The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[cj]

The one thing I'd like to be able to see on head on replays is something to show you where the finish line is. Without it, it is really tough to tell when the foul occurred and if it cost a placing in some of these races.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

...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.

Yes, let's put this in context, or rather proper perspective. The first three days of racing at the Spa (32 races) have totaled up 6 inquiries (19%) and three DQs (9%), which mean the player has a chance for the subjectivity of the steward's interpretation to change the results in close to 1 of every 5 races. (yeah, I know - not statistically valid....)

The DQ of the in today's 10th is definitely in the gray area which could go "either way", and one in which the steward's human and qualitative views could be removed, at least for the sake of the bettors.

I'd estimate that in Australia or Hong Kong, there would only have been a one in three chance that an inquiry would have occurred, and a 90+% chance the would have been left up....

[Spiderman]

Only technology can provide an objective viewpoint regarding the impact of irregular movement during the course of a race. I will be developing a prototype for software and equipment that can measure ground loss and gain, to a finite length of a micro-schnozzola. Filing for patent pending rights will be accomplished in short order. Details to follow.

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by cj

The one thing I'd like to be able to see on head on replays is something to show you where the finish line is. Without it, it is really tough to tell when the foul occurred and if it cost a placing in some of these races.

Like the color line that appears for first down yardage in football. That would be a good start.

The blimp providing an overhead view would be an important facet of overhauling the review for infractions, too.

[mountainman]

I'd like to see the paths distinguished by color coding, or at least super imposed barrier lines-as for a human track-meet. This would assist stewards in cases of potential interference, and help handicappers better assess performance should a path-bias exist.

One geek told me this feature could be easily implemented, while another said it would prove difficult and expensive.

[Stillriledup]

Belmont doesn't even have a direct headon shot and because the camera is so far away from the incident that the perception is that its really close to being a head on when in reality it's not that close at all. The position of the camera is crucial. You all know how to call photos at your home track, right? And you guys also know that some tracks 'favor' the inside and some the outside, that's because the camera is not directly on the wire. And the camera is much closer to the horses and much closer to the wire than the tower is at Belmont for one or both of their turf courses and you still have perception issues at the wire. When the camera isn't directly on the line, just Imagine how the perception would be drastic if the camera was farther away as well as far off the horizontal plane that would make it a direct headon shot.

If they can't have something even really close to a direct headon, you have to ask yourself how serious are they about 'getting it right' ?

64 bucks gets you the answer.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

Yes, let's put this in context, or rather proper perspective. The first three days of racing at the Spa (32 races) have totaled up 6 inquiries (19%) and three DQs (9%), which mean the player has a chance for the subjectivity of the steward's interpretation to change the results in close to 1 of every 5 races. (yeah, I know - not statistically valid....)

The DQ of the in today's 10th is definitely in the gray area which could go "either way", and one in which the steward's human and qualitative views could be removed, at least for the sake of the bettors.

I'd estimate that in Australia or Hong Kong, there would only have been a one in three chance that an inquiry would have occurred, and a 90+% chance the would have been left up....

Man, I'm glad I skipped the first week.

If an infraction is not obvious enough to produce a unanimous decision, among all of three stooges, why change the outcome at all?

I'll skip week 2 as well, because of the stewards. Easy choice.

Kind request to all to include the odds of the horses involved. In this case the decision went in favor of the 4/5 #3 and against the 5/2 #8.

[Dark Horse]

For easy referencing.

Saratoga, 7/26/15, R10.

1) DQ in favor of 4/5 horse, and against 5/2 horse;
2) Race video: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ican-oaks-gr-i
3) Equibase chart: http://www.equibase.com/premium/char...5&cy=USA&rn=10

[SuperPickle]

Look I always try and be fair and be a realist.

While I believe the stewards get more right than wrong clearly at Belmont's spring meet their were several HORRENDOUS decisions. So much so that I've come to this thread with the purpose to engage in discussion on ideas to improve the system.

The problem is simple. No system is perfect. Sometimes they fail and sometimes they work. No system is 100% in either direction. Clearly in Belmont's fall meet the system was failing beyond a reasonable amount of error.

The problem is there's no clear fix. Sometimes in life you accept a less than perfect system because while not perfect the system is the best available solution. I think it this particular case you probably need to tweek the current system (better camera angles, use of technology, transparency in the process, etc.) versus throw it out.

SRU has been adamant he has a radical solution... simply pay the winners. The problem is this system like the current one and all others is flawed. Yesterday's feature at Saratoga exposed this. You had a clear foul that clearly cost the horse in second the victory. The jockey of the original winner did every he could to avoid the contact but in the end it was 100lbs vs. 1,000lbs. The stewards after a brief inquiry flip the order and most likely will not suspend the jockey because he did everything in his ability to keep his horse straight.

At SRU Downs the opposite would have happened. We would have paid the horse that fouled and most likely suspended a jockey who did nothing wrong. His system, like all systems is flawed. It's not solving the problem as much as creating a different problem. It's not better its just different.

