Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Frederick
Does this mean it's the correct opinion?
I've got tons of respect for Doug, but he's wrong here. Has nothing to do with Baffert other than he had to know what was going on. If he didn't then he should never ride Espinoza again.
The issue is bettors who played Sky Kingdom did so under the pretense he would be ridden to actually win the race. His rider had other ideas.
|
The horse who won the race was outside the horse that you are claiming wasnt ridden to win the race.
So.....how does one say without using the odds that the horse in the 4 path wasnt ridden to win while the one in the 5 path who actually did win was? Sure you can assume that Smith didnt want to be out there and Espinoza did but now we are assuming as opposed to actually judging if any rules were violated.
If the odds are a determining factor are we now holding rider on long shots to different standards than those riding favorites? Do we want Stewards decisions based on assumptions? Everybody knows everything about high profile stakes horses like SB and CC. Do the stewards or everyday player know if some horse in an allowance race doesnt like to be stuck inside and that is why the other jocks may try to pin him down? Do we want the top races judged differently than the everyday races?