Jockey shenanigans mar BC prep races

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

1. It was a graded stakes race almost universally you can expect an effort from a horse in that type of race instead of him used as a battering ram.

2. So my point as a bettor is weak? Ever consider that without us there is no fuking game? ever consider the constant dismissive responses from the industry is part of what is driving us to say fuk you alreay?

The 2nd sentence is EXACTLY what i am talking about. The idea that bettors can take whatever stance they want without a counter BECAUSE WITHOUT YOU THE GAME FAILS TO EXIST!!!!!

Jesus cant there be a discussion on a topic without all the dramatics?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by golfer

2 things here. #1, I can understand your concern, because if YOU were held responsible for the rides of Pedro Cotto Jr, you'd have every right to be worried about a lifetime suspension

But more importantly, IMO, literally seconds after the Cali race ended Jerry Bailey called out Victor Espinoza's ride. Now, some may not like Jerry Bailey, but I think it would be difficult to call him clueless about race riding?

No one is saying that it wasnt exactly what it looked like, but the question is does he deserve a suspension because of it? Name another case like this where a jockey got suspended for floating a horse a extra path wide. I cant think of a single one in 30 years. He didnt make contact woth the other horse, he didnt cut him off, he didnt put him in a dangerous sport regardless of what jms says, being wide is not dangerous. It is actually where jockeys who dont like the way their mounts are traveling go.

This idea that the horse was 7 wide or used as a battering ram is exaggerated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZYIKaXPtPU


Denman called him 4 wide in the 1st turn

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No one is saying that it wasnt exactly what it looked like, but the question is does he deserve a suspension because of it? Name another case like this where a jockey got suspended for floating a horse a extra path wide. I cant think of a single one in 30 years. He didnt make contact woth the other horse, he didnt cut him off, he didnt put him in a dangerous sport regardless of what jms says, being wide is not dangerous. It is actually where jockeys who dont like the way their mounts are traveling go.

This idea that the horse was 7 wide or used as a battering ram is exaggerated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZYIKaXPtPU


Denman called him 4 wide in the 1st turn

How about this possible scenario/solution. Do what the NHL does when it comes to supplemental discipline (former players are in charge of the "player safety" position), put former Jockey's in the position to make the determination, as opposed to Stewards, who you quite rightfully don't trust to understand the nuances of what occurred?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The 2nd sentence is EXACTLY what i am talking about. The idea that bettors can take whatever stance they want without a counter BECAUSE WITHOUT YOU THE GAME FAILS TO EXIST!!!!!

Jesus cant there be a discussion on a topic without all the dramatics?

Pretty funny that you use the tired Internet strategy of repeating a Valid point as if it diffuses it. It doesn't. This is becoming more of an argument against the way I feel the industry treats its paying customers than it is about the issue. i need to step away. you win chuck bettors are stupid and if one goes away 2 more will follow or maybe it is just me being naive and thinking I am playing a game that will be policed to insure integrity to its customers.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by golfer

How about this possible scenario/solution. Do what the NHL does when it comes to supplemental discipline (former players are in charge of the "player safety" position), put former Jockey's in the position to make the determination, as opposed to Stewards, who you quite rightfully don't trust to understand the nuances of what occurred?

Far too many Stewards are ex jockeys which is why we have many of these issues already. The NFL doesnt employ ex NFL players as refs because you dont have to have played to be able to interpret the rules and identify violations.

I would prefer to see a system of fines as opposed to days anyway. With reduced schedules a lot of those days are dark anyway and often simply wind up being a vacation. Meanwhile the connections that had Espinoza booked for this weeks stakes races (and other smaller ones) are left scrambling at the last minute to find a replacement who most likely in a larger field is going to be inferior.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

Pretty funny that you use the tired Internet strategy of repeating a Valid point as if it diffuses it. It doesn't. This is becoming more of an argument against the way I feel the industry treats its paying customers than it is about the issue. i need to step away. you win chuck bettors are stupid and if one goes away 2 more will follow or maybe it is just me being naive and thinking I am playing a game that will be policed to insure integrity to its customers.

I would prefer to discuss racing topics without all the dramatics about the "industry treats its customers bad" prattle.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I would prefer to discuss racing topics without all the dramatics about the "industry treats its customers bad" prattle.

Doesn't the of the word "prattle" in this context kind of highlight and underscore the absolute utter disregard of those in the industry to its customer? You are on an absolute roll this morning making my points for me.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

Doesn't the of the word "prattle" in this context kind of highlight and underscore the absolute utter disregard of those in the industry to its customer? You are on an absolute roll this morning making my points for me.

You should get 7 days for incessant whining.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You should get 7 days for incessant whining.

