Exactly.

That Baffert isn't livid with Espinoza is the only truth coming from him.

Mafia dons use the same defense.

The bolded bit is the attitude in our sport that makes me cringe.

Maybe trainers should be held accountable (as well) for the actions of their jocks.

No matter how hard I try to ignore you, you insist on trying to take cheap shots at me while mischaracterizing what have I previously stated regarding Baffert in response to your never ending moronic comments on this board.

I am not sure if you are trolling or you are just plain stupid, though I believe it is some of both but mostly the latter, however, though you already know my position I will once again state it to avoid others from believing your nonsensical allegations towards me.

You have made many accusations towards Pletcher. I have stated over and again that I see no difference between Pletcher and Baffert. There is no more evidence that Baffert cheats than Pletcher cheats. However, both have very good stock that tend to run astonishingly well which leaves whether they are doing something open to interpretation, but to accuse one but not the other is hypocrisy.

With regard to this incident, Baffert has clearly lied when he said that he didn't complain about the tactics used on Game On Dude. He cried like a baby about it on Byk's show. As he is lying about that, it certainly seems credible that he was in on what Espinoza did to Shared Belief, particularly how it helped Baffert's other horse Fed Biz in the race. The motive is clearly there. And as IC has pointed out, it certainly doesn't seem he is so angry with Espinoza.

The funny thing about it is that you can't recognize the difference between fair tactical race riding and the illegal riding that Espinoza did on Saturday. The tactics used against Game On Dude that Baffert cried about were completely fair tactics, nothing more than connections using the best weapon of their horses, their speed, which they felt gave their horses the best chance to win which sometimes does not work out but often does even when there are several other speed horses in a race.

What Espinoza did cannot be considered race riding at all. Race riding is when you are trying to keep a horse from getting somewhere to give your mount a tactical advantage over another horse. Espinoza was not riding his horse to gain a tactical advantage to win the race, he was clearly riding his horse to prevent Shared Belief from winning the race at the expense of giving his horse any opportunity to win, while what clearly seems to give another horse by the same trainer, Fed Biz, a tactical advantage to win the race. That is a fraud on the betting public who bet Sky Kingdom and he was justifiably suspended for it. But that doesn't mean that Baffert should get away with it because he is insulated by the rider did it defense.

I was thinking the same thing while running this morning. Maybe if we as horse players start pre-emptively bitch about how ludicrous the track was day 1 last year they will be shamed into making it fair

Unfortunately if you want to ride horses that have a chance to cash big purses you do jump off that bridge. Also Mike Smith won't say anything remotely controversial about the situation for the same reason even though he was put into a dangerous situation.

Totally agree.

Is that description akin to running a rabbit in a race for whatever reason one is employed? (Soften up a pace type/add speed for a closing stablemate?)

I was just talking about this on another thread. The difference to me is that employing speed with a rabbit is a legal race tactic that can be discerned by the betting public on paper whereas Espinoza clearly had no intent not only to ride his horse to attempt to win the race, but had clear intent to illegally physically impede another horse from winning the race. That is something that can't be discerned on paper and isn't fair.

Using a rabbit is not inherently dangerous, physically impeding a horse in the manner that Espinoza did is dangerous to both the horses and riders. Plus, using rabbits doesn't always work, rabbits can break poorly, may not be fast enough to set up the closer or the specific horse or horses may relax and just let the rabbit go knowing it is likely to come back (which may not happen) and let the real race go on behind without the great set up for the closer. While it won't always work, it is not likely to be dangerous when it does.

It is tactics vs. deliberate impeding as far as I see it and to me what Espinoza attempted to do was clearly deliberately physically impede Shared Belief from winning, as opposed to using a race tactic to legally beat the horse.

I dont like rabbits but have never bet in a race where I was not able to figure out that two speed horses were in the race and it might hinder their chances.

I agree with this. Mikey got caught wide, tough sh it for him. It's not like he took him to the outside rail, he carried him out 1-2 paths. Enough with the pearl-clutching and whining from people who bet on a hopeless horse.

So then big picture you agree with me. Thanks Joe

I didn't bet the race. I am not clutching my pearls.

Respectfully, it's this kind of dismissive, waving away of problems in racing that is a BIG problem.


Here's a line BH didn't have...

“He told me, ‘Keep walking or I’ll cut your head off,’” Espinoza said.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/spor...e-again-stakes

I dont think about you at all when I post here, I know that might be hard to understand. I thought it was race riding, again was the 2 supposed to hook the 1 early? How often do two horses from the same barn kill each other in a Grade 1 race? I was not taking a shot at you specifically with the drug comments, you are not the only one here who has said that.

Comparing this situation to using a rabbit is a little silly. My guess is Baffert didn't tell Victor to do it but may have mentioned a Shared Belief loss would help CC's eclipse chances.

Even if Baffert said it. What does it really matter? Its not like he said to try to clip heels and hurt the horse. Float the horse wide, why is it such a big deal? Ill answer that question, its a big deal because Baffert is like the Cowboys or Yankees. People love to hate him. He gets the best horses from the owners with the most $$. Its easy to hate the guy.

I don't give a sh it about Baffert. When a rider does not try to win the race for whatever reason there is a problem. It hurts the integrity of the sport and the gamblers that fund the sport.

Not even close.

Maybe if the horses were coupled, or at least shared the same owner if coupling wasn't allowed it would make sense. That wasn't the case here.

This was Espinoza not wanting Shared Belief to win and bettors be damned. In a sport with integrity issues galore, this did little to help the cause.

I find it very hard to believe that you would take the same position if Shared Belief were trained by Baffert and Fed Biz and Sky Kingdom were trained by Pletcher.

Ok that's fair, because the GOAT is my guy. Its fair, but not true. I love Smith, I have defended Smith here before. It was race riding and Mike never really tried to save ground. Mike is famous for the wide no cover trip. Victor being suspended 7 days for his ride is ridiculous. There was no contact made, he floated his horse wide, Smith could have taken a hold and tucked in.