Gulfstream Inquiries

[jms62]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I offered that question as a way of explaining what stewards look at while conducting an inquiry.

DTer's can respond however they see fit. Quizzically, vituperations, conspiracy theories, attacking integrity. Whatever.

None of those responses is productive. But if you must that's cool.

I'm trying to contribute by sharing how the stewarding process works. Nuts and bolts. Day to day protocol.

I'll say this again.

When viewing the replays from every possible angle. When it comes to placings. DQ or no DQ. Stewards are looking at the HORSES. What the jockey's are doing on those horses doesn't factor into the decision.

The jockey's actions are a separate consideration the next morning at film review.

I wish I knew how to make that more clear.

That's how it works.

If you think that's stupid. Of course you're entitled to that opinion.

That doesn't change how the process works.

That's what we love about you Vic. You probably don't even know that statement is condescending and insults the intelligence of quite a few people on this board. It is quite easy to understand the process that you are explaining to us. I would say nearly everyone on this board understands what you are saying. When we say it is nonsensical to not look at the operator of the vehicle (in this case the horse) as part of the process you come back with a comment that we don't understand the process. We understand the process and are pointing out the process is horrible and sticking with a broken process simply because that has been the way it has been done would get you fired in 500 out of 500 Forturne 500 companies. Now please don't insult my intelligence again on how I don't understand the process.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

That's what we love about you Vic. You probably don't even know that statement is condescending and insults the intelligence of quite a few people on this board. It is quite easy to understand the process that you are explaining to us. I would say nearly everyone on this board understands what you are saying. When we say it is nonsensical to not look at the operator of the vehicle (in this case the horse) as part of the process you come back with a comment that we don't understand the process. We understand the process and are pointing out the process is horrible and sticking with a broken process simply because that has been the way it has been done would get you fired in 500 out of 500 Forturne 500 companies. Now please don't insult my intelligence again on how I don't understand the process.

'I know this is hard to grasp for the average horseplayer.'

you mean, like that...

[declansharbor]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

It has nothing to do with late or not for the bettors.

Stewards have two separate decisions to make.

1.Was a fouled horse cost the opportunity for a better placing? That is decided immediately after the race.

2. Was the jockey careless or did he do his best to avoid the incident. Can the horse be blamed? That is decided the next morning.

Many times a horse can be disqualified and the jockey held blameless.

Many times a result can be left as is and the jockey sanctioned for a riding violation.

The two decisions are separate examinations.

I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp?

The only thing i've grasped from this thread is how useless track stewards can be in determining outcomes.

[Indian Charlie]

Realistically, in a race situation like what happened in the FOY, people who bet on either of the two horses involved are going to feel screwed, depending on the way the decision goes.

In this instance, it seems pretty clear that the jockey on Upstart was being a douchebag and was the cause of the problem.

Did he cost the second place finisher a placing? It's probably less than 50% likely he did, but then again, we are talking about a horse making only his third start, so who knows for sure.

If I had the ability to make a ruling, I'd have kept Upstart as the winner.

I'd fine and suspend the jockey severely.

I'd refund wagers on the runnerup. That way nobody gets screwed completely over, and hopefully it makes those tiny brained morons think twice about using such tactics.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

The horses " are where they are ". The jockey's actions, except sometimes in the first jump are a non-factor.


You may not like or agree with that. But I can assure you that's the way the vast majority of stewards do it.

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Some calls are close. Some are not.

You're certainly entitled to think it's preposterous.

However that is how the process works.

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

What if they do their very best to control yet their horse doesn't respond and still fouls another horse? Should the stewards leave the result alone just because the jockey gave his best effort?

I know this is hard to grasp for the average horseplayer.

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

DTer's can respond however they see fit. Quizzically, vituperations, conspiracy theories, attacking integrity. Whatever.



I'm trying to contribute by sharing how the stewarding process works. Nuts and bolts. Day to day protocol.

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

It has nothing to do with late or not for the bettors.





I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp?

Congrats. You've swept in and have taken trolling to a whole new stratospheric level.

This "Average Horseplayer" hasn't wagered more than 50 bucks in California since Hollywood Park closed and I have doubts as to whether I'll ever play the circuit regularly, ever again. Thankfully, I now understand the "stewards process" there, all too well.

You play a game of semantics, saying the same thing over and over in a different way to troll the thread. Hope you got a good chuckle out of insulting the very people that keep this "sport" afloat. You're a fine ambassador.

[Pants II]

Truth be told these message boards ruined Vic. It's like a tragic comedy.

I'm not going to tell him.

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Congrats. You've swept in and have taken trolling to a whole new stratospheric level.

This "Average Horseplayer" hasn't wagered more than 50 bucks in California since Hollywood Park closed and I have doubts as to whether I'll ever play the circuit regularly, ever again. Thankfully, I now understand the "stewards process" there, all too well.

You play a game of semantics, saying the same thing over and over in a different way to troll the thread. Hope you got a good chuckle out of insulting the very people that keep this "sport" afloat. You're a fine ambassador.

Did you stop playing California because you couldn't hear me call the races anymore?

[Aly-Sheba]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

It's true in all of California and pretty much every state I worked in when I was an announcer and worked with stewards.

The actions of the jockeys are scrutinized at film review the following morning.

But what if a jockey hits another horse with his whip, don't you have to look at his actions?

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba

But what if a jockey hits another horse with his whip, don't you have to look at his actions?

Absolutely. I didn't think of that. Excellent catch.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Did you stop playing California because you couldn't hear me call the races anymore?

Aren't you the one that compared zenyatta to Secretariat, spectacular bid, Dr. Fager, native dancer and silky Sullivan in a race?

