The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

My Sharpie comment was meant as levity. Not an insult.

As for my ability as a handicapper. How can you possibly know whether I'm good or lousy?

There is a way to find out. There's a website called horsetourneys.com. They have HEAD TO HEAD matchups. Most of the big tracks. You can play for $20 to $600. You pick the track. You pick the amount and I'll be there anytime.

We'll cut and paste the matchups and results here on PA.

Read the last sentence you wrote in post 316 of this thread. How is that any different than what was supposedly said to you?

[ultracapper]

That's about as definitive as you can be Vic.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

That's about as definitive as you can be Vic.

What's the most he could lose though? 20 bucks?

[Tall One]

You can play for $20 to $600.


Going by this part of his post, $600 is the most he could lose.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by mountainman

It's easy to score points by cloaking yourself as a self-appointed "player's advocate." And to dismiss any insider who is skeptical of your suggestions as "part of the problem." It's an old internet tactic employed when all else fails, because it's politically correct. Vic is a player, and I was a player LONG before becoming an official. And we both care as passionately about the people whose bets fund the game as you do. We just bring a slightly different perspective to a thread like this.

Look, I'm not here to make enemies and certainly did my part in creating this vitriol. Let's dial it back and have a discussion.

If that's agreeable to you and darkhorse, we can proceed accordingly. If not, then you guys please have the last word. There is a limit to how much I will argue. And it's been reached.

Either way, you guys have a nice holiday. I'm headed for the golf course.

I did not realize I was employing any tactics or trying to be politically correct. "Cloaking" infers the intent to mislead, but my intentions are to express a blunt opinion. If anyone is using tactics here they are of "distraction" from the main topic, which is of course complaints about DQs/non-DQs. I reserve my right to complain as long as I'm offering up ideas on how to improve the system.

It's obvious to the most casual observer that the human element of the steward's observations and opinions brings a qualitative aspect to the whole process. There's questionable (or difficult) calls made every week, if not every day. The emotions displayed in this thread simply add to the irony. Apparently some hold that view that the system is just fine, and people who disagree with this view are whiners, morons and blowhards. Years of race watching experience are no substitute for the rarefied air of the steward's box, and any suggestions for changes are "poo-pooed" as the babbling of the naive.

Watch the inquiry/objection process in Australia or Hong Kong some time. They have very few of these, and when they do the interviews of the jockeys and trainers are in public and can take quite a while. Their system isn't perfect, but it's significantly better than what we have in North America. A better system would potentially be the "pay the winners" method, leaving the DQs affect the purse distributions and leaving the parimutuels intact.

In a business that's showing a steep decline like horse racing, one would hope to that change for improvement would be pursued by all parties. At this stage, passion for the game is in direct conflict with "business as usual".

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

I did not realize I was employing any tactics or trying to be politically correct. "Cloaking" infers the intent to mislead, but my intentions are to express a blunt opinion. If anyone is using tactics here they are of "distraction" from the main topic, which is of course complaints about DQs/non-DQs. I reserve my right to complain as long as I'm offering up ideas on how to improve the system.

It's obvious to the most casual observer that the human element of the steward's observations and opinions brings a qualitative aspect to the whole process. There's questionable (or difficult) calls made every week, if not every day. The emotions displayed in this thread simply add to the irony. Apparently some hold that view that the system is just fine, and people who disagree with this view are whiners, morons and blowhards. Years of race watching experience are no substitute for the rarefied air of the steward's box, and any suggestions for changes are "poo-pooed" as the babbling of the naive.

Watch the inquiry/objection process in Australia or Hong Kong some time. They have very few of these, and when they do the interviews of the jockeys and trainers are in public and can take quite a while. Their system isn't perfect, but it's significantly better than what we have in North America. A better system would potentially be the "pay the winners" method, leaving the DQs affect the purse distributions and leaving the parimutuels intact.

In a business that's showing a steep decline like horse racing, one would hope to that change for improvement would be pursued by all parties. At this stage, passion for the game is in direct conflict with "business as usual".

In my opinion, the problem isn't the system-it's the criteria by which stewards are selected, and the lack of close, stern oversight and regular monitoring of their decisions. I could expound much more, but that's the simplified version of my take on this.

