Gulfstream Inquiries

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I just watched it, and I don't think it was unreasonable to take him down, though I'm not sure I would have.

Like you, seeing the jock go left handed to the whip would have been the main justification for taking him down.

He should definitely get days for that.

I thought it was also kind of funny that the other idiot (jock) went to the right handed whip.

When stewards view an inquiry, for the purpose of order of finish, the actions of the jockeys are rarely taken into consideration. We watch the horses.

One exception would be the first few jumps from the gate. We look for very quick correction if a horse doesn't break straight.

There's an old adage stewards have been known to say to jockeys. " The first jump is yours. The 2nd ours"

[jms62]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

When stewards view an inquiry, for the purpose of order of finish, the actions of the jockeys are rarely taken into consideration. We watch the horses.

One exception would be the first few jumps from the gate. We look for very quick correction if a horse doesn't break straight.

There's an old adage stewards have been known to say to jockeys. " The first jump is yours. The 2nd ours"

And that's why stewards are morons and are ruining the game.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by jms62

And that's why stewards are morons and are ruining the game.

That sir, is the very definition of 'understatement'.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

That sir, is the very definition of 'understatement'.

Happy Birthday to you.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

When stewards view an inquiry, for the purpose of order of finish, the actions of the jockeys are rarely taken into consideration. We watch the horses.

One exception would be the first few jumps from the gate. We look for very quick correction if a horse doesn't break straight.

There's an old adage stewards have been known to say to jockeys. " The first jump is yours. The 2nd ours"

That may be true in Northern California, but it is not everywhere else.

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

That may be true in Northern California, but it is not everywhere else.

It's true in all of California and pretty much every state I worked in when I was an announcer and worked with stewards.

The actions of the jockeys are scrutinized at film review the following morning.

[Alabama Stakes]

when the stewards took local champ Concorde Bound down in a $100,000 sprint back when that was a lot of bread, it made my head spin. To send that purse out of town for some marginal meaningless ****, and take the Generazios down was the worst thing that could have possibly to New England racing.

How shady jockeys like Rene Riera and Mike Carrozella became stewards makes one wonder what the qualifications are for the job. Pinhead jockeys, over the hill race announcers, and other lazy good for nothings who know someone.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

It's true in all of California and pretty much every state I worked in when I was an announcer and worked with stewards.

The actions of the jockeys are scrutinized at film review the following morning.

If what you are saying is true, (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then the take down of Upstart makes no sense on any explicable level.

I would find it near impossible to dismiss what a jock is doing on a horse and only focus on the horse itself - to the point of looking at the infraction from an unnatural perspective - especially when the majority of the time, it is the jock's actions that impact the horses reaction.

I'd guess that perhaps this is an unwritten rule, but in the case of the two take downs being discussed here, the jockey's actions validated the Stewards responses in both instances, and not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

If what you are saying is true, (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then the take down of Upstart makes no sense on any explicable level.

I would find it near impossible to dismiss what a jock is doing on a horse and only focus on the horse itself - to the point of looking at the infraction from an unnatural perspective - especially when the majority of the time, it is the jock's actions that impact the horses reaction.

I'd guess that perhaps this is an unwritten rule, but in the case of the two take downs being discussed here, the jockey's actions validated the Stewards responses in both instances, and not the other way around.

When the film is being viewed. We look at the horses. Their paths, strides, clearance, momentum, position. For that part of the inquiry there is either a foul or there is not. If we determine a foul occurred we then decide was the fouled horse cost an opportunity at a better placing.

The horses " are where they are ". The jockey's actions, except sometimes in the first jump are a non-factor.

What if a jockey is doing everything in his or her power to stop his mount from impeding another horse? Yet that horse is bound and determined to race erratically crashing into a rival causing that horse to check very sharply. Should the stewards leave that " as is " because the rider was doing everything he could to avoid the incident? Of course not.

The actions of the jockeys are separate to the inquiry. They are reviewed the next morning in the stewards office.

You may not like or agree with that. But I can assure you that's the way the vast majority of stewards do it.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

When the film is being viewed. We look at the horses. Their paths, strides, clearance, momentum, position. For that part of the inquiry there is either a foul or there is not. If we determine a foul occurred we then decide was the fouled horse cost an opportunity at a better placing.

The horses " are where they are ". The jockey's actions, except sometimes in the first jump are a non-factor.

What if a jockey is doing everything in his or her power to stop his mount from impeding another horse? Yet that horse is bound and determined to race erratically crashing into a rival causing that horse to check very sharply. Should the stewards leave that " as is " because the rider was doing everything he could to avoid the incident? Of course not.

The actions of the jockeys are separate to the inquiry. They are reviewed the next morning in the stewards office.

