The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

https://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/videos...0150626/1/pan/

https://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/videos...0150625/2/pan/

Anyone care to tell me where the consistency in these 2 DQ's/Non DQ's is?

They were 1 day apart, involved the same jockey.

I'm willing to learn. Can someone kindly show me how these 2 situations WERE different and 1 warranted a DQ and the other did not?[/QUOTE]

Don't know if this allowed (TO QUOTE MYSELF) but I am reposting a question that no one answered a few weeks back.

Here are the 2 races recently at Belmont that had me fuming. Same infraction. BOTH RULED TO THE CHALKS FAVOR.

No offense but I don't care what some stat says. An intelligent human's stomach is better than any stat. Can someone, I ask again, please explain to me how 1 CHALK was put up and 1 was NOT DQ'd for the exact same infraction????

Can someone explain to me how the same JOCK was involved in both occurences BUT 1 was taken down and 1 was left up????

I'll say it clearly so no one misunderstands.

The STEWARDS ARE either:

1) Betting chalk and taking advantage of an objection/inquiry

Or

2) Completely INCOMPETENT

Either way, it's wrong.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Good one.

Ill stop, i dont know how to explain my point so ill let it go.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Good one.

Ill stop, i dont know how to explain my point so ill let it go.

I think was SRU is trying to ask is:

How many times did the chalk win, an inquiry was performed and the chalk stayed up?

Am I right SRU?

[overthehill]

I would be much more interested in seeing the mode than the average in this case.

[cj]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

I think was SRU is trying to ask is:

How many times did the chalk win, an inquiry was performed and the chalk stayed up?

Am I right SRU?

He specifically said that isn't what he was asking. That data isn't available as I've said.

[cj]

Originally Posted by overthehill

I would be much more interested in seeing the mode than the average in this case.

You mean the median? There was very little difference. Don't see how the mode could help but if you explain I can try.

[overthehill]

take a look at the 5th at GP today . horse leading from the rail is leading by less than a length. the horse behind him is trying to gain ground and the the rail horse veers out gradually about 8 paths from mid stretch to the finish. the stewards rule it didnt effect the outcome of the race. really? a couple of year ago in new york, my horse was DQued for bumping a horse in mid stretch then after straightening out not only holding the other one safe but puling away at the end. Seems to me if you are not taking a horse down for veering out 8 paths from mid stretch to finish when not clear when are you going to take a horse down. At other tracks they are suddenly taking horses down for shutting off a hole on the turn. when one horse happens to be slightly faster to it. I would be much happier with no DQs for betting purposes since the inconsistency is just brutal.

[overthehill]

you are right cj i mean the median. surprised that there is very lil difference. as i would have thought the median for both might be in the 2-3 range.

[cj]

Originally Posted by overthehill

you are right cj i mean the median. surprised that there is very lil difference. as i would have thought the median for both might be in the 2-3 range.

I meant the relationship between the two, not the actual numbers.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If we the players cared to look out for our interest...then the game would be completely different than it is right now. There have been injustices of all types committed against the players...from unjust disqualifications, to stiffing horses, to past-posting incidents, to ringers being entered in races, to takeout rates being raised to ludicrous levels. The horseplayers bitch and squeal for a little while...but they continue to support this game, as if the injustices never occurred.

Boycott a racetrack for a month just to prove that you are a force to be reckoned with, and THEN see if the game's attitude towards the player doesn't improve in a big way. Because as it stands right now, you can collect all the corroborating evidence that you want in order to prove your point. All that the industry leaders will do if they even bother to see it, is wipe their asses with it.

My problem is with the existing model of three stewards. And particularly with non-unanimous 2-1 decisions. This thread is full of questionable decisions. That's a good starting point, because of the stronger likelihood of 2-1 decisions, but it's certainly not perfect.

As to your assurance that nothing will change. I prefer to try rather than assume. This forum is read by many in the horse racing industry. So why should it be assumed that nothing will change when an important aspect of the game is brought to public attention in a manner that reflects negatively on the industry? Example. There was repeated criticism on this forum about Jon White, who's fine linesmaking skill aren't matched by his prerace analytical ability. Maybe it was already in the cards that he would be replaced, maybe not...

