The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by mountainman

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.

The point for me though is that sporting games are stopped along the way to penalize infractions, none of the penalties are "loss of game" now, sometimes a huge call can indirectly result in loss of game, but most of the time, one penalty or foul wont cost you the game, you can still overcome it. In racing, a penalty is always loss of game, 100 pct of the time and not only that, but the racing penalty always comes after you thought you won, it comes from the booth high atop the grandstand after the race is over. That doesnt happen in sports, you dont ever "think you won" and then have someone take it away.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by 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.

We arent saying to throw out all the rules, we are saying to administer punishments differently. If James Harrison gets fined 10k for a helmet to helmet hit, hes still being punished and probably would have gotten a 15 yard penalty or ejection from the game, but while harrison gets fined the next day, people who bet the Steelers (or bengals) get paid. Racing needs to dole out punishments after the fact, as a bettor i just want to be paid if i win, are they going to tell winning bettors of the steelers after the game is over "sorry but James Harrison had a helmet to helmet infraction so we're not going to pay you? No, you get paid and the judges deal w harrison the next day behind closed doors.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

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.

Dog racing.

Yes, the racetrack officials have the discretion to change the result if a dog takes a short cut across the infield, or if "Sparky" malfunctions and electrocutes a puppy, but most races the result is the exact order of finish. I meant to say that's the only quantitative (not qualitative) measurement in horse racing (order of finish).

As for the popularity of the sport versus the NFL or NBA, we might want to ask if there are changes that horse racing could make to improve the sport? Both the NFL and NBA have modified their officiating rules in the last couple of decades, while horse racing is stagnent. And there is no evidence that "Death Race 2000" or Mad Max would result in a rule change for paying the winners. Pure speculation.

[no breathalyzer]

WTF??? stewards don't even look at race #4 at MONMOUTH? side note nice ride on the 8horse

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by no breathalyzer

WTF??? stewards don't even look at race #4 at MONMOUTH? side note nice ride on the 8horse

The stewards look at every race in real time and immediately after. In California we started using what's called a review. It's kinda like an inquiry lite. The stewards will tell the announcer it's a review. It's their way of saying yes we saw what you saw but at this point it hasn't reached the level of full blown inquiry. After a review if it doesn't advance into an inquiry there will be no formal replays with announcer VO.

[no breathalyzer]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

The stewards look at every race in real time and immediately after. In California we started using what's called a review. It's kinda like an inquiry lite. The stewards will tell the announcer it's a review. It's their way of saying yes we saw what you saw but at this point it hasn't reached the level of full blown inquiry. After a review if it doesn't advance into an inquiry there will be no formal replays with announcer VO.

Sorry vic i worded that very bad .. what i meant to say is why wasn't there an ''official'' inquiry ?

side note how was the WSOP experience ?

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by no breathalyzer

Sorry vic i worded that very bad .. what i meant to say is why wasn't there an ''official'' inquiry ?

side note how was the WSOP experience ?

Humbling

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

Dog racing.

Yes, the racetrack officials have the discretion to change the result if a dog takes a short cut across the infield, or if "Sparky" malfunctions and electrocutes a puppy, but most races the result is the exact order of finish. I meant to say that's the only quantitative (not qualitative) measurement in horse racing (order of finish).

As for the popularity of the sport versus the NFL or NBA, we might want to ask if there are changes that horse racing could make to improve the sport? Both the NFL and NBA have modified their officiating rules in the last couple of decades, while horse racing is stagnent. And there is no evidence that "Death Race 2000" or Mad Max would result in a rule change for paying the winners. Pure speculation.

What you fail to mention, of course, is that officiating in the NBA, NHL, and NFL was made MORE stringent (and of course fans complain you can't hit quarterbacks or cover receivers, there's no fighting in hockey, etc.) while you want to make it LESS stringent, or even nonexistent. So, the opposite of your logic, in other words. The same trolls who babble "pay the winners, no DQs ever" may seem brilliant to you, but they're not offering a realistic suggestion to improve racing. As soon as someone actually does that, maybe your points would be valid. Thanks.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by castaway01

What you fail to mention, of course, is that officiating in the NBA, NHL, and NFL was made MORE stringent (and of course fans complain you can't hit quarterbacks or cover receivers, there's no fighting in hockey, etc.) while you want to make it LESS stringent, or even nonexistent. So, the opposite of your logic, in other words. The same trolls who babble "pay the winners, no DQs ever" may seem brilliant to you, but they're not offering a realistic suggestion to improve racing. As soon as someone actually does that, maybe your points would be valid. Thanks.

Babbling and trolls? Yes, you appear to be an expert.

Paying on the order of finish is hardly less stringent. It's simply a quantitative and consistent way to protect bettors from errors in the human judgement factor, which would still come into play in a post-race review later on. We all know the sport needs policing, and the current system is lacking, at least from my point of view.

You "claim" that my suggestion is not realistic, yet I still have yet to read any suggestion from you on improving racing's DQ system. What I have read are illogical comparisons to other sports, and dire predictions on what would occur if "pay the winners" was implemented. Wasted bytes.

[SuperPickle]

So I think there's two HUGE problems with paying the winners...

1. It's no more consistent than stewards. It doesn't ensure the "Best" horse wins just the horse that hits the finish first. You still have done nothing to ensure the "best" horse won. All you've done is taken any human interference out.

