9/27 (SA): AwsmAgn, FrntRnnr, Chndelier, Zenyatta, Rodeo Dr. (G1's)

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by pointman

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.

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?)

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Kasept

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.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Kasept

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 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.

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by Kasept

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?)

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.