Orino DQ, Race 5, Aug 7th Saratoga.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Phantombridgejumpe

Same rules in NASCAR too?

Can you please clarify? Last time I checked, NASCAR didn't have parimutuel wagering, so your comment does not compute....

[Phantombridgejumpe]

You are equating dog racing with horse racing. While they are both animals racing, one has a human pilot, the other doesn't.

A greyhound weighs about 70lbs, a thoroughbred horse more like 1,500.

You are comparing a couple dogs bouncing off each other to two horses slamming into each other. I think a closer comparison would with with auto racing (driver and 3,000 pound car). And you certainly bet on NASCAR.

They are both completely ridiculous comparisons. Full contact horse racing would have people protesting outside from day one.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

You're assuming that "full contact" racing would result from this rule change. I disagree. How much can a jock control a 1500 pound horse anyway? It's not like driving a car. It's more like driving a car which continuously has random tire blow outs while cruising down three lanes of traffic on the freeway. It would be suicidal for jocks to ride rougher. This ain't rollerball.

I believe that there would be very little change in riding tactics, and as long the stewards and jocks did their part afterwards to enforce safe riding rules, all is well.

For example, what if a jock intentionally hits a horse going by him with his whip? Today, he would be DQ'ed, and fined and maybe get days. All fans betting him feel the pain.

In my world, he wins the race unfairly, but gets a post-race penalty of something like this:

1st offense: $10K fine, 14 days
2nd offense: 1 year ban
3rd offense: lifetime ban from riding

This, in theory, would keep him in check - or, remove him from the sport after a short career.

Regardless, in your world you're satisfied that a human, subjective element will always be a part of the results when an inquiry/objection occurs. In my world, that aspect is removed.

We'll never know which is better until my world is tried....

[Phantombridgejumpe]

My horse is easily going to sweep by and win by daylight when he gets crushed or hit with a whip.

I lose my bet, but will feel better when the jockey gets thrown out? Obviously there are flaws in the current system, and we have all seen bad calls, but to replace it with a far worse system is no solution at all.

There are many good reasons why we will never find out, no jockeys, owners, tracks or players would be willing to do it your way. (No might be extreme, too few to open a track).

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Phantombridgejumpe

My horse is easily going to sweep by and win by daylight when he gets crushed or hit with a whip.

I lose my bet, but will feel better when the jockey gets thrown out? Obviously there are flaws in the current system, and we have all seen bad calls, but to replace it with a far worse system is no solution at all.

There are many good reasons why we will never find out, no jockeys, owners, tracks or players would be willing to do it your way. (No might be extreme, too few to open a track).

What HW is trying to say is that at SRU downs, you pick a winner, you get paid. Bettors are trying to win bets, they could care less if the jock gets thrown out, fined or suspended. Now, as compassionate human beings, they dont want to see any dangerous riding and or a guy's career harmed, but bettors bet and they are betting to win bets.

HW's system is far better because the customer gets paid.

Under the current system, a good analogy may be if a waiter at a restaurant spills your food while walking it to your table, not only does the waiter get "punished" for his/her mistake, but the prices on your food go up, they charge a "spill tax" for the mistake of an employee of the company.

That's not fair, right?

Just bet at SRU downs.
Our Motto:

SRU Downs.... where Winners get paid!

[Stillriledup]

No inquiry or DQ against palace dreams in the 9th race on Aug 8th, she bumped the 4th place finisher knocking her off stride and then beat that horse by a very small margin for the show. This particular incident was more worthy of a DQ than Orino, not sure why Joel didnt claim foul, 5k difference in purse for the owner had he been placed 3rd.

[Phantombridgejumpe]

When you two go on tilt from a DQ you really go on tilt.

I think the customers at your restaurant would have to
finish the meal by eating it out of their laps.

