Gulfstream Inquiries

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

When stewards view an inquiry, for the purpose of order of finish, the actions of the jockeys are rarely taken into consideration. We watch the horses.

One exception would be the first few jumps from the gate. We look for very quick correction if a horse doesn't break straight.

There's an old adage stewards have been known to say to jockeys. " The first jump is yours. The 2nd ours"

That may be true in Northern California, but it is not everywhere else.

[Pants II]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

The Track variant was a 23 - they were all crawling. Itsaknockout was coming and on even terms may have had something to say about the outcome. Why else would Ortiz interfere?
As I mentioned - They penalized Ortiz's intent for a bone-head move, and as IC said, would not be surprised if he gets days or at least a warning for.

Personally I wasn't impressed by anything in that race.

He may have. And at the time watching the race I was conditioned to accept Upstart was getting disqualified. It's the easy way out.

My disdain for stewards began at an early age when I discovered that a few of them bet on horse racing while on the job. They shouldn't be allowed to gamble on any horse race. It creates a bias.

So yeah my opinion is biased and my trust was ruined at an early age. Maybe it's changed...but naaaah. Humans don't change. Especially in a hard-headed sport like horse racing.

Which is why I don't like giving recommendations. The people in charge don't listen.

A simple solution would be "all-star" stewards for derby and bc prep races. But hell there will be 1000 excuses from the status quo as to why that would be a bad idea.

We've been conditioned to accept it or quit the game. They don't care either way really.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by jms62

And that's why stewards are morons and are ruining the game.

That sir, is the very definition of 'understatement'.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Pants II

He may have. And at the time watching the race I was conditioned to accept Upstart was getting disqualified. It's the easy way out.

My disdain for stewards began at an early age when I discovered that a few of them bet on horse racing while on the job. They shouldn't be allowed to gamble on any horse race. It creates a bias.

So yeah my opinion is biased and my trust was ruined at an early age. Maybe it's changed...but naaaah. Humans don't change. Especially in a hard-headed sport like horse racing.

Which is why I don't like giving recommendations. The people in charge don't listen.

A simple solution would be "all-star" stewards for derby and bc prep races. But hell there will be 1000 excuses from the status quo as to why that would be a bad idea.

We've been conditioned to accept it or quit the game. They don't care either way really.

I quit betting on horses entirely due to, in order of importance:

1. Completely idiotic and imbecilic jockeys.
2. Completely idiotic and imbecilic stewards.
3. Shady and crooked trainers.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

That sir, is the very definition of 'understatement'.

Happy Birthday to you.

[Indian Charlie]

Back in the mid 80s, I bet a cold exacta, I think at HP, Mint Leaf to Ice Stealer. Was paying really quite well, and Mint Leaf won the race by about eight lengths, with Ice Stealer in second.

The stewards put up an inquiry, for an incident on the first turn, where Mint Leaf came in maybe six inches and touched Ice Stealer.

Everyone in the crowd was shocked, and even booed, when they took the winner down for basically nothing.

I also got taken down in a down the hill race at SA when I had a win bet on the great Stormy But Valid.

She was at least two to three lengths clear of an incident near the top of the stretch, that she had absolutely nothing to do with. After an agonizingly long inquiry, yep, they took her down. She was three clear and ran a perfectly in her own lane race.

The crowd went apeshit for several minutes.

The only possible explanations were they had a vendetta against Mayberry/Siegels, or they threw the race.

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

That may be true in Northern California, but it is not everywhere else.

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.

[Alabama Stakes]

when the stewards took local champ Concorde Bound down in a $100,000 sprint back when that was a lot of bread, it made my head spin. To send that purse out of town for some marginal meaningless ****, and take the Generazios down was the worst thing that could have possibly to New England racing.

How shady jockeys like Rene Riera and Mike Carrozella became stewards makes one wonder what the qualifications are for the job. Pinhead jockeys, over the hill race announcers, and other lazy good for nothings who know someone.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

One exception would be the first few jumps from the gate. We look for very quick correction if a horse doesn't break straight.

There's an old adage stewards have been known to say to jockeys. " The first jump is yours. The 2nd ours"

Except when Santa Anita is hosting a breeders cup?

Or is this adage moot if a disqualification would result in putting up a euro on dirt?

Or does Baffert trump all?

[Rudeboyelvis]

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.

If what you are saying is true, (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then the take down of Upstart makes no sense on any explicable level.

