conflict of interest

Being a jockey's agent and a track announcer.

From Wikipedia...

More generally, conflict of interests can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit.
Depending upon the law or rules related to a particular organization, the existence of a conflict of interest may not, in and of itself, be evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interests can, however, become a legal matter for example when an individual tries (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit. A director or executive of a corporation will be subject to legal liability if a conflict of interests breaches his Duty of Loyalty.
There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interests can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles—an individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for example—may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated—see below—but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.)

[10 pnt move up]

Is there a need for two threads on this?

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Is there a need for two threads on this?

Yes. I want it put to a vote and last time I checked you didn't show up on the mod list.

[SniperSB23]

I say no. Watch any baseball game and the team has its own set of biased announcers. Until his call is impacting the results of the race I couldn't care less if the announcer has a dog in the fight.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I say no. Watch any baseball game and the team has its own set of biased announcers. Until his call is impacting the results of the race I couldn't care less if the announcer has a dog in the fight.

Name an announcer who is an agent.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Name an announcer who is an agent.

Why would that make a difference? The announcer can't impact the results of the race so why would I care what other job the announcer has. This is silly, this is a sport where the owners, trainers, and jockeys are fully allowed to bet AGAINST their own horses. If we want to talk about conflict of interest isn't that the big one?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Name an announcer who is an agent.

I'm almost positive that Richard Grunder has Willie Martinez's book in Tampa. Bigs can verify.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Being a jockey's agent and a track announcer.

From Wikipedia...

well I am not suggesting Vic does this at all but since you posted that definition.

You dont think he could go out of his way to make other riders in race decisions sound more poor then they might be, thus in net effect helping his client out?

[Diver67]

I have yet to see any plausible suggestion of how Vic could "exploit" his racecalling job to benefit Rosario. And note the word "plausible." Go have some hot dogs and beer, please.

Originally Posted by Diver67

I have yet to see any plausible suggestion of how Vic could "exploit" his racecalling job to benefit Rosario. And note the word "plausible." Go have some hot dogs and beer, please.

You obviously didn't read all of the quote...

conflict of interests can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it.

And I'll go have some hot dogs after you kindly gfy.

[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?

[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.

[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.