Crist responds in regards to "Takeout-Gate"
 

Short version: 'Please believe me, I don't read carefully email questions I forward to track executives.'

The takeout limits allowed by law are now 12-17% for w/p/s, 14-21% for exacta/double wager 15-25% for tri/super and P3/P4 and 15-36% for P6 with no separate rates for carryover and non-carryover pools. (Please note that the tri/super/P3/P4 takeout is currently at 26% which is currently outside the parameters of the law)

How one can read "currently outside the parameters of the law" and not understand that the organization in question was not operating within the parameters of the law in this regard is (and shall always remain) a mystery to me.

when it comes to NYRA there has been a history of "human mistakes". it dates back to the days of Ken Noe, he also had an abrupt end to his career. but don't worry about him, he was smart enough to take a hike and still has his pension. that guy must be over 80 years old by now.

So now Crist is a character witness for Hayward?

Crist's report is quite believable.
Hayward likely didn't know what was going on w.r.t. take out rates or what they should have been.
Any way you carve it though a CEO of a track (association) that doesn't know the take-out rate is grossly incompetent and should be fired.

Did you happen to note that on DRF's page, Crist's blog headline has "Presented by NYRA" under it?

"Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes."

It's a love fest for Crist on the DRF. I saw one post, beneath his 'explanation' that was critical of his story. Within a minute it was gone. So much for freedom of speech, honesty and integrity. If there was any chance of my ever believing that Crist did not know exactly what he was doing or part of a massive cover-up, that is completely gone.

Seriously, if you think that guy is grossly incompetent because of this, you really don't know what you are talking about. Of course he deserves some blame, nobody is denying this, himself included. However, he is being made a scapegoat for a situation that many should have prevented and for a situation that is being overblown for political purposes.

Yes, he f***ed up, but I really believe we are much better off with Hayward in the sport than we are without him. I guess time will tell.

To quote Mr. Crist: " I assure you I was completely unaware that this was going on, and would have never tolerated it or agreed to be silent about it if I had."

Point 1: Why did Mr. Crist wait until the poop hit the fan to reply? He could have "come clean" before the emails and when the report first came out. Instead of waiting to watch NYRA suspend Hayward.

Point 2: A patron reported this to the DRF, Hayward said "off the record"
YES it was going on.

Point 3: He then went out to dinner with Hayward and you're trying to tell me
the topic never came up.


Just wondering if Mr. Crist would get up in a court room under oath say the same thing.

The spin doctors are at work. Crist asked if the emailer was correct. Hayward says he was. Hayward asks Crist to keep it quiet. Crist says ok. A real journalist would have been licking his chops right then and there, not keep it quiet until it all blows up. How much evidence is needed. Even if Hayward is just stupid, Crist had the opportunity to do some investigation and do the right thing for the horse player.

McDonalds says they charge $1 for a hamburger and end up charging $1.25 for over a year at every one of their locations. Who do think gets the blame, the owners of each store?

It's only natural the top dog takes the heat. It was an issue brought to him and he did nothing about it. Fire his ass in my book.

Gross exaggeration above. Sure he should take some heat, but why only him? His organization was not in charge of changing takeouts. Others that should have known, governor appointed of course, are getting off scott free and actually leading the investigation. How exactly is that fair?

Are you making a case that no one should fall? If not, who should?

Listen cj you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.
By your own admission you say he deserves some blame and " f***ed up."
At no point do you address the degree of blame though and choose to say he was being "scape goated."
See it that way if you want, but I don't.
Whether or not the sport is better off with Hayward than without him is not in dispute at this time.

The fact is he was the CE0 of an organization and responsible for the overseeing of all activities there in. In particular, finances should have been a very high priority item. They are usually paramount in evaluating CEO's worth to a company.

In Hayward's instance, the error that was made was probably several times higher than the annual salary he was paid.
Being party to a financial error of that magnitude leaves little wiggle room except to say he was apparently grossly incompetent in the execution of his duties. If there are other mitigating factors in his favor they will out.

The all should, or nobody should. Are you making the case that is is ok for the R&W board to investigate something their negligence also caused? How is that even considered, let alone implemented?