That's what she said.........

I don't train any horses.

It was a joke. I don't make any secret that I'm no fan of Todd Pletcher. Is that not allowed on the internet?

If you watch a replay of the Champagne, the horse ducks in and is swishing his tail all around when he was whipped. The final 200 yards or so when he is hand ridden, he was not swishing his tail.

I wonder if this is why Pletcher didn't want him hit. I don't think he would have held on anyway.

For the record, I'm not questioning his instruction one bit, and certainly not saying he would have won. I just think it is something the bettors should know ahead of time, just like the rider did...nothing more.

I think any reasonable handicapper could envision a scenario where Havana was going to get a wide trip and be tiring down the lane. Knowing a whip wasn't going to be used could have made a difference.

Did they also have advanced information that an 81 Beyer would be good enough for a victory?

What in the world happened to Sweet Reason?

What CJ doesn't seem to understand is there is zero incentive for the trainer to divulge this information to the stewards. Why would they? There is no rule stating that horses have to be hit. If the rider doesn't follow instructions they will lose mounts in that trainer barn which is far bigger penalty than some $500 fine they might face.

Seems like those who aren't actually around the track sometimes seem to forget that there are actual people involved and rarely are they looking to throw the people they do business with under the bus.

The very likely scenario where an announced non hitter is actually hit will cause far more consternation among bettors than a horse who loses that isn't getting whipped would. There is very little to gain from trying to make this a rule.

I think way more is being made out of this than should be. I understand the general point of wanting to know as much as possible, but I can see a scenario where a rider doesn't listen to the trainer and whips anyway. Or where a jockey knows not to whip because the horse doesn't like it, but still carries the whip in order to flash it to the horse to keep it together late.

For example, Mucho Macho Man was never hit with the whip in the Classic either, because Kathy Ritvo told Gary Stevens he doesn't like it and Stevens observed this watching his prior races. Stevens flashed the whip to Mucho Macho Man through the lane, but never hit him.

You don't have to be a fan of his to believe he had a pretty good reason to tell the jockey not to hit a horse in a 2 million dollar race. I'm sure it wasn't on a whim. Of course that doesn't mean that the horse would have responded well to the whip but we will never know. That's the thing, half of this stuff is guesswork and 20/20 hindsight.

My intent was never to question the actual instruction not to use the whip. That was totally not the point. I just said that is information that should be public.

Without knowing anything else about the horse that would seem to be the logical reason.

The is very little incentive for trainers to divulge anything. That is why rules are made, so they have to do so. This has nothing to do with throwing anybody under the bus. It is about providing information, known beforehand, to bettors. Just like shoes info, blinker info, etc. The whip is equipment, not strategy.

I don't know, but I sure don't like how she was lugging in during the stretch. Not necessarily a good sign.

Otherwise, I would say she doesn't want to go beyond a mile.

Would that dissuade you from betting a horse if you knew they were not going to be whipped?

I know we are told when a rider doesn't carry a whip and it's never even crossed my mind to change my opinion on the horse because of this.

Yeah, she didn't look good. I was just piggybacking on the 81 Beyer comment. I seemed almost impossible she couldn't run at least that, and like you I wasn't particularly sold on her.

I guess it depends on the situation. In a huge, competitive field, it very well might. Usually when horses aren't carrying a whip it isn't the first time so there is a history there. I was pretty tough to imagine a scenario where Havana wouldn't have to be ridden hard down the lane from the 13 post or whatever it was, and that generally comes with the expectation of some whipping.

I just don't think that the value outweighs the potential pratfalls. As I said there is no easy way to do this despite your assertion that it would be easy. It won't because it isnt cut and dry like an equipment change. What if the trainer forget to tell the jockey in the paddock? Or he isn't there and the assistant forgets? Or the rider who doesn't speak English as a first language gets confused? These things happen all the time and no one realizes it. The Stewards will be loathe to start policing rider instruction's and that is really what it is.

OK, I'll weigh in on this whip thing....I couldn't care less and I don't know how we can decide which trainer instructions are relevant and which are not.

I would think about this for a little while before arguing with it.

Like I said, we can always find reasons not to do things. I do see your side of things, even when I debate it. Trainers and jockeys "might forget" or "don't speak English" doesn't cut it for me. Pretty sure I could learn to say "Don't use the whip" in Spanish if I needed to do so in about a minute. Other's mileage may vary. I guess the military did that to me, tough to change after all those years.

Use of the whip is strategy. Like I said why contact the stewards when you can just tell the jockey to go easy with the whip with no consequences? Blinkers, shoes, etc are cut and dry and you can easily determine if they are on or off. Are we going to start planting bugs in the paddock to ensure that trainers aren't ignoring the no whip disclosure? Just far too much trouble for very little value for a situation that occurs relatively infrequently,