Gulfstream Inquiries

Originally Posted by Jay Frederick

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?

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.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

However, as I said before. The more information at our disposal the better.

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...

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

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...

There was no contradiction in what Vic said. If you ask a jockey whether or not the horse that came in on him cost him a placing, that is not a question about a "jockey's action". That is simply a question about whether the alleged foul cost the horse a placing.

By the way, there are exceptions to what Vic said. The stewards are going to closely look at a jockey's actions if they think the jockey overreacted. For example, if horse A comes in a little on horse B and the jockey on Horse B takes up sharply, the stewards are going to make sure that they believe the jockey on horse B didn't overreact. If they think horse A was pretty much clear of horse B and the jockey taking up was an acting job or simply an overreaction, then the stewards will probably not disqualify horse A. That would be an example of the stewards strongly considering the jockey's actions in their deliberations.