Question regarding non-runners/stewards

[Rapid Grey]

Just wondering if HANA is in any type of regular contact with the different stewards on the racing circuits. Who holds them accountable?

Today in Hoosier Park's 6th race there was an incident at the gate that, imo, was just swept under the rug. Seattle by the Sea, the #6 horse reared in the gate just prior to the start unsettling both horse and rider, F. De La Cruz. The rearing also unsettled the #5 horse Arroson whose comment line read "unprepared start."

Rather than wait until the jockey was back in control of his mount the starter rang the bell (or whatever they do) to start the race (only two seconds elapses between the rearing and the start). De La Cruz, obviously unprepared, falls off Seattle by the Sea and the horse proceeds to wipe out several other horses right out of the gate. Inquiry sign posted, no changes in the race, no declaring of non-starters.

My contention is that the starter never gave the jockey time to both settle his mount and prepare himself for the start and should have been declared a non-starter. Obviously not the decision they made, and obviously not the first time a horse was declared a starter although they were never given a chance for a fair break from the gate.

Far too often this happens and it all reverts back to the fact that declaring non-starters in a race means refunding money to the public, a concept lost on every racetrack in the country.

[Bison]

I've lost a few races due to horses being restrained by assistant starters.
These always get swept under the rug, and no refunds are ever issued.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by Rapid Grey

Just wondering if HANA is in any type of regular contact with the different stewards on the racing circuits.

Hi,

No not as yet. We have been proactive on blogging and speaking about wanting uniform rules and judging from state to state, but that is all so far.

D

[Rapid Grey]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Hi,

No not as yet. We have been proactive on blogging and speaking about wanting uniform rules and judging from state to state, but that is all so far.

D

Thanks for your reply.

I guess if the video quality of the horses in the gate were clearer the betting public would be more satisfied if the horses they wagered on were given a fair start. The head-on shot is, more often than not, taken from an outdated camera at least a quarter of a mile away. If the stewards are basing their decisions on the same viewing angles as the public has it is subjective at best, and their decisions always seem to fall on the side that benefits the racetrack, or the place of their employ.

[CBedo]

Originally Posted by Rapid Grey

If the stewards are basing their decisions on the same viewing angles as the public has it is subjective at best, and their decisions always seem to fall on the side that benefits the racetrack, or the place of their employ.

How does taking down or not taking down a horse benefit the track?

[ryesteve]

Originally Posted by CBedo

How does taking down or not taking down a horse benefit the track?

I think we're talking about declaring non-starters and issuing refunds, not taking horses down. Not that there aren't arguments to be made concerning vested interests in the case of DQs, but when talking about refunds, their short-sighted perspective would obviously motivate them not to.

[CBedo]

Originally Posted by ryesteve

I think we're talking about declaring non-starters and issuing refunds, not taking horses down. Not that there aren't arguments to be made concerning vested interests in the case of DQs, but when talking about refunds, their short-sighted perspective would obviously motivate them not to.

Oops, brain cramp. I still don't think it's in the track's interest to "hold back" horses. Any money refunded is going back into the pools anyway.

[ryesteve]

Originally Posted by CBedo

Oops, brain cramp. I still don't think it's in the track's interest to "hold back" horses. Any money refunded is going back into the pools anyway.

Exactly... plus they alienate customers who feel like they've been ripped off. That's why I called it short-term thinking.