[rastajenk]

What is the point of separating the mutuels from the purse distribution? How does anyone think that is an equitable solution to a perceived problem? It could only make things even more confusing and confounding.

A little thought experiment here: Suppose in last year's Classic the stews did take Bayern down...the connections of Toast of New York are ecstatic; but those holding tickets with a in the win spot at 18-1 aren't. They get nothing. In one of the biggest races of the year with millions watching, it has to be explained why the payoffs graphic doesn't jive with the official order of finish graphic.

Can that possibly be a step in the right direction?

Another question: suppose the panel of judges is expanded and their votes are weighted, and they still end up with controversial placings? What then?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

What is the point of separating the mutuels from the purse distribution? How does anyone think that is an equitable solution to a perceived problem? It could only make things even more confusing and confounding.

A little thought experiment here: Suppose in last year's Classic the stews did take Bayern down...the connections of Toast of New York are ecstatic; but those holding tickets with a in the win spot at 18-1 aren't. They get nothing. In one of the biggest races of the year with millions watching, it has to be explained why the payoffs graphic doesn't jive with the official order of finish graphic.

Can that possibly be a step in the right direction?

Another question: suppose the panel of judges is expanded and their votes are weighted, and they still end up with controversial placings? What then?

But if you know in advance that whoever crosses the line first is the winner for pari mutuel purposes, you wouldn't be upset, the game of horse racing would be much better if they just paid the results no matter what and handled the other stuff behind the scenes.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

What is the point of separating the mutuels from the purse distribution? How does anyone think that is an equitable solution to a perceived problem? It could only make things even more confusing and confounding.

The idea is that you pay the winners, or on the order of finish. You remove the human element and inconsistent judgments we see today - for the benefit of the bettors. Threads like this disappear. It's a natural extension of the "quick official".

The race can then be reviewed, at a leisurely pace, for any infractions that occurred - be it rough riding, failure to maintain a straight path, drug violations, improper weights, etc. The order of finish can then be adjusted if necessary, thereby affecting the owners, trainers, and jockeys - but not the bettors. Purses would be distributed based on this second, "more official" order of finish. Ideally, the race reviews could be held in public, once per week, to help improve the transparency of the process.

The premise of this would rely on strict enforcement of very tough rules and penalties to keep the jockeys in line with safety requirements, and would need the owners and trainers to support it as well. Based on how the industry polices itself today, that's a longshot, but it's a potential solution.

Do you have a different idea on how to improve the system as it stands today, or are you happy with the way things are?

[rastajenk]

Threads like this only appear in forums like this, which most of the people watching and betting on the Breeders Cup don't read. Believe it or not. I think most people would be totally turned off if the betting didn't line up with the official results. Given the choice between goofy notions of packed panels of judges and "paying the winners" vs. status quo, I'll stick with the status quo, thanks.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Threads like this only appear in forums like this, which most of the people watching and betting on the Breeders Cup don't read. Believe it or not. I think most people would be totally turned off if the betting didn't line up with the official results. Given the choice between goofy notions of packed panels of judges and "paying the winners" vs. status quo, I'll stick with the status quo, thanks.

Wow...that's a big surprise...

[EMD4ME]

I'm not a fan of just pay the winners because then people will complain I was best and I wasn't paid because I was eggregously fouled.

I can see people saying that horse never wins if he doesn't wipe out half the field. They purposely destroyed the field, to cash a bet and don't care about the purse (as they wouldn't have won anyway if it wasn't for the foul).

And many other bad scenarios.

What I would suggest is very simple.

Acquire real talent in the stewards room. That's it. It's obvious most stewards are either biased, don't care or don't have the ability to properly watch a race.

Hold them accountable. Create a national board. They do reviews on the stewards nationwide. You screw up, you're reassigned to parking lot attendant.

To go above that.....What I really would do is create a 3 person steward group that is in a central office. They decide remotely on all inquiries and that's it. That way stewards who bet regularly on the sly are sort of reduced/eliminated. All tracks are mandated to have the appropriate camera angles and HDTV from all angles.

