With all due respect, this is nonsense. A domestic rider may have gotten him to change leads, but Joseph O'Brien rode a PERFECT race. Not only did he have Declaration of War in an ideal position from the start, he successfully avoided running into traffic as the horses immediately in front of him quit. He kept on grinding down the stretch and came up short. It was unfortunate that he wouldn't change leads because it very well may have been the difference, but it wasn't like the jock wasn't trying to get him to switch.

On top of that, American jockeys have never been worse than right now. It's comical how bad our "good" jockeys like Rosario, Castellano and Bejarano are on the big stage.

Judy the Beauty ran well considering Luis Saez was never on her before. I wonder if JV would have made the difference. I hope she comes back next year.

I suggest that Joseph O'Brien's ride on Declaration of War was the best of his career...first time on dirt, saved ground, kickback a first for both horse and rider, chasing American speed. He can't go on much longer as a jock, but I'll always remember this mount as one of, if not the best of his career. They were totally expecting to be slow away compared to American early dirt speed and have to be wide and limit the kickback - but O'Brien got him away well, in a handy position, and gave him every chance to win.

Having touted him as much as you did, I'd be monumentally thrilled with the ride and performance.

The crew from Coolmore? Better?

The correct answer of which horse ran the best race in defeat? The Fugue

I don't know about "impressive" though, because she was expected to run very well.

The Turf Sprint was an absolutely terrible race. 13th (and last) place beaten just 6 lengths. 10th place beaten just 4 lengths. The final time was almost as slow as a 2yo race over the same course earlier in the day.

Isolate Will Take Charge on video and watch it again...

Saez pushes him along on the first turn, to keep Palace Malice from coming over on him, then has to ease him back to avoid heels in front. He then looks completely all-in about a third of the way around the far turn, where it seems impossible for him to come on and get a slice. Saez keeps him going, angles out to the widest point only in the last third of the far turn, and just never gives up on him. Remarkable run for a horse making his 13th start in 12.5 months.

I wasn't arguing before that any one horses was more impressive than another in defeat, because well, you really just can't pick one. In the Classic itself, while they don't pay it that way, I felt like three horses won.

Pat will like this one...just did some rough work ... thinking of writing an article on it for TimeformUS. In the Juvenile, I these were the pace figures I have for the 3/4 mile and the finish for the top 3, 0-100 scale:

But when you add in ground loss, they look like this:

Pretty tough to argue the winner was anything better than 3rd best (not that you needed numbers to see that, but this will be part of the future)

The Fugue ran very well. I also wonder if Romantico could have won if she had received Lasix.

Those were very tough races to do, and it is really hard to imagine the field was that bad. I know Beyer commented he didn't trust the times. I don't think there is a problem with them to be honest, but that race is a tough call any way you cut it.

Any guess on what happened in the Champagne?

With all due respect how can you say that its nonsense and also say that a domestic rider may have gotten to change leads and say that not switching very well may have been the difference?

riders for courses would be an advantage. why else would they have changed jocks for animal kingdoms last? now, it didn't help in that situation, but we've all seen races where a horse was impaired because of a jocks lack of experience at a track.

if i was bringing over a euro, you can bet your behind i'd want the best american jock on him. surface switch is one thing, race riding is different, pace is different, hell, direction is different.
a u.s. jock could only have helped DOW.

I think this is more about your eagerness to bash the domestic jocks than arguing that a more efficient moving North American style rider might have gotten the little extra out of Declaration that potentially changes the outcome. As Chuck just said, you're at cross-purposes regarding the lead change.

Good stuff. Tap It Rich lost the most ground in the field too, be interested to see where he fits in. That horse just doesn't seem like he has a real penchant for cornering.

I'll check him out tomorrow and post.

It would have been pretty swell if Havana managed to hold on.



I would have had a $30 trifecta if Havana lasted. The Tri paid $476.10 for a $1 with him second.

Gary Stevens never went to the whip on him. I don't know if that was by instruction or not ... but I was certainly counting the money on the far turn. It's a damn shame that race wasn't run on Friday.

Horrible ride.

I was thrilled with the performance. I didn't criticize the ride in the least. I annotated that Chuck had made a similar suggestion that perhaps a more N.A.-style rider might have put Declaration over the top. He also could have gotten him in a peck a trouble.

If it were run on Friday Strong Mandate might have won!

Or he might have plugged him in

Eric guillot said he didnt have that late surge

He was told by Pletcher not to use the stick.

I don't know, Havana put him away pretty easily on the far turn.

He just got hit in the head by the 1/16th pole and fell apart under a very confident ride.

I think Strong Mandate ran a great race though -- and they would have been a clear 1-2 on Friday's track.

Pletcher's horses ran lousy this week. Lukas had two great efforts on the day.

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

:D

any idea why?

Do you believe that he lost because he didn't change leads? That was the only possible thing I could infer from Steve's statement.

If so, then the only thing you could believe is that a domestic jockey could have gotten him to change leads. I say that because, other than him not changing leads, he was ridden flawlessly in my opinion.

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.

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

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.

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.

No, it has everything to do with the fact that I think Joseph O'Brien rode a terrific race and that a "domestic rider" would have been hard pressed to provide an appreciable advantage.

Surely you know me well enough to be confident that I'll bash domestic jockeys without doing so indirectly!

More than a couple of clockers thought she was training very well coming into the race

I simply said that a rider with a different style may have made the difference. Never said he didnt give the horse a good ride.

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?

That may be true but that doesn't mean she has a prayer at being a serious Derby contender.

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.

Who exactly is going to divulge it to whom?

lol... I agree she is not likely to get derby qualifying points

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!

:tro:

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.