Gulfstream Inquiries

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.

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.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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.

That's what we love about you Vic. You probably don't even know that statement is condescending and insults the intelligence of quite a few people on this board. It is quite easy to understand the process that you are explaining to us. I would say nearly everyone on this board understands what you are saying. When we say it is nonsensical to not look at the operator of the vehicle (in this case the horse) as part of the process you come back with a comment that we don't understand the process. We understand the process and are pointing out the process is horrible and sticking with a broken process simply because that has been the way it has been done would get you fired in 500 out of 500 Forturne 500 companies. Now please don't insult my intelligence again on how I don't understand the process.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

That's what we love about you Vic. You probably don't even know that statement is condescending and insults the intelligence of quite a few people on this board. It is quite easy to understand the process that you are explaining to us. I would say nearly everyone on this board understands what you are saying. When we say it is nonsensical to not look at the operator of the vehicle (in this case the horse) as part of the process you come back with a comment that we don't understand the process. We understand the process and are pointing out the process is horrible and sticking with a broken process simply because that has been the way it has been done would get you fired in 500 out of 500 Forturne 500 companies. Now please don't insult my intelligence again on how I don't understand the process.

'I know this is hard to grasp for the average horseplayer.'

you mean, like that...

[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 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?

[declansharbor]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

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?

The only thing i've grasped from this thread is how useless track stewards can be in determining outcomes.

[Indian Charlie]

Realistically, in a race situation like what happened in the FOY, people who bet on either of the two horses involved are going to feel screwed, depending on the way the decision goes.

In this instance, it seems pretty clear that the jockey on Upstart was being a douchebag and was the cause of the problem.

Did he cost the second place finisher a placing? It's probably less than 50% likely he did, but then again, we are talking about a horse making only his third start, so who knows for sure.

If I had the ability to make a ruling, I'd have kept Upstart as the winner.

I'd fine and suspend the jockey severely.

I'd refund wagers on the runnerup. That way nobody gets screwed completely over, and hopefully it makes those tiny brained morons think twice about using such tactics.

[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.