Actually it should be 7 racing days like an NFL suspension is for games not days.

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I would prefer to see a system of fines as opposed to days anyway. With reduced schedules a lot of those days are dark anyway and often simply wind up being a vacation. Meanwhile the connections that had Espinoza booked for this weeks stakes races (and other smaller ones) are left scrambling at the last minute to find a replacement who most likely in a larger field is going to be inferior.

This is a good idea. And I appreicate you talking candidly about this.

The sad truth is social media plays a part in sports, and life now. And as flawed as it is, it has actually done some good. Look at the NFL. It took backlash from social media (and every other human being not name Roger Goodell) to properly punish Ray Rice.

We might be asking for things in a different way, but I think the crux of it all is most people agree there needs to be some changes. What and how to enforce them are not as easily pinpointed but doesn't meant they shouldn't happen.

[Indian Charlie]

Chucks strategy for discussing this is to mock jms, say nothing factual while making tired and redundant remarks that dismiss valid points of people that are fed up being taken for granted by this sport, and then close his case by saying case closed, there is nothing here.

Then repeat ad nauseam.

It's like listening to Pee Wee Herman keep saying "I know you are but what am I?"

And Chuck, while yeah, bad rides are normal, and not every horse in every race is ridden to win, this horse was intentionally ridden to lose. Regardless of his odds, his bettors were treated fraudulently, plain and simple.

By the way, the tired excuse that it happens all the time, so stop whining? How does it make it okay?

It disgusts me that people so easily take it up the ass when it comes to things like getting their money taken from them (and other things in life). People have become complacent because they have learned to expect to be treated unfairly.

It is not okay to be screwed over and those doing the screwing need to be held accountable.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Jay Frederick

This is a good idea. And I appreicate you talking candidly about this.

The sad truth is social media plays a part in sports, and life now. And as flawed as it is, it has actually done some good. Look at the NFL. It took backlash from social media (and every other human being not name Roger Goodell) to properly punish Ray Rice.

We might be asking for things in a different way, but I think the crux of it all is most people agree there needs to be some changes. What and how to enforce them are not as easily pinpointed but doesn't meant they shouldn't happen.

Agreed but some changes that people want in racing arent always ones that they will continue to like once implemented.

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Agreed but some changes that people want in racing arent always ones that they will continue to like once implemented.

Fair point. But how could more accountability be something that people won't like going forward?

If I make a mistake at work, I get called into my bosses office. If I continue to make the same mistake, I get in trouble for it.

Why does it seem like the racing industry as a whole doesn't work that way?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Agreed but some changes that people want in racing arent always ones that they will continue to like once implemented.

Then change it back. Or modify the change to make it better. But doing nothing is not acceptable if this industry want to keep it's regular players.

The fact is still the fact, regardless of how anyone inside the business wants to spin it. Espinoza took his horse out of contention in an attempt to influence the outcome of the race, not to win it. There are rules against that regardless of how one may choose to interpret it.

Chuck, you said "a path or two", Denman said 4, the replay clearly show it was wider than that. But really that is immaterial. The fact remains that people wagered money on this horse to run a race that would at least put him in contention (however foolhardy that decision may or may not have been), not to purposely be taken out of the race in the first turn.

Bad rides are part and parcel of the game, as gamblers we've come to accept that - You can't read a day in the selections room without someone mentioning a jock taking a horse back and not sending speed, or watching lone speed setting 25/50 while pressers leave him 2 lengths clear, etc.

But this was a whole new level. This was premeditated race fixing. If you choose to call that "drama", well, there's really no point in furthering the discussion.

Everyone has a breaking point. I routinely churned way more money than I care to admit each year in this sport, for many, many years. I routinely took bad beats, and even once in a while benefited from a poor ride by a competing jockey. I took it in stride and kind of sloughed it off.

That said - I no longer do. I am now a very casual player as I still love the sport - but have had enough of the nonsense and refuse to accept the opinion and position this industry's takes against it's customers.

My breaking point was the 2014 Belmont Stakes. To date, not one turf writer (to my knowledge, and multiple exhaustive searches since still bear this out) spent one moment asking Jose Ortiz, his agent, Richard Violette, or anyone from My Meadowbrook Farm why the only "need the lead" horse was pulled in the first turn & subsequently taken out of the race. Not one. You just chalk that up to "a poor ride'? As Jim said, it's difficult enough to effectively handicap a race, now you have these decisions being made and zero follow up?

Give me dated nickles at Tampa all day long - at least I know where I stand.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Chucks strategy for discussing this is to mock jms, say nothing factual while making tired and redundant remarks that dismiss valid points of people that are fed up being taken for granted by this sport, and then close his case by saying case closed, there is nothing here.

