Gulfstream Inquiries

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

However, as I said before. The more information at our disposal the better.

That's not what you "said before".

Ever.

What you "said before" was exactly the opposite.

You said that a jockey's action (or inaction) play's zero role in the steward's decision to take a horse down or not. That no one even looks at a jockey's action until they review the tape the next morning.

And then trolled the thread for 2 pages reemphasizing the point.

So Vic, which is it? Are you a liar, or an imbecile? Those, unfortunately, are the only two menu choices left...

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

That's not what you "said before".

Ever.

What you "said before" was exactly the opposite.

You said that a jockey's action (or inaction) play's zero role in the steward's decision to take a horse down or not. That no one even looks at a jockey's action until they review the tape the next morning.

And then trolled the thread for 2 pages reemphasizing the point.

So Vic, which is it? Are you a liar, or an imbecile? Those, unfortunately, are the only two menu choices left...

What I said was we look at the horses.

When we speak to the riders we ask for their opinions as to what took place.

Whatever menu choice #3 is. I want that.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

What I said was we look at the horses.

When we speak to the riders we ask for their opinions as to what took place.

Whatever menu choice #3 is. I want that.

So you ask their opinions, yet refuse to look at what you are asking them about until the next morning. Gotcha. It all makes complete sense now.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

That's not what you "said before".

Ever.

What you "said before" was exactly the opposite.

You said that a jockey's action (or inaction) play's zero role in the steward's decision to take a horse down or not. That no one even looks at a jockey's action until they review the tape the next morning.

And then trolled the thread for 2 pages reemphasizing the point.

So Vic, which is it? Are you a liar, or an imbecile? Those, unfortunately, are the only two menu choices left...

There was no contradiction in what Vic said. If you ask a jockey whether or not the horse that came in on him cost him a placing, that is not a question about a "jockey's action". That is simply a question about whether the alleged foul cost the horse a placing.

By the way, there are exceptions to what Vic said. The stewards are going to closely look at a jockey's actions if they think the jockey overreacted. For example, if horse A comes in a little on horse B and the jockey on Horse B takes up sharply, the stewards are going to make sure that they believe the jockey on horse B didn't overreact. If they think horse A was pretty much clear of horse B and the jockey taking up was an acting job or simply an overreaction, then the stewards will probably not disqualify horse A. That would be an example of the stewards strongly considering the jockey's actions in their deliberations.