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Aren't you the one that compared zenyatta to Secretariat, spectacular bid, Dr. Fager, native dancer and silky Sullivan in a race?

I compared Azeri to Personal Ensign, Lady's Secret and Ruffian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c5wlX42_Ms

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I compared Azeri to Personal Ensign, Lady's Secret and Ruffian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c5wlX42_Ms

I stand corrected

[Kitan]

To me, the issue is not solely about the DQ in the FOY. As Indian Charlie mentioned, either way the decision went there would have been discontent. I personally don't believe it should have been a DQ, but clearly others think it should have been. My issue is with how it relates to the subsequent race. Whether or not one race should set a precedent for future events is another discussion, but in this instance the two races are "mutually inclusive" because there is no reasonable explanation for there to be a DQ in one and not the other. The issue is that there is NO consistency between rulings not only at tracks across the continent, but even at one track on the same day! If you make the DQ in the FOY, you HAVE to make the DQ in the following race. Yes, the two incidents are separate and should have no bearing on the other, but I really fail to see how you can not DQ both, or leave both up, and the explanations given really show the incompetence. Unless I'm mistaken, we aren't gambling with Monopoly money. The risk of winning/losing is already a fine margin, so how can we as bettors be willing to place such hard-earned cash on an outcome that could be questioned, reasonably or unreasonably, and have that outcome potentially and unfairly taken away from us?

[Rupert Pupkin]

First of all, as everyone has said, the stewards call in the 12th race (the maiden race) was unbelievable. It was a clear foul and there is a very good chance that it changed the order of finish. How they could take the horse down in the Fountain of Youth but not in the 12th race is mind-boggling.

With regards to what Vic is saying, I don't understand the outrage or the controversy. If you are either an owner or a bettor, if your horse is fouled and was probably cost a placing, you are going to expect the horse who fouled your horse to get disqualified. You are going to expect it regardless of whether the jockey on the horse who committed the foul was responsible for the incident.

For example, in that 12th race at Gulfstream (the maiden race), the inside horse came out a few lanes and fouled the outside horse. That horse should be disqualified. It is totally irrelevant whether the jockey was at fault. That horse should get disqualified either way. The jockey's actions are only relevant in deciding whether the jockey will be punished, and if so, what the punishment will be. It is irrelevant in deciding whether to disqualify the horse. In deciding whether or not to disqualify the horse, the only two things that should be relevant are whether there was a foul, and whether that foul likely cost the horse who was fouled a better placing. That is the way it should be.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Absolutely. I didn't think of that. Excellent catch.

Nice Catch? AYFKU? It completely blows up your argument and cements the rest of ours as valid. How you can be a steward and not have that scenario on the tip of your tongue is mind boggling.

Originally Posted by jms62

Nice Catch? AYFKU? It completely blows up your argument and cements the rest of ours as valid. How you can be a steward and not have that scenario on the tip of your tongue is mind boggling.

Disqualifications for whip violations are rare.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Disqualifications for whip violations are rare.

As rare as competent stewards....

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

First of all, as everyone has said, the stewards call in the 12th race (the maiden race) was unbelievable. It was a clear foul and there is a very good chance that it changed the order of finish. How they could take the horse down in the Fountain of Youth but not in the 12th race is mind-boggling.

With regards to what Vic is saying, I don't understand the outrage or the controversy. If you are either an owner or a bettor, if your horse is fouled and was probably cost a placing, you are going to expect the horse who fouled your horse to get disqualified. You are going to expect it regardless of whether the jockey on the horse who committed the foul was responsible for the incident.

For example, in that 12th race at Gulfstream (the maiden race), the inside horse came out a few lanes and fouled the outside horse. That horse should be disqualified. It is totally irrelevant whether the jockey was at fault. That horse should get disqualified either way. The jockey's actions are only relevant in deciding whether the jockey will be punished, and if so, what the punishment will be. It is irrelevant in deciding whether to disqualify the horse. In deciding whether or not to disqualify the horse, the only two things that should be relevant are whether there was a foul, and whether that foul likely cost the horse who was fouled a better placing. That is the way it should be.

That's the way I read it, too. It makes sense to me.

[ironprospect]

I would wager money that if someone did a statistical study of disqualifications and the corresponding race of the DQ to its position on the card.

You would find statistically that there are by far fewer DQ's in the last race of the day, than any other on the card.

And the longer the card as a whole the fewer DQ's in the last race.

Why??

Because the governing bodies are wearing there hats and jackets, just waiting to get the hell out of work and go home. They are praying while the horses and the jocks come back past the outrider, that no claims foul.

Who are the fastest people to there cars and gone after the last.

The Judges because they have great parking spots, if not reserved and they are there very earlier for there long free lunch and because if you know who the Judges are they fly out the frelling door ASAP can make a race official.

Something that may get thoroughly looked at in the second last race, does so because they still gotta be there, whereas the same item in the nitecap rates hardly a second look because its there time.

I ain't saying it right, I'm saying that's the way it is

And if the Judges are forced to have to look at an incident in the last, you can bet your ass its not gonna be one of those ten minute inquiries. That light on the toteboard comes down as fast as it goes up.

Judges don't get overtime.

Appeals of Judges calls for DQ's get reviewed month's later and are not widely publicized. While there are no appeals for the calls the miss or let go.

Let's not bother mentioning Judges review process. College Professors who take bribes, screw around with their students, sell drugs to the student body, cheat on there taxes, wives etc and only work a couple of hours a day for 7 or eight month's a year look at a judges "tenure" and *hit there pants.

Of course this can all change IF you got a crew thats playing with there own money. Which is fodder for another episode

[Indian Charlie]

Frelling?

That's so like 2000