Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   Breeders' Cup Archive (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   Most Impressive in Defeat? (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52311)

Calzone Lord 11-04-2013 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 952789)
If it were run on Friday Strong Mandate might have won!

I don't know, Havana put him away pretty easily on the far turn.

He just got hit in the head by the 1/16th pole and fell apart under a very confident ride.

I think Strong Mandate ran a great race though -- and they would have been a clear 1-2 on Friday's track.

Pletcher's horses ran lousy this week. Lukas had two great efforts on the day.

cmorioles 11-04-2013 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept (Post 952792)
He was told by Pletcher not to use the stick.

Was that publicized anywhere? I never heard it before, might have been useful info.

Danzig 11-04-2013 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 952790)
Or he might have plugged him in

Eric guillot said he didnt have that late surge

:D

Danzig 11-04-2013 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept (Post 952792)
He was told by Pletcher not to use the stick.

any idea why?

NTamm1215 11-04-2013 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 952781)
With all due respect how can you say that its nonsense and also say that a domestic rider may have gotten to change leads and say that not switching very well may have been the difference?

Do you believe that he lost because he didn't change leads? That was the only possible thing I could infer from Steve's statement.

If so, then the only thing you could believe is that a domestic jockey could have gotten him to change leads. I say that because, other than him not changing leads, he was ridden flawlessly in my opinion.

Kasept 11-04-2013 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 952795)
Was that publicized anywhere? I never heard it before, might have been useful info.

A listener to my show tweeted the question and Stevens answered it subsequently after his appearance.

cmorioles 11-04-2013 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept (Post 952801)
A listener to my show tweeted the question and Stevens answered it subsequently after his appearance.

On racing's biggest stage, bettors aren't told a rider is instructed not to use the whip. That is pretty weak.

Payson Dave 11-04-2013 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 952802)
On racing's biggest stage, bettors aren't told a rider is instructed not to use the whip. That is pretty weak.

I don't recall trainer instructions to jocks ever being made public before a race

Calzone Lord 11-04-2013 03:42 PM

It had to be by instruction. It looked kind of ridiculous.

I doubt it would have mattered any, because he was wide stalking a brutal fast pace chasing a pair of horses on some kind of suicide mission ... but still.

The horse ran a 9.60 furlong at Barrett's after being whipped repeatedly, no idea where Pletcher could have gathered that he hates being whipped.

I'm positive he was never hit with a whip in a morning workout. I guess he came to that conclusion based on Honor Code rallying at him in the Champagne? Debt Ceiling must also hate the whip, since he was eased and stopped to a walk because of the pace that day. Grand Arrival was beaten 20+ chasing that Champagne from 3rd as well. He obvious hates the whip.

Like I said, it probably didn't matter...but what a silly thing to instruct a jockey to do on an undefeated horse. The only time that horse was ever put to heavy whipping, he ran a furlong in 9.60 -- I guess that makes him a horse who sulks from the whip. He completely fell apart late under a lazy hand ride.

cmorioles 11-04-2013 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Payson Dave (Post 952803)
I don't recall trainer instructions to jocks ever being made public before a race

That seems a little more than an instruction to me. Just my opinion, I'm sure many will disagree. But as a bettor I would definitely downgrade a horse that isn't going to be whipped.

NTamm1215 11-04-2013 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept (Post 952783)
I think this is more about your eagerness to bash the domestic jocks than arguing that a more efficient moving North American style rider might have gotten the little extra out of Declaration that potentially changes the outcome. As Chuck just said, you're at cross-purposes regarding the lead change.

No, it has everything to do with the fact that I think Joseph O'Brien rode a terrific race and that a "domestic rider" would have been hard pressed to provide an appreciable advantage.

Surely you know me well enough to be confident that I'll bash domestic jockeys without doing so indirectly!

Payson Dave 11-04-2013 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 952747)
Ria Antonia is far more likely to never win any race again than she is to earn a single qualifying point for the Derby.

More than a couple of clockers thought she was training very well coming into the race

Cannon Shell 11-04-2013 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NTamm1215 (Post 952800)
Do you believe that he lost because he didn't change leads? That was the only possible thing I could infer from Steve's statement.

If so, then the only thing you could believe is that a domestic jockey could have gotten him to change leads. I say that because, other than him not changing leads, he was ridden flawlessly in my opinion.

I simply said that a rider with a different style may have made the difference. Never said he didnt give the horse a good ride.

Cannon Shell 11-04-2013 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 952802)
On racing's biggest stage, bettors aren't told a rider is instructed not to use the whip. That is pretty weak.

Since when are trainers instructions made public? Perhaps since Stevens has never been on the horse and was a last minute sub Pletcher told him something that was already known by his regular rider?

Is anyone who likes the horse on pp's not betting him because the trainer told the jockey the horse doesnt like the whip?

Cannon Shell 11-04-2013 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Payson Dave (Post 952807)
More than a couple of clockers thought she was training very well coming into the race

That may be true but that doesn't mean she has a prayer at being a serious Derby contender.

cmorioles 11-04-2013 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 952809)
Since when are trainers instructions made public? Perhaps since Stevens has never been on the horse and was a last minute sub Pletcher told him something that was already known by his regular rider?

Is anyone who likes the horse on pp's not betting him because the trainer told the jockey the horse doesnt like the whip?

Well, it isn't quite the same. We are told when horses won't have a whip, so why not when they won't use it?

What is the harm in divulging it? That is all I'm asking. We aren't talking about instructions about race strategy or anything. I don't see what the rider change matters, wouldn't hurt a thing to divulge the info with his regular rider either.

And yes, it is a handicapping factor. If whip use didn't matter, nobody would use them. You know that. So not using one is a disadvantage in a game where races are decided by scant margins.

Cannon Shell 11-04-2013 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 952811)
Well, it isn't quite the same. We are told when horses won't have a whip, so why not when they won't use it?

What is the harm in divulging it? That is all I'm asking. We aren't talking about instructions about race strategy or anything.

Who exactly is going to divulge it to whom?

Payson Dave 11-04-2013 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 952810)
That may be true but that doesn't mean she has a prayer at being a serious Derby contender.

lol... I agree she is not likely to get derby qualifying points

cmorioles 11-04-2013 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 952812)
Who exactly is going to divulge it to whom?

Things are divulged to bettors every day. How do we find out when a rider won't carry a whip? Call me crazy, but that same system might actually work here too!

Danzig 11-04-2013 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 952811)
Well, it isn't quite the same. We are told when horses won't have a whip, so why not when they won't use it?

What is the harm in divulging it? That is all I'm asking. We aren't talking about instructions about race strategy or anything. I don't see what the rider change matters, wouldn't hurt a thing to divulge the info with his regular rider either.

And yes, it is a handicapping factor. If whip use didn't matter, nobody would use them. You know that. So not using one is a disadvantage in a game where races are decided by scant margins.

:tro:

and couldn't a jock get questioned if it was felt he didn't prevail to the wire?

the sooner everyone involved in this sport comes to grips with bettors being a huge factor, the better.
we are told about lasix, blinkers, shoes, jock changes, weight difference, etc. whether a whip is used should be public info as well.

i guess going forward it's something bettors need to take note of in baby races, whether they go to the stick or if it's just carried along for ballast.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.