Most Impressive in Defeat?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Is anyone who likes the horse on pp's not betting him because the trainer told the jockey the horse doesnt like the whip?

I'm curious if you have an explanation as to what basis Pletcher might have had for thinking this horse sulks from the whip?

He's only run twice. He comes within 0.13 seconds of breaking a track record at 150 year-old Saratoga in his debut. He overcomes a mind-boggling pace to win the Champagne in career start #2.

What are the chances that Havana was ever whipped in one of his morning workouts?

If he hadn't sulked after being repeatedly whipped at Barrett's -- do you think he might have ran his furlong in 9 seconds flat?

I don't mind so much that he wasn't whipped, and I'm not sure it had any impact on the outcome ... it's just the frustration of seeing jockeys and trainers trying to impose their will and being cute when they don't need to.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I don't see what the rider change matters, wouldn't hurt a thing to divulge the info with his regular rider either.

Dont you think his regular rider would have already known and likely been the person who made the suggestion in the first place?

You say it wouldn't hurt but where do you draw the line in what "the public" should be told before the race?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dont you think his regular rider would have already known and likely been the person who made the suggestion in the first place?

You say it wouldn't hurt but where do you draw the line in what "the public" should be told before the race?

This is a little different for two reasons. One, it could help educate the public on whip use. Two, it avoids the possible negative repercussions of people betting on horses and thinking the rider didn't give his best. Tell them beforehand, and that isn't an issue.

There are a lot bigger problems in racing than this, I admit that. I just see zero downside to it and some upside, that is all.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Things are divulged to bettors every day. How do we find out when a rider won't carry a whip? Call me crazy, but that same system might actually work here too!

Riding without a whip is an equipment change. Instructions are not absolutely followed. I'd love to hear your take on the situation when a jockey who was instructed not to use the whip actually does.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I'm curious if you have an explanation as to what basis Pletcher might have had for thinking this horse sulks from the whip?

He's only run twice. He comes within 0.13 seconds of breaking a track record at 150 year-old Saratoga in his debut. He overcomes a mind-boggling pace to win the Champagne in career start #2.

What are the chances that Havana was ever whipped in one of his morning workouts?

If he hadn't sulked after being repeatedly whipped at Barrett's -- do you think he might have ran his furlong in 9 seconds flat?

I don't mind so much that he wasn't whipped, and I'm not sure it had any impact on the outcome ... it's just the frustration of seeing jockeys and trainers trying to impose their will and being cute when they don't need to.

Perhaps they had an incident in the morning? Horses that spook or are nervous are more likely to react negatively to the whip. Just look at what happened to the Chad Brown horse in Canada. Dont forget that horses with 2 starts are still very green

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This is a little different for two reasons. One, it could help educate the public on whip use. Two, it avoids the possible negative repercussions of people betting on horses and thinking the rider didn't give his best. Tell them beforehand, and that isn't an issue.

There are a lot bigger problems in racing than this, I admit that. I just see zero downside to it and some upside, that is all.

Right but what mechanism is there to report this? Trainers considering instructing their jockeys to go light on the whip call the stewards before the race? And like I said what if they dont listen, or simply react like they have done thousands of time before and instinctively hit the horse anyway? Then anyone who might have bet against the horse because of the no whip instructions would be going crazy.

[jms62]

Why carry a whip if there is no plan on using it?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Right but what mechanism is there to report this? Trainers considering instructing their jockeys to go light on the whip call the stewards before the race? And like I said what if they dont listen, or simply react like they have done thousands of time before and instinctively hit the horse anyway? Then anyone who might have bet against the horse because of the no whip instructions would be going crazy.

Go light on the whip and not using it or two different things. If a jockey is told not to use the whip but does anyway, I guess you fine him, just like when they blow the finish line or do something else they shouldn't do.

And again, you report it just like you do no whip. Lets not pretend this has to be some complicated process. It wasn't a spur of the moment, paddock decision not to whip the horse.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and couldn't a jock get questioned if it was felt he didn't prevail to the wire?

the sooner everyone involved in this sport comes to grips with bettors being a huge factor, the better.
we are told about lasix, blinkers, shoes, jock changes, weight difference, etc. whether a whip is used should be public info as well.

i guess going forward it's something bettors need to take note of in baby races, whether they go to the stick or if it's just carried along for ballast.

If a rider is riding without the whip you are told. Unless you are in possession of a crystal ball you wont be able to tell if the rider is going to use the one he has in his hand. Sure in this case Gary Stevens is going to go to extreme lengths to follow the instructions of the biggest trainer in the game but trust me it is dicey with the rest of them and the rest of us.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

Why carry a whip if there is no plan on using it?

Riders are used to carrying them and if the horse lugs out bad believe me the instructions go out the window

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Perhaps they had an incident in the morning? Horses that spook or are nervous are more likely to react negatively to the whip. Just look at what happened to the Chad Brown horse in Canada. Dont forget that horses with 2 starts are still very green

As easy as Pletcher works him, you think this horse was being whipped in morning workouts?

