FG 4

Originally Posted by bellsbendboy

Hey D

Thanks for the kind words. It seems only a few on this board post elsewhere. I reviewed my previous posts, this forum, and could only find one person who could truly feel insulted and that was the "fog jock" who plugged the horse in Xmas eve at FG.

That post may have led to the defamation question. Many here demanded "proof", yet a similar post on the Nola forum did not raise any eyebrows and in fact yielded some corroborating anecdotal "evidence".

I suspect heresay would be inadmissable however. On another note I see your son is going to invest in mutual funds rather than pick 4's; oh the mistakes youngsters make! BBB

Echoing what I said in one of my earlier posts, given the reputation for dishonesty of the infamous "fog jockey," in my opinion it would be difficult for him to prove up a claim for damages based on defamation of character. This is particularly true in Louisiana, where said jockey has plied his trade (when not serving suspensions) for many years and is well-known to horsemen in the state.

I'm sure all you guys and gals remember Billy Patin and Valhol, who won the Arkansas Derby at a boxcar price only to be DQ'ed from the purse money because the jockey carried a buzzer. I have no fear of facing a defamation claim over that last stasement because, in this country, truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

Patin and the "fog jockey" have ridden for much of their careers at the "minor" racetracks in Louisiana, i.e. Evangeline Downs, Delta Downs, and formerly Jefferson Downs, and I suspect that buzzers have been and are occasionally used on those circuits by certain riders. This is not to impugn the character of any individual who rides or has ridden at those tracks; it is just my opinion given my experiences, observations, and conversations with horsemen. I do believe that an effort is made to police that sort of activity; however, as the Patin/Valhol incident shows, not all such efforts are successful.

All that said, I have no knowledge of what happened in the race in question on Xmas eve at the Fair Grounds. We all try to explain aberrant results in ways that make sense to us. In retrospect, Valhol,although a maiden when he won the Arkansas Derbty, may have won without benefit of a battery as he was probably the best horse in the race; that doesn't mean that Patin didn't drop a buzzer on the track, in full view of the cameras, after the race was over.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by RealBigD

We all try to explain aberrant results in ways that make sense to us.

Which in this case, was the logical property that states:

1.) I can out-handicap any horseplayer in the United States

then

2.) I did not have the longshot winner

therefore

3.) Obviously, someone was cheating.

It was pure uncalled for folly in every sense of the word.

BigD. Like the others in this thread, I get a good feeling from you, so don't interpret this as an attack on you in any way.

I know you weren't here for Derby Trail's Best Thread Ever, so here it is if you'd like to check it out. The numbers against the claim of fixing a race are positively damning. Who risks their entire livelihood in order to cheat, just to get a horse to improve roughly a length and a half off their previous best race ever? It wasn't necessary. So naturally, you've got to cut many of us some slack for not being willing to just follow the lemming off the cliff in order to justify a longshot winning a race which in retrospect, he had every right to be a competitor in to begin with.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Which in this case, was the logical property that states:

1.) I can out-handicap any horseplayer in the United States

then

2.) I did not have the longshot winner

therefore

3.) Obviously, someone was cheating.

It was pure uncalled for folly in every sense of the word.

BigD. Like the others in this thread, I get a good feeling from you, so don't interpret this as an attack on you in any way.

I know you weren't here for Derby Trail's Best Thread Ever, so here it is if you'd like to check it out. The numbers against the claim of fixing a race are positively damning. Who risks their entire livelihood in order to cheat, just to get a horse to improve roughly a length and a half off their previous best race ever? It wasn't necessary. So naturally, you've got to cut many of us some slack for not being willing to just follow the lemming off the cliff in order to justify a longshot winning a race which in retrospect, he had every right to be a competitor in to begin with.

I hope to have time to review the Best Thread Ever soon. Thanks for the link.

I agree that it's faulty logic to say that if a longshot wins, and you didn't have him, someone was cheating. We're all going to tear up far more tickets than we cash, and I consider myself lucky to score on a longshot now and again.

But, you know, by definition, cheaters cheat. If a rider is so brazen that he will hide his horse in a fog bank while the others complete a lap and then gallop down the stretch to cross under the wire "first," all for the sake of the winner's share of a purse that was probably in the neighborhood of $2500 total, I wouldn't put it past him to carry a buzzer in a race that carried a total purse in excess of $40,000. Which certainly isn't to say he did, but I am not willing to close my mind to the possibility.

