conflict of interest

[King Glorious]

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 ). 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.

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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 ). 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.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

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

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.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by CSC

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.

Honestly, you dont think this is happening?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

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.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by GBBob

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.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by CSC

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.

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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

Of course it isn't condoned, but it happens every day at every track in every race. We all know tracks do basically nothing at all that is going to decrease handle by $1.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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.

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.