V J S NEEED YOUR OPINION All DTER'S PLEASE READ AND RESPOND

[Linny]

I'm in favor of public statements. Whether or not that involves an announcement at the track or just a written statement or both, I am not sure.

What is important to me is that a written statement sets precedent. It might make stewards feel compelled to be more consistant.

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

So what do I want? 2 things; 1 to make the game a bit fairer; 2 to make the game a bit safer for the jockeys and horses.

1) I want the stewards to show me that they actually understand what happens in races and DQ and FINE any jockey that herds in the stretch (or at any other point). Castellano, for example, has won quite a few races by herding out and intimidating a horse that is making a winning move. The NBA is finally going to do something about the FLOPPERS; racing needs to take this advantage away from the herders.
2) any jockey that does not stay in lane when going into (or while in any part) of a turn needs to be FINED!!!. There are far too many instances of jockeys/horses getting pinched going into the turn because the idiot in the 2 path can't stay in the 2 path Fine the MOFOS before someone gets killed. Show the public that the stewards as least have a clue in this area.

Give me these two changes and I'll be a happy horse player.

DQ's are part of the game and there will always be disagreements about them.

I hope you have a clean cut version of what will illicit a herding violation, because the NBA has no idea what is going to constitute flopping. Its fine making a rule, as long as you can clearly explain what a violation of that rule encompasses.

To topic:
Anything to make steward's decisions transparent.
Especially if a horse is taken down.

Explaining why a horse is not taken down will be
much more complicated. This would most likely
create a problem on every other race among
the superfecta freaks betting big fields.

[PSH]

Obviously, the stewards also talk to the jockeys involved in the incident and use that input to make decisions. I am not sure if those conversations are privy or not but part of their explanation (written or verbal) should make reference to those conversations that may or may not have a bearing on their final decision.

[CSC]

I think the stewards have an obligation to explain their decisions, why would any bettor who wagered on a race not want a DQ explained. At worst it atleast brings a sense of integrity to the process.

[RolloTomasi]

I think thorough, announced explainations are moot as the stewards' decisions I assume are final. The only reason to have written statements would be for owners and trainers that want to appeal the stewards' rulings in court (eg the '90 Del Mar Derby). In those cases, even if the rulings are overturned, the bettors aren't compensated retroactively just as they aren't when a horse tests positive for a medication violation in post-race testing.

Not ideal for the bettors anyway you slice it, but at least the silver lining would be less noise coming from the public address system.

[ELA]

Many years ago, the Meadowlands made some efforts in this area (for the harness meet). The stewards (not sure if it was the head steward, presiding judge, or what) were interviewed for an in-house show, there was Q&A, replays were shown, etc. I don't know if any of this was done live or what the specifics were.

Regardless, I think efforts in this area would be a very good thing. Of course efforts such as this will open a Pandora's box, however, I have always been in favor of the public gaining more access to information, knowledge, etc. Giving the fan an explanation of a decision/conclusion, and hopefully the information that helped arrive at same, could add a lot to the game.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I think the issue is a bit more complicated than it appears.

Watching races and making decisions based what one sees is both very technical and an art. Very few are expert at it. I doubt that the best race watchers in the country are working as stewards. I doubt, in fact, that any of the stewards are even remotely good race watchers. This isn't meant as criticism of the stewards but more general criticism of the industry; for example, I would bet that most of the video people, those responsible for the position and perspective of the cameras are clueless when it comes to what the trip handicapper wants to see in the film of a race. This is tape that the stewards rely on, btw. Now, say there's an incident in the stretch run of a turf sprint on the inner at BEL. How exactly do the stewards make a decision when the stretch run appears as if it is shot from Linden BLVD? Technology is not in place, in this case, for a rational decision. Yet, they're taking our money. Give the stewards BETTER resources.

The viewing of a race can be a very subjective event with a plethora of different interpretations. Assume that the stewards go out of their way to provide written explanations; or whatever else some of the others have mentioned as being sufficient to appease them. Since a strong majority of race watchers are clueless when it come to 'watching races', you'll always have a whole bunch of people disatisfied with any decision. Many a time I've shaken my head at some of the interpretations of races; interpretations I thought were OBVIOUS. And, I'm sure, others has also thought my take on a given race to be ridiculous.

So what do I want? 2 things; 1 to make the game a bit fairer; 2 to make the game a bit safer for the jockeys and horses.

1) I want the stewards to show me that they actually understand what happens in races and DQ and FINE any jockey that herds in the stretch (or at any other point). Castellano, for example, has won quite a few races by herding out and intimidating a horse that is making a winning move. The NBA is finally going to do something about the FLOPPERS; racing needs to take this advantage away from the herders.

2) any jockey that does not stay in lane when going into (or while in any part) of a turn needs to be FINED!!!. There are far too many instances of jockeys/horses getting pinched going into the turn because the idiot in the 2 path can't stay in the 2 path. Fine the MOFOS before someone gets killed. Show the public that the stewards as least have a clue in this area.

Give me these two changes and I'll be a happy horse player.

DQ's are part of the game and there will always be disagreements about them.

For someone who likes to call out people for being clueless, this seems to show a complete lack of understanding of how horses run

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I think thorough, announced explainations are moot as the stewards' decisions I assume are final. The only reason to have written statements would be for owners and trainers that want to appeal the stewards' rulings in court (eg the '90 Del Mar Derby). In those cases, even if the rulings are overturned, the bettors aren't compensated retroactively just as they aren't when a horse tests positive for a medication violation in post-race testing.

