Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 11-06-2014, 07:48 PM   #286
thespaah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
As I read this thread, I see way more than disagreement.

I see grown men acting as if the stewards came into their home and ripped their first born away from them...ridiculous in my opinion...and not just this thread. Many in the media are acting like fools as well.
I WANT MY MAPO!!!!!
thespaah is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-06-2014, 08:05 PM   #287
Stillriledup
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
How about just permitting bettors to bet into a pool where DQs are not part of the wagering experience for the bettor. Have Pool A and Pool B. If you want the judges meddling in your wagering experience, wager into Pool B. If you want to be paid no matter what happens, bet in Pool A.

Nobody will ever have a complaint about a steward again if you had options.
Stillriledup is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-06-2014, 08:35 PM   #288
wonatthewire1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,098
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
As I read this thread, I see way more than disagreement.

I see grown men acting as if the stewards came into their home and ripped their first born away from them...ridiculous in my opinion...and not just this thread. Many in the media are acting like fools as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by thespaah
I WANT MY MAPO!!!!!
I had $50 to win on the place horse...ripped was an understatement; though I don't disagree with the non DQ

Everyone is crowning the winner but the top 3 ran a great race
wonatthewire1 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-06-2014, 09:56 PM   #289
Jeff P
Registered User
 
Jeff P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 3,765
by Ray Paulick | 11.06.2014 | 4:24pm

STEWARDS' RULINGS: TIME FOR A CHANGE IN RACING'S OFFICIATING SYSTEM?:
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...iating-system/

Quote:
I brought up the idea of Breeders’ Cup naming its own stewards with Craig Fravel, Breeders’ Cup president. Fravel had an even bigger outside-of-the-box suggestion (stressing that it was his idea and did not represent the board of the Breeders’ Cup): namely, that horse racing consider reinventing the whole process of officiating the races. Take a page from the National Hockey League or Major League Baseball and have a central office where all inquiries and objections can be judged by a rotating crew of officials who would apply the same standard to the third race at Penn National that they do to the Breeders’ Cup Classic at Santa Anita.

The technology is there.

Each track needs stewards to deal with other day-to-day issues: financial responsibility of owners, problems related to backstretch workers and other licensees, and adjudication of medication violations.

But do we really need the officials who are judging each race to physically be at the racetrack?

Of course, for something as radical as this to happen, regulations would need to be changed virtually everywhere – a highly unlikely scenario. And this is not an industry that embraces radical change.

Moving forward, then, horsemen and horseplayers will just have to accept that inconsistency in our officiating is one of the givens of the game.


-jp

.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Jeff P is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-06-2014, 11:37 PM   #290
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 44,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
by Ray Paulick | 11.06.2014 | 4:24pm

STEWARDS' RULINGS: TIME FOR A CHANGE IN RACING'S OFFICIATING SYSTEM?:
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...iating-system/





-jp

.
Now that is truly fantasy land. Cooperation from everyone? ROFL.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-07-2014, 01:13 AM   #291
JustRalph
Just another Facist
 
JustRalph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now in Houston
Posts: 46,144
I think the Stewards should have to wear stripes like the NFL guys....
JustRalph is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-07-2014, 02:11 AM   #292
Stillriledup
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustRalph
I think the Stewards should have to wear stripes like the NFL guys....
I was thinking more about orange jumpsuits with black numbers on them.
Stillriledup is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-07-2014, 02:28 AM   #293
LottaKash
Registered User
 
LottaKash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustRalph
I think the Stewards should have to wear stripes like the NFL guys....
They should give them all a "whistle" too....
__________________
.
"Cursed be the man who puts his trust in man" - Jer 17:5 (KJV)
LottaKash is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-07-2014, 05:02 AM   #294
Dark Horse
Registered User
 
Dark Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: route 66
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
by Ray Paulick | 11.06.2014 | 4:24pm

STEWARDS' RULINGS: TIME FOR A CHANGE IN RACING'S OFFICIATING SYSTEM?:
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...iating-system/





-jp

.
I posted that idea here months ago. Funny that they consider that out-of-the box. There's nothing out-of-the-box about it. Just common sense.
Dark Horse is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-07-2014, 05:30 AM   #295
Dark Horse
Registered User
 
Dark Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: route 66
Posts: 1,112
If horse racing is going to survive in the long run, let alone catch up with the big sports, it needs to take a drastically different approach than what is in place today. It wouldn't hurt to take a page from Apple under Steve Jobs, starting with: Think Different.

As mentioned in the past, horse racing, like any sport, would benefit from standings. Team standings (you would have to create teams first) and individual horse standings. Assign points to be earned for each race. Without standings there is no story, just individual events. With standings, people have a context and a reason to start to follow horses and their stories. Greater public interest, more television, more television moneys, and so forth. It all starts with grabbing the public by the throat and not letting go. But the public needs a continuing story that they can return to each weekend. Not isolated events that allow them to forget the sport.

