The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Even if you believe strongly the was not going to beat the . What about the owners of the being denied the chance at 2nd or 3rd purse money?

Or perhaps even more importantly what about bettors who bought place tickets on or had him 2nd in exactas?

The actions of the very adversely effected the chances of the to get his maximum placing.

We all know that there's plenty of impeding that never gets called.

Racing situations are highly complex. Trying to solve that complexity through over-simplification lacks nuance. Just because a rule is lifted out of the complex reality of the moment, that doesn't mean it should stand on its own. The rule in question is over-simplified, and that becomes magnified, to some extent, by the fact that, -because of its over-simplicity-, everybody can agree on it. So that stops all argument and everybody quickly moves on (to the next race), instead of taking a closer look.

If we take it one step beyond the over-simplification it goes from 'He cost him a chance at a better placing' to 'He didn't cost him a chance to win!' Both are equally fair arguments, and if you were to place them on both ends of a scale they might very well weigh the exact same amount. If we can agree on that, then why do these two equally fair arguments tip the scale one way and one way only? Does that make sense to you? Or, if it is less than ideal, could that mean there is room for improvement?

Adding another question. What if Baze doesn't finish fourth, but sixth in a photo -losing by a nose to 4th- , so that his improving a spot through the DQ makes no different to the payouts? Does the result then stand, or is the #10 still placed a spot behind Baze? What I'm suggesting is that the accepted idea of 'costing him a chance at a better placing' can quickly become far more slippery territory than recognizing the best horse in the stretch.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

A guy like Jeff Gural is trying to fight to clean up the sport of harness racing, but he gets a lot of backlash and criticism, nobody is really on board, and there's no Gural in tbred racing.

It's not that we don't support his anti-doping stuff it's that he has about ten other things he's wrong about so it makes it impossible to support him.

I'll put it this way. He banned Brian Sears because the guy wouldn't drive at his tracks instead of Yonkers. And that's just the top of a long list of pretty things he's done.

So its that I don't want to support the guy. The guy makes himself unsupportable.

I'll put it this way. I'm such a positive thinker that I believe we can have a guy who wants to take drugs out of the sport AND isn't a petty, bully dictator.

Oh and since Darin left it's really not a good time to be walking around the "why can't we all just get behind Jeff Gural" crap. When his right hand guy leaves because he's tried of being associated with this guy's crap and its hurting his career and industry relationships it's really not a good time to whine about "why can't everyone else get behind this guy."

You can't dispute the shine of the Jeff Gural apple has taken a hit the last couple months. You're the one guy still talking about Gural like its 2013.

[Dark Horse]

If we look at how Larry Ellison (Oracle) changed the face of sailing, what stops horse racing from going that same route? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoOjcDf_dJA

It's all math. Everything can be measured. Speed, acceleration, momentum either way, impact of bumps or lane changes by other horses, angles and precise consequence of moving into next lane, etc. Just mathematical formulas. Get the hi tech into racing, and it's suddenly a totally different game. And people love that stuff, so it would increase the popularity of the sport.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

It's not that we don't support his anti-doping stuff it's that he has about ten other things he's wrong about so it makes it impossible to support him.

I'll put it this way. He banned Brian Sears because the guy wouldn't drive at his tracks instead of Yonkers. And that's just the top of a long list of pretty things he's done.

So its that I don't want to support the guy. The guy makes himself unsupportable.

I'll put it this way. I'm such a positive thinker that I believe we can have a guy who wants to take drugs out of the sport AND isn't a petty, bully dictator.

Oh and since Darin left it's really not a good time to be walking around the "why can't we all just get behind Jeff Gural" crap. When his right hand guy leaves because he's tried of being associated with this guy's crap and its hurting his career and industry relationships it's really not a good time to whine about "why can't everyone else get behind this guy."

You can't dispute the shine of the Jeff Gural apple has taken a hit the last couple months. You're the one guy still talking about Gural like its 2013.

There's no way a guy who is trying to restore order in a broken sport is going to avoid stepping on toes. Did Gural make some mistakes w Sears and Brennan and others and act like a bit of a bully? Maybe, but isn't that a small price to pay to clean up the game? Seems that if Gural can snap at a moments notice and ban people who don't really deserve to get banned, wouldn't that make more people go on the straight and narrow?

