V J S NEEED YOUR OPINION All DTER'S PLEASE READ AND RESPOND

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I think thorough, announced explainations are moot as the stewards' decisions I assume are final. The only reason to have written statements would be for owners and trainers that want to appeal the stewards' rulings in court (eg the '90 Del Mar Derby). In those cases, even if the rulings are overturned, the bettors aren't compensated retroactively just as they aren't when a horse tests positive for a medication violation in post-race testing.

Not ideal for the bettors anyway you slice it, but at least the silver lining would be less noise coming from the public address system.

I never understand why bettors should be compensated retroactively unless the people who cashed initially are forced to pay back the money they collected.

[skippy3481]

I would love to hear a stewards reasoning behind a decision, but more then anything else, I want consistency. It's like flipping a quarter on most of these rulings. I've seen blatant fouls disallowed and non-fouls result in dq.

[Honu]

I think that when the jockeys get off their horses and pick up the phone to the stewards from that moment on until they make their final call it should be on a P.A, thru out the grandstand. That way the gamblers and owners and trainers can know exactly what is being said thru out the whole process.
There wouldnt be a need for anyone to say this or that because it has already been said.
When I first started riding there wasnt much of the "didnt change the outcome of the race" used when making calls. I have learned thru watching races that this is an important factor when deciding a DQ or not , that sometimes horses or riders impede dying horses trying to win the race and it shouldnt affect the outcome but the stewards should sometimes penalize the jockey after the fact for not maintaining a straight course.
The stewards have a tough job and if they dont change the outcome of races when there is an infraction jockeys would just ride like idiots , take it from one , we would.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Honu

I think that when the jockeys get off their horses and pick up the phone to the stewards from that moment on until they make their final call it should be on a P.A, thru out the grandstand. That way the gamblers and owners and trainers can know exactly what is being said thru out the whole process.
There wouldnt be a need for anyone to say this or that because it has already been said.
When I first started riding there wasnt much of the "didnt change the outcome of the race" used when making calls. I have learned thru watching races that this is an important factor when deciding a DQ or not , that sometimes horses or riders impede dying horses trying to win the race and it shouldnt affect the outcome but the stewards should sometimes penalize the jockey after the fact for not maintaining a straight course.
The stewards have a tough job and if they dont change the outcome of races when there is an infraction jockeys would just ride like idiots , take it from one , we would.

I am with Honu here. I know it would never happen. But if somehow we could hear the jocks arguements and then watch the stewards as they look and disect the race. Let the public in on what they are thinking. It beats the hell out of guessing what's going on up there and watching blinking numbers for 5 minutes.

[NoLuvForPletch]

While I would like to think most of what has been posted will be the result, I don't think there is any way for these guys to be consistant, at all. Therefore, the explainations wouldn't appease anyone.

Take this race for example:

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart...052308USA3.pdf

If you have the ability to watch the replay, please do so. I did not bet the race. The way I saw it was that there was no way the winner should've been taken down. So, no matter what, whatever explaination they could muster, would not help.

1) As they straighten away, I felt the odds-on favorite drifted out a few paths to begin with.

2) The longest shot on the board won, the 3-5 favorite, trained by leading trainer Levine, finished second and was put up. The obvious thought is FIX (not me personally, but public perception).

3) The winner was just about clear and came in no more than the 2nd place finisher came out in the first place.

4) Nice act by Castro.

5) The winner was better.

6) If this was a Stakes race and not a 5K claimer, there is no way the horse comes down.

Now, nothing the stewards come up with to "explain" this would satisfy me, nevermind the people shafted out of a $40 winner.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

I am with Honu here. I know it would never happen. But if somehow we could hear the jocks arguements and then watch the stewards as they look and disect the race. Let the public in on what they are thinking. It beats the hell out of guessing what's going on up there and watching blinking numbers for 5 minutes.

A couple of years ago a female cyclist was killed on 5th avenue in Brooklyn. She was riding in the bike lane when someone in a parked vehicle opened his door causing her to swerve outwardly in order to avoid the impact and resulting in her getting crushed under the wheels of a truck. I remember reading that the person opening the door claimed to not have seen the cyclist. There was no mention of whether he was asked if he had looked because, clearly, if he had looked, he'd have seen her and not opened his door.

So, I don't really want to hear what jockeys have to say, for the most part, as they would be say just about anything to cover their asses. The tape doesn't lie.

Nothing personal with any of them.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I never understand why bettors should be compensated retroactively unless the people who cashed initially are forced to pay back the money they collected.

Yes. I wasn't trying to make that assertion, though the wording probably suggests it. What I meant to say was once a race is declared "official", as far as the payout goes, its all moot.