Once again....Horseplayers aren't considered by the people in charge

[InsideThePylons-MW]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...backed-by-chrb

Horse owner Jerry Jamgotchian first filed a complaint against the board over Fermin's appointment to the Del Mar post, which pays $26,000 to her as an independent contractor. Later appeals to Fermin's standing are trainers Jeff Mullins, Mike Mitchell, Doug O'Neill, Steve Knapp, Art Sherman, and Brian Koriner, as well as horse owner Sean Gerson.

Let's see.......6 prominent trainers all think "that Fermin is incapable of being unbiased against them"

Why wasn't the perception of the horseplayer considered.

If one of these guys is taken down on a questionable DQ due to bias or left up on a questionable call due to not wanting to look biased, isn't this one of those ugly situations where the perception by the horseplayer is just horrendous for racing? Every inquiry involving one of these trainers will be scrutinized by horseplayers, bloggers and journalists in which nothing but bad things can come from it.

Why would any competent racing power-person ever put someone questionable in charge of decisions which could affect millions of dollars of horseplayer's money and could create a situation/backlash toward the integrity of racing?

Simple answer.....nobody in charge thinks or cares about horseplayers unless they are forced to.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by InsideThePylons-MW

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...backed-by-chrb

Horse owner Jerry Jamgotchian first filed a complaint against the board over Fermin's appointment to the Del Mar post, which pays $26,000 to her as an independent contractor. Later appeals to Fermin's standing are trainers Jeff Mullins, Mike Mitchell, Doug O'Neill, Steve Knapp, Art Sherman, and Brian Koriner, as well as horse owner Sean Gerson.

Let's see.......6 prominent trainers all think "that Fermin is incapable of being unbiased against them"

Why wasn't the perception of the horseplayer considered.

If one of these guys is taken down on a questionable DQ due to bias or left up on a questionable call due to not wanting to look biased, isn't this one of those ugly situations where the perception by the horseplayer is just horrendous for racing? Every inquiry involving one of these trainers will be scrutinized by horseplayers, bloggers and journalists in which nothing but bad things can come from it.

Why would any competent racing power-person ever put someone questionable in charge of decisions which could affect millions of dollars of horseplayer's money and could create a situation/backlash toward the integrity of racing?

Simple answer.....nobody in charge thinks or cares about horseplayers unless they are forced to.

This is just a guess on my part but I believe as this case plays out and others around the country we are going to find out that Racing Officials are not always on the up and up. Much like Law Enforcement the overwhelming majority are honest but there are rare occasions where they will alter or even make up evidence to punish someone they believe has broken the law or the rules in their minds.

This case and others will be interesting to follow over the next several months!

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by InsideThePylons-MW

If one of these guys is taken down on a questionable DQ due to bias or left up on a questionable call due to not wanting to look biased, isn't this one of those ugly situations where the perception by the horseplayer is just horrendous for racing?

Simple answer.....nobody in charge thinks or cares about horseplayers unless they are forced to.

I have no idea what happened here, but yah, I agree. At a conference a horseplayer brought up an interesting point about wrong inquiries and how the horseplayer is looked at with them. He called a commission regarding a wrong call (it was later overturned as a wrong call and the horse that was chucked was left up). The commission type told him that the inquiry was wrong yes, but horseplayers still got paid in the race, so why was he complaining.

Huh?

The player said "the wrong horseplayers got paid in the race" and the commission person still clung to his statement. The player told him "You get your paycheck on Friday and find it is zero dollars because they made a mistake and gave your pay to your coworker, would you like it, if when you complained your boss, he said 'well a worker got paid anyway so you should be fine with it'."

This is not a gripe about inquiries because inquiries and horse takedowns are what they are, but inside racing it appears that they are looked at from a 100% horse owner perspective, with zero thought of the player.

There was an article in horseplayer mag recently stating that the player wished that the horses were left up as they finished and then they sorted out all the fines and inquiries later when they had time. I dont know if that would work, and players might find it more trouble than we already have, but it was an interesting point, imo. It would take out what might have happened above out of the equation.

