The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by mountainman

ICE SKATING? Yes, THERE is a sport known for astute, objective , scandal-free judging. Were you sober when you came up with that? The answer isn't more complexity nor a system that breeds more indecisiveness. And, in my opinion, the cries for consistent calls also are slightly off the mark. Each incident must be taken separately, thus what's required is consistently good JUDGEMENT. Players have a right to that.

And the solution is BETTER STEWARDS and better oversight. Right now, the only way ANYBODY reviews-or has occasion or authorization to look into dq calls is when an aggrieved party protests. Want to guess how often that happens?? (hint: about as often as you and Vic hug things out).

In my opinion, the racing commission should take a stronger hand in overseeing the stewards and reviewing their dq calls. And race-watching skills and experience should become a criteria when stewards are hired.

Dude, I've known LOTS of stewards, but very few who could even FUNCTION under the system you propose. Good lord, lots of these people can't make up their minds NOW on whether to take a horse down even for an OBVIOUS infraction, and you want them fretting to come up with some abstract number?

The system isn't the problem-it's the people implementing the system. And the freedom from official oversight that they generally enjoy.

None of this is intended to single out any steward or board of stewards-just as my general take on the issue.

You continue to mix up all sorts of issues. Didn't you post your entire resume earlier in this thread?

As you may or may not be aware, controversy in ice skating is related to judges from certain nations favoring or not favoring certain nations. The number system itself is far superior to the three stooges in horse racing.

Your suggestion that stewards couldn't comprehend something as 'abstract' (as you call it), as the numbers 1 through 10 is, quite frankly, absurd. Of course they could learn to do so. That isn't to say that my suggestion is ideal. Not at all. It's just one example of how things could be improved. But you have already expressed that any ideas in that direction fall under self-congratulatory brainstorming, so it seems to me that you not only hold people incapable of counting from 1 to 10, but also consider anything beyond it as ethereal. That doesn't leave you a whole lot of mental elasticity, Dude.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

I've only watched this race once, on purpose, just to give a first impression.

I had already read that there was some bumping, and that there was disagreement about who bumped who first.

My interpretation is that the 5 was bottled up, had nowhere to go, until a hole opened up that he immediately took. What else is he supposed to do? Ask for permission? The rider's intent was to get into the hole, not to get into a bumping match. Does it matter that bumping occurred? Not so much, in this case. Why not? Because the 5 clearly had the most horse. He exploded into that hole, after being bottled up. I've seen plenty of horses win this race without being DQ-ed.

The bumping is not isolated, but should be seen within the context of the race. If this bumping happens between two horses who have all the space in the world it's different. But they didn't have that space, and so the bumping becomes secondary to its near inevitability in such a small space. If you're ok with the rider diving into that hole, because he had the most horse, then you should, in this case, be ok with the result as well. I know that, as a bettor, I want my jockey to take that hole, rather than lose because he's bottled up. After he makes that split second decision, it's outside of his control exactly how much bumping will occur. (as opposed to a lot of intentional bumping).

I would also look at the reputation of the jockeys involved. Unlike Rosario, Irad Ortiz is always initiating contact. So he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.

This could very well be the most uninformed ridiculous post I've ever read. Are you out of your mind? This isn't a video game or bumper cars. These are 1000lb fragile animals traveling 30 mph with human beings on their backs.

If there's no hole there. What the hell just go for it?? It drives me crazy that people just sit on their ass on the couch and say things like this. I wonder if you've ever actually been to the track? To see these animals. The gate, the track, the speed, the danger. Jesus!!!!

" They didn't have the space" so what the heck just make it and see what happens?

Whether Ortiz was at fault or not. He was. He almost ended up in the infield with a horse laying on top of him. As for Rosario he took a chance with a mare that's probably worth a million dollars. I've seen guys taken off even if they won after a move like that.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

And we'll just note the odds. 7/1 for the #5 and even money for the #2. If those odds are reversed, this DQ is far less likely, if only because a bottled up favorite is supposed to burst through a hole.

