Rainbow 6

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Who said we should discount charts?

I would bet I follow the charts at all tracks a LOT closer than you do. Most do a good job given the time allowed. But if there wasn't a rush to get charts out, they could be much better.

But, this has nothing to do with charts guys commenting on DQ / non DQ situations. Charts are almost always tailored in these situations to follow the opinion of the stewards. This wasn't always the case, but in the last few years, it has become the norm.

So you are essentially saying that there is a conspiracy between chart callers and stewards at various tracks throughout the country to get on the same page concerning DQ's?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Who said we should discount charts?

Well you did when you said that it was ridiculous to state the chartcallers opinion

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Well you did when you said that it was ridiculous to state the chartcallers opinion

Of that, yes, but not the charts as a whole. Sorry if it came across that way.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you are essentially saying that there is a conspiracy between chart callers and stewards at various tracks throughout the country to get on the same page concerning DQ's?

I'm saying in my opinion of watching lots of replays and reading lots of charts, that when a foul is involved, the chart caller will almost always reflect the opinion of the stewards. That is my experience. Why, I have no idea. I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just stating what I see. I project figures for a lot of horses, so when there is trouble I go to watch and see how much or how little of an impact I think it had.

A decade ago, it was pretty common that a chart caller would make it clear if he disagreed with a steward's decision. Today, not nearly as much. Do you disagree? I can't remember a single one recently.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Of that, yes, but not the charts as a whole. Sorry if it came across that way.

So Chuck Streva's chart for that particular race is ridiculous to use as an example of an independent opinion of the race because you feel there is collusion between Stewards and chart callers regarding DQ's?

In other words if the horse hadn't come down Chuck would have worded the chart in a different manner?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm saying in my opinion of watching lots of replays and reading lots of charts, that when a foul is involved, the chart caller will almost always reflect the opinion of the stewards. That is my experience. Why, I have no idea. I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just stating what I see. I project figures for a lot of horses, so when there is trouble I go to watch and see how much or how little of an impact I think it had.

A decade ago, it was pretty common that a chart caller would make it clear if he disagreed with a steward's decision. Today, not nearly as much. Do you disagree? I can't remember a single one recently.

Wouldnt you say the vast majority of DQ's are pretty clear cut as to what happened? Especially since the camera's are so much better than they used to be?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So Chuck Streva's chart for that particular race is ridiculous to use as an example of an independent opinion of the race because you feel there is collusion between Stewards and chart callers regarding DQ's?

In other words if the horse hadn't come down Chuck would have worded the chart in a different manner?

Again, you are just making **** up. I never said there was collusion. I'm just giving what I see. Why, AGAIN, I don't know. I don't think there is any plotting going on behind the scenes as you imply.

Had the horse not come down, I don't think we'd have gotten the same narrative based on my experience. Of course I don't know that as fact in this particular instance, nor do you.

You didn't answer my last question, maybe you'll answer this one. Do you think the opinion of the stewards can influence the chart maker? Isn't that possible without it being some grand conspiracy?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Wouldnt you say the vast majority of DQ's are pretty clear cut as to what happened? Especially since the camera's are so much better than they used to be?

No, I don't think there is any consistency to stewards decisions, even on the same circuit. I won't pretend to know all the rules, but based on the calls I've seen made (and not made), the same infraction is often adjudicated differently from day to day.

Honestly, I don't see the views being any better than they were 20 years ago. Some tracks don't even have "straight" head on views, particularly on turf. They pictures aren't that clear, not like the cameras are HD. And, there are still plenty of blind spots.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Again, you are just making **** up. I never said there was collusion. I'm just giving what I see. Why, AGAIN, I don't know. I don't think there is any plotting going on behind the scenes as you imply.

Had the horse not come down, I don't think we'd have gotten the same narrative based on my experience. Of course I don't know that as fact in this particular instance, nor do you.

You didn't answer my last question, maybe you'll answer this one. Do you think the opinion of the stewards can influence the chart maker? Isn't that possible without it being some grand conspiracy?

I'm just trying to understand why the official chart of the race from an experienced chart caller would be "ridiculous" to use as a point of view?

You used the word ridiculous. The rest is just conjecture.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

No, I don't think there is any consistency to stewards decisions, even on the same circuit. I won't pretend to know all the rules, but based on the calls I've seen made (and not made), the same infraction is often adjudicated differently from day to day.

