:tro:

absolutely the jocks behavior should be scrutinized when there's a claim of foul. it's not as tho they are often-times innocent bystanders. a horses behavior is quite often a result of the jocks behavior.
yes, they should face separate punishment when they're deemed to have ridden carelessly, but they should be under a microscope at the time of foul claim.
an enlightening conversation for sure.

That's what we love about you Vic. You probably don't even know that statement is condescending and insults the intelligence of quite a few people on this board. It is quite easy to understand the process that you are explaining to us. I would say nearly everyone on this board understands what you are saying. When we say it is nonsensical to not look at the operator of the vehicle (in this case the horse) as part of the process you come back with a comment that we don't understand the process. We understand the process and are pointing out the process is horrible and sticking with a broken process simply because that has been the way it has been done would get you fired in 500 out of 500 Forturne 500 companies. Now please don't insult my intelligence again on how I don't understand the process.

'I know this is hard to grasp for the average horseplayer.'

you mean, like that...

The only thing i've grasped from this thread is how useless track stewards can be in determining outcomes.

Realistically, in a race situation like what happened in the FOY, people who bet on either of the two horses involved are going to feel screwed, depending on the way the decision goes.

In this instance, it seems pretty clear that the jockey on Upstart was being a douchebag and was the cause of the problem.

Did he cost the second place finisher a placing? It's probably less than 50% likely he did, but then again, we are talking about a horse making only his third start, so who knows for sure.

If I had the ability to make a ruling, I'd have kept Upstart as the winner.

I'd fine and suspend the jockey severely.

I'd refund wagers on the runnerup. That way nobody gets screwed completely over, and hopefully it makes those tiny brained morons think twice about using such tactics.

Congrats. You've swept in and have taken trolling to a whole new stratospheric level.

This "Average Horseplayer" hasn't wagered more than 50 bucks in California since Hollywood Park closed and I have doubts as to whether I'll ever play the circuit regularly, ever again. Thankfully, I now understand the "stewards process" there, all too well.

You play a game of semantics, saying the same thing over and over in a different way to troll the thread. Hope you got a good chuckle out of insulting the very people that keep this "sport" afloat. You're a fine ambassador.

Truth be told these message boards ruined Vic. It's like a tragic comedy.

I'm not going to tell him. :D

Did you stop playing California because you couldn't hear me call the races anymore? :)

But what if a jockey hits another horse with his whip, don't you have to look at his actions?

Absolutely. I didn't think of that. Excellent catch.

Aren't you the one that compared zenyatta to Secretariat, spectacular bid, Dr. Fager, native dancer and silky Sullivan in a race?

I compared Azeri to Personal Ensign, Lady's Secret and Ruffian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c5wlX42_Ms

I stand corrected

To me, the issue is not solely about the DQ in the FOY. As Indian Charlie mentioned, either way the decision went there would have been discontent. I personally don't believe it should have been a DQ, but clearly others think it should have been. My issue is with how it relates to the subsequent race. Whether or not one race should set a precedent for future events is another discussion, but in this instance the two races are "mutually inclusive" because there is no reasonable explanation for there to be a DQ in one and not the other. The issue is that there is NO consistency between rulings not only at tracks across the continent, but even at one track on the same day! If you make the DQ in the FOY, you HAVE to make the DQ in the following race. Yes, the two incidents are separate and should have no bearing on the other, but I really fail to see how you can not DQ both, or leave both up, and the explanations given really show the incompetence. Unless I'm mistaken, we aren't gambling with Monopoly money. The risk of winning/losing is already a fine margin, so how can we as bettors be willing to place such hard-earned cash on an outcome that could be questioned, reasonably or unreasonably, and have that outcome potentially and unfairly taken away from us?

First of all, as everyone has said, the stewards call in the 12th race (the maiden race) was unbelievable. It was a clear foul and there is a very good chance that it changed the order of finish. How they could take the horse down in the Fountain of Youth but not in the 12th race is mind-boggling.

With regards to what Vic is saying, I don't understand the outrage or the controversy. If you are either an owner or a bettor, if your horse is fouled and was probably cost a placing, you are going to expect the horse who fouled your horse to get disqualified. You are going to expect it regardless of whether the jockey on the horse who committed the foul was responsible for the incident.

For example, in that 12th race at Gulfstream (the maiden race), the inside horse came out a few lanes and fouled the outside horse. That horse should be disqualified. It is totally irrelevant whether the jockey was at fault. That horse should get disqualified either way. The jockey's actions are only relevant in deciding whether the jockey will be punished, and if so, what the punishment will be. It is irrelevant in deciding whether to disqualify the horse. In deciding whether or not to disqualify the horse, the only two things that should be relevant are whether there was a foul, and whether that foul likely cost the horse who was fouled a better placing. That is the way it should be.

Nice Catch? AYFKU? It completely blows up your argument and cements the rest of ours as valid. How you can be a steward and not have that scenario on the tip of your tongue is mind boggling.

Disqualifications for whip violations are rare.

As rare as competent stewards....

That's the way I read it, too. It makes sense to me.

I would wager money that if someone did a statistical study of disqualifications and the corresponding race of the DQ to its position on the card.

You would find statistically that there are by far fewer DQ's in the last race of the day, than any other on the card.

And the longer the card as a whole the fewer DQ's in the last race.

Why??

Because the governing bodies are wearing there hats and jackets, just waiting to get the hell out of work and go home. They are praying while the horses and the jocks come back past the outrider, that no claims foul.