This post runs a close 2nd in the race of ridiculous posts. Nice going. You hit a cold exacta.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by LottaKash

Most. if not all of the Harness Tracks have adopted that policy....

After their official reviews, if there were any DQ's or Order of finish changes, they offer up, via onscreen replay, the reason's and the rules for making those Official final changes to the outcome of that particular event....

Some tracks will even go so far as to explain why there were no changes to the official outcome and why there was an inguiry to begin with...

Is that so hard ?...

Every track in the country does that. If it's not enough in real time. Everything can be researched via website links and accessing stewards minutes.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

This could very well be the most uninformed ridiculous post I've ever read. Are you out of your mind? This isn't a video game or bumper cars. These are 1000lb fragile animals traveling 30 mph with human beings on their backs.

If there's no hole there. What the hell just go for it?? It drive me crazy that people just sit in their ass on the couch and say things like this. I wonder if you've ever actually be to the track. To see these animals. The gate, the track, the speed, the danger. Jesus!!!!

" They didn't have the space" so what the heck just make it and see what happens?

Whether Ortiz was at fault or not. He was. He almost ended up in the infield with a horse laying on top of him. As for Rosario he took a chance with a mare that's probably worth a million dollars. I've seen guys taken off even if they won after a move like that.

Vic, I think you need to relook at the race....

There was a hole....Huger than a prostitute's....

Iherd right hand whipped and moved inside at the 1/8 pole. He is so stupid that instead of moving 1 path over, the over rated punk moved 2 paths inside, leaving room for Joel. Joel SHOT into the whole quickly (the reason why he shot in there so quickly is because the horse was loaded and like a champagne corkscrew he burst in there)

As Iherd was busy picking up his pants, which Joel ripped off of Iherd, he made some time to abruptly try and SHUT OFF A HORSE WHO WAS A HALF LENGTH IN FRONT OF HIM at the point of impact.

Then, the domino effect happened and the equal and positive reaction in return happened, Joel's horse got smacked by Iherd's and RIGHTFULLY he bounced back on the punk.(instead of continuing taking the impact hitting the 6 in return)

Yes, Iherd deserved to end up falling off his mount. He's a dirty punk.

Your continued stubborness is disappointing.

It's obvious to all what happened here.

I shudder to think what other stewards and racing officials are like if you, who WE LIKE and respect, is acting like this.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

You continue to mix up all sorts of issues. Didn't you post your entire resume earlier in this thread?

As you may or may not be aware, controversy in ice skating is related to judges from certain nations favoring or not favoring certain nations. The number system itself is far superior to the three stooges in horse racing.

Your suggestion that stewards couldn't comprehend something as 'abstract' (as you call it), as the numbers 1 through 10 is, quite frankly, absurd. Of course they could learn to do so. That isn't to say that my suggestion is ideal. Not at all. It's just one example of how things could be improved. But you have already expressed that any ideas in that direction fall under self-congratulatory brainstorming, so it seems to me that you not only hold people incapable of counting from 1 to 10, but also consider anything beyond it as ethereal. That doesn't leave you a whole lot of mental elasticity, Dude.

I don't know where to even begin here. Let's suffice to say that your suggestion is a poor starting point for the discussion you so seem to crave. As if the criteria upon which to base dq decisions isn't ALREADY subjective, hotly debated , and arbitrary enough, you want to bring in abstract math??? Got an hour or so to await each decision while the judges go first to the tape, and then a freakin' ABACUS?

No comment on my suggestions about how to address the problem? My useful, concrete, IMPLEMENTABLE, and practical suggestions?? Suggestions engendered by experience in the industry and first hand knowledge of how stewards think and work?

You wanted a discussion. Let's cut the crap and have one. Objective and impersonal. But, please, come stronger that ice skating, dude.

