A lot more horses win going wide in the first turn than rabbits.
You dont have to be an insider to know that.

No ones money was stolen, it went into the pockets of the sharper players.

Your last sentence doesn't deserve a response.

Yeah, the spineless part was totally uncalled for.:D

Repeating someone's valid comment does not nullify it.

lol

Chief called me a ***** one day. Was one of the funniest things ever.

The validity of rabbits might win so its ok is far from a given.
Horses that go wide in the first turn win with a lot more frequency than rabbits.

spineless pusssy

Spineless!

Chuck is right even though he blatantly disregards the multi-quote option just so he can BE RIGHT.

We get it. You're never wrong on anything. Ever. Omnipotent Chuck.

It must mean Todd Pletcher is a god above gods.

FFS I hate this sport. WTF am I doing reading this ****ing garbage?

**** you

**** you

No Baffert is

You are a spneless pusssy too

I singled Cay to Pomeroy in the 3rd race at Belmont today because he looked for all the world like lone speed. Instead, Jose Ortiz unexpectedly hard sent Starship Captain after him, which was clearly a suicide mission. Cay to Pomeroy won the battle but lost the war, getting passed by two closers late and killing my multis. Starship Captain finished a very distant 4th. I DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION!!!

Really Joey? Disappointed that you belittle our argument.. Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation you just presented.

I think your argument would have validity if you weren't clinging on to the Shared Belief race as an example. That wasn't stiffing a horse, it was race-riding the overwhelming favorite with a hopeless longshot. Sky Kingdom was never winning that race or even competing in any scenario, so I don't understand how him making things a little tougher on the big chalk is such an outrage.

Of the two words, spineless and pusssy, oh, nevermind..

Well you are absolutely wrong and many of us feel the same way but that is ok. Pretty funny you cite hopeless longshot in the same post where your single was beaten by a hopeless longshot.

What's even funnier is I liked the winner enough to use underneath but couldn't pull the trigger on top. If I had known JLO was gonna ride the race to apparently only beat the favorite, I might've gotten some of that $71.50 win mutuel. But that's racing. Until we put tiny robots on the horses' backs, jockeys are gonna do dumb sh!t to screw you over from time to time.

Surprised the Pick 5 didn't carry

a little tougher?

Possibly because it was designed as a prep for the BC... not an all out, life or death struggle to the end?
You can't think for a moment that Hollendorfer really gave two sh1ts about the race - he was livid that the effort took too much from the horse.

Baffert whines like a baby when GoD doesn't get a clear lead and then pulls this bush-league horsesh1t.... Art Sherman owes him a steak dinner.

Yeah, a little tougher. Jesus, I've never seen a horse getting floated wide on the first turn treated like such a travesty.

So the rest of the field is obligated to sit back and let him have a public workout for $300k so he can be even tougher in the BC?

Going that wide on that hot of a pace for the entire race is very difficult type of trip.

Never said it wasn't. In fact, I came on here and said that was much more impressive than his Pacific Classic win because of the trip. But Shared Belief was going to have a tough, wide trip regardless of whether Sky Kingdom floated him out 1-2 paths on the first turn. Hence "a little tougher."

why, he didnt in the classic. I dont know how you know he was.

So if Sky Kingdom doesn't carry him out some on the 1st turn, SB is going 1w1w and tripping out for the win. OK.

No but I could see 2w-2w which given the pace would have yielded an easy winner rather than all this "not sure he can handle dirt - it took a lot of him talk".

being carried wide doesn't negate questions about him handling the track.

Yes Joey, that's precisely the point. :rolleyes:

The horse was purposely entered to herd the favorite 7 paths out. No other purpose.

It has absolutely nothing to do with co-entered rabbits, et. al. other "apples to oranges" comparisons.

It has everything to do with taking a legal betting interest, and premeditatively compromising any chance at all it may have had to hit the board for no reason other than to impede another horse.

If you have no problem with that, I'm not going to change your mind.

Apparently the stewards did, and I agree with their decision.

So I am curious to know how it is acceptable to run a rabbit at a speed oriented favorite at the expense of the rabbit's chances to win the race. The rabbit is a legal betting interest whose sole purpose is to compromise the chances of the favorite. The public lost money on the rabbit.