All decisions are explained in a SPECIFIC statement before the race pays off.

The home office solicits detailed feedback from the public and answers all e-mails with specifics. If too much negative feeback comes back, it can be used to release the steward at hand.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

I'm not a fan of just pay the winners because then people will complain I was best and I wasn't paid because I was eggregously fouled.

I can see people saying that horse never wins if he doesn't wipe out half the field. They purposely destroyed the field, to cash a bet and don't care about the purse (as they wouldn't have won anyway if it wasn't for the foul).

And many other bad scenarios.

What I would suggest is very simple.

Acquire real talent in the stewards room. That's it. It's obvious most stewards are either biased, don't care or don't have the ability to properly watch a race.

Hold them accountable. Create a national board. They do reviews on the stewards nationwide. You screw up, you're reassigned to parking lot attendant.

To go above that.....What I really would do is create a 3 person steward group that is in a central office. They decide remotely on all inquiries and that's it. That way stewards who bet regularly on the sly are sort of reduced/eliminated. All tracks are mandated to have the appropriate camera angles and HDTV from all angles.

All decisions are explained in a SPECIFIC statement before the race pays off.

The home office solicits detailed feedback from the public and answers all e-mails with specifics. If too much negative feeback comes back, it can be used to release the steward at hand.

My point a few threads up is that as long as they know the winner gets paid, people aren't going to complain because they'll know the rules. It's like if your sports team runs out of time trying to make the winning score are you going to complain that it wasnt fair that the clock ran to 0 before your guys could score?

It's just easier to pay the winners.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

My point a few threads up is that as long as they know the winner gets paid, people aren't going to complain because they'll know the rules. It's like if your sports team runs out of time trying to make the winning score are you going to complain that it wasnt fair that the clock ran to 0 before your guys could score?

It's just easier to pay the winners.

SRU, I hear you pal. Not knocking you're idea but I do see just as many bad situations arising from those rules.

If I am on a hopeless pig, i may take the lead and when the time is right (let's say it's a 5 horse field and the pig gets the lead and has 3 or 4 stacked to his outside stalking) I can just make a crazy right hand turn, wipe out half the field and then gallop racer the remaining foe down the lane. (Herding left and right wildly).

Why would a jock do that? Well if the race is worth $30,000, that's an $1800 sacrifice of winner's share (jock). If he bets $2,000 to win at 11/1, he gets a nice tax free profit of $24,000. Heck, the owner/trainer can say just do it. We won't win the purse anyway if the race is run true. Let's just make a truck load of money off the wagering.

Sounds crazy right?

Well would you tell me I'm nuts if I guaranteed you all this would happen this week:

1) 2 different jockeys would misjudge a finish line by 6 SECONDS this week
2) Rosario would've been DQ'd this past week, while he was the victim.
3) Irad would commit the same foul twice within 24 hours, be taken down for 1 and then not the other.

I like your idea on many fronts. However, I think it's just a bit too extreme.

I think that in a race like Rosario's DQ, that should have been a pay the winner AND leave him up for purse distribution as he wasn't at fault.

In other examples where a horse caused a foul but was best anyway, I would pay the winner and DQ the horse/connections from a purse purspective.

But to blanketly just say pay everyone all the time, I see too much happening out there that ruins the motive behind the implementation of your idea. Plus jocks would get killed, horses would get hurt.

[Stillriledup]

Nobody would be Killed or hurt because the jocks arent going to risk long suspensions and fines To 'casha bet'

In all my years of video watching and following the game I've never gotten any inkling that jocks are doing anything more than riding for their purse share and riding so they can keep the mount. I promise you nothing will change at all in the way these guys ride. Think of all the minus show pools at small tracks where a jock could make 10k or more just by "accidentally" falling off his mount at the start and give up that "1,800 " to my knowledge that's never happened if jocks had predispositions to ride recklessly and make dangerous moves, how come this doesn't happen w minus pools? Never happens, not one time.

How much would Gonzalo Nicklas (los al)have made in the 2nd today if he hopped off his mount at the start while sticking a grand to show on all the others?

The fines and suspensions for dangerous riding would have to increase but I don't believe there would be any change at all in the way guys ride.