Not ideal for the bettors anyway you slice it, but at least the silver lining would be less noise coming from the public address system.

I never understand why bettors should be compensated retroactively unless the people who cashed initially are forced to pay back the money they collected.

[skippy3481]

I would love to hear a stewards reasoning behind a decision, but more then anything else, I want consistency. It's like flipping a quarter on most of these rulings. I've seen blatant fouls disallowed and non-fouls result in dq.

[Honu]

I think that when the jockeys get off their horses and pick up the phone to the stewards from that moment on until they make their final call it should be on a P.A, thru out the grandstand. That way the gamblers and owners and trainers can know exactly what is being said thru out the whole process.
There wouldnt be a need for anyone to say this or that because it has already been said.
When I first started riding there wasnt much of the "didnt change the outcome of the race" used when making calls. I have learned thru watching races that this is an important factor when deciding a DQ or not , that sometimes horses or riders impede dying horses trying to win the race and it shouldnt affect the outcome but the stewards should sometimes penalize the jockey after the fact for not maintaining a straight course.
The stewards have a tough job and if they dont change the outcome of races when there is an infraction jockeys would just ride like idiots , take it from one , we would.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I never understand why bettors should be compensated retroactively unless the people who cashed initially are forced to pay back the money they collected.

Yes. I wasn't trying to make that assertion, though the wording probably suggests it. What I meant to say was once a race is declared "official", as far as the payout goes, its all moot.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Great stuff guys! Keep it up. BTW a written explanation of all rulings is available by reading the stewards minutes which are available at www.chrb.ca.gov

Thanks so much.

V

I had no idea they were published.

I wish we had what the Hong Kong Jockey Club has..... one main site for all results, all incidents reports, everything.

I know it would be a lot of work to get something like that going though.

In the meantime, having a link on Cal Racing or Equibase..... somewhere! I'm just wondering how many other people had no clue that this was available.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

I'd love to have them come on and explain all the no-calls they make. Take for instance the 7th race at Hollywood Park on May 10th. I'd love to hear them explain how that little filly was gunna hold on without fouling the horse who was trying to go by her. There is way too much overlooking of herding. It's pretty hard to get by a horse that keeps forcing you to move to your right. Why did they overlook it when this horse came out and bumped this horse, and forced it to keep running to it's right (instead of being able to run straight forward.) When they let it go, it simply encourages others to float their horses out to take the path of those also trying to pass them. I didn't bet the race. I'm not bitter at the stewards over that race, but I want a horse with run to be able to run straight. I don't want to have to have my horse run to it's right( because a horse keeps coming out to keep it from going by.) Late in that race, the outside horse is having to worry about the little filly that keeps moving out. I have no idea why they think a horse isn't bothered by that. That horse is having to worry about the fact that horse keeps coming out, and that horse would have gone by late if it wasn't worried about the other one swerving over on it. We are talking 6 inches here, and I can't believe that they didn't think it cost the outside horse 6 inches.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

For someone who likes to call out people for being clueless, this seems to show a complete lack of understanding of how horses run

Horses handle like bikes.

Except I had a horse take off and scrape me
off on a tree. My bike never tried that.

Really good well thought out and written posts. Thanks so very much. V J S

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

For someone who likes to call out people for being clueless, this seems to show a complete lack of understanding of how horses run

Why don't you enlighten me? I mean, I've seen enough races to know that jockeys do have some control or where a horse goes.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

would like to see the stews have a review board that is public..have a national oversite and training ..making a standard that all would follow in every situtation..yes there are many, but we have enough video of all these that its not un doable

[Samarta]

Does the NFL not come to mind here? Besides gaining credibility, wouldn't explanations at the time the race is declared also be extremely beneficial for the fan that might not know all the rules and what the stewards are looking for? How many of us have listened to the "upon further review" and said "man, I didn't know that?" In an industry where credibility is always in question, anything it get do to enhance the credibility is an absolute must in my opinion.

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

The viewing of a race can be a very subjective event with a plethora of different interpretations.
1) I want the stewards to show me that they actually understand what happens in races and DQ and FINE any jockey that herds in the stretch (or at any other point).

2) any jockey that does not stay in lane when going into (or while in any part) of a turn needs to be FINED!!!. .

Whaaat?

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Honu

I think that when the jockeys get off their horses and pick up the phone to the stewards from that moment on until they make their final call it should be on a P.A, thru out the grandstand. That way the gamblers and owners and trainers can know exactly what is being said thru out the whole process.
There wouldnt be a need for anyone to say this or that because it has already been said.
When I first started riding there wasnt much of the "didnt change the outcome of the race" used when making calls. I have learned thru watching races that this is an important factor when deciding a DQ or not , that sometimes horses or riders impede dying horses trying to win the race and it shouldnt affect the outcome but the stewards should sometimes penalize the jockey after the fact for not maintaining a straight course.
The stewards have a tough job and if they dont change the outcome of races when there is an infraction jockeys would just ride like idiots , take it from one , we would.

I am with Honu here. I know it would never happen. But if somehow we could hear the jocks arguements and then watch the stewards as they look and disect the race. Let the public in on what they are thinking. It beats the hell out of guessing what's going on up there and watching blinking numbers for 5 minutes.