Ultimately this is no different than what happened in this race. The only difference is that the tactics changed in this race, the favorite was compromised by being carried wide. The tactics almost worked, it was a close finish.

The racing form does not put an asterisk next to the name of the rabbit reminding bettors that an agenda is at hand and to beware that this horse is not in the race to win. It does list the name of the trainer so bettor beware, the lesser of the entry, coupled or not, could possibly be in there to help his stablemate.

What bothers me more is what I can't see in the form. Like Gary Stevens running Fury Kapcori to a 1:09 and change 6f split going 1 1/4 miles.

I get it, Chuck.

Devil's Advocate is an excellent way to kill time and as what the cool kids say these day..."s h i tpost"

But either way that race wasn't a good look for the sport. Especially considering Espinoza accused Smith of threatening to cut his head off.

We don't need drone strikes on track. Not that I particularly care because I never go these days...but it would suck for other people.

rabbits are entered to ensure a good early pace, not necessarily to intentionally lose, or intentionally cause a wide trip.

past performances tell you who's the rabbit. they don't however let you know who's there to engage in herding. besides, sometimes rabbits get alone on the lead and stay there til the end. Aristides won the first derby when entered to set the pace for the stable star, who forgot to get going in the end of the race.
there's no way to know about these sorts of things and when they may happen again.
I think the biggest issue is bettors felt rooked, and when they bring it up, they're told too bad, get over it. it's really the only business I know of that the customer is told 'tough, stop complaining, but please keep betting'.

The lesser part of the entry (as I suggested) would be the one to potentially do the herding. Just because some rabbits stay there until the end doesn't justify the fact that they are in the race to sacrifice their chances of winning to soften up another horse. In an uncoupled entry bettors who wagered on the rabbit in the vast majority of cases lose their money because the rabbit was in the race to compromise another horse.

Much of what I've read in this thread seems to be that bettors lost money on Sky Kingdom and they were taken advantage of because he was in the race only to compromise the chances of another horse at his own expense.

So my question is why is one form of " sacrifice " accepted and another is not?

how is a front running horse who goes to the front being compromised? Is a speed horse supposed to be ridden differently? We know that there are two speed, or more, in a race prior to the race being run.

How did we know Sky Kingdom would be ridden to lose so much ground?

The rabbit isn't being compromised by "going to the front". The result of his actions, running as fast as he can to compromise another, is that he will ultimately have little left to win the race. It is his job.

We don't know Sky Kingdom will be ridden to lose ground. What we do know is that his trainer has another horse in the race. We also know the other horse is more likely to perform better than Sky Kingdom. As a bettor we have to know that it is conceivable that if given the opportunity, the weaker part of the entry could be used to compromise the chances of another, to potentially help his stablemate win.

For a minute let's say Sky Kingdom was outside of Shared Belief. Given the way the early pace developed Espinosa could have kept Smith inside of him and behind his stablemate. No ground would have been lost but potentially Shared Belief may have been compromised in another manner.

I'm not condoning what happened. I simply want to know why one strategy is acceptable and another is not.

like i said, just because one if a rabbit, doesn't mean he's going to be 'sacrificed' at all.

I dont see how one horse is sacrificed, he is a front runner who will have to go head to head with another, usually superior front runner, his loss is very likely and certainly discernible.

Your analysis pre race certainly highlights why many people dont want to bet on the sport.

So his loss being likely and discernible makes it ok to make him a separate betting interest, available for the public to wager and lose their money?

My pre race analysis points out only a possibility, nothing more. There are no absolutes. Bettors can choose which races to wager.

It doesn't mean he won't.

Pretty obvious through 6 pages that nobody has an answer for this. You're wasting your time.

This can go on forever and no one is changing camps.

but one can bet him, or not, accordingly. it's there in the pp's to see he's a speedster.
however, no one is going to know by reading pp's that the longshot will be ridden so as to impede another horse, and then be pulled up and not bothered to finish. bettors have no way to act accordingly, because they don't know ahead of time.
but i guess we're 'supposed' to know which longshots are live, and which are just there to be a traffic cone. how we're supposed to know that i'm not sure.
so, bettors get told tough and nothing is done, and bettors are just whiners.
but, hey, keep betting tho!

I have time, but thanks.