conflict of interest
 

Being a jockey's agent and a track announcer.

From Wikipedia...

Is there a need for two threads on this?

Yes. I want it put to a vote and last time I checked you didn't show up on the mod list.

I say no. Watch any baseball game and the team has its own set of biased announcers. Until his call is impacting the results of the race I couldn't care less if the announcer has a dog in the fight.

:zz:

Name an announcer who is an agent.

Why would that make a difference? The announcer can't impact the results of the race so why would I care what other job the announcer has. This is silly, this is a sport where the owners, trainers, and jockeys are fully allowed to bet AGAINST their own horses. If we want to talk about conflict of interest isn't that the big one?

That's news to me.

What is possibly stopping them?

Jockeys are certainly not legally allowed to bet against the horses they are riding. I believe owners and trainers can bet whoever they want.

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/policies_and_...ules6-2006.pdf

"1971. Wagering by Jockey or Driver.

"No jockeys or drivers shall make any wagers, or have any wagers made in their behalf, in any race in which they participate, except through the owners or trainers on the horses which they ride or drive.
Any owners or trainers wagering for such jockeys or drivers shall maintain records of all such wagers and all other presents or other gratuities given any jockeys or drivers. Such records will be furnished to the stewards or the Board or its investigators upon demand.

OK, so the jockey has to do it through the owner and trainer. Still you don't think that a trainer can legally bet against his horse isn't a bigger conflict of interest than an announcer also being an agent?

No because they are gambling.

Vic's getting a set amount of money for calling the races AND a set percentage for each of Rosario's rides with a sliding scale depending on placing. There is no gamble.

well I am not suggesting Vic does this at all but since you posted that definition.

You dont think he could go out of his way to make other riders in race decisions sound more poor then they might be, thus in net effect helping his client out?

that never happens :rolleyes:

I have yet to see any plausible suggestion of how Vic could "exploit" his racecalling job to benefit Rosario. And note the word "plausible." Go have some hot dogs and beer, please.

You obviously didn't read all of the quote...

And I'll go have some hot dogs after you kindly gfy.

I'm almost positive that Richard Grunder has Willie Martinez's book in Tampa. Bigs can verify.

Conflict of Interest? Would an example of that be when threads about certain people get closed, and threads about others don't get closed?

Wow,

Quite a day for Vic & Joel :tro:

So far...


71% NO

Conflict of Interest by definition: A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization (such as a policeman, lawyer, insurance adjuster, politician, engineer, executive, director of a corporation, medical research scientist, physician, writer, editor, or any other entrusted individual or organization) has an interest that might compromise their actions. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety.

Vic Stauffer-Track Announcer at Hollywood Park.
Joel Rosario-Jockey at Hollywood Park.
Vic Stauffer-Jockey Agent for Joel Rosario at Hollywood Park.

I believe that his interest in Joel Rosario's performance has the potential to compromise his actions as Hollywood Park Track Announcer. Clear as day to me. But it looks like the 44 No voters are smarter than us 18 yes voters and defy the logic of what a Conflict of Interest is.

You need to give it a rest.

It's a track announcer that doesn't influence anything other than how a race is called. Horses can't understand humans last I heard and jocks, at best, hear a race call in the last furlong and if anyone thinks they are really listening at that point..well..

I have no interest in or have ever met Stauffer, Rosario or for that matter, anyone who is really involved here, but there is a serious hard on for Vic that I don't get. As someone told me yesterday, listening to Durkin sob as Birdstone sweeps by to win the Belmont was far more offensive and insulting to the connections of Birdstone than anything that Stauffer is accused of.

Changing topics somewhat is there a conflict when a track owner or executive has a horse entered at their facility?

To me for this circumstance this is the most accurate definition worth repeating..

Conflict of Interests generally (unrelated to the practice of law)

There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interests can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles—an individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for example—may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated—see below—but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.)

Also for the argument about a jockey or trainer betting against his own horse what the hell kind of a point is there to that? They would stand to win more if their horse won than if they bet on another horse in the race which is a crap shoot anyway. Let's say the jock/trainer have an entry in a 50K allowance race. The winning purse is 30K, the jock and trainer get 10% each of that 30K so that's 3K to each for winning the race. How the hell are they going to win 3K on the race betting on the race while betting against their horse?

How does the call an announcer makes have any bearing on the outcome of the race? Conflict of interest or not?

My question is... which came first, the chicken, or the egg?

Bob while I really could give a flying fcuk about the whole topic. One thing is 100% true, there is ZERO chance a race caller will ever be an active agent again. Vic is only allowed to do this because his track is closing and his direct reports dont give a fcuk either. No how no way would Vic's practice be allowed to continue in any other jurisdiction. But again who care!!!

Vic could have ended this thread with one simple line. Pete, I will listen to the call again and see if I did much wrong. I certainly wasnt trying to be partial but maybe I did? I will have my direct reports listen and get back to youif need be.. Thx for listening Vic(end of thread and hats off to Vic).. instead Victoria came for dinner which created all the fun..

So when V became Rosario's agent,
Vic and other track employees had already been told the track was closing?
He was only allowed to become Rosario's agent because
track officials told him the track was closing and so its OK?

That's how 99% of professional people would handle it. I guess Vic falls in that 1%.

In the end Hollywood is closing soon and I don't believe that Rosario is riding at Santa Rosa......so there probably won't be anymore controversy in the future.

sure there could be. Grunder is a jockeys agent. Guy at Portland Meadows used to be a jockeys agent for his wife who was leading rider. I was told I could have been an agent at either track i worked out by the stewards.

Vic isn't the first, and surely wont be the last

I would never be able to get up that early everyday.

you ain't kidding man!! If i was your agent, would it be a conflict of interests if i bet on races at Lad?

Sickening. You clearly don't understand the basic aspects of business ethics and you have the audacity to make light of the situation.

I won two races on Luke Krutybocsh's horse at Turf Paradise , first time he won he equaled the track record at the about distance for a mile and a half and the next time he set the course record at the same distance. Listening to the call , Luke was really loud at the end , is that showing a conflict of intrest?

Yes.

Next.

LOL

having multiple roles does not constitute a "conflict of roles" in a vacuum.

It has to be "possible" for improper acts to occur.

i'm not picking a sidde one way or the other (aside from bashing SG's ridiculous post in that other thread), but in order to make allegations like this, a legal definition of the ACTS themselves has to be formulated.

PROMOTING HIS JOCKEY WHILE ANNOUNCING

WARNING/ADVISING HIS JOCKEY DURING THE RACE

those are just 2 that i could come up with feel free to add more. Then you have to prove that they are at least possible and significant acts.

IF they aren't possible and significant then there is no case whatsoever.

For the record 99.9% of the time a jockey cannot hear the announcers call during a race at all.