Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > Main Forum > The Paddock
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-21-2010, 02:00 PM
randallscott35's Avatar
randallscott35 randallscott35 is offline
Idlewild Airport
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 9,687
Default Delta Jocks Paying Scale Clerk

Oops.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ded-six-months
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-21-2010, 07:41 PM
Rudeboyelvis Rudeboyelvis is offline
Belmont Park
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,440
Default

>>>According to Equibase, Eads has ridden 1,559 winners from 11,509 mounts between 1990 and April 19 of this year. From March 21 to April 19, he had two winners from 15 mounts. Among the stakes winners he has ridden have been Maysville Slew, Indigo Girl, and Avie’s Lady.

Equibase statistics show that Santiago has ridden 231 winners from 2,865 mounts between 1990 and April 19. He was winless with 21 mounts from March 21 to April 19.<<<



Whatever they did, it sure doesn't seem to have helped them.... My guess is that they were overweighted on favorites to throw the race - the fact that it is egregious enough for the LSRC to get involved after the stewards ruled and then said 6 months wasn't stiff enough....
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-22-2010, 02:56 PM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis View Post
>>>According to Equibase, Eads has ridden 1,559 winners from 11,509 mounts between 1990 and April 19 of this year. From March 21 to April 19, he had two winners from 15 mounts. Among the stakes winners he has ridden have been Maysville Slew, Indigo Girl, and Avie’s Lady.

Equibase statistics show that Santiago has ridden 231 winners from 2,865 mounts between 1990 and April 19. He was winless with 21 mounts from March 21 to April 19.<<<



Whatever they did, it sure doesn't seem to have helped them.... My guess is that they were overweighted on favorites to throw the race - the fact that it is egregious enough for the LSRC to get involved after the stewards ruled and then said 6 months wasn't stiff enough....
Where did you come up with that? The Stewards probably arent allowed by rule to give them more than 6 months hence the note to get the racing commission involved.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-23-2010, 08:58 AM
Rudeboyelvis Rudeboyelvis is offline
Belmont Park
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell View Post
Where did you come up with that? The Stewards probably arent allowed by rule to give them more than 6 months hence the note to get the racing commission involved.
Exactly - they are not, and escalated the case to the racing commission to throw the book at them, as they feel the violations are egregious enough to warrant much steeper penalties.

For what? Bribing the clerk of scales to allow them to carry less weight? Sure didn't seem to impact their performance based on the Equibase stats -

These are 9% jocks at a low rung slot palace that clearly did not benefit personally from whatever malfeasance they are accused of being involved in. Their performance is similarly flat going back quite a ways...

Logic would dictate that there is something much more insidious to the rest of the story, considering the stewards threw the book at them, and then went to the LSRC to say what these jocks did (allegedly) deserves a much stiffer penalty that what we (the stewards) are allowed by charter to invoke.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-23-2010, 11:58 AM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis View Post
Exactly - they are not, and escalated the case to the racing commission to throw the book at them, as they feel the violations are egregious enough to warrant much steeper penalties.

For what? Bribing the clerk of scales to allow them to carry less weight? Sure didn't seem to impact their performance based on the Equibase stats -

These are 9% jocks at a low rung slot palace that clearly did not benefit personally from whatever malfeasance they are accused of being involved in. Their performance is similarly flat going back quite a ways...

Logic would dictate that there is something much more insidious to the rest of the story, considering the stewards threw the book at them, and then went to the LSRC to say what these jocks did (allegedly) deserves a much stiffer penalty that what we (the stewards) are allowed by charter to invoke.
I think you are overthinking this. They bribed a racing official. That merits a pretty severe penalty in itself. In NY there was a criminal investigation with grand jury hearings and everything over the same offense (even though it wasnt true and this one is).

If there was intent to fix races dont you think that they would have been suspended for that as opposed to paying the clerk to ride heavy? Which has been going on as long as there have been jocks and weight assignments.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-23-2010, 10:38 AM
iamthelurker iamthelurker is offline
Louisiana Downs
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 343
Default

Ever think that its just really hard to make 112 pounds every day? I dont think this is any deeper then a couple guys who were struggling to make weight and paid their way out of it. If you dont remember this happened in New York with some pretty big guys. cough santos cough.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-23-2010, 11:04 AM
randallscott35's Avatar
randallscott35 randallscott35 is offline
Idlewild Airport
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 9,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthelurker View Post
Ever think that its just really hard to make 112 pounds every day? I dont think this is any deeper then a couple guys who were struggling to make weight and paid their way out of it. If you dont remember this happened in New York with some pretty big guys. cough santos cough.
Which is why Real Sports looked at having jocks carry more weight....Of course most trainers were against it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-23-2010, 12:03 PM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randallscott35 View Post
Which is why Real Sports looked at having jocks carry more weight....Of course most trainers were against it.
Because allowing them to ride at heavier weights doesnt solve the issue. Jocks will still flip, people who are even heavier naturally will reduce to get down to riding weight and where exactly do you draw the line? At some point the person has to make a decision on whether they are willing to do what it takes to ride racehorses or not. The sport and its rules arent the problem, people who simply are too big to ride who insist on riding are.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-23-2010, 12:06 PM
randallscott35's Avatar
randallscott35 randallscott35 is offline
Idlewild Airport
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 9,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell View Post
Because allowing them to ride at heavier weights doesnt solve the issue. Jocks will still flip, people who are even heavier naturally will reduce to get down to riding weight and where exactly do you draw the line? At some point the person has to make a decision on whether they are willing to do what it takes to ride racehorses or not. The sport and its rules arent the problem, people who simply are too big to ride who insist on riding are.
It would help though. People are bigger. No one is naturally supposed to be 110 pounds, even women.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-23-2010, 12:11 PM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randallscott35 View Post
It would help though. People are bigger. No one is naturally supposed to be 110 pounds, even women.
That is not a valid argument. There is no shortage of little people.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-23-2010, 06:07 PM
AeWingnut's Avatar
AeWingnut AeWingnut is offline
Atlantic City Race Course
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Suddenly
Posts: 4,828
Default

I don't understand why jockeys would pay to weigh more. Don't they just say, "KnS +5"?

Now paying to weigh less in order to get an advantage makes sense.

Saying jockeys will be healthier if they can carry more weight doesn't seem like the issue. The issue is that someone bribed an official, right?
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-25-2010, 09:53 AM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy View Post
as far as handicapping, whether a horse is carrying 122 or 124 lbs would never influence my pick.

you hardley ever even hear it mentioned by any of the major handicappers.


non-issue
Especially since in LA (and other jurisdictions) you have been betting horses carrying a lot more than the listed weight without even knowing it.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.