Put the same ten type of races on each card, and have teams compete at each distance. At the end of the day, you would not only have individual horse winners, but a team winner. By season's end you could have playoffs, and a championship event. NY would have its team, LA would have its team, etc.

Steal whatever ideas work from other sports. Improve the rules, so that travesties like the last Classic happened for a reason. Get this sport into the 21st century. Other sports succeeded. Horse racing is the odd one out. Still, if it was once among the most popular three sports, it can get back there.

The NFL is a great example to follow. The rest of the world barely gives a sh*t, but it's the most popular sport here. Not because it really is the greatest sport, but because it was marketed to perfection.

Last edited by Dark Horse; 11-07-2014 at 05:33 AM.
Dark Horse is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-07-2014, 03:05 PM   #296
Stillriledup
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Horse
If horse racing is going to survive in the long run, let alone catch up with the big sports, it needs to take a drastically different approach than what is in place today. It wouldn't hurt to take a page from Apple under Steve Jobs, starting with: Think Different.

As mentioned in the past, horse racing, like any sport, would benefit from standings. Team standings (you would have to create teams first) and individual horse standings. Assign points to be earned for each race. Without standings there is no story, just individual events. With standings, people have a context and a reason to start to follow horses and their stories. Greater public interest, more television, more television moneys, and so forth. It all starts with grabbing the public by the throat and not letting go. But the public needs a continuing story that they can return to each weekend. Not isolated events that allow them to forget the sport.

Put the same ten type of races on each card, and have teams compete at each distance. At the end of the day, you would not only have individual horse winners, but a team winner. By season's end you could have playoffs, and a championship event. NY would have its team, LA would have its team, etc.

Steal whatever ideas work from other sports. Improve the rules, so that travesties like the last Classic happened for a reason. Get this sport into the 21st century. Other sports succeeded. Horse racing is the odd one out. Still, if it was once among the most popular three sports, it can get back there.

The NFL is a great example to follow. The rest of the world barely gives a sh*t, but it's the most popular sport here. Not because it really is the greatest sport, but because it was marketed to perfection.
"Racings" problem and maybe its our problem too is that because dozens of individual tracks all use "horse racing" as their gambling vehicle of choice, we just say "hey, there are dozens of tracks all letting horses run in circles and accepting wagers, so they must be part of an "industry""

The problem is that nobody is part of any industry, everyone is operating on their own, in their own state by their own state's rules. Each track is its own "industry" and could really care less about what other tracks are doing that are offering similar products.

You could see this by how tracks run on top of each other. There was one day a couple years ago where CT and Mountaineer were the only 2 tracks running on one particular day in the entire eastern region, and yet, they both ran exactly on top of each other as if they didn't know the other track even existed. I put in a phone call to the judges at Charlestown to question a certain DQ and had a long conversation with one of the stewards there and i said to him "why do you run at the exact same time as Mountaineer even though you are the only 2 tracks running on the entire east coast and you're in the same state" and he acted almost as if he didn't realize he was a "Competitor" to Mountaineer. I explained to him that when there are only 2 tracks running, and they're both in the same state, that there might be plenty of bettors who are betting both places.....and that was news to him.

So, its not likely we're going to get "Racing" to work together in any meaningful way, its not likely much will change in tracks running on top of each other and nothing is likely to change in the "old boys club" as far as slaps on the wrist for "name" trainers who break the rules over and over again.

I wouldn't hold my breath that racing will "get with the times" and into the 21st century, staying stuck in 1970 is just fine by them.
Stillriledup is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-07-2014, 04:09 PM   #297
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Horse
I posted that idea here months ago. Funny that they consider that out-of-the box. There's nothing out-of-the-box about it. Just common sense.
It's hugely out of the box, because it involves transferring authority of something (the regulation of payouts from betting pools) that basically has to be state-regulated, as it's part of the original bargain that allowed legal gambling on horse racing to begin with.

It reminds me of arguments made by not-so-legal-savvy internet poker players before Black Friday (the April 2011 shutdown of the major online poker sites in the US). They would say things like "the states can't regulate internet poker because the Internet is global" and "only the sites can deal with collusion and cheating".

Whatever the truth of statements like that, the federal government came crashing down on internet poker and, in doing so, reminded everyone that the states decide if and how poker is offered to their citizens and what regulations are imposed on those who set up the games. And now Internet poker advocates are engaged in a slow, state-by-state attempt to legalize and regulate the activity.