Honestly, I don't see the views being any better than they were 20 years ago. Some tracks don't even have "straight" head on views, particularly on turf. They pictures aren't that clear, not like the cameras are HD. And, there are still plenty of blind spots.

Check out the feed from Atlantic City for a look back in time.
You can barely make out individual horses on the head on

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I'm just trying to understand why the official chart of the race from an experienced chart caller would be "ridiculous" to use as a point of view?

You used the word ridiculous. The rest is just conjecture.

Maybe ridiculous was harsh. But if you use the chart call as some form of evidence, you will nearly always side with the stewards. It isn't conjecture if it is true. Funny you won't answer simple questions. I'm sure you've been digging for some charts that make a DQ look questionable. (Hint: you'll be looking for a while)

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Check out the feed from Atlantic City for a look back in time.
You can barely make out individual horses on the head on

I said 20 years ago. AC hasn't run a real meet in longer than that I'm sure.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Maybe ridiculous was harsh. But if you use the chart call as some form of evidence, you will nearly always side with the stewards. It isn't conjecture if it is true. Funny you won't answer simple questions. I'm sure you've been digging for some charts that make a DQ look questionable. (Hint: you'll be looking for a while)

What questions won't I answer?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I said 20 years ago. AC hasn't run a real meet in longer than that I'm sure.

Look at AC's video in 2014 and see what we used to see everywhere. They are still using 1980's technology over there. We are spoiled now

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What questions won't I answer?

You can re-read my posts as well as I can.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Look at AC's video in 2014 and see what we used to see everywhere. They are still using 1980's technology over there. We are spoiled now

Again, I said 20 years, not the 80s. Watch the Fox1 broadcasts and then watch the stewards views and tell me how spoiled we are again.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You can re-read my posts as well as I can.

"Are you really going to pretend all chart callers do a good job?

"Do they really use all the camera angles available and still get the chart out in 15 minutes?"

"Do you think the opinion of the stewards can influence a chart caller?"



Question 1 has no good answer. I can't say that I know of any chart callers that do a bad job. I'm fairly certain if the GP chartcaller was not doing a good job we would have heard complaints.

Most chart callers have the ability to get the stewards view replays. It isnt rocket science.

I dont think stewards have any influence on chart callers. Why would they?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

"Are you really going to pretend all chart callers do a good job?

"Do they really use all the camera angles available and still get the chart out in 15 minutes?"

"Do you think the opinion of the stewards can influence a chart caller?"



Question 1 has no good answer. I can't say that I know of any chart callers that do a bad job. I'm fairly certain if the GP chartcaller was not doing a good job we would have heard complaints.

Most chart callers have the ability to get the stewards view replays. It isnt rocket science.

I dont think stewards have any influence on chart callers. Why would they?

For one, I'll just say this, some are much better than others. That doesn't mean any are bad.

Charts come out way too quickly for me to believe there is a whole lot of replay checking going on, particularly from cameras not regularly shown.

Stewards are supposed to be experts. How could they not have influence? It isn't like these guys don't know each other either, and it is just human nature that it would be some influence.

In any case, it doesn't change what I said. Let me know the next time you see a chart where there is a questionable call and the chart caller disagrees, through his writing, with the stewards.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

For one, I'll just say this, some are much better than others. That doesn't mean any are bad.

Charts come out way too quickly for me to believe there is a whole lot of replay checking going on, particularly from cameras not regularly shown.

Stewards are supposed to be experts. How could they not have influence? It isn't like these guys don't know each other either, and it is just human nature that it would be some influence.

In any case, it doesn't change what I said. Let me know the next time you see a chart where there is a questionable call and the chart caller disagrees, through his writing, with the stewards.

I used to do charts at Yonkers for Sportseye way back when. Once you get the hang of it, the process doesnt take much time at all to do and most time consuming part was transcribing info onto carbon paper. I'm sure with computer programs it is far easier. I used to call the calls into a small tape recorder and used to check the replay to make sure it was accurate. Some of the more experienced guys were far faster than me and it rarely took me more than 15 mins. As for the comments how long would they take to do? About as long as it takes to type a paragraph except for Leo Tolstoy who works the NYRA circuit.

Not to mention that with computers you have the ability to go back an correct an error that you might recheck later.

As for Stewards being experts...

There are some really good stewards who do a good job.
There are some really mediocre stewards that just mail it in.
There some flaming idiots.

Let's just say the numbers arent split evenly