Stewards ultimately hurting the game?

Cannon Shell · #1 10-23-2009, 06:14 PM

The stewards have fined four riders for whip violations on Wednesday evening's program.

Chantal Sutherland has been fined $1,200 for excessive use of the whip, as the stewards ruled she had struck her mount, Indian Apple Is, four times in succession in the late stages of her half-length victory in the Ruling Angel Stakes.

Indian Apple Is earned $69,000, and the rules call for Sutherland to forfeit 20 percent of her 10-percent share of the winner's purse, excluding the $9,000 Ontario-sired bonus.

Luis Contreras was fined $200 for striking his mount, Nine Miracles, under the belly throughout the stretch run en route to her nose win in the eighth and final race.

Gerry Olguin has appealed a $300 fine and a one-day suspension for striking his mount, Cape Schanck, more than three times in succession during the stretch run of the eighth race. The ruling by the stewards marked Olguin's second offense under the recently imposed guidelines.

Cape Schanck finished third, beaten a nose and a head.

While I am sure that there will plenty of disagreement, isn't it a detriment to the game to punish jockeys that are winning close races (i.e. trying really hard to win)??? They are already using the soft whips. Any discouragment to winning without clearly doing anything dramatically bad seems like a bad idea to me.

Thoughts?

The Indomitable DrugS · #2 10-23-2009, 07:39 PM

Sounds like a great place for the Breeders Cup.

DerbyCat · #3 10-23-2009, 07:47 PM

As an owner I obviously want all the purse money I can get - I expect a jockey to ride my horse in the manner that will get the horse to give its maximum effort. I don't want the jockey beating the cr*p out of my horse if the horse is totally gassed and finishing up the track but the jock damn well better keep trying if he think the horse can get up there and score us a better check.

This would worry me if stewards starting make a habit out of this...

And I've hit myself with the whip to see what it felt like, it makes a nice *pop* noise and has a little sting to it but it's not bad - certainly not bad for a 1,000 pound animal.

phystech · #4 10-23-2009, 08:33 PM

Also as an owner, I want maximum effort on behalf of the rider to maximize my profits while not abusing my horse.

It's getting to the point why I wonder why I risk my hard earned money and why I bother being an owner.......

Travis Stone · #5 10-23-2009, 08:35 PM

If it were up to me, there would be no DQ's when it comes to the wagering money of the public. Subsequent fines, purse DQs would still occur, but not until the race has long been made official as posted.

Scav · #6 10-23-2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

If it were up to me, there would be no DQ's when it comes to the wagering money of the public. Subsequent fines, purse DQs would still occur, but not until the race has long been made official as posted.

So a horse like the 1 in the 3rd today at Keeneland shouldn't have been taken down? That horse most definitely cost the 3 2nd place and they did the right thing.

Speaking of this race, Jamie Theriot at it again almost taking out James Graham, someone is going to this dude into the rail soon....

Gander · #7 10-23-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

If it were up to me, there would be no DQ's when it comes to the wagering money of the public. Subsequent fines, purse DQs would still occur, but not until the race has long been made official as posted.

Thats an absolutely crazy notion and completely unfair to the bettors.

Travis Stone · #8 10-23-2009, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

So a horse like the 1 in the 3rd today at Keeneland shouldn't have been taken down? That horse most definitely cost the 3 2nd place and they did the right thing.

Speaking of this race, Jamie Theriot at it again almost taking out James Graham, someone is going to this dude into the rail soon....

I didn't catch that race... we moved offices this week and my TV is not yet hooked-up. It stinks.

But, in my opinion, the penalty for poor race riding and infractions should not fall on the wagering public. I would chalk a bump up to bad racing luck.

Scav · #9 10-23-2009, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I didn't catch that race... we moved offices this week and my TV is not yet hooked-up. It stinks.

But, in my opinion, the penalty for poor race riding and infractions should not fall on the wagering public. I would chalk a bump up to bad racing luck.

Watch the replay of this race and tell me that the 1 shouldn't have came down, because the 3 was going to go past him......

I am all for less DQ's, but there are plenty of situations that warrant a DQ. What you are saying is nuts

Travis Stone · #10 10-23-2009, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gander

Thats an absolutely crazy notion and completely unfair to the bettors.

How so? If you show me how DQ decisions are consistent and fair across the board, I'll agree. I had this discussion with one of big bettors at LAD a few weeks ago and he thought the same as me.

For example ... How is DQing a horse, who knocked his rival out of the gate, from first place to last fair to bettors? It's not like placing him last rewards those who bet on the horse who was knocked out of the gate. Instead, it penalizes those who picked the winner and rewards those who bet the second best horse to win.

I would rather them leave it be, then penalize the horse/owner/trainer/jockey later on via purse $ and official placement. But in terms of the wagering, leave it alone.

Travis Stone · #11 10-23-2009, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

Watch the replay of this race and tell me that the 1 shouldn't have came down, because the 3 was going to go past him......

