conflict of interest

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Honu

My source is my own ears , my other source is the 100 diffirent jocks that I rode races with. I love people who type before they actually know what they are talking about , I laughed too.

If you have ridden, great, qualify your post by stating its your own personal experience....my point, thought it missed you, was statistic are thrown around here and people actually take them at face value.

What happened in the 1 race out of a 1000 that you did hear the call?

[Honu]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

If you have ridden, great, qualify your post by stating its your own personal experience....my point, thought it missed you, was statistic are thrown around here and people actually take them at face value.

What happened in the 1 race out of a 1000 that you did hear the call?

I was about 12 in front at the 1/16th pole and there wasnt enough people in the grandstand to start a fight so I could hear the announcer loud and clear.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Honu

I was about 12 in front at the 1/16th pole and there wasnt enough people in the grandstand to start a fight so I could hear the announcer loud and clear.

WOuld this be considered reboarding...

[dagolfer33]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

If you have ridden, great, qualify your post by stating its your own personal experience....my point, thought it missed you, was statistic are thrown around here and people actually take them at face value.

What happened in the 1 race out of a 1000 that you did hear the call?

I hate when people throw statistics around as well......so I am going to point to one stat that is unmistakably clear....the poll results at the top of this page.

[JerseyJ]

Originally Posted by dagolfer33

I hate when people throw statistics around as well......so I am going to point to one stat that is unmistakably clear....the poll results at the top of this page.

And that one stat up there is more or less biased due to the orgasms that are had here because Hollywood Park track announcer Vic Stauffer posts here, or because many people here are too damn shortsighted to see the point of the original post that stonegossard made, or what the argument is for. Yeah 70 whatever percent of the people in this poll voted no, so I guess that just means 70 whatever percent of the people don't understand the meaning of a conflict of interest, that means over 70 percent of the people here are wrong. As for what the stat is unmistakenly clear about, I really don't know what your getting at, but you are certainly giving Fischer and others company atop the stupidity beyer figure board...Hell gossard, it may be time to let go of the superfecta you had and explore quintifectas and higher based on what I have seen in these threads.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by JerseyJ

And that one stat up there is more or less biased due to the orgasms that are had here because Hollywood Park track announcer Vic Stauffer posts here, or because many people here are too damn shortsighted to see the point of the original post that stonegossard made, or what the argument is for. Yeah 70 whatever percent of the people in this poll voted no, so I guess that just means 70 whatever percent of the people don't understand the meaning of a conflict of interest, that means over 70 percent of the people here are wrong. As for what the stat is unmistakenly clear about, I really don't know what your getting at, but you are certainly giving Fischer and others company atop the stupidity beyer figure board...Hell gossard, it may be time to let go of the superfecta you had and explore quintifectas and higher based on what I have seen in these threads.

Actually....if 70% up the people on here agreed with me I would probably apologize to Stauffer and say I was wrong. Then turn off my computer and go play with some building blocks.

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

Actually....if 70% up the people on here agreed with me I would probably apologize to Stauffer and say I was wrong. Then turn off my computer and go play with some building blocks.

I don't see how that's relevant

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

I don't see how that's relevant

Fisch you have some serious competition on here. Some dude just posted a 135.

Originally Posted by stonegossard

Actually....if 70% up the people on here agreed with me I would probably apologize to Stauffer and say I was wrong. Then turn off my computer and go play with some building blocks.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

I voted yes, but a conflict of interest can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. If you want to hear someone acting on it, listen to that bay area homer (LIL JOE MORGAN) comment during Dodger games(on ESPN.)

[dagolfer33]

Originally Posted by JerseyJ

And that one stat up there is more or less biased due to the orgasms that are had here because Hollywood Park track announcer Vic Stauffer posts here, or because many people here are too damn shortsighted to see the point of the original post that stonegossard made, or what the argument is for. Yeah 70 whatever percent of the people in this poll voted no, so I guess that just means 70 whatever percent of the people don't understand the meaning of a conflict of interest, that means over 70 percent of the people here are wrong. As for what the stat is unmistakenly clear about, I really don't know what your getting at, but you are certainly giving Fischer and others company atop the stupidity beyer figure board...Hell gossard, it may be time to let go of the superfecta you had and explore quintifectas and higher based on what I have seen in these threads.