Where SRU losses credibility is he won't concede for all its flaws and failings the system worked yesterday. It doesn't work all the time and it has significant failings at times but in short, yesterday they got it right.

If you're not willing to acknowledge when something works you have no credibility to criticize it when it fails.

[cj]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

Where SRU losses credibility is he won't concede for all its flaws and failings the system worked yesterday. It doesn't work all the time and it has significant failings at times but in short, yesterday they got it right.

If you're not willing to acknowledge when something works you have no credibility to criticize it when it fails.

There are plenty of people that don't think the system worked yesterday. In this case I'm not one of them, but reasonable people I know think it was a bad DQ, particularly given the way these types of fouls have been handled on the same circuit in the past.

[cutchemist42]

Originally Posted by mountainman

I'd like to see the paths distinguished by color coding, or at least super imposed barrier lines-as for a human track-meet. This would assist stewards in cases of potential interference, and help handicappers better assess performance should a path-bias exist.

One geek told me this feature could be easily implemented, while another said it would prove difficult and expensive.

Oh my goodness as a big replay watcher for track bias, this feature would be amazing!

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Spiderman

Like the color line that appears for first down yardage in football. That would be a good start.

The blimp providing an overhead view would be an important facet of overhauling the review for infractions, too.

Last month, Royal Ascot was the first to cover it's races overhead:

The remote-controlled drone camera will provide 360 degree shots of the pageantry and pomp of the Royal Ascot crowd and cover live racing action from never-before-seen angles.

Channel 4 Racing's director Denise Large said: "We have 44 cameras to capture all the action on and off the track at the Royal Meeting.

"I’m delighted that our coverage for the first time will feature the ground breaking aerial Batcam drone - it will be a first for racing when we feature this as part of our live coverage at the royal meeting on Channel 4."

Note- The Aerial Batman Drone is capable of flying at a maximum speed of approximately 35-40mph, the same speed as the thoroughbred.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

Look I always try and be fair and be a realist.

While I believe the stewards get more right than wrong clearly at Belmont's spring meet their were several HORRENDOUS decisions. So much so that I've come to this thread with the purpose to engage in discussion on ideas to improve the system.

The problem is simple. No system is perfect. Sometimes they fail and sometimes they work. No system is 100% in either direction. Clearly in Belmont's fall meet the system was failing beyond a reasonable amount of error.

The problem is there's no clear fix. Sometimes in life you accept a less than perfect system because while not perfect the system is the best available solution. I think it this particular case you probably need to tweek the current system (better camera angles, use of technology, transparency in the process, etc.) versus throw it out.

SRU has been adamant he has a radical solution... simply pay the winners. The problem is this system like the current one and all others is flawed. Yesterday's feature at Saratoga exposed this. You had a clear foul that clearly cost the horse in second the victory. The jockey of the original winner did every he could to avoid the contact but in the end it was 100lbs vs. 1,000lbs. The stewards after a brief inquiry flip the order and most likely will not suspend the jockey because he did everything in his ability to keep his horse straight.

At SRU Downs the opposite would have happened. We would have paid the horse that fouled and most likely suspended a jockey who did nothing wrong. His system, like all systems is flawed. It's not solving the problem as much as creating a different problem. It's not better its just different.

Where SRU losses credibility is he won't concede for all its flaws and failings the system worked yesterday. It doesn't work all the time and it has significant failings at times but in short, yesterday they got it right.

If you're not willing to acknowledge when something works you have no credibility to criticize it when it fails.

How about for starters, getting a direct headon at Belmont for the turf races. Your logic is one to put your hands in the air and say 'it is what it is'. That's not good enough. People's livelihoods are on the line, this is important, it's not an issue to shrug your shoulders and say it is what it is. Gus has been asking about oversight, who's watching the watchers? We had a DQ the other day where a high profile owner accused the stewards of essentially stealing money from a Mexican guy to give it to a high profile white guy, why isn't this a transcending issue and front page news on a major news website or major publication?

There's a credibility problem if judges are showing bias and favoritism and even if they aren't and this is all in Michael dubbs head, the perception is there, the seed has been planted and yet nobody will raise an eyebrown over this, judges won't be 'called on the carpet' for corruption, it will be business as usual, nobody gets rated nobody gets questioned and nobody gets fired, life just goes on and we all have to decide of betting on 'professional wrestling' is something we want to keep doing.

It's horse racing, nobody cares, nobody's ever cared and nobody will care in the future, their motto over time is 'take it or leave it'

[PaceAdvantage]

Up until he opened his mouth, that "perception" you speak of was ONLY in Dubbs' head.

I doubt anyone sane was thinking this had anything to do with racism before Dubbs fired off his highly speculative musings.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Up until he opened his mouth, that "perception" you speak of was ONLY in Dubbs' head.

I doubt anyone sane was thinking this had anything to do with racism before Dubbs fired off his highly speculative musings.

You think not a single person following the races thought the horse was taken down because they wanted to put up Pletcher and stick it to RRR? Not a single horseplayer thought this?