Incisive article on gambling

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Why can't State Racing Commissions, race tracks and horse owners follow the lead of HK, Japan, Dubai etc.?

They already have examples to follow.

Ban offenders for years or for life and give them a huge fine in penalties to deter others.

I've mentioned previously that I just don't think "they" want to make these changes for some reason. They always "talk" but can't "walk the talk".

HK I've read is very aware of presenting an honest game and takes appropriate measures because it involves huge amounts of money over there.

While it is not perfectly correlative, Congress at one time thought assigning draconian penalties to drug offenses below major distribution. The Administration just announced many of the people that received those penalties will be getting early release.

The point is that the punishments need to fit the crimes. I agree wholeheartedly that a major distributor could merit a harsh penalty, and I agree wholeheartedly that trainers found guilty of administering real performance enhancing drugs should get severe penalties.

From my perspective racing commissions have trouble discriminating between substances that deserve hard time and those that deserve something short of lifetime bans, same as Congress.

When well meaning people go too far the result is punishment beyond all proportion. I'm not sure where you get your information, but I think racing commissions are more and more assessing harsher and harsher penalties. They are as likely to get rid of trainers who are basically good guys as banning the rotten ones.

I would wholeheartedly agree with long bans and large fines if the system was set up to provide real due process instead of the current system.

[MJC922]

The player's end of the bargain is well known to anyone who actually wins or has won, it's simply to set better probabilities than virtually anyone else. I shouldn't have to do a damn thing more than that. We all know this is going to take a lot of effort, it's a job.

Any gambling outsider looking to get into this situation (soon enough that's possibly a nice slice of these fantasy sports buffs so pay attention) will scoff right away at these odds changes after the race is underway and if you've ever read some of the boards which serious gamblers frequent and look at old threads where racing is mentioned it's that late money avalanche and the takeout, those are the two things that are absolute deal breakers preventing them getting involved.

These serious gamblers make a sensible choice to stay away, the only people sticking it out are those of us with a lifetime already IN here before it got bad, waiting for a turnaround like exchange wagering, anything to bring more stability to the odds, more high-percentage options. There's a good reason nearly every big name handicapper of note seems to be on some industry payroll in one form or another and it has nothing to do with them not doing the work or being poor handicappers.

Granted a few of the older guard have managed to adapt, but for them, as good as they are it seems be a quest to churn huge money for rebates. There's no hope to get new people interested in something like that.

You look at fantasy sports and what do you see in a 50/50 game, I suspect way more than half of these people are going to bet again next week, they're involved all day with one 'bet'. Poindexter makes a great point, bets have to kill people slowly. There's huge churn potential with the fantasy stuff, even if you're a know-nothing you're going to be in there every week with a shot and die a slow but exciting death. People have the perception they can win because every other week they probably do. What happens with the horses? Most people hemorrhage money and are on their way home after 5 or 6 races.

Design some bets that kill people slowly whether it's one race or over an extended sequence of races, and I mean even the people who start out knowing absolute zero. You only want 15% of the money that people wager in a day and then you might have them back tomorrow for another 15%. AND you should have as Poindexter said at least a small percentage of people who DO win something annually, the ones who do the full days work should be winning obviously enough to any close observer, they don't have to be millionaires. Word travels fast when you have real winners every year even if they're busting ass to do it.

So IMO the game will have to change a few things about the types of bets it offers and consider cleaning up a bit. The other option is to do nothing and continue in this death spiral... because if nothing changes I suspect within a couple of decades we get ourselves down to just a half dozen super-tracks and no real industry left.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

...
The point is that the punishments need to fit the crimes. I agree wholeheartedly that a major distributor could merit a harsh penalty, and I agree wholeheartedly that trainers found guilty of administering real performance enhancing drugs should get severe penalties.

From my perspective racing commissions have trouble discriminating between substances that deserve hard time and those that deserve something short of lifetime bans, same as Congress.

When well meaning people go too far the result is punishment beyond all proportion. I'm not sure where you get your information, but I think racing commissions are more and more assessing harsher and harsher penalties. They are as likely to get rid of trainers who are basically good guys as banning the rotten ones. ...

I'm looking at it this way regarding PED's, and cheating in general. Their intent is to CHEAT me out of my money if I'm betting that race and it's on another entry.

When they do this, these cheaters are CHEATING most of the other bettors, other owners, trainers and jockeys of their money. They're risking the lives and livelihood of the jockeys they employ who just want to do their jobs. And, any other jockey who happens to become involved in any mishap resulting from PED's which effect the horse's ability to race normally. For what ---- Money?

What kind of POS values money over life?

My punishments would fit the crime.

I would wholeheartedly agree with long bans and large fines if the system was set up to provide real due process instead of the current system.

What exactly is wrong with the current due process in practice?