[aaron]

I had the disqualified horse,but I thought it was a 50-50 proposition on it coming down. NY stewards have always been inconsistent. The same thing can happen twice on the same day with different results.If they left the horse up,they would have said the outcome wasn't affected. Another reason I thought the horse might come down was because the other horse was 3/5. In my opinion,I think this subconsciously plays into their decision. The bottom line is you just have to be lucky on these decisions. Correct or incorrect decision does not play into it,since there is no rhyme or reason in their decisions.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Phantombridgejumpe

My horse is easily going to sweep by and win by daylight when he gets crushed or hit with a whip.

I lose my bet, but will feel better when the jockey gets thrown out? Obviously there are flaws in the current system, and we have all seen bad calls, but to replace it with a far worse system is no solution at all.

There are many good reasons why we will never find out, no jockeys, owners, tracks or players would be willing to do it your way. (No might be extreme, too few to open a track).

Yes, you should feel better when a cheating jockey gets punished. You lose your bet, but he/she gets punished. Although maybe the majority of jockeys, owners, and the stewards might not be in favor of the change, I believe that bettors would be - again, we won't know until it's tried.

The bottom line is the system today is flawed due to what can be a very subjective human judgement. Today the stewards have WAY TOO MUCH power in changing the results. I'm proposing a change that eliminates that, while hopefully not making the race riding any more dangerous. If someone has other ideas on how to improve the process today, I'm all ears.

The prevailing opinion is that "over time" the DQs even out for the bettors, and since we only see an objection or inquiry in five or 10 percent of the races, I don't see this as a huge change. It would simply remove the agony of suffering through the "secret inquiry" we have today. In a sport that has a serious P/R image in terms of integrity, this would help.

Back in 1987 I was, shall we say, between "opportunities" after getting out of the service and drove up to Sportman's Park one cold, early spring Thursday. Being a bull ring, the 6.5 furlong races used to start in the chute at the top of the stretch. I wandered up to the starting gate one race to watch the horses spring from the gate. After the start, I started walking back to the grandstand and was right at the turn as the horses came around for the stretch drive. The 4/5 chalk was on the lead (the rail was golden), was passed by a 15-1 shot in the two path, who once clear by two lengths moved back down to the rail and cruised home for an easy win. The horse I bet was nowhere, so I started to look at the next race.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, please hold all tickets".

Showing only the head-on and the normal top-of-the-grandstand views, the stewards eventually took down the winner for alleged interference. I couldn't believe it. The replay simply showed the <dying> chalk shying a bit from getting dirt in his face after losing the lead. There is no doubt in my mind the stewards had a desire to put up the chalk - not sure if it was for the owner, their own bets, or some other reason. But they robbed the players and connections of the winner.

Although this is an extreme example, and I believe that 95% of the steward's calls are on the up-and-up, there's really no reason for them to have the ability to change the results like that....

After all, if the race had been the Kentucky Derby instead of the 5th at the Spa on 8/7, does Orino still come down?

[Phantombridgejumpe]

And I know your heart is in the right place. I simply dislike (strongly) your solution.

My quick ideas. We know who the stewards are at every track, know they cannot wager, and so the best we can to insure they are independent.

Every stewards decision is discussed with them on a TV feed available to all players for 1/2 hour before the next race card. Players are free to contribute questions.

Jockeys are NOT talked to after a race. The stewards can see what happened and decide from the evidence.

[wiffleball whizz]

Originally Posted by RXB

I suspect that the different turf rail settings can make it difficult to get a precise head-on view.

It's such a joke......how bout a cable that runs perpendicular to the turns and put the camera on a zip line and now u have a dead on angle to look at on the straightaways.......it's crazy how u you can't have a good straight shot to see a foul......if the rail on the turf course is out far u just adjust the camera.....it's not hard and it's cheap......and to save money u can take the cable and camera down and bring it to Belmont and aqueduct

Walking out of Charlestown last night I didn't notice but I parked right underneath the stewards stand its out in the middle of the parking lot literally I say to myself how the f*** can they dq from this angle.....sure enough I turn around and it's dead on straight looking into the stretch

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Phantombridgejumpe

And I know your heart is in the right place. I simply dislike (strongly) your solution.

