9/27 (SA): AwsmAgn, FrntRnnr, Chndelier, Zenyatta, Rodeo Dr. (G1's)

[RockHardTen1985]

And here is a tweet from a well respected horse racing guy....

Of course the outrage is not that Shared Belief was floated out, but that he was floated out by a Baffert longshot. That's horse racing.

[pointman]

Well that settles the issue.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by pointman

Well that settles the issue.

Not at all, but you guys act like I'm the only one defending that side of it.

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

And here is a tweet from a well respected horse racing guy....

Of course the outrage is not that Shared Belief was floated out, but that he was floated out by a Baffert longshot. That's horse racing.

Does this mean it's the correct opinion?

I've got tons of respect for Doug, but he's wrong here. Has nothing to do with Baffert other than he had to know what was going on. If he didn't then he should never ride Espinoza again.

The issue is bettors who played Sky Kingdom did so under the pretense he would be ridden to actually win the race. His rider had other ideas.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Jay Frederick

Does this mean it's the correct opinion?

I've got tons of respect for Doug, but he's wrong here. Has nothing to do with Baffert other than he had to know what was going on. If he didn't then he should never ride Espinoza again.

The issue is bettors who played Sky Kingdom did so under the pretense he would be ridden to actually win the race. His rider had other ideas.

Anyone who bet Sky Kingdom in this race has issues, I agree with that.

[Jay Frederick]

Not my kind of horse either, but also irrelevant.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Jay Frederick

Does this mean it's the correct opinion?

I've got tons of respect for Doug, but he's wrong here. Has nothing to do with Baffert other than he had to know what was going on. If he didn't then he should never ride Espinoza again.

The issue is bettors who played Sky Kingdom did so under the pretense he would be ridden to actually win the race. His rider had other ideas.

The horse who won the race was outside the horse that you are claiming wasnt ridden to win the race.

So.....how does one say without using the odds that the horse in the 4 path wasnt ridden to win while the one in the 5 path who actually did win was? Sure you can assume that Smith didnt want to be out there and Espinoza did but now we are assuming as opposed to actually judging if any rules were violated.

If the odds are a determining factor are we now holding rider on long shots to different standards than those riding favorites? Do we want Stewards decisions based on assumptions? Everybody knows everything about high profile stakes horses like SB and CC. Do the stewards or everyday player know if some horse in an allowance race doesnt like to be stuck inside and that is why the other jocks may try to pin him down? Do we want the top races judged differently than the everyday races?

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The horse who won the race was outside the horse that you are claiming wasnt ridden to win the race.

So.....how does one say without using the odds that the horse in the 4 path wasnt ridden to win while the one in the 5 path who actually did win was? Sure you can assume that Smith didnt want to be out there and Espinoza did but now we are assuming as opposed to actually judging if any rules were violated.

If the odds are a determining factor are we now holding rider on long shots to different standards than those riding favorites? Do we want Stewards decisions based on assumptions? Everybody knows everything about high profile stakes horses like SB and CC. Do the stewards or everyday player know if some horse in an allowance race doesnt like to be stuck inside and that is why the other jocks may try to pin him down? Do we want the top races judged differently than the everyday races?

No need to make it difficult. For me, it boils down to common sense. Does anyone think Espinoza rode his horse to win?

I would have been totally fine if after meeting with the stewards, there was no suspension. At least they talked to him about it. That's all I'm asking for. More accountability.

I acknowledge there is a ton of gray area with the policing of riding. I'd just like to see more questions being asked about questionable rides.

If we take Baffert at his word, he knew nothing about what Espinoza was going to do. In that case the punishment is appropriate. Espinoza didn't put forth any effort to win. He should be punished. Plain and simple.

Maybe (and it's a big maybe) if there was some accountability in the sport it might appeal to gamblers more. And yes, I fully realize other sports have accountability issues as well.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Jay Frederick

No need to make it difficult. For me, it boils down to common sense. Does anyone think Espinoza rode his horse to win?

I would have been totally fine if after meeting with the stewards, there was no suspension. At least they talked to him about it. That's all I'm asking for. More accountability.

I acknowledge there is a ton of gray area with the policing of riding. I'd just like to see more questions being asked about questionable rides.

If we take Baffert at his word, he knew nothing about what Espinoza was going to do. In that case the punishment is appropriate. Espinoza didn't put forth any effort to win. He should be punished. Plain and simple.

Maybe (and it's a big maybe) if there was some accountability in the sport it might appeal to gamblers more. And yes, I fully realize other sports have accountability issues as well.

Serious question, if Ezpinoza took back and sat last and just tried to clunk up up get a 3rd or 4th place check, would that be considered putting forth an effort to win?

I understand the perception is that Baffert and Espinoza tag teamed the other horse but there are a lot of perceptions in this business that are completely inaccurate despite looking from the outside like they make sense. IMO Ezpinoza figured that he had no chance and wanted to make his 3 year old "rival" work hard. People use the Baffert isn't pissed so he is guilty nonsense but he can read the form and perhaps hadn't even wanted to be in there with that horse. It is hard to conjure up a lot of animosity for a ride on a horse that hadnt prayer anyway, especially when you almost just won the race with your legitimate contender.

