Most Impressive in Defeat?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Was that publicized anywhere? I never heard it before, might have been useful info.

A listener to my show tweeted the question and Stevens answered it subsequently after his appearance.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Kasept

A listener to my show tweeted the question and Stevens answered it subsequently after his appearance.

On racing's biggest stage, bettors aren't told a rider is instructed not to use the whip. That is pretty weak.

[Payson Dave]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

On racing's biggest stage, bettors aren't told a rider is instructed not to use the whip. That is pretty weak.

I don't recall trainer instructions to jocks ever being made public before a race

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Payson Dave

I don't recall trainer instructions to jocks ever being made public before a race

That seems a little more than an instruction to me. Just my opinion, I'm sure many will disagree. But as a bettor I would definitely downgrade a horse that isn't going to be whipped.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

On racing's biggest stage, bettors aren't told a rider is instructed not to use the whip. That is pretty weak.

Since when are trainers instructions made public? Perhaps since Stevens has never been on the horse and was a last minute sub Pletcher told him something that was already known by his regular rider?

Is anyone who likes the horse on pp's not betting him because the trainer told the jockey the horse doesnt like the whip?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Since when are trainers instructions made public? Perhaps since Stevens has never been on the horse and was a last minute sub Pletcher told him something that was already known by his regular rider?

Is anyone who likes the horse on pp's not betting him because the trainer told the jockey the horse doesnt like the whip?

Well, it isn't quite the same. We are told when horses won't have a whip, so why not when they won't use it?

What is the harm in divulging it? That is all I'm asking. We aren't talking about instructions about race strategy or anything. I don't see what the rider change matters, wouldn't hurt a thing to divulge the info with his regular rider either.

And yes, it is a handicapping factor. If whip use didn't matter, nobody would use them. You know that. So not using one is a disadvantage in a game where races are decided by scant margins.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Well, it isn't quite the same. We are told when horses won't have a whip, so why not when they won't use it?

What is the harm in divulging it? That is all I'm asking. We aren't talking about instructions about race strategy or anything.

Who exactly is going to divulge it to whom?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Who exactly is going to divulge it to whom?

Things are divulged to bettors every day. How do we find out when a rider won't carry a whip? Call me crazy, but that same system might actually work here too!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Things are divulged to bettors every day. How do we find out when a rider won't carry a whip? Call me crazy, but that same system might actually work here too!

Riding without a whip is an equipment change. Instructions are not absolutely followed. I'd love to hear your take on the situation when a jockey who was instructed not to use the whip actually does.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Well, it isn't quite the same. We are told when horses won't have a whip, so why not when they won't use it?

What is the harm in divulging it? That is all I'm asking. We aren't talking about instructions about race strategy or anything. I don't see what the rider change matters, wouldn't hurt a thing to divulge the info with his regular rider either.

And yes, it is a handicapping factor. If whip use didn't matter, nobody would use them. You know that. So not using one is a disadvantage in a game where races are decided by scant margins.

and couldn't a jock get questioned if it was felt he didn't prevail to the wire?

the sooner everyone involved in this sport comes to grips with bettors being a huge factor, the better.
we are told about lasix, blinkers, shoes, jock changes, weight difference, etc. whether a whip is used should be public info as well.

i guess going forward it's something bettors need to take note of in baby races, whether they go to the stick or if it's just carried along for ballast.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and couldn't a jock get questioned if it was felt he didn't prevail to the wire?

the sooner everyone involved in this sport comes to grips with bettors being a huge factor, the better.
we are told about lasix, blinkers, shoes, jock changes, weight difference, etc. whether a whip is used should be public info as well.

i guess going forward it's something bettors need to take note of in baby races, whether they go to the stick or if it's just carried along for ballast.

If a rider is riding without the whip you are told. Unless you are in possession of a crystal ball you wont be able to tell if the rider is going to use the one he has in his hand. Sure in this case Gary Stevens is going to go to extreme lengths to follow the instructions of the biggest trainer in the game but trust me it is dicey with the rest of them and the rest of us.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I don't see what the rider change matters, wouldn't hurt a thing to divulge the info with his regular rider either.

Dont you think his regular rider would have already known and likely been the person who made the suggestion in the first place?

You say it wouldn't hurt but where do you draw the line in what "the public" should be told before the race?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dont you think his regular rider would have already known and likely been the person who made the suggestion in the first place?

You say it wouldn't hurt but where do you draw the line in what "the public" should be told before the race?