I am all for less DQ's, but there are plenty of situations that warrant a DQ. What you are saying is nuts

I'm going to double talk a bit but my issue with this is that stewards are not consistent in their decision making. One time they'll assume horse x was going to beat horse y, the next time they don't assume it. If there was consistency and transparency, okay, otherwise, I still like the non-DQ approach. The kicker is stiffer penalties on the back-end for riders involved.

Gander · #12 10-23-2009, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

How so? If you show me how DQ decisions are consistent and fair across the board, I'll agree. I had this discussion with one of big bettors at LAD a few weeks ago and he thought the same as me.

For example ... How is DQing a horse, who knocked his rival out of the gate, from first place to last fair to bettors? It's not like placing him last rewards those who bet on the horse who was knocked out of the gate. Instead, it penalizes those who picked the winner and rewards those who bet the second best horse to win.

I would rather them leave it be, then penalize the horse/owner/trainer/jockey later on via purse $ and official placement. But in terms of the wagering, leave it alone.

I agree the inconsistency sucks, but a horse like Vineyard Haven has to come down on Travers Day in the Kings Bishop. Dont you agree? Imagine needing Capt candyman for a huge score and not having the right call made?

Theres some that are just so obvious that need to be called. The inconsistency usually lies with ones that are borderline decisions. I feel for the most part, the obvious ones are called correctly.

Travis Stone · #13 10-23-2009, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gander

I agree the inconsistency sucks, but a horse like Vineyard Haven has to come down on Travers Day in the Kings Bishop. Dont you agree? Imagine needing Capt candyman for a huge score and not having the right call made?

Theres some that are just so obvious that need to be called. The inconsistency usually lies with ones that are borderline decisions. I feel for the most part, the obvious ones are called correctly.

Well, you do raise a good point... but that fine line / gray area is so vague its frustrating.

But, in VH's case, Garcia was given days... if he knew he was looking at 30 days for a ride like that plus a stiff fine, does he take the extra step to keep his horse straight?

There's no right answer here, but it does make you think a bit.

Gander · #14 10-23-2009, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Well, you do raise a good point... but that fine line / gray area is so vague its frustrating.

But, in VH's case, Garcia was given days... if he knew he was looking at 30 days for a ride like that plus a stiff fine, does he take the extra step to keep his horse straight?

There's no right answer here, but it does make you think a bit.

Good point. But the people clever enough to bet the Candyman deserved to be able to cash. He was an easy winner without the infraction.

dellinger63 · #15 10-23-2009, 09:42 PM

[quote=Scav]So a horse like the 1 in the 3rd today at Keeneland shouldn't have been taken down? That horse most definitely cost the 3 2nd place and they did the right thing.

Speaking of this race, Jamie Theriot at it again almost taking out James Graham, someone is going to this dude into the rail soon....[/QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly!!!!!! And ET came to mind! Maybe a pool cue across the head will keep it a 'private jockey matter'. Christ, Chris Emigh is undefeated w/1 KO maybe a 'handicap match is in order' Theriot needs a new career not days.......

Honu · #16 10-23-2009, 10:05 PM

They want the American riders to start looking like muck sacks , like the Euro's do , jumping up and down and flopping all over because they cant get after them.

philcski · #17 10-24-2009, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

So a horse like the 1 in the 3rd today at Keeneland shouldn't have been taken down? That horse most definitely cost the 3 2nd place and they did the right thing.

Speaking of this race, Jamie Theriot at it again almost taking out James Graham, someone is going to this dude into the rail soon....

It was a terrible job by Theriot but to be honest I'm not sure the 3 was going by. She had every opportunity before the bump and didn't- not surprising because she was a 2yo first time starter who sometimes just refuse to pass. However, it was pretty clear she was coming down regardless of what my opinion was.

As for the "infractions" at Woodbine... pathetic. Chantal got a $1200 fine for that?!? I saw the race and she was TRYING TO WIN!!! The whips they're using don't even hurt!

Cannon Shell · #18 10-24-2009, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

If it were up to me, there would be no DQ's when it comes to the wagering money of the public. Subsequent fines, purse DQs would still occur, but not until the race has long been made official as posted.

That is way too subject to abuse. After reading your further posts, I believe a easy solution is simply better stewards. There is a misconception, because they are for the most part hidden from the public eye, that all stewards are some esteemed, knowledgeable, judge-like individuals that have a firm grasp of racings rules. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Travis Stone · #19 10-24-2009, 08:53 AM

I was watching All Access or whatever its called on the NFL Network and they devoted a whole session to botched or questionable calls from the past weekend with the NLF's VP of Refereeing (interesting title).

Anyway, he completely explained, showed, investigated and shared why certain calls were made etc. And, surprisingly, he admitted when calls were wrong.

Transparency works. Racing should follow suit.

Gander · #20 10-24-2009, 09:08 AM

Or find stewards that dont bet the races themselves. I know its illegal, but how hard can it be to find someone to place a bet for you? Its very far fetched to think this doesnt go on.