Has there yet to be a jockey do as Calvin has done?

To have won the Oaks/Derby/Preakness? (abit on two different horses..)

If he gets the mount back on Mine that Bird and wins...surely that will go down in the history books?

I thought Mike Smith did a great job on Mine That Bird. I know it is hypothetical but had Calvin Borel Rode MTB, could he have beaten RA? No disrespect meant to Mike Smith (because he rode my pick in the Derby, Chocolate Candy well).

No, cause he probably would have stayed on the inside and waited for a hole on the rail that never opened yesterday.
Mike Smith put the horse in a position to win, but he was just beaten by a better horse.

He may already be committed to CC? Also, Madeo is scheduled to run in the Wittingham the same day.

To add to that I would say horses win races, whereas riders lose races.

So would I.

The Beyer fig, I believe, is a 109.

How exactly is the 1st part true? You've never seen Borel come wide (or between) on a horse?

And, what exactly is the point of the 2nd part? You need to expand, please.

For RA?

yes,

MTB a 107

So yes he IMPROVED off that run in the Derby.

I just don't think she has anything to prove, that's why I am against bringing her back in the Belmont against some new, fresh horses. I agree with your idea of bringing her back later on against the boys, but not in the Belmont.

i think that's an overrated part of the belmont. i also believe in running horses when they're ready to run. you're supposed to follow their schedule, not your own. if you're pointing to a race, and they show signs of not being ready, you don't run them. she's fit right now. if the oaks and preakness haven't taken anything out of her, there's no reason not to run her. as for nothing to prove, another thing you'll never hear from me about a racehorse. there's still plenty for her to do.

If you are somehow trying to say that MTB would have still won the Derby without Borel.....you are WRONG.

I hope you are kidding as this kind of thinking is absolute crap and one of the best things about the Preakness is that this was proven. Mine That Bird won the Derby by seven lengths.

Now, if someone can prove that every other rider would have had him chasing the pace, and not last, then it's a different discussion. But, that's impossible to legitimately claim. Borel rode him well in the Derby.....but the horse won by seven lengths.

...so sick of talking about gomez.

mike smith for president.

Thats exactly my point....Borel is the only one that rides like that.
I agree that it is Horseracing...not jockeyracing. However, I agree that MTB would have run a good race in the Derby whomever rode... But its a joke to think he would have won by 7 lengths if you take away the Borel tatics.

Do you agree that some riders are more likely to "lose races" than others?

If you do agree that some riders are more likely to lose races than others, then whether you say riders win races or riders lose races is only a matter of whether you prefer insulting riders or praising them. Either way, you'd rather have one rider than another on your horse and either way, you will be adding some rider factor into your capping, right?

I guess I don't get the amount of disparagement heaped on the jockey's contribution to the race outcome.

--Dunbar

the commitment being called on madeo is keeping him from worrying about the other commitment to choc. candy. the mosses did him a huge favor i think.

I don't get it. Riding for the Mosses is great and all, but if you're a jock wouldn't you rather ride in the myriad of great races being run at Belmont that weekend than the Whittingham and a couple of minor affairs at Hollywood Park?

Obcourse a jockey influences your decision making process, however there's a difference in blinding picking a horse just because 'Jerry Bailey' is riding.

It's no secret I am not one of Mike Smith's biggest fans, however I can see through the bias to still bet a horse I like the price is right. Ie. alot of my plays in the preak were keyed on Mine That Bird, so in essence I did practice what I said.

Fair enough, but I guess that sometimes I take for granted that people fully understand what is going through my head, so let me try to explain it. For the most part, the riders at the higher level tracks are extremely competent. Sure, some are better than others, but mostly their results are a function of the horses they ride, and thus since the better riders tend to get better mounts, they may appear better than they are due to the abilities of their mounts. When I look over a race for the first time, I take note of who is riding which horses and if this is a change from the previous rider(s). In most cases, at least in NY, the riders are good, so I don't worry about it and move on. In the few cases where the riders are weak, or there is a significant change one way or another, I make note of it and will refer back to it if the horse becomes one I am considering in my play. At the right odds, I don't care who rides a horse, as I am getting paid and am thus willing to take my chances.