I agree that fixed races -- in the sense that there's a conspiracy to hold some entrants back so as to allow an agreed upon entrant to win -- are extremely rare. However, as shown by virtually every NASCAR race, individuals will occasionally try to gain an advantage over the competition by illegitimate means.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by RealBigD

I hope to have time to review the Best Thread Ever soon. Thanks for the link.

I agree that it's faulty logic to say that if a longshot wins, and you didn't have him, someone was cheating. We're all going to tear up far more tickets than we cash, and I consider myself lucky to score on a longshot now and again.

But, you know, by definition, cheaters cheat. If a rider is so brazen that he will hide his horse in a fog bank while the others complete a lap and then gallop down the stretch to cross under the wire "first," all for the sake of the winner's share of a purse that was probably in the neighborhood of $2500 total, I wouldn't put it past him to carry a buzzer in a race that carried a total purse in excess of $40,000. Which certainly isn't to say he did, but I am not willing to close my mind to the possibility.

I agree that fixed races -- in the sense that there's a conspiracy to hold some entrants back so as to allow an agreed upon entrant to win -- are extremely rare. However, as shown by virtually every NASCAR race, individuals will occasionally try to gain an advantage over the competition by illegitimate means.

I think once you read the BTE, you'll get more of what I'm saying.

I've never said that there are not cheaters and that there are not races in which jocks plug a horse in. That's not my point.

My whole point was that the righteous attitude (titling a thread "Fixed Race on XMas Eve," not "suspicious" or "hey what do you all think about this.") ken by a poster regarding this "fixed" race had very little numerical backing. If a horse were going to be plugged in in a race like that, it jsut wouldn't make sense. The horse only improved his career best race from earlier last year by something in the vicinity of 2 lengths. That sort of improvement wouldn't even gaurantee him a spot on the board in that race, just a shot at it. Had the horse actually run a number that was wildly out of this world compared to his career top, there may have been a conversation to have.

My whole point has been that it's a whole lot of risk and work just to cheat to get a horse to improve such a little bit....to a point where that improvement may still have meant only a 4th place finish had the other horses in the race actually shown up that day.

It is really a "dead horse" so to speak. There is not much to add to it. Some think that a longshot running the best race of his life (even if ever so slightly), is indication that it was plugged in.

Others think that the numbers show that that performance wasn't as outrageous as it was made out to be.

It is what it is, and I'm touching it again only because you're new here and it came up in this thread. Bells can think whatever he wants, and I will think whatever I want. I just prefer the logical approach (how do these numbers stack up) as opposed to the anecdotal approach (he cheated before). But that's just me,and you and Bells are free to feel how you do.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I think once you read the BTE, you'll get more of what I'm saying.

I've never said that there are not cheaters and that there are not races in which jocks plug a horse in. That's not my point.

My whole point was that the righteous attitude (titling a thread "Fixed Race on XMas Eve," not "suspicious" or "hey what do you all think about this.") ken by a poster regarding this "fixed" race had very little numerical backing. If a horse were going to be plugged in in a race like that, it jsut wouldn't make sense. The horse only improved his career best race from earlier last year by something in the vicinity of 2 lengths. That sort of improvement wouldn't even gaurantee him a spot on the board in that race, just a shot at it. Had the horse actually run a number that was wildly out of this world compared to his career top, there may have been a conversation to have.

My whole point has been that it's a whole lot of risk and work just to cheat to get a horse to improve such a little bit....to a point where that improvement may still have meant only a 4th place finish had the other horses in the race actually shown up that day.

It is really a "dead horse" so to speak. There is not much to add to it. Some think that a longshot running the best race of his life (even if ever so slightly), is indication that it was plugged in.

Others think that the numbers show that that performance wasn't as outrageous as it was made out to be.

It is what it is, and I'm touching it again only because you're new here and it came up in this thread. Bells can think whatever he wants, and I will think whatever I want. I just prefer the logical approach (how do these numbers stack up) as opposed to the anecdotal approach (he cheated before). But that's just me,and you and Bells are free to feel how you do.

I do need to read the other thread. As I think I said in a previous post, I don't know what happened in the race in question and have never expressed an opinion on the subject.

I hope in the future I'll be able to expand my posts beyond a defense (if you want to call it that) of BBB and a discussion of buzzer riders. What has my handicapping career come to?? The mutual funds are looking better every day.