Who are the fastest people to there cars and gone after the last.

The Judges because they have great parking spots, if not reserved and they are there very earlier for there long free lunch and because if you know who the Judges are they fly out the frelling door ASAP can make a race official.

Something that may get thoroughly looked at in the second last race, does so because they still gotta be there, whereas the same item in the nitecap rates hardly a second look because its there time.

I ain't saying it right, I'm saying that's the way it is

And if the Judges are forced to have to look at an incident in the last, you can bet your ass its not gonna be one of those ten minute inquiries. That light on the toteboard comes down as fast as it goes up.

Judges don't get overtime.

Appeals of Judges calls for DQ's get reviewed month's later and are not widely publicized. While there are no appeals for the calls the miss or let go.

Let's not bother mentioning Judges review process. College Professors who take bribes, screw around with their students, sell drugs to the student body, cheat on there taxes, wives etc and only work a couple of hours a day for 7 or eight month's a year look at a judges "tenure" and *hit there pants.

Of course this can all change IF you got a crew thats playing with there own money. Which is fodder for another episode

Frelling?

That's so like 2000

Why do stewards talk to jockeys during an inquiry if their actions are a non factor? I understand they want to know what happened but doesn't it seem kind of pointless if all you are looking at is the horses actions and are not even looking at what the jockey did?

Here I thought that this was all about consistency.

How stupid of me not to realize it is all about the lack of takedowns in the last race, which I never realized the bias here, and stewards in a rush to get to their great parking spots, regardless if they are reserved because they get the good ones when they get their free lunch, because they don't get overtime, college professors who take bribes, screw and deal drugs to their students, cheat on their wives and taxes, tenure and **itting their pants.

How could I miss that?

There have been many debates as to whether or not the stewards should talk to the jockeys at all. Would an umpire call the shortstop and base stealer into a conference on a bang bang play at 2nd?

For me I think talking to the jockeys is useful. IMO there can never be too much information to add to the decision making equation.

Camera angles do not always give us the proper perspective.

Veteran riders can suggest looking at the film from a different point of view. Pointing out something we might not have considered.

Of course credibility plays a huge role. If a guy blindly advocates his position no matter the incident, 100 % of the time, his testimony might not carry quite as much weight.

Jock you slammed him into the fence. He almost came off. " No I didn't. He ran into the fence on his own. I didn't have anything to do with it"

If the tapes clearly show otherwise he takes a credibility hit that might not serve him when we hope for an honest answer to an honest question.

The other side is jockey who will answer questions honestly no matter which side of the inquiry they're on. Speaking to them can be a huge help.

Many have that outstanding trait. They understand if they speak the truth from the heart, every time, it will in the long run strengthen their credibility. They look at the big picture for their career not one particular incident.

I've had times where on very close calls I've asked the rider straight out. Do you believe that foul cost you a placing? There are three answers you'll hear.

1. Absolutely. I was rolling and he sawed me off. I was going to win the race.

2. I'm not sure.

3. You know judge. He got me pretty good. But I was out of horse at the time. I don't think it cost me.

None of those answers will exclusively carry the day. However, as I said before. The more information at our disposal the better.

4. No hablo ingles.
But where the **** is my check?

That's not what you "said before".

Ever.

What you "said before" was exactly the opposite.

You said that a jockey's action (or inaction) play's zero role in the steward's decision to take a horse down or not. That no one even looks at a jockey's action until they review the tape the next morning.

And then trolled the thread for 2 pages reemphasizing the point.

So Vic, which is it? Are you a liar, or an imbecile? Those, unfortunately, are the only two menu choices left...:(

What I said was we look at the horses.

When we speak to the riders we ask for their opinions as to what took place.

Whatever menu choice #3 is. I want that.

So you ask their opinions, yet refuse to look at what you are asking them about until the next morning. Gotcha. It all makes complete sense now.

punny
 

miss the "point"......to pointman. i knew you'd post something clever eventually

The origins of this thread concerned the inquires into the 11th and 12th races at Gulfstream Park and as to why what some people saw as the same infraction it was cause for a disqualification in the 11th and not in the 12th, which was the last race of the card.

My comments referred to that and not the two pages of recycling of the same posts over and over.

a) there are much less chance of an inquiry on the last race of a card than any of the others

b) if there is an inquiry, it is more likely to be disallowed than in the other races.

c) both inquiries and objections are resolved for the most part much more quickly on the final race than the others on the card.

d) judges who have sway of what happens to millions of dollars in some rare case but tens of thousands of dollars multiple times a day effectively have no supervision, not unlike the supreme court (appointed for life) and teachers (tenure)

e) my opinion as to why there are less actions and quickerly resolved actions involving the judges specifically on the last race which in this case was the 12th at Gulfstream Park on the day in question

thank you for allowing me the chance to recycle my post

e) quickerly?

To me, a horse should come down if it impedes another horse.
I don't care if it bumps, bites, looks cross-eyed, pouts, knocks it over the inside rail, knocks it over the outside rail, crowds, starts bucking like it's in the National Finals rodeo, dances the hula, sings the national anthem:rolleyes:, whatever. If the opposing horse is bothered, the horse doing the bothering should come down.

Then, essentially, you think there should be five or six disqualifications a day.

There's a marketing plan!

I believe your namesake has a better opinion.

El Prado .....Kurt Paseka's fave

That would be incorrect.

What you're advocating is " A FOUL IS A FOUL". There's not alot that all jurisdictions agree on. This is one. A foul is a foul is NOT a good way to adjudicate inquiry's.