Another bad call

[Goofonroof]

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

That statement is complete Hollywood Hogwash.

[Thrill]

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.

Your completely wrong on that end goof. I accept 100% where my horse finishes up. What I don't like is when I win a bet and then by some arbitrary decision by stewards I can end up losing my bet. The inconsistencies are prevalent. I understand good and bad racing "luck" just leave the human decision out of the placings.

[The Bart]

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.

Well your original post said this:

"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."

So I am assuming that you are the trainer or owner? No?

"Who cares about purse money when you can cash a big bet with no chance of being DQ'ed?"

That statement is a stretch, and don't you think it would be a lot more riskier to take one horse to create interference while your other horse wins rather than just trying to win for the purse? Here's a couple of reasons:

1. Your non-interferring horse may not win.

2. Don't you think that big bet ca shing would draw suspicion especially when the race is run where one of your horses intentionally interferes with the main competition to the point that the stewards would call an infraction?

[Andyc]

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.

I am talking about the same credibility. A jockey who has lied to you in the past would have little credibility. So if he actually tells you the truth today your past experience with him would lead you to discount or prejudice anything said. That's human nature. That's why certain evidence is not allowed in a courtroom.

[Andyc]

"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."

So I am assuming that you are the trainer or owner? No?

"Who cares about purse money when you can cash a big bet with no chance of being DQ'ed?"

That statement is a stretch, and don't you think it would be a lot more riskier to take one horse to create interference while your other horse wins rather than just trying to win for the purse? Here's a couple of reasons:

1. Your non-interferring horse may not win.

2. Don't you think that big bet ca shing would draw suspicion especially when the race is run where one of your horses intentionally interferes with the main competition to the point that the stewards would call an infraction?

I responded to the idea that there should be no DQs and that results should stand regardless of what happens in a race. Based on that an owner or trainer could use a horse to make it as difficult as possible for the main competition to run its best race. Yes, the well intended horse may not win. And NO a big bet would not draw any suspicion because who would know? The tote can hide everything.

[The Bart]

"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."

So I am assuming that you are the trainer or owner? No?

"Who cares about purse money when you can cash a big bet with no chance of being DQ'ed?"

That statement is a stretch, and don't you think it would be a lot more riskier to take one horse to create interference while your other horse wins rather than just trying to win for the purse? Here's a couple of reasons:

1. Your non-interferring horse may not win.

2. Don't you think that big bet ca shing would draw suspicion especially when the race is run where one of your horses intentionally interferes with the main competition to the point that the stewards would call an infraction?

I responded to the idea that there should be no DQs and that results should stand regardless of what happens in a race. Based on that an owner or trainer could use a horse to make it as difficult as possible for the main competition to run its best race. Yes, the well intended horse may not win. And NO <img src="/images/chat/money.jpg"> a big bet would not draw any suspicion because who would know? The tote can hide everything.

Ok, but I'm surprised the didn't catch my grammatical error. A double superlative!!!!! Shame on me.

[Goofonroof]

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.

I am talking about the same credibility. A jockey who has lied to you in the past would have little credibility. So if he actually tells you the truth today your past experience with him would lead you to discount or prejudice anything said. That's human nature. That's why certain evidence is not allowed in a courtroom.

One mans lie is another's passion. If a rider says judge " There's no way I cut him off. NO WAY! " and the video shows different he's not going to be branded a liar. Athletes in the heat of the moment don't always remember things accurately especially when the are advocating their side. Think of Rasheed Wallace. A good guy and great player who at times goes a bit koo koo on the court. He's NEVER committed a foul according to him. Eventually although certainly entitled to his say the refs get a bit immune to his rants. They might have a bit less tolerance. Will they listen? Of course it's their job. That's where the human nature part may come into play a bit. Is a guy that's respectful and has tried to explain things to the best of his ability going to get a bit of latitude over a " I'm never wrong screamer " yeah probably. But not at the expense of the rulebook. Remember also the conversation with the jockeys is a small piece of the overall inquiry puzzle. Stewards are judges. They swear to be fair and impartial. To judge each situation with no bias our prejudice. It's something I know for a fact they strive to and succeed at everyday. It's often a thankless job. Thank goodness we have people when high morals and integrity in those positions. Otherwise it would be chaos. Bettors and owners would be wronged. Horses and jockeys would be hurt. Is the system perfect? Of course not. IMO however it's pretty darn good.