I would find it near impossible to dismiss what a jock is doing on a horse and only focus on the horse itself - to the point of looking at the infraction from an unnatural perspective - especially when the majority of the time, it is the jock's actions that impact the horses reaction.

I'd guess that perhaps this is an unwritten rule, but in the case of the two take downs being discussed here, the jockey's actions validated the Stewards responses in both instances, and not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

If what you are saying is true, (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then the take down of Upstart makes no sense on any explicable level.

I would find it near impossible to dismiss what a jock is doing on a horse and only focus on the horse itself - to the point of looking at the infraction from an unnatural perspective - especially when the majority of the time, it is the jock's actions that impact the horses reaction.

I'd guess that perhaps this is an unwritten rule, but in the case of the two take downs being discussed here, the jockey's actions validated the Stewards responses in both instances, and not the other way around.

When the film is being viewed. We look at the horses. Their paths, strides, clearance, momentum, position. For that part of the inquiry there is either a foul or there is not. If we determine a foul occurred we then decide was the fouled horse cost an opportunity at a better placing.

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

What if a jockey is doing everything in his or her power to stop his mount from impeding another horse? Yet that horse is bound and determined to race erratically crashing into a rival causing that horse to check very sharply. Should the stewards leave that " as is " because the rider was doing everything he could to avoid the incident? Of course not.

The actions of the jockeys are separate to the inquiry. They are reviewed the next morning in the stewards office.

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

[jms62]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

When the film is being viewed. We look at the horses. Their paths, strides, clearance, momentum, position. For that part of the inquiry there is either a foul or there is not. If we determine a foul occurred we then decide was the fouled horse cost an opportunity at a better placing.

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

What if a jockey is doing everything in his or her power to stop his mount from impeding another horse? Yet that horse is bound and determined to race erratically crashing into a rival causing that horse to check very sharply. Should the stewards leave that " as is " because the rider was doing everything he could to avoid the incident? Of course not.

The actions of the jockeys are separate to the inquiry. They are reviewed the next morning in the stewards office.

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

So if a horse is drifting and the jock is hitting him left handed and it is a close call whether he impeded another horse, the fact that he was causing his horse to drift has no impact on your decision? That is preposterous.

Originally Posted by jms62

So if a horse is drifting and the jock is hitting him left handed and it is a close call whether he impeded another horse, the fact that he was causing his horse to drift has no impact on your decision? That is preposterous.

Some calls are close. Some are not. If a horse drifts into the path of a rival those horses are point of focus. Did the horse impede his rival to the extent that rival was cost the opportunity at a better placing? How the horse got to the point where the incident occurred irrelevant.

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

However that is how the process works.

[robfla]

I hope other Stewards have a different perspective.

Of course, jockey actions should have to play a part in the decision making process. They control the horse's action to a great extent.

Originally Posted by robfla

I hope other Stewards have a different perspective.

Of course, jockey actions should have to play a part in the decision making process. They control the horse's action to a great extent.

Of course they control the horses actions. They are held accountable in film review.

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. I had to learn it myself. To separate.

However, that's the way it works.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Of course they control the horses actions. They are held accountable in film review.

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?

Nope (I can't believe you seriously asked that question or are you just playing devils advocate)

I know this is hard to grasp for the average horseplayer. I had to learn it myself. To separate.

However, that's the way it works.

That's why we get these farcical results and that is why stewards looked upon as morons at best and corrupt at worse. Results that threaten the perceived integrity of the sport. Status Quo is why racing is considered a dying sport.

[declansharbor]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Of course they control the horses actions. They are held accountable in film review.

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. I had to learn it myself. To separate.

However, that's the way it works.

Unfortunately that's too late for the bettors and their money. That's horrible actually.

Originally Posted by jms62

That's why we get these farcical results and that is why stewards looked upon as morons at best and corrupt at worse. Results that threaten the perceived integrity of the sport. Status Quo is why racing is considered a dying sport.

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.

Originally Posted by declansharbor

Unfortunately that's too late for the bettors and their money. That's horrible actually.

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?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by declansharbor

Unfortunately that's too late for the bettors and their money. That's horrible actually.

absolutely the jocks behavior should be scrutinized when there's a claim of foul. it's not as tho they are often-times innocent bystanders. a horses behavior is quite often a result of the jocks behavior.
yes, they should face separate punishment when they're deemed to have ridden carelessly, but they should be under a microscope at the time of foul claim.
an enlightening conversation for sure.