2. It opens the door to more corruption. If my understanding of your concept is correct you would pay the placing order exactly how it finishes for wagering and then any DQ's would only affect the purses. So basically you would have two orders of finishes. So if you have two orders of finish you then have people racing for two different purposes. One for purse money and one for betting money.

There's a theoretical scenario. I could decide I want to finish first. I'm betting my horse big. I get a jockey who will win at all costs. Probably a glorified exercise rider. He's willing to use his horse as weapon if anyone comes near him. and he lets the other guys in the room know that. And we bet big. If its a state where there's coupled entries maybe I even use a second horse to help execute my plan. What's to prevent me from putting one horse on the lead and have the other block for him or push everyone out to the parking lot? After all all I need to do is cross the wire first. It works and I cash big. My horse is DQed from purse money but who cares I cashed. On a $25,000 purse the wining owner only clears about $12,000. In NY, CA, KY, FL or NJ you could clear a lot more than that in the betting pools.

And here's the best part since I was DQed I retain my condition. So I can run back in the same condition and maybe do the same thing, maybe win foul free or maybe run up the track.

[thaskalos]

The NFL keeps a close eye on its referees, and uses a ranking system to grade them...and the ones who don't make the grade are relieved of their officiating responsibilities. Is there such a thing implemented in horse racing?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The NFL keeps a close eye on its referees, and uses a ranking system to grade them...and the ones who don't make the grade are relieved of their officiating responsibilities. Is there such a thing implemented in horse racing?

Good question.

I haven't heard of a judge who got fired for making a bad DQ, but I don't know.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

So I think there's two HUGE problems with paying the winners...

1. It's no more consistent than stewards. It doesn't ensure the "Best" horse wins just the horse that hits the finish first. You still have done nothing to ensure the "best" horse won. All you've done is taken any human interference out.

2. It opens the door to more corruption. If my understanding of your concept is correct you would pay the placing order exactly how it finishes for wagering and then any DQ's would only affect the purses. So basically you would have two orders of finishes. So if you have two orders of finish you then have people racing for two different purposes. One for purse money and one for betting money.

There's a theoretical scenario. I could decide I want to finish first. I'm betting my horse big. I get a jockey who will win at all costs. Probably a glorified exercise rider. He's willing to use his horse as weapon if anyone comes near him. and he lets the other guys in the room know that. And we bet big. If its a state where there's coupled entries maybe I even use a second horse to help execute my plan. What's to prevent me from putting one horse on the lead and have the other block for him or push everyone out to the parking lot? After all all I need to do is cross the wire first. It works and I cash big. My horse is DQed from purse money but who cares I cashed. On a $25,000 purse the wining owner only clears about $12,000. In NY, CA, KY, FL or NJ you could clear a lot more than that in the betting pools.

And here's the best part since I was DQed I retain my condition. So I can run back in the same condition and maybe do the same thing, maybe win foul free or maybe run up the track.

You're suggestion that it would open the door to more corruption is suggestion that people who are currently not corrupt would decide to start being corrupt? Does that ever happen?

I would gladly forfeit one wager to get one corrupt person out of the game. If we say that there are only a small percentage of bad apples, getting rid of one is a big deal. I think if the no-DQ rules were put in place, the punishment for on-purpose rough race riding would be massive and severe.

To your theoretical scenario.

You're never ever ever triple quadruple ever going to 'cash big' by setting up a bet like that because the horse would be 1-9. If a jock or exercise rider was going to risk life and limb as well as putting themselves in a position to be kicked out of the sport and lose their livelihood, they need to make a LOT. What are you going to do bet 20 grand and cash for 22,000 and hope you win? You could crash the field and still lose because you're assuming that a poor jockey can execute this plan and wipe out all the horses.

Guess what happens under the new rules, you win your bet, lose the purse, the exercise rider gets a 10 year suspension, you lose your owning license because once the jock gets suspended for 10 years they go to court and of course this betting coup comes out and when it comes out, you get in trouble, get kicked out of the game and ostracized from society all for 2 grand.

I've said this before here, nobody is changing their riding style, nothing will change, jocks aren't going to risk their careers to rough ride to cash a bet for some owner, they're looking out for #1. Nothing will change.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by castaway01

What you fail to mention, of course, is that officiating in the NBA, NHL, and NFL was made MORE stringent (and of course fans complain you can't hit quarterbacks or cover receivers, there's no fighting in hockey, etc.) while you want to make it LESS stringent, or even nonexistent. So, the opposite of your logic, in other words. The same trolls who babble "pay the winners, no DQs ever" may seem brilliant to you, but they're not offering a realistic suggestion to improve racing. As soon as someone actually does that, maybe your points would be valid. Thanks.

Why would a bettor who just wants to be paid if he picks a winner have to 'offer up' suggestions to improve racing? People are just bettors they aren't consultants to the industry to help 'improve it'.

You seem to have missed some of my responses to you on these sports league analogies. The difference in horse racing DQ land is that the punishment is "loss of game". There is no sports penalty that directly loses a game for a team.

a DQ in horse racing is equivalent to an interference penalty in the NHL, except in the NHL, they don't automatically award the victory to the other team.

[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.