It's unfortunate that some people might get swept up in hurricane Jeff that don't deserve it, at the end of the day, isn't all that really matters is a clean game? I would imagine that anyone who wants to bet Meadowlands races just wants honest racing, they're not going to care how that gets accomplished.

There's no way to do this and come across as a 'nice guy' so if you say you don't support Gural for the WAY he's going about it, you're essentially saying I'd rather maintain the status quo. Nothing should come ahead of a clean game, toes are going to get stepped on, but I don't see another way to get this done.

Do you?

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

There's no way a guy who is trying to restore order in a broken sport is going to avoid stepping on toes. Did Gural make some mistakes w Sears and Brennan and others and act like a bit of a bully? Maybe, but isn't that a small price to pay to clean up the game? Seems that if Gural can snap at a moments notice and ban people who don't really deserve to get banned, wouldn't that make more people go on the straight and narrow?

It's unfortunate that some people might get swept up in hurricane Jeff that don't deserve it, at the end of the day, isn't all that really matters is a clean game? I would imagine that anyone who wants to bet Meadowlands races just wants honest racing, they're not going to care how that gets accomplished.

There's no way to do this and come across as a 'nice guy' so if you say you don't support Gural for the WAY he's going about it, you're essentially saying I'd rather maintain the status quo. Nothing should come ahead of a clean game, toes are going to get stepped on, but I don't see another way to get this done.

Do you?

No I just don't agree that "cleaning up the game" is an issue massively bigger than all the other issues the sport has. And I'm right because the tracks that have done the most to clean up things and are perhaps the cleanest (Los Al, Meadowlands, Tampa, etc.) don't dominate handle.

Unfortunately there's zero data that reflects a cleaner product helps handle. Zero.There is however data that reflects lower takeout does increase handle and higher handle hurts it. So from a data perspective takeout is more important.

So I get "cleaning up the game" is this be all and end all issue for you. However it's not for everyone else and its not going fix horse racing.

So to sum it up I'm not going to blindly follow a guy because I agree with him on one issue that isn't going to save the sport when I disagree with him on a slew of issues that are equally important.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

We all know that there's plenty of impeding that never gets called.

Racing situations are highly complex. Trying to solve that complexity through over-simplification lacks nuance. Just because a rule is lifted out of the complex reality of the moment, that doesn't mean it should stand on its own. The rule in question is over-simplified, and that becomes magnified, to some extent, by the fact that, -because of its over-simplicity-, everybody can agree on it. So that stops all argument and everybody quickly moves on (to the next race), instead of taking a closer look.

If we take it one step beyond the over-simplification it goes from 'He cost him a chance at a better placing' to 'He didn't cost him a chance to win!' Both are equally fair arguments, and if you were to place them on both ends of a scale they might very well weigh the exact same amount. If we can agree on that, then why do these two equally fair arguments tip the scale one way and one way only? Does that make sense to you? Or, if it is less than ideal, could that mean there is room for improvement?

Adding another question. What if Baze doesn't finish fourth, but sixth in a photo -losing by a nose to 4th- , so that his improving a spot through the DQ makes no different to the payouts? Does the result then stand, or is the #10 still placed a spot behind Baze? What I'm suggesting is that the accepted idea of 'costing him a chance at a better placing' can quickly become far more slippery territory than recognizing the best horse in the stretch.

Some interesting and fair arguments.

One just not accurate.

You said "there's plenty of impeding that doesn't get called". That is simply not the case.

Stewards conduct inquiries the public doesn't know about all the time. Those are reviews of film that will not impact the pari-mutuel placing's. Changes in the order happen all the time and are chronicled in the stewards minutes. As well as hearings for the riders involved. All cases of possible impeding are treated that same. Some just a lot less high profile.

As for placing a horse behind another that will not benefit from the move forward. That's a very tough juggle. So many factors go into the decision. For me I always tried to consider all factors with an overall sense of fair play. Remember as stewards we're trying to serve the best interests of many different factions. For me personally and I speak only for myself. Whenever I had the latitude I leaned towards trying to not adversely affect the bettors. But there is no hard and fast protocol. It's the feel of fairness.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Some interesting and fair arguments.

One just not accurate.

You said "there's plenty of impeding that doesn't get called". That is simply not the case.