There are very strong (and actually compelling) historical reasons why gaming regulation (meaning regulation of the process of WAGERING) is reposed in the states, and those are not going away. I can certainly see something being done about medication regulations or other safety issues on a nationwide basis, but in terms of something like the stewards, no, they are going to be state appointed from now until the end of the republic, for the same reason that there's always going to be state gaming commissions to regulate casinos. They decide whether you cash your bet, and deciding whether you get to cash your bet is historically a state function.
dilanesp is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-08-2014, 05:23 AM   #298
Dark Horse
Registered User
 
Dark Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: route 66
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stillriledup
"Racings" problem and maybe its our problem too is that because dozens of individual tracks all use "horse racing" as their gambling vehicle of choice, we just say "hey, there are dozens of tracks all letting horses run in circles and accepting wagers, so they must be part of an "industry""

The problem is that nobody is part of any industry, everyone is operating on their own, in their own state by their own state's rules. Each track is its own "industry" and could really care less about what other tracks are doing that are offering similar products.

You could see this by how tracks run on top of each other. There was one day a couple years ago where CT and Mountaineer were the only 2 tracks running on one particular day in the entire eastern region, and yet, they both ran exactly on top of each other as if they didn't know the other track even existed. I put in a phone call to the judges at Charlestown to question a certain DQ and had a long conversation with one of the stewards there and i said to him "why do you run at the exact same time as Mountaineer even though you are the only 2 tracks running on the entire east coast and you're in the same state" and he acted almost as if he didn't realize he was a "Competitor" to Mountaineer. I explained to him that when there are only 2 tracks running, and they're both in the same state, that there might be plenty of bettors who are betting both places.....and that was news to him.

So, its not likely we're going to get "Racing" to work together in any meaningful way, its not likely much will change in tracks running on top of each other and nothing is likely to change in the "old boys club" as far as slaps on the wrist for "name" trainers who break the rules over and over again.

I wouldn't hold my breath that racing will "get with the times" and into the 21st century, staying stuck in 1970 is just fine by them.
Yeah, but other sports faced obstacles as well. The big ones overcame them. There will be obstacles. So? It starts with defining them, and ironing them out one at a time. Is there enough motivation behind it? That's a good question. I remember reading an article in Bloodhorse, in the past year or so, about a team of innovative thinkers trying to get horse racing out of the dark ages.

How cool would it be to have an LA team visit NY for a direct match. Can you believe the coverage that each horse could get! People would eat it up. Can you imagine the stories and emotions? There already is a East/West coast rivalry. So why not cash in on it big? I see no reason, once the obstacles are overcome of course, why horse racing couldn't be set up like the NFL. Huge weekend matches that would get wide coverage, and be talked about all week. The horses would become star athletes. And there could be so much money to be made, that horses would retire much later!

If you can show a financial picture where everybody is making more money than they're making now, people will come on board.

Last edited by Dark Horse; 11-08-2014 at 05:34 AM.
Dark Horse is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-08-2014, 05:30 AM   #299
Dark Horse
Registered User
 
Dark Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: route 66
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
It's hugely out of the box, because it involves transferring authority of something (the regulation of payouts from betting pools) that basically has to be state-regulated, as it's part of the original bargain that allowed legal gambling on horse racing to begin with.

It reminds me of arguments made by not-so-legal-savvy internet poker players before Black Friday (the April 2011 shutdown of the major online poker sites in the US). They would say things like "the states can't regulate internet poker because the Internet is global" and "only the sites can deal with collusion and cheating".

Whatever the truth of statements like that, the federal government came crashing down on internet poker and, in doing so, reminded everyone that the states decide if and how poker is offered to their citizens and what regulations are imposed on those who set up the games. And now Internet poker advocates are engaged in a slow, state-by-state attempt to legalize and regulate the activity.

There are very strong (and actually compelling) historical reasons why gaming regulation (meaning regulation of the process of WAGERING) is reposed in the states, and those are not going away. I can certainly see something being done about medication regulations or other safety issues on a nationwide basis, but in terms of something like the stewards, no, they are going to be state appointed from now until the end of the republic, for the same reason that there's always going to be state gaming commissions to regulate casinos. They decide whether you cash your bet, and deciding whether you get to cash your bet is historically a state function.
You defined an obstacle. Great. The next step is to work towards the solutions. One step at a time. Once you've overcome a few obstacles, and you know it can be done, the train starts rolling. The hardest part is always to get it moving.

Rome wasn't build in one day, where there is a will there is a way, and all roads lead to Rome... (no, not you Jim).

Last edited by Dark Horse; 11-08-2014 at 05:33 AM.
Dark Horse is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-08-2014, 09:42 AM   #300
JohnGalt1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,147
In the World Series and Super Bowl, umpires and referees are selected based on the quality of their work, and are NOT part of the same unit that works together during the regular season.

For the Breeder's Cup, why not have one steward from the west coast, Midwest region and east coast make up the Championship's Panel of Stewards.

In this years Classic, the results might have been the same, especially the west coast steward might go for no disqualification, unless he would be convinced by the other two to change his mind, and if it was 3-0 or 2-1 to let the results stand it would be less controversial, but would still be the topic du jour.
JohnGalt1 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2021 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.