Then repeat ad nauseam.

It's like listening to Pee Wee Herman keep saying "I know you are but what am I?"

And Chuck, while yeah, bad rides are normal, and not every horse in every race is ridden to win, this horse was intentionally ridden to lose. Regardless of his odds, his bettors were treated fraudulently, plain and simple.

By the way, the tired excuse that it happens all the time, so stop whining? How does it make it okay?

It disgusts me that people so easily take it up the ass when it comes to things like getting their money taken from them (and other things in life). People have become complacent because they have learned to expect to be treated unfairly.

It is not okay to be screwed over and those doing the screwing need to be held accountable.

GREAT post. Well done.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Chucks strategy for discussing this is to mock jms, say nothing factual while making tired and redundant remarks that dismiss valid points of people that are fed up being taken for granted by this sport, and then close his case by saying case closed, there is nothing here.

Then repeat ad nauseam.

It's like listening to Pee Wee Herman keep saying "I know you are but what am I?"

And Chuck, while yeah, bad rides are normal, and not every horse in every race is ridden to win, this horse was intentionally ridden to lose. Regardless of his odds, his bettors were treated fraudulently, plain and simple.

By the way, the tired excuse that it happens all the time, so stop whining? How does it make it okay?

It disgusts me that people so easily take it up the ass when it comes to things like getting their money taken from them (and other things in life). People have become complacent because they have learned to expect to be treated unfairly.

It is not okay to be screwed over and those doing the screwing need to be held accountable.

A whole lot of words but in the end you aren't doing anything but what you accuse me of. Rabbits are intentionally ridden to lose yet a lot of the same people who are disgusted by the ride are accepting of that tactic. Because a rabbit once won it's ok? Because you can handicap it it's ok? If you shoot a guy and kill him or you stab him or kill him he is still dead right?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

A whole lot of words but in the end you aren't doing anything but what you accuse me of. Rabbits are intentionally ridden to lose yet a lot of the same people who are disgusted by the ride are accepting of that tactic. Because a rabbit once won it's ok? Because you can handicap it it's ok? If you shoot a guy and kill him or you stab him or kill him he is still dead right?

Rabbits can win races, horses that are eased after they are used to do dirty work never do.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

Rabbits can win races, horses that are eased after they are used to do dirty work never do.

The rabbits can win defense?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The rabbits can win defense?

The rabbits can win defense is much better than the "I'm an insider, thus, I know better than you" defense.

Stealing money is not ok Chuck, no matter how hard you try to obfuscate the matter.

Saying it's okay because it happens all the time is the response of a spineless pusssy.

[Benny]

Originally Posted by Benny

As far as rabbits go,didn't Dutrow multiple rabbits in one race a few years ago, the Woodward in 2005, Saint Liam and Commentator, after Commentator won the Whitney at Saratoga,as lone spead.

" After Saint Liam lost the Whitney Handicap at Saratoga, the trainer Richard Dutrow Jr. decided to take no chances yesterday in the Woodward at Belmont Park.

Dutrow triple-teamed Commentator, the Whitney winner, and his three horses proved to be far more than Commentator could handle. With an assist from his colony of so-called rabbits, Saint Liam dominated, winning by two lengths.

On Aug. 6, Commentator sneaked away to an easy early lead on his way to the Whitney victory over Saint Liam. Dutrow's answer yesterday was to control the pace with two speed horses.

Crafty Player and Show Boot did their job as rabbits, ganging up on the Nick Zito-trained Commentator, hounding him for as long as they could. Commentator zipped through an opening six furlongs i..............."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A9639C8B63

Here are the trip notes, couldnot find a replay,

Race Comments: SAINT LIAM came away in good order, raced close up outside while in hand, cruised up three wide on the turn, galloped to a clear lead entering the stretch and remained safely clear while wrapped up, winning in handy fashion. SIR SHACKLETON was outrun early, rallied three wide on the turn and finished gamely while no serious threat to the winner. COMMENTATOR broke well and argued the pace while under attack from both sides, disposed of his assailants after three quarters but was in no shape to handle the winner and gave way in the final furlong. SHOW BOOT contested the pace along the inside, quit on the turn, dropped far back and was distanced. CRAFTY PLAYER contested the pace from the outside, quit after five furlongs, dropped far back and was distanced despite being kept to the task.

Dutrow had a coupled entry of 3 horses,not the case in the SB ,FedBiz race where Baffert had 2 entered separately. Also in the Commentator / Saint Liam case, they speed sandwiched Commentator, not taking him 4-5 wide. I don't know why I can't find a replay of this race. If someone can please do. This sparked outrage at the time.