Let's keep it real and leave the triple Lutz out. And thanks for reading my "resume." I'm curious: what's your experience in the industry? Not as a horseplayer. We're ALL horse-bettors. I mean actual jobs you've had in t-racing. I can list mine again, if you'd like.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Vic, I think you need to relook at the race....

There was a hole....Huger than a prostitute's....

Iherd right hand whipped and moved inside at the 1/8 pole. He is so stupid that instead of moving 1 path over, the over rated punk moved 2 paths inside, leaving room for Joel. Joel SHOT into the whole quickly (the reason why he shot in there so quickly is because the horse was loaded and like a champagne corkscrew he burst in there)

As Iherd was busy picking up his pants, which Joel ripped off of Iherd, he made some time to abruptly try and SHUT OFF A HORSE WHO WAS A HALF LENGTH IN FRONT OF HIM at the point of impact.

Then, the domino effect happened and the equal and positive reaction in return happened, Joel's horse got smacked by Iherd's and RIGHTFULLY he bounced back on the punk.(instead of continuing taking the impact hitting the 6 in return)

Yes, Iherd deserved to end up falling off his mount. He's a dirty punk.

Your continued stubborness is disappointing.

It's obvious to all what happened here.

I shudder to think what other stewards and racing officials are like if you, who WE LIKE and respect, is acting like this.

Another beautiful post.

You seem to forget the fundamental fact that before anything else your analysis of the film is wrong. Joel initiated the contact.

Even if you're right do you actually think that just to be vindictive Ortiz would run his horse into Rosario's just because he was pissed that his horse is not as good as Rosario's? These guys ride 8 races a day 5 days a week against each other. You think he'd do that in a race we was going to get nothing no matter what?

And finally, saying that he deserved to GO DOWN,with everything that entails (DEATH) shows you know ZERO about our great sport and are simply a blowhard POS.

F-OFF

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Vic, I think you need to relook at the race....

There was a hole....Huger than a prostitute's....

Iherd right hand whipped and moved inside at the 1/8 pole. He is so stupid that instead of moving 1 path over, the over rated punk moved 2 paths inside, leaving room for Joel. Joel SHOT into the whole quickly (the reason why he shot in there so quickly is because the horse was loaded and like a champagne corkscrew he burst in there)

As Iherd was busy picking up his pants, which Joel ripped off of Iherd, he made some time to abruptly try and SHUT OFF A HORSE WHO WAS A HALF LENGTH IN FRONT OF HIM at the point of impact.

Then, the domino effect happened and the equal and positive reaction in return happened, Joel's horse got smacked by Iherd's and RIGHTFULLY he bounced back on the punk.(instead of continuing taking the impact hitting the 6 in return)

Yes, Iherd deserved to end up falling off his mount. He's a dirty punk.

Your continued stubborness is disappointing.

It's obvious to all what happened here.

I shudder to think what other stewards and racing officials are like if you, who WE LIKE and respect, is acting like this.

Thank you. It's amazing that Vic is just so stubborn, set in his ways and won't admit a mistake. Is this the type of judging we want in horse racing? Guys who won't admit they're wrong and instead of just admitting it, hes digging a deeper hole.

Also, I have gone over the lack of a true head on camera shot here, let me try and say this a different way. Visually on the camera shot that was shown, you aren't seeing what really happened. You have to be able to interpret what really happened by viewing other things about the video and putting the puzzle together.

The camera is on the grandstand side of the hubrail which is where the incident too place, so that means an object that is moving away from the camera will appear to be moving faster and more dramatic than an object moving TOWARDS the camera. If you watch this incident on their "almost head on" it's completely different than what you would see if it was a true headon, in fact it will look almost like 2 different races.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

I can easily say:

2014 Breeders Cup Classic: Case closed, in return.

And...you had to go 30 years into the past to make your point? Can we at least talk about the era that we are in?

