This whole thread is somewhat akin to old ladies sitting around the nursing home with nothing else to talk about but how the interns are in kahoots against them , lol. To read back from post one until now is pretty funny.:D

At least elevate it to the "ODD COUPLE" series, or something like that. The grinding up of a dead body is pretty gangster.

Horse racing news must be really slow for this to be that important

Thank you.

WOuld this be considered reboarding...

I didn't have the time or patience to read through the whole thread to see if anyone's posted this so excuse me if it's already been said. The obvious answer to the question of is it a conflict of interest is yes. Anyone that denies that is, well, stupid. If you can read and understand the definition of the word, there can be no debating this fact. The answer to the question of is it a big deal is the real debate. To me, it's not. There are many, many conflicts of interests at the track. Hell, you can have one trainer with two or three different horses in a race for different owners. Owners can bet against their own horses (Pete Rose is banned from baseball for betting against his team but an owner can bet against his horse :zz: ). If you want to voice your opinion on whether it's a big deal that warrants this type of discussion, feel free. Argue til you fingers fall off. But don't be so stupid to argue that it's not a conflict of interest because it is.

Actually an owner CANNOT bet against his or her own horse. If they do and the stewards are made aware they are subject to serious sanctions.

Can't even use your horse and another in a pick six race. MUST single.

Thats funny....they could run just about every owner out game then.

Well, technically, that may be the rule. But we all know that there are many ways of getting around the rule and nobody really cares because we know it's going on. The main point is still that there are many things that can constitute a conflict of interest and they just aren't that big of a deal. Just acknowledge that it is and move on if it's not serious. It's like an earthquake. One can measure 2.0 and one can measure 7.0 They are both earthquakes. To deny that would be stupid. But they don't have the same impact.

what about..
 

I don't know if the jockeys can hear the race call or not but couldnt he provide helpful information regarding splits or other competitors on the move and where they are on the track?

They can hear. Riders have told me about how they would hear Trevor announcing a horse making a move from behind them. That's when the track would have lots of people. With the couple of hundred or thousand they have now, I'm sure they can hear the race call. How much that influences their decisions is something else. Now this is where I could see there being a problem.

Since when are announcers supposed to be free of "bias"? Ever hear Marshall Cassidy call an Easy Goer race? Or really any announcer call a race in which a "big star" is involved with? Exactly what effect on anything does a "biased" racecall have on anything? If you bet on the winner will you not still cash? Are you forced to listen? Luke K was a close friend of mine who always added a little emphasis when I had a winner or when my horses were making a move in a race. Who exactly does it hurt?

No. I dont see the relevance of the conflict of interest here. I used the fact that there are far greater actual conflicts of interests in the sport that no one complains about. It is relevant because it is relevant.

-10.75

this thread hurtz my brain...rock on vic good for you..hope you and joel do well. toga?

It's annoying an unprofessional when a guy who represents a jockey does this kind of thing. It's one thing to do it during a race with Easy Goer....Zenyatta...or a "big star " involved. But to pander to a claimer being ridden by his guy is a bit much.

durkin has had some biased calls imo..vics earthquake call gives him a mulligan

Short of eliminating race callers and going strictly to trakus you are always going to have some bias in calls. Race callers are human.

As a player of the game, I would have a big problem if an owner or trainer bet on any horse that wasn't his own. If it is allowed then that type of information should be made aware to the public 100% of the time.

You keep bringing up this point but your only justification for it is pointing out one race where many folks on this board didn't hear any bias at all. Until you can present additional evidence of this "bias" by giving several more examples (i.e.: specific races where the bias is pronounced) you appear to be the only one with a real bias and that is a bias against Vic Stauffer - neither bias is relevant to improving the knowledge of the horse racing fans on this site.

:rolleyes:

I find myself agreeing with you and Blackthroatedwind on this one, I have nothing against Vic or Joel, but the optics are 'strange'(maybe not the best adjective) when an announcer is calling a race where he has an invested interest in it and for us to believe everything is on a level playing field. To me this discussion is not about character or if Vic is being impartial or not, it's the optics that Hollywood Pk would allow this, which frankly I am surprised that they did.

To quote Zito years ago, when asked about Bertrando returning to run after a yr of stud duty to the connections..."If you are going to be stallian be a stallian, if you are going to be a horse be horse". you can't be both.

:tro:

As far as I'm concern the superstars of the races are what we come to see. The ZENYATTA, RACHEL ALEXANDRA of today, EASY GOER and SECRETARIAT of yesterday. These horses are the ones most watched, adored and bet on. They get the most attention not the jockey unless he is going for some type of record accomplishment. Even with that those races are called fairly until the "superstar" or horse to beat makes his move. To call a horse just because a certain jockey to win is in your best interest is a conflict. Thank God Rosario wasn't the regular rider of SECRETARIAT otherwise Joel would be moving like a machine.

Honestly, you dont think this is happening?

In PIck 3's, 4' and Pick 6's adding in additional horses?...probably quite a bit as normal handicapping. As a straight win bet, I doubt that much.

I was thinking about how it would change a call. All I could come up with is when the announcer gives credit to a jock for stealing a race with a "perfect ride" etc. I would think it would change that part of a call. Durkin and Trevor have always done this. If they were jock agents it would really change some stuff in their calls. Don't think Vic has ever talked about it as much as them. So, it hasn't changed his calls nearly as much(if at all) as it would those two announcers.

Your in fantasy land....I have sat with a hall of fame trainer, he had a 25/1 shot in a race but loved a 4/1 shot from another barn, he bet out and cashed good. I placed the bet.

I said "that much"..I didn't say never

I would say it happens every day that races are run at every track....most of these guys are scraping by, not all of course, but at the smaller track especially, if they love someone, they are going to bet....

Ok, so while this thread was most entertaining, I didn't think I needed to listen to the call, just sit back an enjoy the craziness.

I finally did.

And now that I've seen what obvious favoritism sounds like, I have come to the conclusion that John G. Dooley must be the jock agent for at least half the colony here if that's all it takes.

It's funny, I've never met someone who you could tell loved their job so much so fast. Dooley's that guy.

NT

Ha, even when he's walking around and NOT announcing, if you get him talking about something, he's just as positive and upbeat and seemingly thrilled to be a part of it as anyone I've ever met at the track.

LOL

That's cool. You can name one after that "Denman". The only other race caller we will ever hear in So-Cal again :)

Stupid thread? You did vote no.

The no's should have their breeding rights revoked.

Just because you dont like it doesnt make it wrong. Not to mention that jockey agents are rarely considered the idea models of professionalism with a few notable exceptions.

I find it hard to believe that it would be condoned in any jurisdiction. I think everyone should have a big problem with that unlike this inane announcer deal.

How exactly is a race judged to be called 'fairly'? A race call is the callers opinion of what is happening. It has nothing to do with anything.