There is one in place, they should use it and have it applicable everywhere in the US instead of only at that track's local jurisdiction. There's been a number of recent cases of vets, trainers, jockeys and owners cheating ..... ban 'em everywhere in the US from practicing.

And, I realize the State Commissions are not really a part of the judicial system even though they act like they are.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

What exactly is wrong with the current due process in practice?

There is one in place, they should use it and have it applicable everywhere in the US instead of only at that track's local jurisdiction. There's been a number of recent cases of vets, trainers, jockeys and owners cheating ..... ban 'em everywhere in the US from practicing.

And, I realize the State Commissions are not really a part of the judicial system even though they act like they are.

I haven't found a lawyer (including prosecuting attorneys) yet who would agree that horseracing even approaches due process. The system says guilty until proven innocent, and lacks any useful interest in finding the truth or investigating violations. Racing commissioners are substantially unqualified to hear cases, and they defer to administrative staff and their lawyers who often see themselves above the fray or have their own agenda which involves making a name. Due process in horseracing just means they had the hearing they are supposed to have before they hang you. Justice has little to do with it.

The difference between us is that I've spent hundreds of hours talking to people at all levels, from the bottom to the top. Horsemen and the attorneys that represent them, grooms, owners, racing commissioners, stewards, track executives, and racing commission staff. I've looked under the rock and it ain't pretty.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I haven't found a lawyer (including prosecuting attorneys) yet who would agree that horseracing even approaches due process. The system says guilty until proven innocent, and lacks any useful interest in finding the truth or investigating violations. Racing commissioners are substantially unqualified to hear cases, and they defer to administrative staff and their lawyers who often see themselves above the fray or have their own agenda which involves making a name. Due process in horseracing just means they had the hearing they are supposed to have before they hang you. Justice has little to do with it.

The difference between us is that I've spent hundreds of hours talking to people at all levels, from the bottom to the top. Horsemen and the attorneys that represent them, grooms, owners, racing commissioners, stewards, track executives, and racing commission staff. I've looked under the rock and it ain't pretty.

As I mentioned and this is off the top of my head, the State Commissions attempt to portray their process as if they were a part of our judicial system which I don't believe they are.

Their system of procedures and justice to me is similar to a Condo or other housing HOA's. They're authorized to assess fines and restrictions e.g., re: vets, jockeys, owners and trainers ..... they can fine and ban them from knocking on doors in a certain area but it doesn't prevent them from just going to another Condo etc., and knock on doors there.

The commissioners are generally unqualified to do what they're doing regarding legal issues because I believe they're appointed by the State Governor probably in most cases without consideration of their required knowledge to act effectively.

[dilanesp]

I'm not the biggest fan of due process when it comes to horsemen. Horsemen exploit due process. Jockeys exploit due process.

And the reality is, this is a state licensed enterprise, connected to gambling and the public's money, and where maintaining the integrity of the game really is paramount.

I prefer the trainer responsibility rule. You're the trainer, you are responsible for everything that happens to the horse. You don't want that responsibility? Fine, find another profession.

And I also don't think jockeys should be allowed to stay their suspensions without a very serious showing that the suspension is invalid. Nor should there be a designated race rule. You miss a big race? Too bad. It's part of the penalty.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I'm not the biggest fan of due process when it comes to horsemen. Horsemen exploit due process. Jockeys exploit due process.

And the reality is, this is a state licensed enterprise, connected to gambling and the public's money, and where maintaining the integrity of the game really is paramount.

I prefer the trainer responsibility rule. You're the trainer, you are responsible for everything that happens to the horse. You don't want that responsibility? Fine, find another profession.

And I also don't think jockeys should be allowed to stay their suspensions without a very serious showing that the suspension is invalid. Nor should there be a designated race rule. You miss a big race? Too bad. It's part of the penalty.

Whether horseracing or criminal justice, everyone should have the right to a fair hearing. When the stewards investigate, then hold a hearing where they may have already reached a conclusion on guilt or innocence, it is nothing like the criminal justice system where you have the right to an unbiased judge and jury. The racing commission is the accuser, the investigator, the jury and the judge. How in the world you can equate that with due process or suggest trainers and jockeys exploit it is at the very least puzzling.

Even if maintaining the integrity of the game is paramount, there is a right and fair way to do it. The trainer responsibility rule has to be accompanied by racetracks taking their part of the responsibility. Test results should be available in 3-5 days, not two months. Video surveillance should be mandatory on the backside, and should be stored through the end of any case. The accused should have an absolute right to representation at all meetings and hearings. Commissions should have some level of responsibility for investigating offenses. Does it help horseracing to have a trainer accused of a nikethamide violation without ever trying to find out where the nikethamide came from? Have you been on a backside? Do you know how easy it would be for someone to mess with another trainer's horse if he got it in his mind to do so? And if he does, should the trainer be the only one to suffer the consequences? I have a very hard time believing if you were subject to the vagaries of a system like trainers and jockeys face. I hope you would be as accepting of its punishment.

