Ramon Dominguez

[Dahoss]

I like the guys (idiots) that say Ramon doesn't win on big days.

[blackthroatedwind]

His flawless ride on Stay Thirsty made the difference.

However, the riding exhibition of the day was the lesson Johnny taught to Junior Alvarado in the Demoiselle. He undressed him every which way.

[Calzone Lord]

I don't know if he'll learn anything from it. It was a 4-horse field, but a veritable match race when none of the other two horses wanted to go on a suicide mission and pressure a superior horse.

Velazquez had more early speed anyway, but once he won the break and Emollient was crossed and cleared on, and none of the two others wanted to do anything stupid ... I think the in-race odds might have shifted from Even VS 4/5 to about 3/5 VS 7/5 pretty quickly.

The early inside move was a bad choice, but none of the other options he had were that good, especially with his horse getting a little rank and not settling well down there.

Like Mike Tyson liked to say: "everyone has a plan until they get hit." Once he lost the break, once he got no help from the two other riders doing something dumb, and once his horse wasn't happy to settle, he was left with two bad choices and probably took the worst of the two.

[blackthroatedwind]

I guess he's one of your pets, but it's silly to defend his performance in the Demoiselle. He got schooled, it's as simple as that. He's a very good young rider, who likely has a very bright career ahead of him, but that performance is tough to defend. A top rider doesn't allow himself to be put in that position, especially in a big race. Plus, the halfway move inside, when Johnny threw that bait out there, was absolute amateur hour...and Johnny knew he would fall for it.

No doubt he was behind the eight ball, due to the speed advantage of his rival, but he has to have a plan to deal with that. Now, the slight stumble after the start hurt him, but you really need to watch the head-on of the backstretch. He needed to send in the four path hole Johnny herded his rivals to open, and establish position, or force Johnny to let it out a notch. Instead, he half went as they approached the turn, which is tentative and too late.

Yes, Johnny had the tactical advantage, but he used it to full advantage, and Junior gave him every edge.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I guess he's one of your pets, but it's silly to defend his performance in the Demoiselle.

He's ridden over 4,400 races in his career as a jockey -- and he's showing a flat-bet profit.

I've never met the guy, never heard the guy talk, I don't know him. If you want to call him one of my pets, it's because I like what I've seen from him.

I agree with a lot of what you said, and disagree with pretty much none of it.

There just was never a good option for him, and that was the result largely of stuff out of his control (losing the break, his chief rival having a tactical edge and getting no pressure at all, and his horse not wanting to settle)

Was it a bad ride? Technically, yes. But, those aren't the kind of rides that I believe are trademarks of bad jockeys. The more egregious errors are the ones where riders actually have good options available to them and instead make bad decisions. And the bad jockeys make a habit of commiting those egregious errors.

[Calzone Lord]

Here's the head-on replay on Youtube if anyone wants to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmXmH...ature=youtu.be


Alan Garcia was never going to let him outside of Velazquez and in the clear down the backside. He would have had to come over and knock him sideways to achieve that.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

He's ridden over 4,400 races in his career as a jockey -- and he's showing a flat-bet profit.

I've never met the guy, never heard the guy talk, I don't know him. If you want to call him one of my pets, it's because I like what I've seen from him.

I agree with a lot of what you said, and disagree with pretty much none of it.

There just was never a good option for him, and that was the result largely of stuff out of his control (losing the break, his chief rival having a tactical edge and getting no pressure at all, and his horse not wanting to settle)

Was it a bad ride? Technically, yes. But, those aren't the kind of rides that I believe are trademarks of bad jockeys. The more egregious errors are the ones where riders actually have good options available to them and instead make bad decisions. And the bad jockeys make a habit of commiting those egregious errors.

You used egregious twice in that post.

Did you just learn that word?

[blackthroatedwind]

I never said he was a bad jockey, in fact just the opposite, but you are being a bit defensive....because he's one of your pets ( which, by the way, in no way implies you know him ). You have posted about forty times here about his fllat-bet profit stats. We get it.

It was more inexperience than anything else.

I did love how Johnny claimed the rail was dead, or deeper, which I assume was him creating an excuse for Revolutionary.

[blackthroatedwind]

I stopped reading at the mention of Julius Caesar.

The fault, dear Druggie, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.

[Calzone Lord]

I believe those are Shakespeare's words.