How About A 2-Tiered Stipendiary System

Has this ever been considered?

One of the main problems pertaining to objections is inconsistency.Surely with the technology available it is possible to have a centralized stipendiary board who deal specifically with issues like objections.Clearly objections are not a daily occurence,but their duties could encompass many of the other bugbears within the current system(for eg:actually investigating irregular betting patterns,which occur far more often than they have the slighest inclination about).The centralized board could consistent of a panel of 5,who would rotate on a 3 on 2 off basis.This panel would over time produce far more consistent results.They would have more time to get to learn and understand our betting markets,which they clearly do not understand 1 iota.

The localized stipes would deal with the daily local issues,like passing horses through starting stalls etc.

The centralized panel would obviously be made up of the most experienced stipes.

Maybe I'm smoking my socks,but I'm trying to think outside the box here.

Does anybody who runs racing actually try and do that too?

Well I had a chat with two gentlemen yesterday - first with Dave Durant (Head Stipe) who had no idea of the objection at Scottsville on the 1st and was referring me to Sean Parker (Chairman of KZN Stipes) who handled the objection. This adds to the inconsistency in my book as every region does his own thing and no one is overseeing the whole process. I would like to see a few people (the same) dealing with objections, and even using technology so be it.

What you say above is exactly my point.How we don't have the same people making the decisions for all our racing is beyond me.Inconsistency is the the only thing that is constant with these objections.A centralized board would surely negate this problem to a large degree.

We also have large numbers of international customers betting on our racing now(it is after all the only place the business is growing),so surely we want to run this show by international standards.Higher standards of integrity and more consistent decisions in instances like objections means our product is perceived in a favourable light.

My 10 yr old is capable of more logical decison making than what goes on in this industry.

firstly make a clear rule on objections not this muddled stuff that can lead to subjective interpretation - We are dealing with money not a dog show so make the rules clear -

Mr Hawaii,

I'm not sure that I agree with what you say.I'm don't think that there is that much wrong with the rules as they stand,but the inconsistent manner in which they are interpreted is the major problem.A board that constitutes the same members on a regular basis would surely help.

i'm a fan of the USA rule - cause intererence and you are out -

Me 2 Mr H. No stuffing around.

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> i'm a fan of the USA rule - cause intererence and
> you are out -


Would rushing your mount to the front from a bad draw and then slamming on brakes fall into the 'cause interference and you out' scenario ?? I reckon this is as bad an interference on a larger scale than one on one stuff at the end of a race.

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> i'm a fan of the USA rule - cause intererence and
> you are out -

But that's the rule it used to be here until everyone wanted a change to the rule we have now.. :S

Mac Wrote:

---

> mr hawaii Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > i'm a fan of the USA rule - cause intererence
> and
> > you are out -
>
> But that's the rule it used to be here until
> everyone wanted a change to the rule we have now..
> :S

That's all fine and well, until a horse that you backed that was always going to win well gets the race taken away for the mildest transgression that happens on a 500 kilo beast travelling 15m/second.

This is a technical topic where people have to interpret events that happen in split seconds. The benefit should be given to the people who get to see all the angles in hi-res slo-mo with the evidence of the riders in person. How can an opinion without those tools from the grandstand possibly have the same insight?

JAP - Basically what you are suggesting is that racing institutes a system similar to rugby's TMO - Television Match Official. Basically racing's equivalent would rule ONLY on objections.

It has become a reasonably efficient adjudication process in rugby ( notice - I did not say perfect! ) and, with the same individuals ruling on every meeting countrywide, would result in consistency if not total accuracy. I like it. Certainly the TMO has both awarded and disallowed tries where 'naked eye' rulings would almost certainly have been incorrect.

Some years ago I saw the following suggestion: An official in each province ( not exceeding 3 persons ) would examine the TV evidence and electronically submit their ruling. ( They did not even need to be at the course in question : eg one would be in Jhb, one in Durban and one in CT ). Because there were 3 officials you would always get a verdict of 2-1 or 3-0. They WOULD NOT communicate with each other so the decision could not be influenced by an overbearing personality on the panel.

Justanotherpunter Wrote:

---

> Mr Hawaii,
>
> I'm not sure that I agree with what you say.I'm
> don't think that there is that much wrong with the
> rules as they stand,but the inconsistent manner in
> which they are interpreted is the major problem.A
> board that constitutes the same members on a
> regular basis would surely help.


JAP....the rules u refer to are not rules...in its entirity...they are subjections....and its gets even more subjective when different ppl try to apply the "rules"..i am not sure how easy it is to have the same ppl at every racemeeting...but herein lies the problem in that 1 mans meat is another mans poison......

if they have different ppl at every meeting ...then its a no brainer that the rules should be amended to the american system...cause interference and you're out..that will take away discretionary decisions...which quite frankly is causing all the fuss...

take our forum for instance....of the 20 forumites...10 of us feel the objection should be upheld...and the other half feel it should be overruled...now if we were the stipes at the races...if we had 2 similar transgressions...depending on which one of us were presiding at that particular meeting we will have 2 different results for the same offences...because of our biasses....but if we applied the rule of the american system....both camps will post the same results...and at the end of the day that is consistency...u will win some and u will lose some...buts it does even itself up to a 50-50 situation after a period of time...in this case as we have now...anything is possible...and this leads to frustration...

i will equate it to blackjack....some people say its a rule that u dont draw on 12 against a 7,8,9,10 or picture....but u can make it your rule just the same that u will draw on 12 against these cards...as long as u do it every time...and not just willy nilly ...thats what happenning with our objections at the moment...too much lattitude allowed for gut feelings..personally i am in favour of the latter...cause interference and u are out