It's hard to imagine a horse that fast getting whipped in his typical 4 furlong in 49 and change workouts he'd always go in, but who knows, I didn't see them, I guess.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Go light on the whip and not using it or two different things. If a jockey is told not to use the whip but does anyway, I guess you fine him, just like when they blow the finish line or do something else they shouldn't do.

And again, you report it just like you do no whip. Lets not pretend this has to be some complicated process. It wasn't a spur of the moment, paddock decision not to whip the horse.

It isnt against the rules to not follow a trainers instructions. Every day at tracks all over the country jockeys dont follow instructions and win. Should they be fined? What if the trainer tells the jockey to go to the front? What if the jockey no comprehende English? What if the trainer changes his mind? What of the horse is lugging in or out badly? You say it doesnt have to be a complicated process but again how exactly is this recorded and where and to whom?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

As easy as Pletcher works him, you think this horse was being whipped in morning workouts?

It's hard to imagine a horse that fast getting whipped in his typical 4 furlong in 49 and change workouts he'd always go in, but who knows, I didn't see them, I guess.

Pletcher doesn't do anything for no reason. I'm sure that at some point the horse has been hit with the whip and had an adverse reaction to it. A workout or race isnt necessarily the only time a horse would get hit with the whip. Especially if they are a bad actor or are aggressive towards other horses in the morning.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It isnt against the rules to not follow a trainers instructions. Every day at tracks all over the country jockeys dont follow instructions and win. Should they be fined? What if the trainer tells the jockey to go to the front? What if the jockey no comprehende English? What if the trainer changes his mind? What of the horse is lugging in or out badly? You say it doesnt have to be a complicated process but again how exactly is this recorded and where and to whom?

If the trainer doesn't want a horse whipped, he reports such to the stewards like anything else. It is then relayed with all the other information we get.

Strategy and using equipment are two very different things in my opinion. If it is reported a horse won't be whipped, and is, then the jockey can answer for that be it in English or some other language.

We can always find reasons not to do things that inform the bettor. It is easier on everyone. I've said my piece.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Pletcher doesn't do anything for no reason. I'm sure that at some point the horse has been hit with the whip and had an adverse reaction to it. A workout or race isnt necessarily the only time a horse would get hit with the whip. Especially if they are a bad actor or are aggressive towards other horses in the morning.

He did cleverly add blinkers on Palace Malice in the Kentucky Derby, because the rider said he lost focus in deep stretch of the Blue Grass.

He did cleverly ride Chantal Sutherland on his rabbit Bishop Court Hill in the Jockey Club Gold Cup ... and proceeded to see her go out and duel stablemate Flower Alley head-to-head on a brutal pace, melting it down for Borrego to win like Damascus. Flower Alley way up the track.

It is hard to question him though. I'm sure we would have had another Woodbine incident if Stevens hit him once. Glad that tragedy was averted.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

It is hard to question him though. I'm sure we would have had another Woodbine incident if Stevens hit him once. Glad that tragedy was averted.

Come on, how can he be questioned after yet another stellar performance on the biggest stage?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by jms62

Why carry a whip if there is no plan on using it?

Stick can be used to tap on shoulder to prompt lead changes if weight shift doesn't work. Also as prompt being waved in front of eyes to urge horse on..

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

If the trainer doesn't want a horse whipped, he reports such to the stewards like anything else. It is then relayed with all the other information we get.

Strategy and using equipment are two very different things in my opinion. If it is reported a horse won't be whipped, and is, then the jockey can answer for that be it in English or some other language.

We can always find reasons not to do things that inform the bettor. It is easier on everyone. I've said my piece.

It isnt nearly as cut and dry as you make it. Strategy and equipment are two different things and instructing a rider to not use the whip is strategy. Asking them not to carry a whip is equipment.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

He did cleverly add blinkers on Palace Malice in the Kentucky Derby, because the rider said he lost focus in deep stretch of the Blue Grass.

He did cleverly ride Chantal Sutherland on his rabbit Bishop Court Hill in the Jockey Club Gold Cup ... and proceeded to see her go out and duel stablemate Flower Alley head-to-head on a brutal pace, melting it down for Borrego to win like Damascus. Flower Alley way up the track.

It is hard to question him though. I'm sure we would have had another Woodbine incident if Stevens hit him once. Glad that tragedy was averted.

It is hard to believe that I have to defend Todd Pletcher as a competent trainer and I'm pretty sure he isnt infallible but I'd bet that there was a pretty valid reason why he didnt want Stevens to whip the horse. And we dont even know if that is what he said. Perhaps he said to Stevens that the horse doesnt like the whip as in the charts in his first race it says the horse was just shown the whip. Without knowing the circumstances or even what was said you seemed to have jumped to a conclusion.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Come on, how can he be questioned after yet another stellar performance on the biggest stage?

How'd you do?