CONTESSA: "..wanted to throw up"

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Since he disobeyed Contessa's instructions, then it was a bad ride. Again, if a hole would have opened up, it wouldn't have been considered a bad ride at all.

This is just more incorrect posting...which coincides with your posts yesterday ( where you told us we had to stop bashing jockeys....even though the posts weren't " jockey bashing " at all but a correct analysis of a racing situation ).

Even if a hole had opened it was still a " bad ride " as he took an unnecessary chance for absolutely no reason whatsoever. There were two paths, one was completely clear outside and the other would have taken an occurance to work out and offered the possibility of something extremely detrimental happening. It was an absolute no-brainer and a his decision was so bad that it offers the hint of a possibility that he had motives other than winning the race. Yet, you not only chose to defend him, but you also chastised other posters for questioning his judgement.

Being too result oriented in life, but especially in horse racing, is a very poor thing to do. " Good rides " and " bad rides " are very often NOT defined by how the race works out. Many riders give terrific rides that go completely unnoticed because they simply were on too slow a horse. This you will surely agree with. However, many riders give poor rides that also go unnoticed for both similar reasons or because their mount was good enough to overcome it. For you to think this ride in any way could have been considered anything other than a " bad ride " is a total misread of the situation.

You say we shouldn't comment on jockeys if we haven't ridden a horse. I say, based on your opinions, your's aren't qualified simply because you have.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is just more incorrect posting...which coincides with your posts yesterday ( where you told us we had to stop bashing jockeys....even though the posts weren't " jockey bashing " at all but a correct analysis of a racing situation ).

Even if a hole had opened it was still a " bad ride " as he took an unnecessary chance for absolutely no reason whatsoever. There were two paths, one was completely clear outside and the other would have taken an occurance to work out and offered the possibility of something extremely detrimental happening. It was an absolute no-brainer and a his decision was so bad that it offers the hint of a possibility that he had motives other than winning the race. Yet, you not only chose to defend him, but you also chastised other posters for questioning his judgement.

Being too result oriented in life, but especially in horse racing, is a very poor thing to do. " Good rides " and " bad rides " are very often NOT defined by how the race works out. Many riders give terrific rides that go completely unnoticed because they simply were on too slow a horse. This you will surely agree with. However, many riders give poor rides that also go unnoticed for both similar reasons or because their mount was good enough to overcome it. For you to think this ride in any way could have been considered anything other than a " bad ride " is a total misread of the situation.

You say we shouldn't comment on jockeys if we haven't ridden a horse. I say, based on your opinions, your's aren't qualified simply because you have.

Yes, I agree 100% with everything you said.