|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
12-12-2008, 03:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
You got to love the arrogance of a trainer getting mad at people for complaining about a jock (with a whip) never using the whip. He really expects people to not say anything when a horse appears full of run, and is never hit? This is a betting race. Trainers want the right to put a jock(with a whip) on a horse and tell him not to hit the horse? Not tell the stewards? Not tell the bettors? Don't try to bullsht a bunch of part-time bullsht artists. Somebody deserved some pain, and I don't particularly care which one of you got it. Go do this in Louisiana.
|
|
#2
12-12-2008, 03:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Chuck made an effort to explain, some horses run with the bit held hard in their mouth. Ok I understand that, regardless I have never seen a Jockey so seemingly unmotivated to win a race as this one. All you have to do is watch the race to understand why the stewards made their decision.
Honestly if I were the Owner I'd be left scratching my head with the trainer's explanation. Basically the trainer is saying the less the jockey does in urging his mount the better it will do. In essence don't hit, don't try and all is well, an interesting concept.... 
|
|
#3
12-12-2008, 04:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
One thing I think needs to be added about this discussion is the fact that bug's boy is a maiden that had raced 6 or 7 times previously and had never been close. (I am not defending anyone Here) But as the J Leblanc has Stated
Bug’s Boy was ridden by Simon exactly as I instructed him and as we discussed And low and behold Bug's Boy runs the best race of his life and also recieved the highest beyer that he had ever gotten. So maybe just maybe Mr leblanc was on to something here. Keep the bit in the horses mouth without using the whip and without vigorious hand riding. Because it is quite obvious that those two things did not work to well in his first 6 or 7 starts.
|
|
#4
12-12-2008, 05:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Shouldn't of had that whip if he wasn't gunna use it. Would look a whole lot better if he hadn't had that whip with him. If somebody thinks the bettors are cool with a guy with a whip not hitting a horse full of run(and eventually losing,) then they are badly mistaken. Right now, it looks like he is covering for the jock. A year is a long time. They aren't buying the trainers story. We don't know why that is. I'm not sure we want to know that. Just take the punishment. It's necessary for the sport. A guy was out there with a horse full of run, and didn't use the whip he had with him(and he lost.) Not only did he lose, but the jock never seemed very interested in winning that race. So, I have no sympathy for any involved. Do it differently. Really, if they want to be bush, then go down to Louisiana. There is a place for this stuff. This has become a very horizontal game. This jock may not have cared much about winning on this day, but bettors care about who wins these races.
Last edited by SCUDSBROTHER : 12-12-2008 at 05:22 PM.
|
|
#5
12-12-2008, 10:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If you look at those 2 previous races, the horse looks tired from being in too tough. I know his previous was also a maiden claimer, and he is wide in there the whole way. He tried to rally outside on the turn, and simply tires. I don't think he ran better on the 30th because he wasn't asked. He saved ground against what appears to be a lot easier group. There's almost 4 seconds difference in the 4f split time. This looks like a guy letting his bro win a cheap race, and a 4% trainer covering for him. The jock isn't under a gag order is he? Why isn't he talking? I mean look at those last 2 races. Don't they look a lot tougher? Watch them. They are tougher races. That's a tired horse. Whip or no whip that horse was exhausted in those 2 previous. Trainer is gunna blame that on being hit? I know trainers are good salesmen, but wow!!
|
|
#6
12-13-2008, 01:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
THe race prior to this was for Maiden 12,500 no shot that race was tougher. As for the trainer covering for him He made a statement concerning the race several days before Simon met with the Stewards. I do not know Jon Leblanc but I have talked to a couple of trainers up there one Being Mark Casse and he has told me Mr Leblanc is a hard working stand up guy one who is very well respected on the backside.
|
|
#7
12-13-2008, 02:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, as always, people close to this game aren't gunna want anything negative to come out about it. It's not in their best immediate interest, and so they try to tell everyone a story. That's what you got here. A story. They needed a story. The trainer put out a story. It didn't work. It usually does work. People close ranks to protect those in the industry. Trainer says the horse won't keep running if hit, but why does he let the jock take a whip with him? People can shill all they want, but the evidence is he took a whip out there. Evidently, the trainer didn't tell the stewards he wasn't gunna be hitting the horse with the whip. What do you expect them to do? Why don't you go by the evidence (instead of going by what you want the evidence to be.) So far, you have a horse who is exhausted in his previous 2 races. If the trainer wants to say he stopped because he was hit, then the stewards didn't buy it. They see a very tired horse. So, he is gunna have a very tough time selling that theory(that the horse stopped in his last 2 due to being hit.) The stewards have collected the evidence, and evidently didn't seem to have any trouble figuring out what had happened. You think they gave him a year if there was even a little question in their minds that he did it? They should let this die, because I doubt this video is the total evidence they used in determining his punishment. So far, you have come up with comments from trainers(some of the best natural salesmen on planet earth.) A trainer put out a story about his horse not wanting to be whipped, but he didn't tell the stewards the horse wasn't gunna be whipped. He let the jock carry a whip on a horse he knew wasn't gunna be whipped. That's your best case scenario. I don't think it's a good scenario at all. There is no good outcome to this. The bettors were deceived no matter how the shills couch this thing. Naturally, they've gotten behind the least damaging theory of what took place.
Last edited by SCUDSBROTHER : 12-13-2008 at 02:37 PM.
|
|
#8
12-13-2008, 06:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
maybe Samba Rooster... I can't remember but I remember what Baffert said, "he has to think that he is running off with you.. something something basically if you hit him, he will stop. any good stiff job happens on the backstretch not on the homestretch. I can't get a good replay to see what is happening in this instance
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
|
Hybrid Mode
