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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Serious question, if Ezpinoza took back and sat last and just tried to clunk up up get a 3rd or 4th place check, would that be considered putting forth an effort to win?

I understand the perception is that Baffert and Espinoza tag teamed the other horse but there are a lot of perceptions in this business that are completely inaccurate despite looking from the outside like they make sense. IMO Ezpinoza figured that he had no chance and wanted to make his 3 year old "rival" work hard. People use the Baffert isn't pissed so he is guilty nonsense but he can read the form and perhaps hadn't even wanted to be in there with that horse. It is hard to conjure up a lot of animosity for a ride on a horse that hadnt prayer anyway, especially when you almost just won the race with your legitimate contender.

I guess what drives me crazy more than anything is people not understanding the implications of stewards perhaps overly protecting big name horses and short priced favorites. Would this ride have gotten a journeyman rider a suspension in a cal bred maiden claimer?

You say people want accountability which is easy to understand. However what isnt so easy to understand is how do you measure or quantify that?

except i have seen comments on here several times about 'herding' and people calling out the jock who did it.
this isn't a new complaint in regards to racing. adding to this race is that you have a potential rival 3 yo champ being carried wide by the jock of the top competition to this horse.
he didn't give his horse a good ride, tried to hinder a rival, and of course was also helping out his stablemate, who ran second.
and i can see where some bettors would be unhappy. we're supposed to somehow know who needs a race, who is in form, who isn't going to be ridden to win (everyone has seen longshots win, it happens-so how to know which longshots are live, and which are going to be used as a spoiler?) who has a juice trainer, etc, on top of all the other variables?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

adding to this race is that you have a potential rival 3 yo champ being carried wide by the jock of the top competition to this horse.

I dont think that this should matter in rulings

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont think that this should matter in rulings

it shows a motive in what happened, an intent to alter the outcome other than by just giving your horse the best ride to beat the favorite. we all know this happens, that jocks at times will do their best to make the other guy lose-not do their best to win with their own mount.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it shows a motive in what happened, an intent to alter the outcome other than by just giving your horse the best ride to beat the favorite. we all know this happens, that jocks at times will do their best to make the other guy lose-not do their best to win with their own mount.

Who decides what is the best ride to make your horse win?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

we're supposed to somehow know who needs a race, who is in form, who isn't going to be ridden to win (everyone has seen longshots win, it happens-so how to know which longshots are live, and which are going to be used as a spoiler?) who has a juice trainer, etc, on top of all the other variables?

Is this a question?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Is this a question?

yes, i guess it is. how would bettors know that the horse in question wasn't one to bet? if a trainer has no intention of the horse being ridden to win, or in this case even hit the board, perhaps they should be kept out of the betting. instead, some bettors look at the info they have, bet these horses, and then feel completely duped because 'they should have known'. but, how would they know?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, i guess it is. how would bettors know that the horse in question wasn't one to bet? if a trainer has no intention of the horse being ridden to win, or in this case even hit the board, perhaps they should be kept out of the betting. instead, some bettors look at the info they have, bet these horses, and then feel completely duped because 'they should have known'. but, how would they know?

How would anyone know what anyone else is going to do?

People keep saying that the horse wasnt ridden to win. I keep asking what tactics would have been the proper ones to give him a chance to win?

Every day, virtually every race bettors arent happy with rides. Every race, every day you will find a trainer that wasnt happy with his ride.

The question is did Espinoza really break any rules with this ride? I have watched the replay 10 times and still cant say without question that he did.