Just a minute....The OP pointed out the existence of a "star system"....The BCC One incident was the first thing that popped into mind.
Using your logic, I suppose you'd have the same view if for instance I used a situation in a baseball or football game from the 1980's?
Now....What about the 2014 Classic?
IMO that was not a pull down offense.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

In baseball there must be a decision. In horse racing the option for a no-decision would be perfectly acceptable. It simply would leave the race result alone if the other votes were tied. A hung jury.

Stewards are paid to get it right. That doesn't necessarily have to translate into a decision each time. Does it?

A no decision? Umm. Define a 'no decision'.....If I may, is a "no decision" one where you have a winning wager and the Stewards do not pull down your horse?
There is always a decision.....Either to DQ or not DQ.....Each one is a 'decision'...
As with officiating in any sport, the decisions by the officials are not 100% spot on perfect.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

This hardly sounds like the behavior of "open minded" and trustworthy officials, but rather ones who are shirking from controversy.

Until the process of race reviews becomes more open, please permit us to be skeptical of your "trust me" responses.

I can live with the human element of the calls, and some inconsistencies. What I find far more disturbing is that these decisions are made behind closed doors with very little, if any, accountability. Again, it's the appearance that makes for the problem, not necessarily the reality of what's going on.

After the Gulfstream Jackpot debacle, I believe one of the responses from GP management was to make the review process more open, and publish the results for all to see. I'm not sure if that happened, but at least it was one tiny tiptoe in the right direction.

Do you believe there exists in the Steward's booth some sort of book by which Stewards go...And that manual is entitled, "The Ten Best Ways to Screw the Bettors"?
Behind closed doors? Perhaps you'd be happier of the Stewards sat at a little table in the middle of Clubhouse Level, with microphones in hand which they turn on so that the whole world can listen in while they communicate?

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Do you believe there exists in the Steward's booth some sort of book by which Stewards go...And that manual is entitled, "The Ten Best Ways to Screw the Bettors"?
Behind closed doors? Perhaps you'd be happier of the Stewards sat at a little table in the middle of Clubhouse Level, with microphones in hand which they turn on so that the whole world can listen in while they communicate?

What these self serving morons fail to remember with their " the bettors are getting screwed" drivel. Is the fact that when a horse is DQ'ed costing someone money. A different group of players is benefitting financially from the decision.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Do you believe there exists in the Steward's booth some sort of book by which Stewards go...And that manual is entitled, "The Ten Best Ways to Screw the Bettors"?
Behind closed doors? Perhaps you'd be happier of the Stewards sat at a little table in the middle of Clubhouse Level, with microphones in hand which they turn on so that the whole world can listen in while they communicate?

No, I don't think that they sit there and say let's screw the bettors. Never said that, never thought that.

It's their sheer ineptitude, stupidity and lack of film watching ability (amongst many other flaws) that hurts the bettor.

You can add stubborness, it seems, to that list.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

What these self serving morons fail to remember with their " the bettors are getting screwed" drivel. Is the fact that when a horse is DQ'ed costing someone money. A different group of players is benefitting financially from the decision.

Have you ever been alive for $25,000 and be DQ'd erroneously?

Only to hear that the wrong horse was disqualified?

I don't give two cents if someone else is benefiting from their ineptitude. I don't ever remember being put up for $25,000.

Get the point?

One mistake is too many. They don't even out.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Just a minute....The OP pointed out the existence of a "star system"....The BCC One incident was the first thing that popped into mind.
Using your logic, I suppose you'd have the same view if for instance I used a situation in a baseball or football game from the 1980's?
Now....What about the 2014 Classic?
IMO that was not a pull down offense.

I was replying to his example that Star Treatment does not exist (BCC #1 with Gate Dancer).

In return, I was stating that last year's winner received star treatment (Baffert golden child).

Yes, I asked for a more recent example. 30 years ago is not exactly relevant.

Yes, I think he should've been DQ'd last year.