Baseball players are allowed an appeal and a stay until they get a hearing. So are most other athletes. Criminals are allowed bail, walking around free until they get a trial. Why do jockeys deserve something less?

Punish the guilty fairly. Is that such a horrible idea?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Whether horseracing or criminal justice, everyone should have the right to a fair hearing. When the stewards investigate, then hold a hearing where they may have already reached a conclusion on guilt or innocence, it is nothing like the criminal justice system where you have the right to an unbiased judge and jury. The racing commission is the accuser, the investigator, the jury and the judge. How in the world you can equate that with due process or suggest trainers and jockeys exploit it is at the very least puzzling.

Even if maintaining the integrity of the game is paramount, there is a right and fair way to do it. The trainer responsibility rule has to be accompanied by racetracks taking their part of the responsibility. Test results should be available in 3-5 days, not two months. Video surveillance should be mandatory on the backside, and should be stored through the end of any case. The accused should have an absolute right to representation at all meetings and hearings. Commissions should have some level of responsibility for investigating offenses. Does it help horseracing to have a trainer accused of a nikethamide violation without ever trying to find out where the nikethamide came from? Have you been on a backside? Do you know how easy it would be for someone to mess with another trainer's horse if he got it in his mind to do so? And if he does, should the trainer be the only one to suffer the consequences? I have a very hard time believing if you were subject to the vagaries of a system like trainers and jockeys face. I hope you would be as accepting of its punishment.

Baseball players are allowed an appeal and a stay until they get a hearing. So are most other athletes. Criminals are allowed bail, walking around free until they get a trial. Why do jockeys deserve something less?

Punish the guilty fairly. Is that such a horrible idea?

His point I believe is that 95 pct of the time it's a fake appeal and they're just using the appeal to select their own days. What needs to happen is if you want fair treatment, there needs to be addl punishment if you lose the appeal as well as not being able to take your days the moment you drop the appeal. Have a system where if a jock drops an appeal, his suspension starts 2 weeks from that day, that way he won't know what mounts he's missing until its too late.

Also, none of this you get to ride designated races stuff, that needs to go.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Also, none of this you get to ride designated races stuff, that needs to go.

Don't agree. Many suspensions are for heinous crimes such as failing to maintain a straight course or the like. It seems unfair that a punishment could be far more severe for one jockey versus another solely based on the timing of the suspension.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

His point I believe is that 95 pct of the time it's a fake appeal and they're just using the appeal to select their own days. What needs to happen is if you want fair treatment, there needs to be addl punishment if you lose the appeal as well as not being able to take your days the moment you drop the appeal. Have a system where if a jock drops an appeal, his suspension starts 2 weeks from that day, that way he won't know what mounts he's missing until its too late.

Also, none of this you get to ride designated races stuff, that needs to go.

Actually most jursdictions do exactly what you suggested for trainers and jockeys who appeal. The penalty for perturbing the commission is usually pretty steep. Appeal at your own risk.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about jockeys not getting to ride designated races. I don't know that I see the need to suspend jockeys for most riding infractions. I think fines are probably good enough to send the message. If you look at driving infractions, going 10 miles over on the freeway gets you a fine and some points, but that's it. Accumulate too many points and you might lose your license for a a short time. On the other hand, DUI is an immediate loss of your license (but not until due process has taken place). I think the same sort of scale could apply to riding.

[TonyK@HSH]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

His point I believe is that 95 pct of the time it's a fake appeal and they're just using the appeal to select their own days. What needs to happen is if you want fair treatment, there needs to be addl punishment if you lose the appeal as well as not being able to take your days the moment you drop the appeal. Have a system where if a jock drops an appeal, his suspension starts 2 weeks from that day, that way he won't know what mounts he's missing until its too late.

Many jurisdictions do penalize a jockey for exercising their right to appeal. For example, a suspension may be given for 5 day with no appeal and 7 days if the jock appeals (and loses the appeal). This action is taken to discourage frivolous appeals.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I guarantee if he does not, someone else at the table will. The last thing most blackjack players want to see happen is someone take a card when they should not have and have it cost them a winner. I know it doesn't make any difference and it gets as many winners as it cost you, but try explaining it to a table of players some time.

You're right and that is one of the reasons I don't like blackjack. I was a card-counter and sometimes I made the correct play which was different than basic strategy. If I drew a card that would have caused the dealer to bust if the dealer would have taken that card then it pissed off the other players. So I didn't find the environment very fun to operate in. Not to mention the noise, smoke and darkness. There are better ways to try to make a buck.

One better way is horse racing. You can have an edge and bet from the comfort of your home. Or you can have a pleasant day outside at the track or even at a track restaurant. You can hang out with friends and have a nice conversation between races.

I would think there will always be a large demographic that will always be attracted to racing.