The Amazing Stewards Screw Up AGAIN in California. This is a good one.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I've interviewed a number of stewards (including one in CA). I've even gotten them to sit down with me and watch races (that I picked). It's interesting to listen to their analyses, and perhaps the most interesting thing is that they usually made sense in their arguments, even though there were races where they disagreed about whether a horse should be taken down. My unscientific study suggested that stewards are more likely to agree on stretch calls, but less likely to agree on backstretch fouls. There was one backstretch incident that I thought was a clear foul, and still had one of three stewards argue the horse shouldn't have been DQ'd (the horse wasn't by the way, and there wasn't even an inquiry).

I don't think I feel as harsh towards the stewards as some do, but I did become convinced that there is a rubric that permeates each respective set of stewards. Before a specific event occurs, they already have an idea of what is worthy of DQ and what is not, and it varies at least slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. That's not to say there is perfect consistency within a jurisdiction, but they do seem to have patterns, even if they said, each inquiry is evaluated on its own merits.

It's sort of like the courts. How can a point of law wind up getting one decision in the district court, a different decision at the court of appeals, and a reversal at the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote. Shouldn't it be clearer? As I said, what seems to be clear is that the rubric of the jurisdiction and the "politics" of the steward have a lot more to do with decisions than anybody wants to recognize.

There are only a couple of things that could be done to gain consistency. One, go to the central stewards concept, where all DQ decisions are made by a central authority of three or five or seven experts. Two, go to strict definitions of foul, and always rule a foul is a foul. That's how it used to be, and it sucked but it was consistent.

Wrt to courts, all notions of "the law is easy, how come cases come out 5 to 4" do not survive one semester of Jurisprudence at a top law school.

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I'd pick EMD to come back...no contest.

You can have that nut. I'll take 5 r_setups over that one.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

You can have that nut. I'll take 5 r_setups over that one.

Yeah...but the choice wasn't between EMD and Rsetup. ReplayRandall said to choose between EMD and VIC. And EMD wins the matchup with Vic...IMO.

[cj]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

You can have that nut. I'll take 5 r_setups over that one.

If that guy comes back I'm gone. He's the biggest nut job of them all. He is gone for stuff he wrote privately, just like Vic Both were despicable.

Say what you will about EMD, at least he said what he thought in public.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Wrt to courts, all notions of "the law is easy, how come cases come out 5 to 4" do not survive one semester of Jurisprudence at a top law school.

I never used the word easy. I asked a question. Shouldn't it be clearer? Beyond that I'm not sure what your point is in relation to my post, although I made you 1-5 to comment on that sentence.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I never used the word easy. I asked a question. Shouldn't it be clearer? Beyond that I'm not sure what your point is in relation to my post, although I made you 1-5 to comment on that sentence.

"No vehicles in the park". HLA Hart. Look it up and it will start you on your way.

Laws are not "clear" because it's actually impossible to write a law that is both absolutely clear and provides the absolutely correct rule of decision in each case.

And this is why we have judges, to exercise judgment and mercy, which turn out to be important components of a functioning legal system. And since different reasonable people disagree about how to exercise those qualities, there are plenty of hard cases.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

"No vehicles in the park". HLA Hart. Look it up and it will start you on your way.

Laws are not "clear" because it's actually impossible to write a law that is both absolutely clear and provides the absolutely correct rule of decision in each case.

And this is why we have judges, to exercise judgment and mercy, which turn out to be important components of a functioning legal system. And since different reasonable people disagree about how to exercise those qualities, there are plenty of hard cases.

I read my post again and confirmed that the court metaphor was an aside, certainly not worth argument, other than to say a law written as ambiguous is only a good idea if nobody pays attention or enforces it. The real point in the court metaphor was that at SCOTUS, it seems the same four people almost invariably see it one way, and four other people see it the other, which is to say, political perspective seems to be the determinant in many cases, and not the clarity of the law, which is exactly the point I was making with regard to the stewards. Perspective often drives decisions, and one steward sees it one way while another steward has an opposite view. Same rule, opposing interpretations. And given this is a horseracing board, I was actually sort of hoping someone might comment on the horseracing part of the post.

But forget that. I'm sure everybody is way more interested in a treatise on the judicial branch of government.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I read my post again and confirmed that the court metaphor was an aside, certainly not worth argument, other than to say a law written as ambiguous is only a good idea if nobody pays attention or enforces it. The real point in the court metaphor was that at SCOTUS, it seems the same four people almost invariably see it one way, and four other people see it the other, which is to say, political perspective seems to be the determinant in many cases, and not the clarity of the law, which is exactly the point I was making with regard to the stewards. Perspective often drives decisions, and one steward sees it one way while another steward has an opposite view. Same rule, opposing interpretations. And given this is a horseracing board, I was actually sort of hoping someone might comment on the horseracing part of the post.

But forget that. I'm sure everybody is way more interested in a treatise on the judicial branch of government.

The vast majority of Supreme Court cases are not 5-4.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The vast majority of Supreme Court cases are not 5-4.

