Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Are you honestly this clueless? Do you think because I don't litter my posts with names that I don't know a LOT of people in the industry?

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is completely irrelevent. You made an idiotic remark about my talking to jockeys, as if to suggest I was lying, which was completely out of line. Nobody referenced, or cares, as to whether or not you know anybody in this game.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I was playfully joking as a response to your remark the other day. Lighten up a bit. Have a bit of fun.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Now I should lighten up?

Actually...I am enjoying myself immensely. But hey, thanks for the condescension.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Yeah, why? It was just two simple questions that you're avoiding answering.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Now that we have the riding instructions and the trainer comments, then I admit that Ramon made a bad decision.

However, what Ramon thought would happen about the hole opening up was what I said in the other thread that he thought would happen. He just made the wrong decision that didn't pay off this time. A lot of other times, it would have proven to be the right decision as a hole would have opened. If the hole would have opened, no one would have been complaining about his ride.

Originally Posted by Kasept

Not looking to reopen yesterday's volatile discussion of Dominguez' performance on Daytime Promise Thursday at Aqueduct, but I did just get off the phone with Gary Contessa...

The Q and A:

INSTRUCTIONS TO RAMON?
"She prefers to be outside horses anyway, so I told him to sit off and just make one run on the outside."


THOUGHTS DURING THE STRETCH RUN?
"I wanted to throw up.. It's the human side of the game. You do everything you can to prepare a horse and then you get one of the worst performances of the guy's career.. maybe THE worst."


WHAT DID HE SAY AFTER?
"He apologized over and over.. He said 'I can only tell you I'm sorry.'"


WHAT DID HE TELL YOU HE WAS THINKING?
"He said that when they came off the turn he was sure the rail horse was going to float wide and take the other one with him and that he would have the rail to boot home. He said the jock on the rail horse was using both hands to hold left on his horse as if the horse was trying to bear out so he thought the rail would open up."

Originally Posted by paisjpq

how about we consider the idea that Ramon was trying to look like hot sh*t and his plan backfired...and then he had to go cover his sorry ride with an angry trainer...whose instructions he failed to follow.
not too different than a child who makes a bad decision and then tries to lie to mom and dad...

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This nonsense about not being able to evaluate the ride without knowing the trainers's instructions really needs to stop. Anyone that knows the first thing about watching a race knew that what Ramon did yesterday was inexcusable. Are you trying to suggest that the trainer could have told him to find the path of MOST resistance?

It was a bad ride, that you defended yesterday, and were wrong. You were " blaming others " in that you were suggesting those of us that called it a bad ride were in any way out of line. We were not only NOT out of line....we were 100% correct.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is just more incorrect posting...which coincides with your posts yesterday ( where you told us we had to stop bashing jockeys....even though the posts weren't " jockey bashing " at all but a correct analysis of a racing situation ).

Even if a hole had opened it was still a " bad ride " as he took an unnecessary chance for absolutely no reason whatsoever. There were two paths, one was completely clear outside and the other would have taken an occurance to work out and offered the possibility of something extremely detrimental happening. It was an absolute no-brainer and a his decision was so bad that it offers the hint of a possibility that he had motives other than winning the race. Yet, you not only chose to defend him, but you also chastised other posters for questioning his judgement.

Being too result oriented in life, but especially in horse racing, is a very poor thing to do. " Good rides " and " bad rides " are very often NOT defined by how the race works out. Many riders give terrific rides that go completely unnoticed because they simply were on too slow a horse. This you will surely agree with. However, many riders give poor rides that also go unnoticed for both similar reasons or because their mount was good enough to overcome it. For you to think this ride in any way could have been considered anything other than a " bad ride " is a total misread of the situation.

You say we shouldn't comment on jockeys if we haven't ridden a horse. I say, based on your opinions, your's aren't qualified simply because you have.

Originally Posted by ninetoone

Well said DTS....and on that point, if a hole had opened up on the rail & Ramon had taken his horse too wide, we'd have a thread about why he should have taken the rail. Even if we had the information about the instructions, we'd have people whining about how those are "just a guide" or something to that effect...he should have used his judgement...blah blah blah. Come back and look at this thread in 5 years & see what Ramon has accomplished. We'll probably all be wondering why we were talking so much about a 3/5 shot in an AOC race at Aqueduct on a Thursday.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

It depends on what the trainer's instructions are, and how much horse the rider has.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

What happens in the future for Ramon Dominguez has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not yesterday's ride was a poor one. It is interesting that the defenders of Mr. Dominguez continue to make these sort of comments as though there is any relevance to them whatsoever. If he were to win with 100% of his mounts the rest of his riding career yesterday's ride would still remain one of the single most puzzlingly stupid decisions in riding history. It is really only more baffling because Mr. Dominguez is a talented rider. If the worst rider in America had done what he did yesterday it still would have been wrong and somewhat baffling. But, to have a successful rider, even if he is overrated, make the choice he did will forever be mystifying.

Once again, even if the rail had opened for him it would have been a poor ride, and understanding that is important if one is to truly understand horseracing. Results are not nearly as important as how one gets there. That's what seperates winners from losers.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

If he were to win with 100% of his mounts the rest of his riding career yesterday's ride would still remain one of the single most puzzlingly stupid decisions in riding history. QUOTE]


You've got to be kidding me. I'm sure you've watched many more races than I have, so I hope I don't need to tell you that the type of scenario that happenned on Thursday happens every single day & every single "great" rider has done something similar or much worse. I've watched the replay several times now, and I can't believe how blown out of proportion this thread has become. He made a bad decision, no doubt. It's worse because he had instructions to do otherwise. If this was "one of the single most puzzlingly stupid decisions in riding history", he'd certainly be losing some business because of it....and believe me, that aint gonna happen.