Thanks for letting me know how stupid I am, and how Stauffer is stuffing the ballot box on this poll. Its a good thing that poll was just yes or no......there is no way I could have figured out something more complicated.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by JerseyJ

And that one stat up there is more or less biased due to the orgasms that are had here because Hollywood Park track announcer Vic Stauffer posts here, or because many people here are too damn shortsighted to see the point of the original post that stonegossard made, or what the argument is for. Yeah 70 whatever percent of the people in this poll voted no, so I guess that just means 70 whatever percent of the people don't understand the meaning of a conflict of interest, that means over 70 percent of the people here are wrong. As for what the stat is unmistakenly clear about, I really don't know what your getting at, but you are certainly giving Fischer and others company atop the stupidity beyer figure board...Hell gossard, it may be time to let go of the superfecta you had and explore quintifectas and higher based on what I have seen in these threads.

I think that technically it may be a conflict of interest but I don't think it is a meaningful conflict of interest. I don't think it's any more of a conflict of interest than when a track announcer has a bet on a race. Many track announcers like to bet on the races. Should track announcers be banned from betting on the races since having a bet would give them a rooting interest in the race?
By the way, jockey agents get 25% of the money their jocks make, not 10%.

[JerseyJ]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Many track announcers like to bet on the races. Should track announcers be banned from betting on the races since having a bet would give them a rooting interest in the race?
By the way, jockey agents get 25% of the money their jocks make, not 10%.

I am sorry I don't know exactly how much a jock agent makes...only thing as owners we do is accept who the trainer names on our horse and figure out how much we get as owners.

Show me where I said track announcers should be banned from betting on the races since it would give them a rooting interest. For crying out loud, that's not the issue here. The issue is that there is the POTENTIAL for a track announcer who holds a jock's book at his track to not do his job as the TRACK ANNOUNCER properly because he is looking for his jock's horse compared to calling the rest of the field.

It's not that god damn difficult to understand the point that the sensible people have been making in these last two threads, but apparently we aren't filled with rocket scientists here.

[Round Pen]

I am almost positve that A couple of Years ago that the Announcer at Fort Erie was also A trainer. Infact he still runs Horses there and at Woodbine Today.

[Round Pen]

Originally Posted by Round Pen

I am almost positve that A couple of Years ago that the Announcer at Fort Erie was also A trainer. Infact he still runs Horses there and at Woodbine Today.

Actually I just looked it up and he was both Announcer and Trainer

http://www.forterieracing.com/press_...April24-06.htm

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by JerseyJ

I am sorry I don't know exactly how much a jock agent makes...only thing as owners we do is accept who the trainer names on our horse and figure out how much we get as owners.

Show me where I said track announcers should be banned from betting on the races since it would give them a rooting interest. For crying out loud, that's not the issue here. The issue is that there is the POTENTIAL for a track announcer who holds a jock's book at his track to not do his job as the TRACK ANNOUNCER properly because he is looking for his jock's horse compared to calling the rest of the field.

It's not that god damn difficult to understand the point that the sensible people have been making in these last two threads, but apparently we aren't filled with rocket scientists here.

I never said that you said track announcers should not be allowed to bet. I was asking you whether they should be banned from betting since having a bet would give them a rooting interest in a race. You say that there is a potential for a track announcer who is also an agent to be looking for his jock's horse. Couldn't the same thing happen if a track announcer had a bet on a race? The anouncer may be looking for the horse that he bet on.

I guess you didn't understand my point. My point is that plenty of track announcers all over the country bet. When they have a bet, they have a rooting interest in the race. If a track announcer is a jock's agent, then he has a rooting interest in the race. I don't see how the conflict of interest is any greater with the track announcer that is the jock's agent than the track announcer who has a bet on the race.

[horseofcourse]

Let me see if I get this. Is the point of those ripping Stauffer that the "conflict of interest" involves the possibility of him making poor race calls? Is that what these multiple, multiple page threads about this are? So the only point you're making is the result of the "conflict of interest" is him making a poor race call? Is that the gist of this argument? Because he is Rosario's agent, he may make a bad race call? Ok.