I know you're a lawyer, but do you think you could stop being a dick? I never wanted to argue about SCOTUS, and you not only knew that, but you knew exactly what I was saying. You've got one trick here on PA and you just can't wait to show everyone how neat it is.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I know you're a lawyer, but do you think you could stop being a dick? I never wanted to argue about SCOTUS, and you not only knew that, but you knew exactly what I was saying. You've got one trick here on PA and you just can't wait to show everyone how neat it is.

Halv, honestly, you are the one writing long screeds here that are often full of unsupported opinions presented as fact and erroneous statements.

If you don't know anything about jurisprudence- and you don't- you shouldn't be making comments about how dumb the legal system is because we can't make the law clear. It's not your area of expertise, and you could probably benefit from taking some more time getting the stuff you do presumably know about right and not commenting about stuff that you don't know anything about.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Halv, honestly, you are the one writing long screeds here that are often full of unsupported opinions presented as fact and erroneous statements.

If you don't know anything about jurisprudence- and you don't- you shouldn't be making comments about how dumb the legal system is because we can't make the law clear. It's not your area of expertise, and you could probably benefit from taking some more time getting the stuff you do presumably know about right and not commenting about stuff that you don't know anything about.

I know a lot of controversial decisions are decided 5-4, and the four people always seem to be the same. I didn't say all decisions are 5-4. And as I said three times, it was an appropriate metaphor for how certain decisions are driven by political philosophy, otherwise you wouldn't have a "liberal" wing and a "conservative" wing. The post had little to do with the Supreme Court or any decision in particular, or the legal system for that matter, and I would think anyone of average comprehension ability could have figured that out.

I didn't use the word dumb in reference to the legal system or the stewards. What I said is that you might think it should be clearer than it is, not criticizing the court at all, and not saying the laws are dumb. But, you felt the need to be a snarky because you have a degree. Only lawyers can comment on such momentous things as decisions. However, as Bob Dylan wrote, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and you don't have to be a hack lawyer to notice that most (not all) of the 5-4 decisions seem to have the same people on each respective side. You're the one who saw some pretention in saying, you might think laws should be clearer. What you read into a simple metaphor about how there are plenty of instances where even the justices of the Supreme Court appear to vote based on how their politics have colored them, much in the same way the stewards in a particular jurisdiction may have a consistent bias.

The long "screed" I wrote had to do with stewards I had interviewed, so not full of unsupported opinion. I presented data I had gathered, so the statements were neither erroneous nor unsupported. You can disagree with what I found, but you can't disagree that I found what I said.

And by the way, I know a lot more about making the law than you think. In this case, whether you are talking about what the stewards I interviewed said or having intimate involvement in the legislative process, you would be the one full of unsupported opinions presented as fact and erroneous statements.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I know a lot of controversial decisions are decided 5-4, and the four people always seem to be the same. I didn't say all decisions are 5-4. And as I said three times, it was an appropriate metaphor for how certain decisions are driven by political philosophy, otherwise you wouldn't have a "liberal" wing and a "conservative" wing. The post had little to do with the Supreme Court or any decision in particular, or the legal system for that matter, and I would think anyone of average comprehension ability could have figured that out.

I didn't use the word dumb in reference to the legal system or the stewards. What I said is that you might think it should be clearer than it is, not criticizing the court at all, and not saying the laws are dumb. But, you felt the need to be a snarky because you have a degree. Only lawyers can comment on such momentous things as decisions. However, as Bob Dylan wrote, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and you don't have to be a hack lawyer to notice that most (not all) of the 5-4 decisions seem to have the same people on each respective side. You're the one who saw some pretention in saying, you might think laws should be clearer. What you read into a simple metaphor about how there are plenty of instances where even the justices of the Supreme Court appear to vote based on how their politics have colored them, much in the same way the stewards in a particular jurisdiction may have a consistent bias.

The long "screed" I wrote had to do with stewards I had interviewed, so not full of unsupported opinion. I presented data I had gathered, so the statements were neither erroneous nor unsupported. You can disagree with what I found, but you can't disagree that I found what I said.

And by the way, I know a lot more about making the law than you think. In this case, whether you are talking about what the stewards I interviewed said or having intimate involvement in the legislative process, you would be the one full of unsupported opinions presented as fact and erroneous statements.

Sorry Rich, but when you lambaste Boxcar for his erroneous efforts to prove he knows science/physics as well as you, your above reply to Dilan gives off a strong odor of hypocrisy.....Don't fall into the same trap as Boxcar, just let it go when you don't have the best of it in a discussion. You can't win them all, so quit trying to convince everyone that you can.

Remember, no one is keeping score......just you.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Sorry Rich, but when you lambaste Boxcar for his erroneous efforts to prove he knows science/physics as well as you, your above reply to Dilan gives off a strong odor of hypocrisy.....Don't fall into the same trap as Boxcar, just let it go when you don't have the best of it in a discussion. You can't win them all, so quit trying to convince everyone that you can.

Remember, no one is keeping score......just you.

I'll stand by what I said. I talked with different stewards, actually watched tape with some of them, and told people here what I found. Unlike boxcar, I was never trying to argue the law with Clarence Darrow. My entire point was that the stewards I talked with seemed to have biases when it came to certain types of DQ's, and perceptively that seems like a lot of Supreme Court decisions, i.e., influenced by personal philosophy.