So, what I am trying to say is that while clearly a rider can, and sometimes does, have an affect on an outcome, as horseplayers we can't control this, and have to hope for the best. Most of the time, we only notice riders when we perceive them to have screwed up. Much of this time, we are wrong, and are laying the blame in the wrong place. I feel similarly about when people praise riders, as most of the time they rode the best horse, or perhaps were in a position to take advantage of a given situation, and the simple fact is that most of the riders ( at least in NY ) would have given the same good ride. I mean this as a compliment to the group, not an insult to the individual, and this is perhaps what I have failed to get across.

Simply put, I feel riders get too much credit for winning, and WAY too much blame for losing. That is why I say they are in an ultimately unenviable position, as even the best ones lose over 75% of the time.

I think that even someone as dominant in his sport as Lance Armstrong would admit that if his team, those 'working' for him, don't get him to the key point in a race in the right way, then he basically has little chance of winning. Put another way, if any number of competent cyclists, with a talent level below that of Armstrong, are gotten to a key point in the race in a 'better' way than Armstrong, chances are, they'll beat him. Now, obviously, much planning goes into getting the star the best possible setup. And Armstrong is thus able to win more than he loses. Not nearly as much goes into getting a horse a good setup, however. In the sense that a jockey has a major portion of the control over whether a horse gets the proper setup, then, a jockey can significantly affect the performance of a horse in a race; both positively and negatively. As such, I pay close attention to the strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies of the jockeys in the circuits I follow, and I definitely consider the jockey when I bet. There are jocks I just won't bet -- it's just not worth the aggravation. There are others I'll bet less than my normal amount on. And there are those I'll bet with confidence. In fact, I do more handicapping of jocks than I do of trainers. Bad trainers typically ride bad jocks, it seems. Of course, trainer stat handicappers would disagree.

Surely you understand why this is true.....right?

" Bad " trainers, as you call them, don't win that often, and usually don't have particularly good horses, so thus have less access to the better riders. They would like to ride top riders.....but those riders don't want to ride their horses in many cases.

But you knew that.

I look at Ed's Princess this weekend. She's 29:1 to 1 and if someone with a clue was on her, she wins the race. Or, at the very least, is 2nd (which was still good for me.). Now the owner/trainer must've had a clue that she was ready to run. (I hope so, anyway.) It's hard to believe that Casey was the best he could do. Here's someone with less than a handful of winners (and that's a good 1/2 year for him) and he just threw away a sizeable purse. I wonder, seriously, if he realizes this.

I'm watching the race and it's obvious that Casey is loose reigning the horse on the backstretch and turn. I'm thinking, wtf?, you loose rein on the lead, not when you're behind/between horses, as you have no control then. But, incredibly, she loose reins the horse in the lane, as well. The other jocks have tight holds and they're whipping and driving, and she's barely able to control the horse. Why is she riding?

I am not going to discuss any particular rider's skills right now, but I think you really don't understand why a lot of riders do, or don't, ride certain horses for certain connections. I understand, I used to not get it either, and then I started asking the same questions, but to people who could answer them.

In all seriousness, you should be a jock's agent. You might need to change your personality.....but you could certainly identify live mounts that most couldn't.

mike smith is pretty much a west coast rider, and is first call rider for the mosses. you can't be first call rider, and then not want to fulfill those obligations. multiple rides on west coast, day in and day out, vs a day in new york?

I highlighted this because I think will consider a riders style in certain cases. For example Gomez on speed horses, he can win those type of races but he feels much more comfortable taking horses back, to a fault almost.

Tyler Baze on a horse with some speed but its hard to remember him doing much when taking a horses back.

Honestly though beyond that I dont consider riders, and for the most part I dont look at who is riding who, there are too many unknowns to make an intelligent decision.

First, thanks very much for the thoughtful response. I have a couple of comments that I've interspersed below.

Isn't the key there "at the right odds"? Those odds will be a little lower for me when Gomez is riding than when [fill in your own least fav Cal rider] rides.


I'm not sure what you're saying here. We can't control the race outcome, yet we still bet on the race if the odds are appealing, right? Likewise, the chance that a rider will either positively or negatively affect the outcome is something we can estimate. We can control how we weight the rider's abilities when we cap the race. We can upgrade a horse's chances when the rider is one who makes few mistakes and we can downgrade a horse's chances when the rider seems generally clueless.


Very well put!


