Another bad call

[Andyc]

Jockeys would have to fear fines and/or suspensions if they used their horse to interfere with the competition.

Small price to pay if your other horse is taking down a big purse or the barn is some large wagers.

[The Bart]

Having had my fair share of disqualifications and being put up via DQ racing should just let the placings stand. Whatever place your horse finishes whether they were fouled or not should be their final placing. If a foul occurred the stewards can fine or suspend the jockey. They should not have the ability to take a horse down based upon what they think is a DQ. I think after a while bettors will get used to just letting the results stand and not letting stewards decide whether they win or lose a certain race.

Great idea. That way I can run 2 horses in a race and tell the jockey on my bad horse to interfere with the competition.

You're right, it is a great idea. If a trainer sends two and one creates an offense both horses are dropped out of purse money, the trainer faces suspension , the jockey on the offending horse faces suspension and possible criminal endangerment charges and the purse money is lost to the owners.

I repeat and repeat and repeat: I don't want an anonymous , most likely biased three persons making a decision that affects my bet. If my horse wins I win, and I don't care how he got to the wire first.

For crissakes, there are stewards out there that are former jockeys, or agents etc. and to say that once they get in the steward's booth the bias disappears, is rather naive. Hell at one track I know, a steward was the son of a working trainer. His father gets involved in an inquiry and you're going to tell me that he doesn't look at the situation a lot differently than the other two judges?

[Andyc]

You're right, it is a great idea. If a trainer sends two and one creates an offense both horses are dropped out of purse money, the trainer faces suspension , the jockey on the offending horse faces suspension and possible criminal endangerment charges and the purse money is lost to the owners.

That seems reasonable, hold the trainer responsible for what the jockey does. That won't create any lawsuits. After all who cares about purse money when you can cash a big bet with no chance of being DQed.

[Andyc]

They should never allow entries in a race and they already do" do it" a trainer runs 2 horses or more in a race and one is the rabbit to soften up the speed while the back marker picks up the win. It's called handicapping some of us are better at it than others. That was a tip for free by the way ,next time it'll cost ya.

Sharp post.

[Fredo]

Jockeys would have to fear fines and/or suspensions if they used their horse to interfere with the competition.

Small price to pay if your other horse is taking down a big purse or the barn is <img src="/images/chat/money.jpg"> some large wagers.

Trust me its done more than you think it is.

[Goofonroof]

[quote="Goofonroof"I believe they can. There's a big difference between prejudice and credibility.

Now we are getting to the problem. If a jockey has no credibility in your eyes and the other stewards eyes he/she will necessarily be treated prejudicially because of it. The stewards certainly wouldn't qualify as jurors in a court of law.[/quote]

Andy. I'm not talking about are you a good human or a bad human credibility. I'm talking about " The boy who cried wolf credibility " and the weight that testimony carries towards the final decision.

Funny you'd say that about jurors. I missed Fairplex this year because I was a juror on a trial here in Marin that took five weeks. Not a day went by that I didn't use my steward training and sensibilities in the courtroom.

[Goofonroof]

Having had my fair share of disqualifications and being put up via DQ racing should just let the placings stand. Whatever place your horse finishes whether they were fouled or not should be their final placing. If a foul occurred the stewards can fine or suspend the jockey. They should not have the ability to take a horse down based upon what they think is a DQ. I think after a while bettors will get used to just letting the results stand and not letting stewards decide whether they win or lose a certain race.

I can cure you of that in a big hurry. Buy a horse. Watch him flying up the rail. Have the leader angle in and saw him in half. Finish 5th instead of firing by to win. I suspect you'll have a different take.

[Hollywoodmike]

Having had my fair share of disqualifications and being put up via DQ racing should just let the placings stand. Whatever place your horse finishes whether they were fouled or not should be their final placing. If a foul occurred the stewards can fine or suspend the jockey. They should not have the ability to take a horse down based upon what they think is a DQ. I think after a while bettors will get used to just letting the results stand and not letting stewards decide whether they win or lose a certain race.

Mere mortals playing God. I understand your point "Thrill"

[Goofonroof]

Having had my fair share of disqualifications and being put up via DQ racing should just let the placings stand. Whatever place your horse finishes whether they were fouled or not should be their final placing. If a foul occurred the stewards can fine or suspend the jockey. They should not have the ability to take a horse down based upon what they think is a DQ. I think after a while bettors will get used to just letting the results stand and not letting stewards decide whether they win or lose a certain race.

Mere mortals playing God. I understand your point "Thrill"

A silly thing to say Mike. No one is playing God. Stewards have a job to do just like any other referee of any other sport.

[Hollywoodmike]

That's exactly what the Stewards are doing in their perch high about the grandstand. Playing God.