I guess what drives me crazy more than anything is people not understanding the implications of stewards perhaps overly protecting big name horses and short priced favorites. Would this ride have gotten a journeyman rider a suspension in a cal bred maiden claimer?

You say people want accountability which is easy to understand. However what isnt so easy to understand is how do you measure or quantify that?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Serious question, if Ezpinoza took back and sat last and just tried to clunk up up get a 3rd or 4th place check, would that be considered putting forth an effort to win?

I understand the perception is that Baffert and Espinoza tag teamed the other horse but there are a lot of perceptions in this business that are completely inaccurate despite looking from the outside like they make sense. IMO Ezpinoza figured that he had no chance and wanted to make his 3 year old "rival" work hard. People use the Baffert isn't pissed so he is guilty nonsense but he can read the form and perhaps hadn't even wanted to be in there with that horse. It is hard to conjure up a lot of animosity for a ride on a horse that hadnt prayer anyway, especially when you almost just won the race with your legitimate contender.

I guess what drives me crazy more than anything is people not understanding the implications of stewards perhaps overly protecting big name horses and short priced favorites. Would this ride have gotten a journeyman rider a suspension in a cal bred maiden claimer?

You say people want accountability which is easy to understand. However what isnt so easy to understand is how do you measure or quantify that?

except i have seen comments on here several times about 'herding' and people calling out the jock who did it.
this isn't a new complaint in regards to racing. adding to this race is that you have a potential rival 3 yo champ being carried wide by the jock of the top competition to this horse.
he didn't give his horse a good ride, tried to hinder a rival, and of course was also helping out his stablemate, who ran second.
and i can see where some bettors would be unhappy. we're supposed to somehow know who needs a race, who is in form, who isn't going to be ridden to win (everyone has seen longshots win, it happens-so how to know which longshots are live, and which are going to be used as a spoiler?) who has a juice trainer, etc, on top of all the other variables?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

adding to this race is that you have a potential rival 3 yo champ being carried wide by the jock of the top competition to this horse.

I dont think that this should matter in rulings

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

we're supposed to somehow know who needs a race, who is in form, who isn't going to be ridden to win (everyone has seen longshots win, it happens-so how to know which longshots are live, and which are going to be used as a spoiler?) who has a juice trainer, etc, on top of all the other variables?

Is this a question?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Is this a question?

yes, i guess it is. how would bettors know that the horse in question wasn't one to bet? if a trainer has no intention of the horse being ridden to win, or in this case even hit the board, perhaps they should be kept out of the betting. instead, some bettors look at the info they have, bet these horses, and then feel completely duped because 'they should have known'. but, how would they know?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont think that this should matter in rulings

it shows a motive in what happened, an intent to alter the outcome other than by just giving your horse the best ride to beat the favorite. we all know this happens, that jocks at times will do their best to make the other guy lose-not do their best to win with their own mount.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, i guess it is. how would bettors know that the horse in question wasn't one to bet? if a trainer has no intention of the horse being ridden to win, or in this case even hit the board, perhaps they should be kept out of the betting. instead, some bettors look at the info they have, bet these horses, and then feel completely duped because 'they should have known'. but, how would they know?

How would anyone know what anyone else is going to do?

People keep saying that the horse wasnt ridden to win. I keep asking what tactics would have been the proper ones to give him a chance to win?

Every day, virtually every race bettors arent happy with rides. Every race, every day you will find a trainer that wasnt happy with his ride.

The question is did Espinoza really break any rules with this ride? I have watched the replay 10 times and still cant say without question that he did.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it shows a motive in what happened, an intent to alter the outcome other than by just giving your horse the best ride to beat the favorite. we all know this happens, that jocks at times will do their best to make the other guy lose-not do their best to win with their own mount.

Who decides what is the best ride to make your horse win?

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I guess what drives me crazy more than anything is people not understanding the implications of stewards perhaps overly protecting big name horses and short priced favorites. Would this ride have gotten a journeyman rider a suspension in a cal bred maiden claimer?

You say people want accountability which is easy to understand. However what isnt so easy to understand is how do you measure or quantify that?

You're right that it won't be easy to have more accountability. But, just because it might not be easy doesn't mean it doesn't have to start somewhere. I also don't see this kind of thing happening much in cal bred claimers. Don't think Espinoza would care enough to do this in a different race.

And I have seen enough stewards rulings to realize they probably can't even tell a questionable ride from a normal one. But lets put people in place who can.

I'd just like to see more questions being asked. Let's take every incident individually and go from there. What is the worst that could possibly happen?

More transparency?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Jay Frederick

You're right that it won't be easy to have more accountability. But, just because it might not be easy doesn't mean it doesn't have to start somewhere. I also don't see this kind of thing happening much in cal bred claimers. Don't think Espinoza would care enough to do this in a different race.

And I have seen enough stewards rulings to realize they probably can't even tell a questionable ride from a normal one. But lets put people in place who can.

I'd just like to see more questions being asked. Let's take every incident individually and go from there. What is the worst that could possibly happen?

More transparency?

No doubt.
There are a number of barriers to successfully changing things that i dont have time to list right now but the way things are done is not even remotely the best way.