You may not like or agree with that. But I can assure you that's the way the vast majority of stewards do it.

So if a horse is drifting and the jock is hitting him left handed and it is a close call whether he impeded another horse, the fact that he was causing his horse to drift has no impact on your decision? That is preposterous.

Originally Posted by jms62

So if a horse is drifting and the jock is hitting him left handed and it is a close call whether he impeded another horse, the fact that he was causing his horse to drift has no impact on your decision? That is preposterous.

Some calls are close. Some are not. If a horse drifts into the path of a rival those horses are point of focus. Did the horse impede his rival to the extent that rival was cost the opportunity at a better placing? How the horse got to the point where the incident occurred irrelevant.

You're certainly entitled to think it's preposterous.

However that is how the process works.

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

When the film is being viewed. We look at the horses. Their paths, strides, clearance, momentum, position. For that part of the inquiry there is either a foul or there is not. If we determine a foul occurred we then decide was the fouled horse cost an opportunity at a better placing.

The horses " are where they are ". The jockey's actions, except sometimes in the first jump are a non-factor.

What if a jockey is doing everything in his or her power to stop his mount from impeding another horse? Yet that horse is bound and determined to race erratically crashing into a rival causing that horse to check very sharply. Should the stewards leave that " as is " because the rider was doing everything he could to avoid the incident? Of course not.

The actions of the jockeys are separate to the inquiry. They are reviewed the next morning in the stewards office.

You may not like or agree with that. But I can assure you that's the way the vast majority of stewards do it.

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?

[pointman]

Here I thought that this was all about consistency.

How stupid of me not to realize it is all about the lack of takedowns in the last race, which I never realized the bias here, and stewards in a rush to get to their great parking spots, regardless if they are reserved because they get the good ones when they get their free lunch, because they don't get overtime, college professors who take bribes, screw and deal drugs to their students, cheat on their wives and taxes, tenure and **itting their pants.

How could I miss that?

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.

[blackthroatedwind]

That would be incorrect.

[Aly-Sheba]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

It's true in all of California and pretty much every state I worked in when I was an announcer and worked with stewards.

The actions of the jockeys are scrutinized at film review the following morning.

But what if a jockey hits another horse with his whip, don't you have to look at his actions?

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba

But what if a jockey hits another horse with his whip, don't you have to look at his actions?

Absolutely. I didn't think of that. Excellent catch.

[Kitan]

To me, the issue is not solely about the DQ in the FOY. As Indian Charlie mentioned, either way the decision went there would have been discontent. I personally don't believe it should have been a DQ, but clearly others think it should have been. My issue is with how it relates to the subsequent race. Whether or not one race should set a precedent for future events is another discussion, but in this instance the two races are "mutually inclusive" because there is no reasonable explanation for there to be a DQ in one and not the other. The issue is that there is NO consistency between rulings not only at tracks across the continent, but even at one track on the same day! If you make the DQ in the FOY, you HAVE to make the DQ in the following race. Yes, the two incidents are separate and should have no bearing on the other, but I really fail to see how you can not DQ both, or leave both up, and the explanations given really show the incompetence. Unless I'm mistaken, we aren't gambling with Monopoly money. The risk of winning/losing is already a fine margin, so how can we as bettors be willing to place such hard-earned cash on an outcome that could be questioned, reasonably or unreasonably, and have that outcome potentially and unfairly taken away from us?

[Rupert Pupkin]

First of all, as everyone has said, the stewards call in the 12th race (the maiden race) was unbelievable. It was a clear foul and there is a very good chance that it changed the order of finish. How they could take the horse down in the Fountain of Youth but not in the 12th race is mind-boggling.

With regards to what Vic is saying, I don't understand the outrage or the controversy. If you are either an owner or a bettor, if your horse is fouled and was probably cost a placing, you are going to expect the horse who fouled your horse to get disqualified. You are going to expect it regardless of whether the jockey on the horse who committed the foul was responsible for the incident.

For example, in that 12th race at Gulfstream (the maiden race), the inside horse came out a few lanes and fouled the outside horse. That horse should be disqualified. It is totally irrelevant whether the jockey was at fault. That horse should get disqualified either way. The jockey's actions are only relevant in deciding whether the jockey will be punished, and if so, what the punishment will be. It is irrelevant in deciding whether to disqualify the horse. In deciding whether or not to disqualify the horse, the only two things that should be relevant are whether there was a foul, and whether that foul likely cost the horse who was fouled a better placing. That is the way it should be.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Absolutely. I didn't think of that. Excellent catch.

Nice Catch? AYFKU? It completely blows up your argument and cements the rest of ours as valid. How you can be a steward and not have that scenario on the tip of your tongue is mind boggling.