Gulfstream Inquiries

[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.

[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.

[Alabama Stakes]

Originally Posted by Cardus

All of us miss the point from time to time.

Don't fret.

miss the "point"......to pointman. i knew you'd post something clever eventually

[ironprospect]

The origins of this thread concerned the inquires into the 11th and 12th races at Gulfstream Park and as to why what some people saw as the same infraction it was cause for a disqualification in the 11th and not in the 12th, which was the last race of the card.

My comments referred to that and not the two pages of recycling of the same posts over and over.

a) there are much less chance of an inquiry on the last race of a card than any of the others

b) if there is an inquiry, it is more likely to be disallowed than in the other races.

c) both inquiries and objections are resolved for the most part much more quickly on the final race than the others on the card.

d) judges who have sway of what happens to millions of dollars in some rare case but tens of thousands of dollars multiple times a day effectively have no supervision, not unlike the supreme court (appointed for life) and teachers (tenure)

e) my opinion as to why there are less actions and quickerly resolved actions involving the judges specifically on the last race which in this case was the 12th at Gulfstream Park on the day in question

thank you for allowing me the chance to recycle my post

[saratogadew]

e) quickerly?

[ElPrado]

To me, a horse should come down if it impedes another horse.
I don't care if it bumps, bites, looks cross-eyed, pouts, knocks it over the inside rail, knocks it over the outside rail, crowds, starts bucking like it's in the National Finals rodeo, dances the hula, sings the national anthem, whatever. If the opposing horse is bothered, the horse doing the bothering should come down.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ElPrado

To me, a horse should come down if it impedes another horse.
I don't care if it bumps, bites, looks cross-eyed, pouts, knocks it over the inside rail, knocks it over the outside rail, crowds, starts bucking like it's in the National Finals rodeo, dances the hula, sings the national anthem, whatever. If the opposing horse is bothered, the horse doing the bothering should come down.

Then, essentially, you think there should be five or six disqualifications a day.

There's a marketing plan!

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by ElPrado

To me, a horse should come down if it impedes another horse.
I don't care if it bumps, bites, looks cross-eyed, pouts, knocks it over the inside rail, knocks it over the outside rail, crowds, starts bucking like it's in the National Finals rodeo, dances the hula, sings the national anthem, whatever. If the opposing horse is bothered, the horse doing the bothering should come down.

I believe your namesake has a better opinion.

[Alabama Stakes]

El Prado .....Kurt Paseka's fave

[blackthroatedwind]

That would be incorrect.

Originally Posted by ElPrado

To me, a horse should come down if it impedes another horse.
I don't care if it bumps, bites, looks cross-eyed, pouts, knocks it over the inside rail, knocks it over the outside rail, crowds, starts bucking like it's in the National Finals rodeo, dances the hula, sings the national anthem, whatever. If the opposing horse is bothered, the horse doing the bothering should come down.

What you're advocating is " A FOUL IS A FOUL". There's not alot that all jurisdictions agree on. This is one. A foul is a foul is NOT a good way to adjudicate inquiry's.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

every case is unique..all n all the stews do a good job imo....

[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.

[Alabama Stakes]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

That would be incorrect.

didn't he have to run naked through the infield when El Prado won that day at saratoga. his version of the dunce cap.

whatever happened to that cat anyway ? he was pretty cool. figured he'd end up on TVG.