[Andyc]

[quote="Goofonroof"
One mans lie is another's passion. If a rider says judge " There's no way I cut him off. NO WAY! " and the video shows different he's not going to be branded a liar. Athletes in the heat of the moment don't always remember things accurately especially when the are advocating their side. Think of Rasheed Wallace. A good guy and great player who at times goes a bit koo koo on the court. He's NEVER committed a foul according to him. Eventually although certainly entitled to his say the refs get a bit immune to his rants. They might have a bit less tolerance. Will they listen? Of course it's their job. That's where the human nature part may come into play a bit. Is a guy that's respectful and has tried to explain things to the best of his ability going to get a bit of latitude over a " I'm never wrong screamer " yeah probably. But not at the expense of the rulebook. Remember also the conversation with the jockeys is a small piece of the overall inquiry puzzle. Stewards are judges. They swear to be fair and impartial. To judge each situation with no bias our prejudice. It's something I know for a fact they strive to and succeed at everyday. It's often a thankless job. Thank goodness we have people when high morals and integrity in those positions. Otherwise it would be chaos. Bettors and owners would be wronged. Horses and jockeys would be hurt. Is the system perfect? Of course not. IMO however it's pretty darn good.[/quote]

Why talk at all to the jock? What information can the jock give you when you speak with him that can sway you one way or the other? "I didn't cut him off!" If the video shows otherwise why is a conversation necessary.

I understand what you strive for when judging but you greatly discount human nature. If Mother Theresa was riding the 1 horse and Lance Armstrong the 2 horse in a bumping incident down the stretch you can't convince me that you wouldn't view Mother Theresa's explanation as more truthful than Armstrong's.

[Goofonroof]

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.[/quote]

Your completely wrong on that end goof. I accept 100% where my horse finishes up. What I don't like is when I win a bet and then by some arbitrary decision by stewards I can end up losing my bet. The inconsistencies are prevalent. I understand good and bad racing "luck" just leave the human decision out of the placings.[/quote]

Completely wrong? Ok your opinion. Doesn't leave much room for further discussion though. I will say I don't agree with you saying "arbitrary " and " inconsistent ". Again one mans inconsistent is another's correct. As for humans being left out of the decision. Might want to re-think that statement all the way though.

[Goofonroof]

[quote="Goofonroof"
One mans lie is another's passion. If a rider says judge " There's no way I cut him off. NO WAY! " and the video shows different he's not going to be branded a liar. Athletes in the heat of the moment don't always remember things accurately especially when the are advocating their side. Think of Rasheed Wallace. A good guy and great player who at times goes a bit koo koo on the court. He's NEVER committed a foul according to him. Eventually although certainly entitled to his say the refs get a bit immune to his rants. They might have a bit less tolerance. Will they listen? Of course it's their job. That's where the human nature part may come into play a bit. Is a guy that's respectful and has tried to explain things to the best of his ability going to get a bit of latitude over a " I'm never wrong screamer " yeah probably. But not at the expense of the rulebook. Remember also the conversation with the jockeys is a small piece of the overall inquiry puzzle. Stewards are judges. They swear to be fair and impartial. To judge each situation with no bias our prejudice. It's something I know for a fact they strive to and succeed at everyday. It's often a thankless job. Thank goodness we have people when high morals and integrity in those positions. Otherwise it would be chaos. Bettors and owners would be wronged. Horses and jockeys would be hurt. Is the system perfect? Of course not. IMO however it's pretty darn good.

Why talk at all to the jock? What information can the jock give you when you speak with him that can sway you one way or the other? "I didn't cut him off!" If the video shows otherwise why is a conversation necessary.

I understand what you strive for when judging but you greatly discount human nature. If Mother Theresa was riding the 1 horse and Lance Armstrong the 2 horse in a bumping incident down the stretch you can't convince me that you wouldn't view Mother Theresa's explanation as more truthful than Armstrong's.[/quote]

There are many who think talking to the jockey should be discontinued. I don't have a strong feeling either way. What if the bumping between Lance and Mother Theresa was in a cycling event and it was her first competition? I still might want to hear what the sinner had to say just for more general knowledge and perspective. As I said before the jockeys testimony is only a small piece of the puzzle.