Stewards conduct inquiries the public doesn't know about all the time. Those are reviews of film that will not impact the pari-mutuel placing's. Changes in the order happen all the time and are chronicled in the stewards minutes. As well as hearings for the riders involved. All cases of possible impeding are treated that same. Some just a lot less high profile.

As for placing a horse behind another that will not benefit from the move forward. That's a very tough juggle. So many factors go into the decision. For me I always tried to consider all factors with an overall sense of fair play. Remember as stewards we're trying to serve the best interests of many different factions. For me personally and I speak only for myself. Whenever I had the latitude I leaned towards trying to not adversely affect the bettors. But there is no hard and fast protocol. It's the feel of fairness.

NYRA's jocks are the kings and queens of stretch herding.

Where are these supposed minutes you speak of on the NYRA stewards thoughts and actions?

Or are you referring to Cali only?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

We all know that there's plenty of impeding that never gets called.

Racing situations are highly complex. Trying to solve that complexity through over-simplification lacks nuance. Just because a rule is lifted out of the complex reality of the moment, that doesn't mean it should stand on its own. The rule in question is over-simplified, and that becomes magnified, to some extent, by the fact that, -because of its over-simplicity-, everybody can agree on it. So that stops all argument and everybody quickly moves on (to the next race), instead of taking a closer look.

If we take it one step beyond the over-simplification it goes from 'He cost him a chance at a better placing' to 'He didn't cost him a chance to win!' Both are equally fair arguments, and if you were to place them on both ends of a scale they might very well weigh the exact same amount. If we can agree on that, then why do these two equally fair arguments tip the scale one way and one way only? Does that make sense to you? Or, if it is less than ideal, could that mean there is room for improvement?

Adding another question. What if Baze doesn't finish fourth, but sixth in a photo -losing by a nose to 4th- , so that his improving a spot through the DQ makes no different to the payouts? Does the result then stand, or is the #10 still placed a spot behind Baze? What I'm suggesting is that the accepted idea of 'costing him a chance at a better placing' can quickly become far more slippery territory than recognizing the best horse in the stretch.

There's no reason horse racing can't have a 'war room' in 'Toronto' or 'seacaucus' with 3 or 6 rotating stewards from 3 different parts of the country to rule on all inquiries. This way we can get the same judges judging the same all the time for every track, many people bet a lot of different tracks yet we have different rulings all over the place, there's no need for it. Also, no talking to jocks, if you can't make a DQ off video alone, you leave the result as is.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

There's no reason horse racing can't have a 'war room' in 'Toronto' or 'seacaucus' with 3 or 6 rotating stewards from 3 different parts of the country to rule on all inquiries. This way we can get the same judges judging the same all the time for every track, many people bet a lot of different tracks yet we have different rulings all over the place, there's no need for it. Also, no talking to jocks, if you can't make a DQ off video alone, you leave the result as is.

This wouldn't work, because talking to jockeys right after the race is too important. Each jockey colony is different, like a family with different personalities, and the stewards have to keep them in check. Vic knows this, but I'm assuming he's not speaking as openly as he could, because he may still want to work as a steward.

My mentor told me about the jockey colonies and the role of the stewards, and it is the same across the country. From the mouth of a T-bred trainer with 30 years in the business:

...high profile jocks have a pipeline to management that few enjoy. That is in direct contrast to the standard, full of crap line that stewards will dish out to the public, about how they don't know who the riders are, they judge the horses only ... What a load of crap that is.

Can't believe he (i.e. Vic) has not confirmed or said anything about the jockey colony and having to keep it in check from time to time. That is the key to everything that relates to jocks and their keepers, namely, the stewards. And this is not opinion or my experience, this is all tracks in the U.S.A. Many good friends that are jocks rode all over the map in their and my days. Everyone said that this was the only way it was.

He added a suggestion about solving the whole DQ dilemma once and for all: Let all race results stands for betting purposes, but use DQ's for purse money!

[cj]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

This wouldn't work, because talking to jockeys right after the race is too important. Each jockey colony is different, like a family with different personalities, and the stewards have to keep them in check. Vic knows this, but I'm assuming he's not speaking as openly as he could, because he may still want to work as a steward.

My mentor told me about the jockey colonies and the role of the stewards, and it is the same across the country. From the mouth of a T-bred trainer with 30 years in the business:



He added a suggestion about solving the whole DQ dilemma once and for all: Let all race results stands for betting purposes, but use DQ's for purse money!