My quick ideas. We know who the stewards are at every track, know they cannot wager, and so the best we can to insure they are independent.

Every stewards decision is discussed with them on a TV feed available to all players for 1/2 hour before the next race card. Players are free to contribute questions.

Jockeys are NOT talked to after a race. The stewards can see what happened and decide from the evidence.

Stewards cannot wager and are independent. Nice concept. Don't believe that's the case at most tracks. Nor do I see a sport which has a HORRIBLE history of policing itself being capable of implementing and enforcing such a concept. I do like the idea of players being able to question the stewards, though it could devolve into a riot pretty quickly with an unpopular decision.

This topic reminds me somewhat of the history of the replay review in the NFL. It slowly came about as fan feedback and increased scrutiny of bungled calls affecting the outcome of the games occurred. Horse racing does not seem to have this same focus except for a handful of races.

Orino stays up if it was the Derby....

[Phantombridgejumpe]

Is a foul in the finals of the NBA the same as game one? Or even the first minute of an NHL game vs the third period.

PS: I'm against replay in the NFL.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Phantombridgejumpe

Is a foul in the finals of the NBA the same as game one? Or even the first minute of an NHL game vs the third period.

PS: I'm against replay in the NFL.

I like the replay rules in the NFL - big improvement to make the calls as accurate as possible. Not surprising that we end up with different opinions on that, but it is a little surprising what side we're on.

As for the NBA and NHL, I would agree that they suffer from the same subjective calls that we have in horse racing. That doesn't make it right.

So do you agree that Orino stays up in the Derby? So what's up with that? Makes it okay if millions are on the line, but not so much for $60K?

In horse racing, we have a discrete and exact finish, which could allow us to remove the subjectivity, and make it more quantitative. And, more consistent.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

I like the replay rules in the NFL - big improvement to make the calls as accurate as possible. Not surprising that we end up with different opinions on that, but it is a little surprising what side we're on.

As for the NBA and NHL, I would agree that they suffer from the same subjective calls that we have in horse racing. That doesn't make it right.

So do you agree that Orino stays up in the Derby? So what's up with that? Makes it okay if millions are on the line, but not so much for $60K?

In horse racing, we have a discrete and exact finish, which could allow us to remove the subjectivity, and make it more quantitative. And, more consistent.

You're on a roll today hoof, fantastic posting, great ideas, logical and intelligent thinking, thanks for "getting it".

I love your idea that Orino stays up if its the Derby. The Derby is the most rough run race, there's a ton of bumping, jockeying for position, 20 horse fields. Guess what happens in the derby? Horses don't break down for the most part, jocks don't fall off either and everyone is fine with that race being 'exempt' from disqualifications. There could be massive bumping but nobody puts their arms up and yells "hey, where's the DQ". Its "understood" that they pay the winners.....and, don't you like it that way? Doesnt it make you feel comfortable knowing you can make your biggest bet of the year in the Derby and you are going to get paid if you win? I have to admit, i kind of like the idea of being paid for my hard work.

That Orino race could be some bettors "ky derby". He could have been waiting for that exact situation for weeks, you know, to get Orino on the turf going long.

You mention that they say all DQ"s "even out" and if that's the case, just pay off the results as they came in, if they even out anyway, its all the same.

I mentioned a situation in a few posts above this about Palace Dreams, no inquiry, no nothing. If a judge is going to nitpick and place a horse who was beaten by more than a length first when you can't really make any kind of case that horse was going to actually win, why isnt the Palace Dreams situation looked at, the margin was a small one, the horse who was jarred off his tracks was nose to nose at the time of the incident with plenty of time left in the race and yet, this one just didnt warrant a looksee. Maybe Durkin didnt yell "oh my John's Mariah almost got knocked over, great job by Joel Rosario just to say aboard" and that's why there was no dq?