Originally Posted by ninetoone

You've got to be kidding me. I'm sure you've watched many more races than I have, so I hope I don't need to tell you that the type of scenario that happenned on Thursday happens every single day & every single "great" rider has done something similar or much worse. I've watched the replay several times now, and I can't believe how blown out of proportion this thread has become. He made a bad decision, no doubt. It's worse because he had instructions to do otherwise. If this was "one of the single most puzzlingly stupid decisions in riding history", he'd certainly be losing some business because of it....and believe me, that aint gonna happen.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

would still remain one of the single most puzzlingly stupid decisions in riding history.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

terrible ride? yes.

but, my goodness, did you just take hyperbole to a new level.

Originally Posted by Bystander

I don't know, the mistake cost $25,000, didn't it? And isn't Contessa accountable to Darlene Bilinski and Harry Patten, having to explain why their horse missed a $30,000 check?
I bet there's a bit more said than "don't let it happen again."

Originally Posted by paisjpq

"Please don't do it again?":D

Originally Posted by Bystander

I don't know, the mistake cost $25,000, didn't it? And isn't Contessa accountable to Darlene Bilinski and Harry Patten, having to explain why their horse missed a $30,000 check?
I bet there's a bit more said than "don't let it happen again."

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It may be much worse than just losing the money. When a horse is forced to check like that, they often times come out of the race with injuries. I owned a filly once that was bottled up on the rail turning for home. The jock checked pretty good off heels but the rail did open up and he got through and won. That was the good news. The bad news was that she wrenched her ankle pretty bad and we had to put a blister on her and turn her out for a couple of months. Two months at the farm means no racing for 6 months. Luckily the horse came back off the 6 month layoff as good as ever, but a 6 month layoff costs a lot of money in terms of expenses.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

terrible ride? yes.

but, my goodness, you just took hyperbole to an unprecedented level.

Originally Posted by Bystander

I don't know, the mistake cost $25,000, didn't it? And isn't Contessa accountable to Darlene Bilinski and Harry Patten, having to explain why their horse missed a $30,000 check?
I bet there's a bit more said than "don't let it happen again."

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Well, Brian, in the vast encyclopedia of rides in your memory why don't you come up with a few more baffling decisions. Be sure they were simple situations in races that absolutely cost the horses involved victory.

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

He's riding for them on Sunday - 2nd race aboard "Keep your Day Job".

The Irony is painful.

Wanna see the ride of his life? I won't be betting against him....

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

There are not many more baffling rides in my memory. However, I am 23. I watch about 8 races a day. I have only been following racings since I was 16.

So my "vast" encyclopedia probably adds up to somewhere around roughly one ten thousandth of a percent of all the races in "history."

So who cares if I can name them?

One of the dumber ones I've seen? Sure, I'll give you that.

To assume it is one of the dumbest/most puzzling in history (mind you, not that you've ever seen, or in the last ten years, but you claim "history)? That seems folly, purely from a mathematical standpoint.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So, let's see, you claim to have been watching 8 races a day, or approximately 2500 races a year for seven years, or over 17,000 races yet are unable to come up with a more baffling ride.

Was this the BEST criticism you could come up with of my posts ( in some pathetic attempt to defend another poster in this thread I assume )?

Next time, if you don't have something to add to the discussion, an opinion about what was actually being discussed, and simply have a pathetic and desperate need to attack the poster and not the issue, keep your fingers off the keyboard.

Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

First, I didn't defend anyone in this thread. I didn't "attack" you one bit. I didn't call you names. I didn't do anything but point out that you indulged in a bit of hyperbole in one post. It wasn't a criticism of anything you've said in regards to the entire ride, except that I found it mathematically unlikely that it was one of the worst rides in history.

Is that really what you consider an "attack?" Seriously?

Secondly, I said it was a terrible ride. I said that my "history" is such a tiny bit of the overall history, that it doesn't matter how many I can think of. But for starters, I'd say the stakes on closing day at Turf Paradise two or three years back when the rider misjudged the length of the race by an entire 7 furlongs would have been a dumber, more puzzling ride than this one. So, if in 17,000 races, I can think of even ONE ride more dumb or puzzling than this one....how does that bode for its place as one of the dumbest rides "in history?"

I generally steer clear from anything you post, agree or not, because you're a total loose cannon and are liable to fly off the handle at any second....ie, right now.

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

*Sitting on my hands.*

Originally Posted by Danzig188

lol
you type that with your nose??

and does it tickle to sit on your hands??:eek:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I guess your final paragraph wasn't personal either.

The deletion of your initial " apology " was a real knee slapper.

The simple fact is you made an unnecessary post directed towards me and are now compounding it by being further insulting.

Good to know.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The final paragraph was personal, surely. An observation that I am certainly not alone in making -- I'm just not really that afraid anymore of saying it to you because you spend half of your time on the forums demeaning other posters for what seems like nothing more than the fun of it. There's nothing respectable about that. It really sucks too, because you're a smart guy who knows a lot about racing and any respect you gain from many forum members for your knowledge and insight is squandered when you accuse other posters of personal "attacks" in the same post in which you attack them. Somebody here's gotta call a spade a spade, eh?

Your definition of "unnecessary" is that you don't feel like reading it. I felt like posting to point out your hyperbole, therefore it was wildly necessary. Now we're just arguing semantics.

And yes, now I'm starting to border on insulting -- but in touch enough with the reality of the situation to admit it. My best. Not sure where I'd need to apologize.