I'm looking at it from a bettors pov when I say that. If they announce that a horse isn't going to be whipped and then is it will cause a upheaval. I more or less gave up on giving instructions most of the time. You just confuse the little fellas for the most part.

This is where we disagree. No point going on, I've said all I really have to say on the matter. I'm going to side with helping bettors 100% of the time over making things easier on horsemen every time, because I'm a bettor. Every time I counter something you say, you change the issue. Doesn't speak English. Give me a break.

It didn't rain. Duh

You are casting stones from an ivory tower. I'm simply being realistic. It isn't any hardship on horsemen, they just wont feel the need to tell the stewards because there is nothing to lose or gain from it. It isn't a matter of taking sides like you always want to make it. It is just a lack of practicality and essentially making a trainers instruction a rule.

Didn't she run an 86 on a fast track after a poor break last time?

The breed is a disaster that can't run without lasix. Therefore, the garbage times for the juveniles.

There is some gray area on if knowing this is a help to bettors or not.

Your point is well taken, but as a bettor, this information isn't something I care about. Now if you're talking about knowing something like accurate first time gelding information or knowing if a horse had a significant surgery I'm in full agreement.

Here's a hypothetical scenario. Pletcher discloses Havana won't be whipped. You decide not to play him because of this and during the stretch Stevens decides that maybe the horse will respond favorably to the whip and decides to whip Havana and Havana actually comes back and wins.

Then we'd be back to square one.

That is a bit different from "it didn't rain", isn't it?

Combo platter.

Funny we are told the breed is too tilted towards speed and yet with Lasix the Sprint time was "garbage"

He then gets fined and suspended I guess. At least I know somebody is watching. There has to be a line somewhere to help bettors, so I'm going to argue for every inch and hope it gets better for us.

I said a while back I know there are a lot more important things to worry about. The stuff you mention is certainly up there. But that would probably inconvenience somebody, or the vet might only speak Mandarin and accidentally confuse "gelded" for "displaced palate", and we can't have that.

Have fun, I'm off to get my brain MRIed (seriously), so maybe they'll find the reason I get into these discussions!

Real testing this year. Go figure. 2 yr old filly would've hit the board in the Turf Sprint. All the numbers were down.

Stevens always had the whip put away on Havana. I had people around me trying to tell me "he just didn't see the inside horse coming" -- that's crazy, he's not a 10lbs bug. It was pretty obvious it had to be riding to instructions.

At least with Mucho Macho Man, he pulled the whip out, showed the horse the whip, and used the whip on him in the final furlong without ever slashing into him real hard.

Again, I don't care about the fact that Havana was given a lazy hand ride through the stretch & hit a complete brick wall in the last 1/16th. I think the whip is kind of overrated.

I just get a little sick with trainers and jockeys being cute and imposing their will when they don't have to.

Do bettors really care if a jockey gets fined or suspended?

Why does that matter? You don't have rules to make the bettors happy. God the last person they care about in this game is the bettors.

Real testing as opposed to fake testing?

Bejarano on Silentio doing his best Jeremy Rose on Afleet Alex in the Derby impression in the stretch (barf). I mean this costing him 2nd of course. He wasn't beating Wise Dan.

You'd hate Jai ali

I'd like to think it's always excellent. Seems the last few years it's more serious. The big trainers horses aren't running worth a snot in the Cup lately. Even Baffert's 2 wins were subpar....no horse heart attacks though so a good weekend overall.

He wants the rule to make the bettors happy. My contention is that very few people give a **** if the jock gets fined or suspended, they'd rather have cashed a ticket.

That's true, though I think the bettors on here are more informed so it's a little different.

Those guys don't have time to think.

Makes the WWF seem real

:tro:

Sure, at least you know somebody is paying attention. There are many days I'm sure the stewards slept through a race.

We'd rather they just follow the rules in the first place, but if not, sure, I want to see them punished. Without rules, there is chaos.

They usually read golfing magazines

Where did you get that quote? Joe Stalin?

Kosmo Kramer.

i thought it was from blazing saddles, the nietchze line...

well, it's not verbatim.

On Derbytrail Steve allows some literary license

I saw TAP interviewed before the race and he specifically said Havana didn't like the whip when asked if he had any special instructions for new rider Stevens.

not that I know of

It would be really, really hard to enforce that. What's to stop the jockey from just saying he or she thought the horse was starting to lug in on another horse, or some other issue of safe riding? The stewards are supposed to fine a jockey for using a legitimate piece of equipment because he or she believed the horse's or another horse's safety depended on it?

I can't see how knowing a jockey is supposed to whip or not whip a horse is going to successfully influence a wagering strategy- some horses are encouraged by a whip, some are discouraged and some couldn't give a f*ck either way. You just have to assume the trainer knows the horse well enough to know how the horse responds to the stick, and that the trainer and the jockey both want to win the race, so they're going to do what gives them the best chance, and what's best may change during the race, depending on how it unfolds.

Good luck with the MRI today; hope it all goes smoothly for you!

It was mentioned on track feed. Pletcher said he was a tricky ride and they told Stevens he doesn't like whip.

Reneesgotzip and Tightend Touchdown were impressive in losing the Turf Sprint; they made Mizdirection work for her win.

Touchdown was especially impressive to me because (1) he was the only non-CA-based horse to figure in the superfecta (Mizdirection, Tightend Touchdown, Reneesgotzip, Unbridled's Note), (2) he was the only horse in the superfecta that had never raced previously on SA's tricky downhill course, (3) he was the only horse in the superfecta to rise from the claiming ranks to make his first Grade 1 start, and (4) instead of leading at every call as he likes to do, he laid off Reneesgotzip, proving that he can rate a little. In other words, he put in a terrific performance despite his preferred running style and despite a lack of track and class experience.

The Turf Sprint is a race that, since its inception in 2008, when run at Santa Anita, has gone to a CA-based horse: Desert Code (2008), California Flag (2009); Mizdirection (2012); and Mizdirection (2013). That downhill course takes some learning. So Touchdown was running against the small but statistically significant data we have about the outcome of the race.

Don't know how TT was sent off, after a morning line of 12-1, at overlay odds of 18-1; this 4yo gelding runs and ships consistently well. He has not missed the trifecta in his last eleven starts at six tracks: Aqueduct, Belmont, Parx, Penn, Saratoga, and Santa Anita.

At any rate, kudos to Jason Servis for a top notch training job. My hat's off to you, sir.

Most Impressive in Defeat?
 

I don't know about most impressive, but for least impressive, I nominate Ken Ramsey.