Biancone Returns to New York

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, i know he did the time. doesn't make him a good person, or trainer, or someone i want to see returning to the sport.

So Dutrow, Assmussen and anyone else with any positive should not be allowed to train?
Honestly, I really dont even care about this. I liked him a lot before he went, I cought on to him and Julian before a lot of people did and I made a lot of money a few Keenland meets back. I focus on the horses and the handicapping, I really dont care either way, maybe I am biased because I do like Patrick.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

So Dutrow, Assmussen and anyone else with any positive should not be allowed to train?
Honestly, I really dont even care about this. I liked him a lot before he went, I cought on to him and Julian before a lot of people did and I made a lot of money a few Keenland meets back. I focus on the horses and the handicapping, I really dont care either way, maybe I am biased because I do like Patrick.

many times over offenders should not be allowed back time and again. it's ridiculous.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

So Dutrow, Assmussen and anyone else with any positive should not be allowed to train?
Honestly, I really dont even care about this. I liked him a lot before he went, I cought on to him and Julian before a lot of people did and I made a lot of money a few Keenland meets back. I focus on the horses and the handicapping, I really dont care either way, maybe I am biased because I do like Patrick.

You don't care whether the sport is clean or not, or whether the lives of horses and riders are put in jeopardy, as long as you are able to cash your wager?

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

You don't care whether the sport is clean or not, or whether the lives of horses and riders are put in jeopardy, as long as you are able to cash your wager?

I'm sorry, but yes. I care about the big race days, Saratoga and BC day. I care about my bankroll, not this.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

You don't care whether the sport is clean or not, or whether the lives of horses and riders are put in jeopardy, as long as you are able to cash your wager?

Why is it MY business, or that of any bettor, whether the game is clean or not?
When the different tracks figure out how to COMPLETELY clean up the game, then maybe some of this will have meaning to me. When there are so many cheating out there, I don't think it's very productive to focus on a single individual. There are worse things happening in the world than scumbags hurting horses.

And, while we're at it, why is NYRA any better than any of these cheats? Don't they put riders and horses in jeopardy when they allow HERDING in their races? How about all the times that a jock comes in on the turn, rather than keeping a straight path and pinches the jock to his inside on the rail? Is that dangerous? What exactly is NYRA (or any of the other tracks) doing about this? Clearly, SQUAT. I've watched Castellano be given carte blanche the past few years when it comes to herding. THIS is a much more dangerous issue than the Biancone thing, IMO. And NYRA, IMO, through its stewards is acting every bit a reprehensibly as Biancone ever did.

This is all BS. The game itself is based on CHEATING. All the trainers are looking for an edge. All the tracks are as well. When they soup their tracks up on big days so that they get fast times, is that cheating? Safety sacrificed for speed? How about all those BIASES they create? Is that cheating? How about when the allow their WHALES to past post or give them rebates? Is that fair?

What makes this game the challenge of a lifetime is the chance to win IN SPITE of all the unfairness going on in it.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Why is it MY business, or that of any bettor, whether the game is clean or not?
When the different tracks figure out how to COMPLETELY clean up the game, then maybe some of this will have meaning to me. When there are so many cheating out there, I don't think it's very productive to focus on a single individual. There are worse things happening in the world than scumbags hurting horses.

All change is incremental. Your point's like saying that, until we can round up all the criminals at once, we shouldn't enforce any laws. Or because someone is committing murder, we should no longer prosecute theft.

Aside from the inherent handicapping conundrums created by today's supertrainers (how do you quantify how much new trainer "X" will move a recent acquisition up), the perception problem created by having an unclean sport serves to keep away (or more importantly, drive away) potential owners and bettors. Of course, if you don't care about having five and six horse fields, I guess that's not a problem. For most of the rest of us, that is a problem.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Of course, if you don't care about having five and six horse fields, I guess that's not a problem. For most of the rest of us, that is a problem.

I only care about an edge. If there's a stickout in a race, chances are it has more of a chance in a smaller than a larger field. Most of the people here have bigger balls than me. You all want to take on bigger challenges. So, you FORCE action. You play difficult races, that I wouldn't touch, because they're part of a sequence you're playing. In most cases, the focus is on a single track and that day's card. I look at 6,7,8, whatever, tracks a day and try to get the best plays from them. This is races where I have an edge. I'm not looking to make scores that will make my year but rather to play (and win) consistently and to my strengths. Why, then, would I particularly care if the fields are small or large, as long as I'm winning?

Hope this clears up the small fields issue, once and for all.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I only care about an edge. If there's a stickout in a race, chances are it has more of a chance in a smaller than a larger field. Most of the people here have bigger balls than me. You all want to take on bigger challenges. So, you FORCE action. You play difficult races, that I wouldn't touch, because they're part of a sequence you're playing. In most cases, the focus is on a single track and that day's card. I look at 6,7,8, whatever, tracks a day and try to get the best plays from them. This is races where I have an edge. I'm not looking to make scores that will make my year but rather to play (and win) consistently and to my strengths. Why, then, would I particularly care if the fields are small or large, as long as I'm winning?

Hope this clears up the small fields issue, once and for all.

Will you please explain herding.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

Will you please explain herding.

An intentional attempt to not run in a straight path in the lane in order to take the path of another horse and prevent it from challenging. In other words, gaining an UNFAIR advantage.

I was shocked that the NYRA stewards took a horse down for drifting the other day. It was so mild compared to some of the blatant and dangerous herding by Castellano over the past few years, that I had to do a double take and make sure I was watching NYRA racing.

Castellano on the east coast and Chantal on the west coast (when she rides there) are presently the top herders in the game. Interestingly, however, she does very little herding up at WO. It's all about the stewards, after all.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I only care about an edge. If there's a stickout in a race, chances are it has more of a chance in a smaller than a larger field. Most of the people here have bigger balls than me. You all want to take on bigger challenges. So, you FORCE action. You play difficult races, that I wouldn't touch, because they're part of a sequence you're playing. In most cases, the focus is on a single track and that day's card. I look at 6,7,8, whatever, tracks a day and try to get the best plays from them. This is races where I have an edge. I'm not looking to make scores that will make my year but rather to play (and win) consistently and to my strengths. Why, then, would I particularly care if the fields are small or large, as long as I'm winning?

Hope this clears up the small fields issue, once and for all.

I wish I had that type of restraint.