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by andymays

This is just a guess on my part but I believe as this case plays out and others around the country we are going to find out that Racing Officials are not always on the up and up. Much like Law Enforcement the overwhelming majority are honest but there are rare occasions where they will alter or even make up evidence to punish someone they believe has broken the law or the rules in their minds.

This case and others will be interesting to follow over the next several months!

As a matter of ignorance, I would say, yes, there probably are a lot of officials in racing that are not on the up and up.

One difference between law enforcement and stewards is the objective criteria that must be met before they can assume the duties. How do stewards demostrate compentency in an objective manner?

[andymays]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

As a matter of ignorance, I would say, yes, there probably are a lot of officials in racing that are not on the up and up.

One difference between law enforcement and stewards is the objective criteria that must be met before they can assume the duties. How do stewards demostrate compentency in an objective manner?

Here is a link to all the jobs at the CHRB and the requirements!


http://www.chrb.ca.gov/job_opportunities.htm

Excerpts:

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMITTANCE TO THE EXAMINATION:
All applicants must meet the education and experience requirements for this examination. The Board will admit to the
examination every applicant who meets ALL of the following conditions:
1) Has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or of a felony.
2) Has been given a physical examination and has at least 20-20 vision or vision corrected to 20-20 and normal hearing ability
(required if offered a contract).
3) Possess at least one of the following qualifications:
a) Has at least five (5) years of experience in the pari-mutuel horse racing industry as a licensed trainer, jockey, or driver.
b) Has at least ten (10) years of experience in the California parimutuel horse racing industry as a licensed owner whose
experience, knowledge, ability, and integrity relative to the industry are known to the Board.
c) Has at least three (3) years of experience as a licensed racing official, racing secretary, assistant racing secretary, or
director of racing.
d) Has experience in the horse racing industry of a character and for a length of time sufficient, as determined by the
Board, to qualify the person as having experience substantially equivalent to the experience described in subparagraph
a), b), or c).

SCOPE OF THE EXAMINATION:
A. Demonstrated Knowledge of:
1. Rules and Regulations of the California Horse Racing Board and the California Horse Racing Laws.
2. Rules of the Jockey Club, the United States Trotting Association, and the Model Rules of the Association of
Racing Commissioners, International.
3. Practice and procedures of the horse racing industry relating to eligibility of race horses, conditions of races,
entries, pre-race examinations of horses, horse identification, running of the race, and post race analysis of the
conduct of the race.
4. Principles of parimutuel wagering systems; and transmission and reception of data communications and
audiovisual signals.
5. Principles and techniques of supervision.
6. Principles of the administrative hearing process.
7. Familiarity with drug abuse enforcement practices, identification of misused drugs, and drug rehabilitation
programs.
8. Horse racing history and California horse breeding programs.
B. Demonstrated Ability to:
1. Analyze horse racing and wagering situations accurately and apply to specific cases the provisions of the laws,
rules, or regulations.
2. Formulate judgments in a consistent and impartial manner.
3. Supervise and direct others in the performance of required racing officiating duties.
4. Conduct hearings and interviews effectively.
5. Write and speak effectively.
6. Establish and maintain cooperative relations with representatives of racing organizations and associations.

[startngate]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

One difference between law enforcement and stewards is the objective criteria that must be met before they can assume the duties. How do stewards demostrate compentency in an objective manner?

In most jurisdictions Stewards have to be accredited in order to get the job. This function used to be handled by two groups (UofA Race Track Industry Program, UofL Equine Business School), but it has been consolidated into the Racing Officials Accreditation Program (ROAP) now.

http://www.horseracingofficials.com/

After going through the initial program (60 hours of training, followed by a series of exams), an additional 16 hours of continuing education is required every two years.

[rwwupl]

Why would any competent racing power-person ever put someone questionable in charge of decisions which could affect millions of dollars of horseplayer's money and could create a situation/backlash toward the integrity of racing?

Simple answer.....nobody in charge thinks or cares about horseplayers unless they are forced to.

Why can CHRB commissioners and track owners run their horses at their home tracks with their own stewards in charge?

Has any of these owners horses ever been D.Q'd?

Simple answer.....nobody in charge thinks or cares about horse players unless they are forced to.

Conflict of interest is obvious and out of control in California.

We need a change to insure the public that there is integrity in racing.

