not a true independent regulatory body.

The commissioners of the CHRB are appointed from a short list of candidates handed to the Legislature and Governor's Office by the TOC and the Tracks.

In my opinion, the commissioners of the CHRB have consistently done the bidding of those who got them appointed in the first place --

The CHRB may occasionally disagree with the tracks and the TOC.

But when it comes time to rule on an issue horsesplayers have put in front of them such as reversing the takeout hikes, allowing exchange wagering, scratching misreported first time geldings instead of allowing them to run for purse money only, changing the rule that allows trainers to dictate a convenient time to serve their drug suspensions, suspending riders for not trying, etc:

The CHRB consistently rules the way the TOC and the Tracks tell them to rule.


-jp

.

Good, fair post #2

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

And yet -that hasn't been the case at all in other parts of the world (Hong Kong for example) where the stewards tend to let the results stand and call the rider in for a hearing afterwards.


-jp

.

Good, Fair post #1

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

My first hand experience with the CHRB (California Horseracing Board) has been the complete opposite.

Despite all outward appearances:

The CHRB is not a true independent regulatory body.

The commissioners of the CHRB are appointed from a short list of candidates handed to the Legislature and Governor's Office by the TOC and the Tracks.

In my opinion, the commissioners of the CHRB have consistently done the bidding of those who got them appointed in the first place --

The CHRB may occasionally disagree with the tracks and the TOC.

But when it comes time to rule on an issue horsesplayers have put in front of them such as reversing the takeout hikes, allowing exchange wagering, scratching misreported first time geldings instead of allowing them to run for purse money only, changing the rule that allows trainers to dictate a convenient time to serve their drug suspensions, suspending riders for not trying, etc:

The CHRB consistently rules the way the TOC and the Tracks tell them to rule.


-jp

.

Amen

[the little guy]

I think there is a lot of exaggerating as far as DQs are concerned. Overall, they are relatively infrequent, and in my experience, I don't have a major issue with too many. Maybe there were a few more than was to be expected in Saratoga this Summer, but as someone involved with racing pretty much every day, their significance seems negligible. Clearly this is just me, as a lot of people seem to be up in arms about it, and I have no argument that a uniform set of rules, adjudicated consistently, would be an ideal scenario, but it's hard to see that happening.

Personally, I wish Stewards would be more hands on in the day to day racing activities, not involving riding infractions. It could never hurt to talk to trainers, or riders, more after races to ask why certain things did or did not happen. It can't be bad to be more involved in a positive way.

I do take exception with anyone that suggests Stewards make decisions based on what some believe track management may want ( like doing something to create Pick-6 carryovers or the like ). This is outright foolishness. It quite simply is not the case. That's beyond grassy knoll stuff. Sensible solutions come from reasonable discussions, not outlandish accusations.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I think there is a lot of exaggerating as far as DQs are concerned. Overall, they are relatively infrequent, and in my experience, I don't have a major issue with too many. Maybe there were a few more than was to be expected in Saratoga this Summer, but as someone involved with racing pretty much every day, their significance seems negligible. Clearly this is just me, as a lot of people seem to be up in arms about it, and I have no argument that a uniform set of rules, adjudicated consistently, would be an ideal scenario, but it's hard to see that happening.

Personally, I wish Stewards would be more hands on in the day to day racing activities, not involving riding infractions. It could never hurt to talk to trainers, or riders, more after races to ask why certain things did or did not happen. It can't be bad to be more involved in a positive way.

I do take exception with anyone that suggests Stewards make decisions based on what some believe track management may want ( like doing something to create Pick-6 carryovers or the like ). This is outright foolishness. It quite simply is not the case. That's beyond grassy knoll stuff. Sensible solutions come from reasonable discussions, not outlandish accusations.

Absolutely agree with paragraph 2

Paragraph 3 not so much. And I'm speaking for California.

[mountainman]

I will never be mistaken for a fan of Mahoning officials, but the stewards there adhere to a policy of restraint, intervening only in egregious cases. And I dig that. A lot.

[thaskalos]

IMO...a DQ should only occur when the stewards' decision is unanimously in support of it. If there is enough doubt to cause a split decision among the stewards...then the posted finish result should always stand.

[Robert Fischer]

save for the life-changing (or I'll even take a month-changing ) scores, a player shouldn't be living and dying with a result anyway.

It's more about the perceived integrity of the game, and plain old basic quality control.

The stewards are 'good' relative to the average fan.

The stewards are 'bad' relative to other professionals who have a focused circle of competence.

Some of this is unavoidable systemic issues, but there are things that could be done to help. Be it ignorance, or apathy or benefit; things are what they are.

[Suff]

Originally Posted by SG4

S therefore now the whole $317k carries into Saturday.

.

Somebody is happy.

PHP Code:

$0.20 PICK SIX    9/6/6/10/1/7,10,13,14,15,16    $500,256.86 


$2 PICK FIVE	6/6/10/1/7,10,13,14,15,16	$173,634.80