I see jockies as athletes who need strength, finesse and judgement to excel. Like any group of athletes, some will be better than others, even within an elite group like the NY colony. That said, I probably don't put that much more emphasis on riders than you do. That's because of the difficulty I have in evaluating and weighting the differences rather than feeling like the differences are small.

--Dunbar

Chip Woolley is staying at the hotel next door to mine in Louisville and comes into the bar of my hotel on a regular basis.

I was drinking with a co-worker of mine after playing tennis tonight and got to talk to Mr. Woolley a little bit. He is very approachable and winning the Kentucky Derby has not changed him.

Mine That Bird will probably work on Monday. The decision to name a jockey on Monday for the Belmont may be tied into whether Calvin Borel or this other jockey works the horse on Monday morning. Calvin Borel comes by every day at Churchill to visit the horse and is clearly the first choice. If Calvin does not get the mount, it appears that Garrett Gomez and Rafael Bejarano are at the top of Woolley's list. Woolley did mention that Gomez's more aggressive style may not fit the horse as well (I do remember his poor ride on Hard Spun in the Belmont a few years ago). Woolley spoke very highly of both Gomez and Bejarano. I mentioned Julian Leparoux as being a very hot rider right now and he said he also was on his list but did not rank as high as Gomez and Bejarano. Julian Leparoux's very attractive girlfriend did come up in the conversation (does anyone know who Julian Leparoux is dating?)

The one horse that Woolley appeared to be most worried about running in the Belmont was Charitable Man. I asked him if he was worried about the pace scenario in the Belmont and he thought that there would be enough pace entered in the race. If not, Mine That Bird would just lay closer to the front than normal. He cleary mentions that Mine That Bird's significant improvement is related to his decision to start taking Mine That Bird further off the pace in his races and he wishes that he could have changed his running style sooner. If he does well at Belmont, it appears that the connections would likely point to the Travers at Saratoga.

I mentioned that Mine That Bird was probably the leading candidate right now for the 3-year old colt Eclipse award and I could tell that Woolley had not even thought about that.

Chip Woolley is a very likeable and humble guy and the success that he and the horse are having right now are very good for the sport.

That is awesome. But I just read an article on espn that said they were giving bo-rail a Monday deadline to shitorgetoffthepot. Sounded pretty clear, if you see him again will you ask if this deadline is true? Because Jackson is not going to decide on RA til mid-week at best.

I'm pretty sure Jackson has already decided she is running. He is just waiting for the OK from Asmussen that she is ready to go.

This is the part I should not have skipped by. What other jockey are you referring to?

Woolley said that Borel is not a given to work the horse on Monday. He did not mention who else could work the horse but I assumed the only way it would not be Borel was if another jockey got the mount.

An article in today's Thoroughbred times mentions, "If Rachel Alexandra does move on to the Belmont, Eclipse Award-winning jockey Garrett Gomez could be a candidate to ride Mine That Bird. Gomez’s agent, Ron Anderson, helped link Woolley and Borel for the Derby mount." I doubt Gomez would be available to work MTB at Churchill on Monday since he is riding at Hollywood that day.

I would think that RA's connections would be aware of the Monday decision on the MTB mount and give Borel some indication on whether RA was going to run or not in the Belmont.

Incidentally, RA is also supposed to work on Monday.

Why do you feel so sure that RA is running? I have seen nothing in the press that indicates RA is running and Asmussen indicated that there was less urgency to run in the Belmont.

Do you think Jackson would instead consider a race like the Stephen Foster or the Fleur de Lis against older filles and mares for RA (since RA loves Churchill and is stabled there)? I don't think Einstein is good enough on dirt to scare away the competition in the Stephen Foster.

i doubt rachel would go to the stephen foster. i don't think they'd want to take on older males just yet. older females perhaps in the delaware-a race that her original owners had pencilled in.

I'm not sure she is running. I am sure that Jackson wants her to run. It all comes down to whether Asmussen thinks she is ready at this point.

The Whitney would be a much better spot, could be no more difficult than the Dandy and it is a bigger race than the Foster.

I'd much rather face the leftovers from last years three year olds than anything from this crop, if I owned RA.

isn't that Delaware race for $1.0 Mil? I think that would make a lot of sense.

I think it is still a G2 though.

a million's a million. not too many of those around for distaffers. at least that way she'd be going vs older, not her overmatched peers..