[rwwupl]

Originally Posted by andymays

Here is a link to all the jobs at the CHRB and the requirements!


http://www.chrb.ca.gov/job_opportunities.htm

Excerpts:

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMITTANCE TO THE EXAMINATION:
All applicants must meet the education and experience requirements for this examination. The Board will admit to the
examination every applicant who meets ALL of the following conditions:
1) Has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or of a felony.
2) Has been given a physical examination and has at least 20-20 vision or vision corrected to 20-20 and normal hearing ability
(required if offered a contract).
3) Possess at least one of the following qualifications:
a) Has at least five (5) years of experience in the pari-mutuel horse racing industry as a licensed trainer, jockey, or driver.
b) Has at least ten (10) years of experience in the California parimutuel horse racing industry as a licensed owner whose
experience, knowledge, ability, and integrity relative to the industry are known to the Board.
c) Has at least three (3) years of experience as a licensed racing official, racing secretary, assistant racing secretary, or
director of racing.
d) Has experience in the horse racing industry of a character and for a length of time sufficient, as determined by the
Board, to qualify the person as having experience substantially equivalent to the experience described in subparagraph
a), b), or c).

SCOPE OF THE EXAMINATION:
A. Demonstrated Knowledge of:
1. Rules and Regulations of the California Horse Racing Board and the California Horse Racing Laws.
2. Rules of the Jockey Club, the United States Trotting Association, and the Model Rules of the Association of
Racing Commissioners, International.
3. Practice and procedures of the horse racing industry relating to eligibility of race horses, conditions of races,
entries, pre-race examinations of horses, horse identification, running of the race, and post race analysis of the
conduct of the race.
4. Principles of parimutuel wagering systems; and transmission and reception of data communications and
audiovisual signals.
5. Principles and techniques of supervision.
6. Principles of the administrative hearing process.
7. Familiarity with drug abuse enforcement practices, identification of misused drugs, and drug rehabilitation
programs.
8. Horse racing history and California horse breeding programs.
B. Demonstrated Ability to:
1. Analyze horse racing and wagering situations accurately and apply to specific cases the provisions of the laws,
rules, or regulations.
2. Formulate judgments in a consistent and impartial manner.
3. Supervise and direct others in the performance of required racing officiating duties.
4. Conduct hearings and interviews effectively.
5. Write and speak effectively.
6. Establish and maintain cooperative relations with representatives of racing organizations and associations.

Hmmm-- I think the CHRB commissioners are exempt because they are appointed by the Governor. I wonder how many know of or could pass these qualifications?

[Imriledup]

Originally Posted by DeanT

I have no idea what happened here, but yah, I agree. At a conference a horseplayer brought up an interesting point about wrong inquiries and how the horseplayer is looked at with them. He called a commission regarding a wrong call (it was later overturned as a wrong call and the horse that was chucked was left up). The commission type told him that the inquiry was wrong yes, but horseplayers still got paid in the race, so why was he complaining.

Huh?

The player said "the wrong horseplayers got paid in the race" and the commission person still clung to his statement. The player told him "You get your paycheck on Friday and find it is zero dollars because they made a mistake and gave your pay to your coworker, would you like it, if when you complained your boss, he said 'well a worker got paid anyway so you should be fine with it'."

This is not a gripe about inquiries because inquiries and horse takedowns are what they are, but inside racing it appears that they are looked at from a 100% horse owner perspective, with zero thought of the player.

There was an article in horseplayer mag recently stating that the player wished that the horses were left up as they finished and then they sorted out all the fines and inquiries later when they had time. I dont know if that would work, and players might find it more trouble than we already have, but it was an interesting point, imo. It would take out what might have happened above out of the equation.

Funny thing about racing is that because of time constraints, the horseplayer is punished, and the judges have mere minutes to make what can possibly be life altering call for the player. On every inquiry, someone is blinking for thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars. Its hilarious that with certain DQs jocks get a 3 day suspension, an owner loses one or two higher shares of what could be under 10,000 and the horseplayer, an innocent bystander, can get 'fined' a few hundred grand for his troubles. On almost every DQ of an overnight claiming race, there is probably a horseplayer who's being punished financially more than the person who actually committed the foul.