This is a little different for two reasons. One, it could help educate the public on whip use. Two, it avoids the possible negative repercussions of people betting on horses and thinking the rider didn't give his best. Tell them beforehand, and that isn't an issue.

There are a lot bigger problems in racing than this, I admit that. I just see zero downside to it and some upside, that is all.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This is a little different for two reasons. One, it could help educate the public on whip use. Two, it avoids the possible negative repercussions of people betting on horses and thinking the rider didn't give his best. Tell them beforehand, and that isn't an issue.

There are a lot bigger problems in racing than this, I admit that. I just see zero downside to it and some upside, that is all.

Right but what mechanism is there to report this? Trainers considering instructing their jockeys to go light on the whip call the stewards before the race? And like I said what if they dont listen, or simply react like they have done thousands of time before and instinctively hit the horse anyway? Then anyone who might have bet against the horse because of the no whip instructions would be going crazy.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Is anyone who likes the horse on pp's not betting him because the trainer told the jockey the horse doesnt like the whip?

I'm curious if you have an explanation as to what basis Pletcher might have had for thinking this horse sulks from the whip?

He's only run twice. He comes within 0.13 seconds of breaking a track record at 150 year-old Saratoga in his debut. He overcomes a mind-boggling pace to win the Champagne in career start #2.

What are the chances that Havana was ever whipped in one of his morning workouts?

If he hadn't sulked after being repeatedly whipped at Barrett's -- do you think he might have ran his furlong in 9 seconds flat?

I don't mind so much that he wasn't whipped, and I'm not sure it had any impact on the outcome ... it's just the frustration of seeing jockeys and trainers trying to impose their will and being cute when they don't need to.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I'm curious if you have an explanation as to what basis Pletcher might have had for thinking this horse sulks from the whip?

He's only run twice. He comes within 0.13 seconds of breaking a track record at 150 year-old Saratoga in his debut. He overcomes a mind-boggling pace to win the Champagne in career start #2.

What are the chances that Havana was ever whipped in one of his morning workouts?

If he hadn't sulked after being repeatedly whipped at Barrett's -- do you think he might have ran his furlong in 9 seconds flat?

I don't mind so much that he wasn't whipped, and I'm not sure it had any impact on the outcome ... it's just the frustration of seeing jockeys and trainers trying to impose their will and being cute when they don't need to.

Perhaps they had an incident in the morning? Horses that spook or are nervous are more likely to react negatively to the whip. Just look at what happened to the Chad Brown horse in Canada. Dont forget that horses with 2 starts are still very green

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Perhaps they had an incident in the morning? Horses that spook or are nervous are more likely to react negatively to the whip. Just look at what happened to the Chad Brown horse in Canada. Dont forget that horses with 2 starts are still very green

As easy as Pletcher works him, you think this horse was being whipped in morning workouts?

It's hard to imagine a horse that fast getting whipped in his typical 4 furlong in 49 and change workouts he'd always go in, but who knows, I didn't see them, I guess.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

As easy as Pletcher works him, you think this horse was being whipped in morning workouts?

It's hard to imagine a horse that fast getting whipped in his typical 4 furlong in 49 and change workouts he'd always go in, but who knows, I didn't see them, I guess.

Pletcher doesn't do anything for no reason. I'm sure that at some point the horse has been hit with the whip and had an adverse reaction to it. A workout or race isnt necessarily the only time a horse would get hit with the whip. Especially if they are a bad actor or are aggressive towards other horses in the morning.

[Calzone Lord]

It had to be by instruction. It looked kind of ridiculous.

I doubt it would have mattered any, because he was wide stalking a brutal fast pace chasing a pair of horses on some kind of suicide mission ... but still.

The horse ran a 9.60 furlong at Barrett's after being whipped repeatedly, no idea where Pletcher could have gathered that he hates being whipped.

I'm positive he was never hit with a whip in a morning workout. I guess he came to that conclusion based on Honor Code rallying at him in the Champagne? Debt Ceiling must also hate the whip, since he was eased and stopped to a walk because of the pace that day. Grand Arrival was beaten 20+ chasing that Champagne from 3rd as well. He obvious hates the whip.

Like I said, it probably didn't matter...but what a silly thing to instruct a jockey to do on an undefeated horse. The only time that horse was ever put to heavy whipping, he ran a furlong in 9.60 -- I guess that makes him a horse who sulks from the whip. He completely fell apart late under a lazy hand ride.