If we, the players, can convince the industry of a fundamental error in 2-1 decisions, while leaving the 3-0 decisions alone, that's a big step in the right direction. And we should probably approach the problem on a track-by-track basis, because one track could lean one way and the second track another way, producing a perfectly even, but meaningless sample for the country.

If I had the data I could run it through the computer, but it would definitely have to include 3-0 and 2-1 descriptions, and be in a track-by-track format. It should then be possible to quickly demonstrate any preference that sets the 3-0 and 2-1 decisions apart. Once 'negative' tracks are isolated, it would be in their best interest to fix the problem, simply because of public awareness.

[Dark Horse]

Why are 2-1 decisions wrong?

Because in horse racing, unlike in other sports where referees are present, the player is part of the game. Think about that.

Once a player has bet his opinion for a race, and the race goes to inquiry, why should each individual player not have the fourth seat in the stewards room? Read the complaints in this thread. Every player expressed frustration that his voice goes unheard. It doesn't have to be that way...

In case of a 3-0 decision there is nothing to add. Even if the decision goes against us, it's one against three and the stewards get our respect. How different it is for 2-1 decisions. Now, if each of us had a voice in the room, it's not 3 against 1, but 1 versus 1. Why should it be assumed that one steward knows better than one player? Why not admit to a stalemate?

A suggestion. In case of a non-unanimous decision, why not adjust the payout scale to that of a dead heat?

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Why are 2-1 decisions wrong?

Because in horse racing, unlike in other sports where referees are present, the player is part of the game. Think about that.

Once a player has bet his opinion for a race, and the race goes to inquiry, why should each individual player not have the fourth seat in the stewards room? Read the complaints in this thread. Every player expressed frustration that his voice goes unheard. It doesn't have to be that way...

In case of a 3-0 decision there is nothing to add. Even if the decision goes against us, it's one against three and the stewards get our respect. How different it is for 2-1 decisions. Now, if each of us had a voice in the room, it's not 3 against 1, but 1 versus 1. Why should it be assumed that one steward knows better than one player? Why not admit to a stalemate?

A suggestion. In case of a non-unanimous decision, why not adjust the payout scale to that of a dead heat?

Claiming the stewards are biased but then saying that the people who bet on a horse would NOT be biased about the race is so illogical that it's hard to even comprehend.

[NY BRED]

MICHAEL DUBB HAS LASHED OUT AGAINST THE STEWARDS FOR
THE DQ OF MAGNA LIGHT IN THE SANFORD.

AS A HIGHLY REGARDED OWNER AND MEMBER OF THE NYRA BOARD,
IT IS IRONIC AND/OR STARTLING THAT MR.DUBB IS CLAIMING
MAGNA LIGHT WAS DISQUALIFIED DUE TO RUDY BEING MEXICAN

ARE YOU READIUNG THIS DONALD?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Why are 2-1 decisions wrong?

Because in horse racing, unlike in other sports where referees are present, the player is part of the game. Think about that.

Once a player has bet his opinion for a race, and the race goes to inquiry, why should each individual player not have the fourth seat in the stewards room? Read the complaints in this thread. Every player expressed frustration that his voice goes unheard. It doesn't have to be that way...

In case of a 3-0 decision there is nothing to add. Even if the decision goes against us, it's one against three and the stewards get our respect. How different it is for 2-1 decisions. Now, if each of us had a voice in the room, it's not 3 against 1, but 1 versus 1. Why should it be assumed that one steward knows better than one player? Why not admit to a stalemate?

A suggestion. In case of a non-unanimous decision, why not adjust the payout scale to that of a dead heat?

The non-unanimous decision is indeed a curious phenomenon...and it definitely should be looked into by those in positions of authority. There is nothing wrong with disqualifying a horse for an obvious infraction...but a 2-1 vote means that the infraction WASN'T obvious. IMO...the disqualifications should be reserved for only the obvious fouls.

My suggestion is to DQ the horse when the stewards' vote is 3-0...but let the result stand and just penalize the jockey when the vote is 2-1. If the foul isn't obvious enough to warrant a 3-0 stewards vote...then give the bettors a break, for heaven's sake. Haven't they suffered enough?

[Dark Horse]

Yes, letting the result stand is the other option for 2-1 decisions. But if they can't do that, they always have the dead heat payout option, already build into the system.