Another Confusing Decision from the NY Stewards

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

This right here does it for me. How can you have an opinion on something like this without seeing it?

So a blind man can never have an opinion. That seems reasonable.

Originally Posted by whodey17

So a blind man can never have an opinion. That seems reasonable.

Do you get any handicapping opinions from blind people? Do you know any stewards who are blind? Aside from those in NY??

[philcski]

Originally Posted by whodey17

So a blind man can never have an opinion. That seems reasonable.

This may awfully simplistic, but if visual evidence is required... yes, of course.

If I turned on the radio and asked a man who was deaf what song was playing, would he know?

[jaripeo]

Job Title:

State Steward
Job Description:
The Colorado Division of Racing Events has an opening for the position of State Steward at Arapahoe Park Racetrack in Aurora, Colorado. Arapahoe Park will commence its 2007 Mixed Meet on May 26, 2007. It is an 36-day meet ending on August 11, 2007. Tenative start date is May 21, 2007. Out of state residents are eligible to apply for this position, but may have to have a Colorado address at time of application.
Job Details:
Address:
1881 Pierce Street
Suite 108
Lakewood, CO 80214

Contact: Robert "Duke" Mann

[SentToStud]

A lot of the problem stems from the stewards likely feeling they needed to justify their decision not to make a DQ in the race. They made a poor "non-decision" there and felt compelled to justify it with their "equal fault" issuing of suspensions.

More and more, it seems, stewards are making their decisions based on the "did it or did it not alter the race outcome" concept. To be sure, subjectivity is part of their job, but it's gotten out of hand, imo.

I rarely see any DQ's any more for incidents other than those that occur in the homestretch which is wrong. To a great extent, a foul is a foul, wherever it occurs during a race. By not punishing riders for these fouls, the stewards only encourage this kind of bad race-riding tactics.

"Every man is given a spoon. Any man who loses his spoon spends a night in the box." Where's Boss Karl when we need him?

[Linny]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

A lot of the problem stems from the stewards likely feeling they needed to justify their decision not to make a DQ in the race. They made a poor "non-decision" there and felt compelled to justify it with their "equal fault" issuing of suspensions.

This "non-decision decision thing is just wrong. These officials are paid to make decisions not waffle.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

A lot of the problem stems from the stewards likely feeling they needed to justify their decision not to make a DQ in the race. They made a poor "non-decision" there and felt compelled to justify it with their "equal fault" issuing of suspensions.

More and more, it seems, stewards are making their decisions based on the "did it or did it not alter the race outcome" concept. To be sure, subjectivity is part of their job, but it's gotten out of hand, imo.

I rarely see any DQ's any more for incidents other than those that occur in the homestretch which is wrong. To a great extent, a foul is a foul, wherever it occurs during a race. By not punishing riders for these fouls, the stewards only encourage this kind of bad race-riding tactics.

"Every man is given a spoon. Any man who loses his spoon spends a night in the box." Where's Boss Karl when we need him?

Excellent post

[blackthroatedwind]

I also agree with Sent2Stud. It's the same twisted logic you see from Stewards concerning suspensions. Every time a horse is disqualified in a questionable decision the stewards seem to give the rider days ( which is not always necessary ) as if to justify their mediocre decision.

The stretch fouls while ignoring the rest of the race is preposterous. It would be like the NBA doing away with backcourt fouls.

[whodey17]

You are the one that said how I can have an opinion without seeing something. If I was blind I couldnt have an opinion on this since I cannot see the video.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by whodey17

You are the one that said how I can have an opinion without seeing something. If I was blind I couldnt have an opinion on this since I cannot see the video.

Actually, no. You'd have to rely on what other people told you, so your opinion would be skewed.

You're obviously NOT blind, though, so you COULD appease us and watch the replay.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Actually, no. You'd have to rely on what other people told you, so your opinion would be skewed.

You're obviously NOT blind, though, so you COULD appease us and watch the replay.

It doesnt matter if I watch it or not. It is simple. Martin's horse came out, caused Coa to check. Coa got pissed and decided to take matters into his own hands. Coa was wrong and should be suspended. However, Coa would never had done what he did if Martin's horses didnt cause Coa to check. Martin didnt intend to do what he did and Coa did. However, the stewards didnt see it that way. I think both should be suspended for 30 days.

[whodey17]

Ok i watched it. Both Martin and Coa should be suspended for 30 days. I agree that both should be suspended.

[whodey17]

Me too.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by whodey17

It doesnt matter if I watch it or not. It is simple. Martin's horse came out, caused Coa to check. Coa got pissed and decided to take matters into his own hands. Coa was wrong and should be suspended. However, Coa would never had done what he did if Martin's horses didnt cause Coa to check. Martin didnt intend to do what he did and Coa did. However, the stewards didnt see it that way. I think both should be suspended for 30 days.

That makes no sense. One was an accident and the other was malicious and deliberate. With this kind of logic, you would think that someone who accidentally shot a gun and killed someone should get the same amount of jail time as someone who shot someone in cold blooded murder.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

That makes no sense. One was an accident and the other was malicious and deliberate. With this kind of logic, you would think that someone who accidentally shot a gun and killed someone should get the same amount of jail time as someone who shot someone in cold blooded murder.

It isnt about one being an accident or not. It is what the Stewards wanted to do or what they saw what happened. They sent a message saying that you (jock) are going to be held accountable for everything your horse does while on the track.

[whodey17]

Night Cajun and DaHoss. Glad to know people are open to opinions on this fine forum.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Cajun, you are wasting your time.

I know. I think I need to call it quits and hit the sack. Nite DaHoss.