Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
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?
|
No need to make it difficult. For me, it boils down to common sense. Does anyone think Espinoza rode his horse to win?
I would have been totally fine if after meeting with the stewards, there was no suspension. At least they talked to him about it. That's all I'm asking for. More accountability.
I acknowledge there is a ton of gray area with the policing of riding. I'd just like to see more questions being asked about questionable rides.
If we take Baffert at his word, he knew nothing about what Espinoza was going to do. In that case the punishment is appropriate. Espinoza didn't put forth any effort to win. He should be punished. Plain and simple.
Maybe (and it's a big maybe) if there was some accountability in the sport it might appeal to gamblers more. And yes, I fully realize other sports have accountability issues as well.