I've always thought talking to jockeys was silly. If you can't see it on video, leave it as is.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

I've always thought talking to jockeys was silly. If you can't see it on video, leave it as is.

Exactly. It gives more connected, fluent speaking hall of fame types a huge edge over a young jock or someone who can't speak much English. There's no need for any of that.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by cj

I've always thought talking to jockeys was silly. If you can't see it on video, leave it as is.

Even so, it's a crucial part of the dynamic of stewards keeping control over the jockey colony.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by cj

I've always thought talking to jockeys was silly. If you can't see it on video, leave it as is.

I can't disagree with this more and I'll give you two great examples one narrow and one board.

The narrow one is last season at Tampa they had a problem with horses ducking out because of the way they cut the grass on the turf course. There was even an article about it on DRF. If they didn't talk to the jockeys on the phone they would have never figured it out. Jockeys kept tell them during inquires that the way the grass was cut was spooking the horses around the eighth pole so they eventually fixed it. It has not been a problem this year.

The broad one if this. I've listening into jockeys talking to stewards both at the scales and in the booth. It is without question one of the most candid conversations you'll hear. Why? Because stewards don't turnover that much. And because jockeys also stay in one place at top tier tracks. So if you're a So Cal jockey you know the guys in the booth are going to be in the booth for years. You're not going to burn that bridge by trying to b.s. them over a $20K claimer because you want them to believe you when you're in spot like Martin Garcia on Bayern. I've seen agents even tell them "never cry wolf to the stewards."

Numerous times I've seen guys get on the phone and say "he came over on me a bit but my filly still wasn't going in the hole" or "he floated me out but I was done." I'm not saying from time to time guys don't make insane claims of foul. What I am saying is if you thinks its all "I was robbed" you're wrong. There's an above average amount of honesty.

Oh and SRU's thing is wrong. 80-90% of the time they know what they are going to do before they even talk to the jockeys. The phone helps them learn things not on he tape. "My filly won't go up the rail." "My horse saw something and was trying to get out." "My horse hit a hole in the turf and bobbled and I had to snatch him up." There's stuff that happens that you can't see on video and the phone lets them understand it." This years Arlington Million I think the horse was spooked by the video board in the infield. There's no way to know that without talking to the jockey.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

I can't disagree with this more and I'll give you two great examples one narrow and one board.

The narrow one is last season at Tampa they had a problem with horses ducking out because of the way they cut the grass on the turf course. There was even an article about it on DRF. If they didn't talk to the jockeys on the phone they would have never figured it out. Jockeys kept tell them during inquires that the way the grass was cut was spooking the horses around the eighth pole so they eventually fixed it. It has not been a problem this year.

The broad one if this. I've listening into jockeys talking to stewards both at the scales and in the booth. It is without question one of the most candid conversations you'll hear. Why? Because stewards don't turnover that much. And because jockeys also stay in one place at top tier tracks. So if you're a So Cal jockey you know the guys in the booth are going to be in the booth for years. You're not going to burn that bridge by trying to b.s. them over a $20K claimer because you want them to believe you when you're in spot like Martin Garcia on Bayern. I've seen agents even tell them "never cry wolf to the stewards."

Numerous times I've seen guys get on the phone and say "he came over on me a bit but my filly still wasn't going in the hole" or "he floated me out but I was done." I'm not saying from time to time guys don't make insane claims of foul. What I am saying is if you thinks its all "I was robbed" you're wrong. There's an above average amount of honesty.

Oh and SRU's thing is wrong. 80-90% of the time they know what they are going to do before they even talk to the jockeys. The phone helps them learn things not on he tape. "My filly won't go up the rail." "My horse saw something and was trying to get out." "My horse hit a hole in the turf and bobbled and I had to snatch him up." There's stuff that happens that you can't see on video and the phone lets them understand it." This years Arlington Million I think the horse was spooked by the video board in the infield. There's no way to know that without talking to the jockey.

Interesting post, enjoyed reading it.

Your points about me would me more correct if I was on board with the current way races are judged in America. My belief is that there shouldn't be a DQ unless there's something so obvious that the judges don't need to talk to anyone.

I want DQs to be made or not made on physical evidence that you see on tape, I don't want decisions to be made off the spoken word.

[Stillriledup]

golden Gate again figuring out a way to not pay the winners.