7/12 (HOL): Swaps (Gr. II)

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Total hogwash.

Well, if I was you, I would go rhetorical as well. That being said, the fact is you have a conflict of interest (when writing about the industry that pays your paycheck.) That's simply a fact. It's a fact with more than a few on here. Now lets return to the whether it's a classy circuit. There are some issues there I wrote about. So, go ahead and tell us why certain trainers with 6 violations are still training. Why Garrett Gomez rarely loses an inquiry on this circuit. Why the stretch run in the 4th race Friday Night didn't even have an inquiry involved etc. Don't you realize people can see which horse has more run? They know why a horse with more run doesn't go by. It almost always has to do with a horse shifting out to do exactly what that Sadler horse did in the 4th race Friday Night. I don't care financially about the outcome of that race. I just know the horse with more run was kept from going by, and it was ignored for various poor reasons(the main one being a very popular jockey on the winner.) Then, when one of the commentators on TVG stated that it(not having an inquiry) showed inconsistency, he was attacked by a fellow commentator who was working at Los AL. It's like a little cult that punishes those who don't back the authority involved. He(the guy at Los Al) also used no facts. He attacked rhetorically(basically like a cult member telling another cult member to quickly move on.)

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well, if I was you, I would go rhetorical as well. That being said, the fact is you have a conflict of interest (when writing about the industry that pays your paycheck.) That's simply a fact. It's a fact with more than a few on here. Now lets return to the whether it's a classy circuit. There are some issues there I wrote about. So, go ahead and tell us why certain trainers with 6 violations are still training. Why Garrett Gomez rarely loses an inquiry on this circuit. Why the stretch run in the 4th race Friday Night didn't even have an inquiry involved etc.

Ok. Since you were a little more civil I'll respond a bit. I can't answer about Garrett Gomez because I don't know the statistics. Also he has ridden here in So Cal only about half the year recently. I do feel supremely confident that the stewards DO NOT favor particular riders over others. I have the utmost resepect for their professionalism and believe strongly that they enforce the rules fairly and dispassionately.

Why a certain trainer has 6 violations and still trains is a matter to take up with the CHRB. I feel confident that the rules and procedure for sanctions are being followed.

As for a conflict of interest because I work in the horse racing industry. I love horse racing and will support it always. I WILL NOT however compromise my opinions or right to free speech regardless of who signs my paycheck. There have been numerous times both on these forums and when appearing on TVG when I've been critcal of racetracks and horsemen if I felt it was appropriate.

Thanks for taking time to share your opinions.

VJS

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well, if I was you, I would go rhetorical as well. That being said, the fact is you have a conflict of interest (when writing about the industry that pays your paycheck.) That's simply a fact. It's a fact with more than a few on here. Now lets return to the whether it's a classy circuit. There are some issues there I wrote about. So, go ahead and tell us why certain trainers with 6 violations are still training. Why Garrett Gomez rarely loses an inquiry on this circuit. Why the stretch run in the 4th race Friday Night didn't even have an inquiry involved etc. Don't you realize people can see which horse has more run? They know why a horse with more run doesn't go by. It almost always has to do with a horse shifting out to do exactly what that Sadler horse did in the 4th race Friday Night. I don't care financially about the outcome of that race. I just know the horse with more run was kept from going by, and it was ignored for various poor reasons(the main one being a very popular jockey on the winner.) Then, when one of the commentators on TVG stated that it(not having an inquiry) showed inconsistency, he was attacked by a fellow commentator who was working at Los AL. It's like a little cult that punishes those who don't back the authority involved. He(the guy at Los Al) also used no facts. He attacked rhetorically.

Just because the inquiry sign is not lit does not mean that the stewards are not scrutinizing the race and the rides.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Just because the inquiry sign is not lit does not mean that the stewards are not scrutinizing the race and the rides.

They need to let everyone know, and let people see it going on. The reason they didn't call it is they didn't want people to see multiple replays of it. They showed it very little on TVG , and probably even less at the track. The horse with more run didn't have a fair shot to go by the winner. There was contact ,and intimidation(threat of further contact.) That is exactly why they don't call an inquiry(they don't really want people to see that horse coming over that way in a close race.) Gomez rarely loses an inquiry on this circuit. You would see that if you looked into it. He is constantly favored by the stewards on this circuit. To deny that would destroy any real credibility you have on here. They go against certain jocks, but mainly they protect this one jockey(a lot.)

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

They need to let everyone know, and let people see it going on. The reason they didn't call it is they didn't want people to see multiple replays of it. They showed it very little on TVG , and probably even less at the track. The horse with more run didn't have a fair shot to go by the winner. There was contact ,and intimidation(threat of further contact.) That is exactly why they don't call an inquiry(they don't really want people to see that horse coming over that way in a close race.) Gomez rarely loses an inquiry on this circuit. You would see that if you looked into it. He is constantly favored by the stewards on this circuit. To deny that would destroy any real credibility you have on here. They go against certain jocks, but mainly they protect this one jockey(a lot.)

Assuming I have any credibility on this site and in the business. I can assure you disagreeing with you will not have an impact.

I do not believe the stewards favor Gomez or any other jockey. BTW it would have to be a statewide conspiracy. There are 4 So. Cal. venues. The three biggies and Fairplex. The total number of different stewards that could normally preside over those meets could be as many as 7 or 8. Not likely they all got together and decided to help Garrett. And why the heck would they do that anyway? What would they have to gain?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Assuming I have any credibility on this site and in the business. I can assure you disagreeing with you will not have an impact.

I do not believe the stewards favor Gomez or any other jockey. BTW it would have to be a statewide conspiracy. There are 4 So. Cal. venues. The three biggies and Fairplex. The total number of different stewards that could normally preside over those meets could be as many as 7 or 8. Not likely they all got together and decided to help Garrett. And why the heck would they do that anyway? What would they have to gain?

He is the most popular jockey out here, and they certainly would like him to ride out here as much as possible. A couple weeks ago he lost a controversial inquiry at Belmont(on a Baffert horse.) That would easily of gone his way out here. It's a comfort factor (he has to feel more comfortable riding where he rarely loses an inquiry.) The fact you haven't noticed the great percentage of inquiries he wins here shows me you have blinders on. You don't want to see it. Watch the pan of Friday's 4th race. You knew the 2nd place horse started extending stride nicely(and was probably gunna go by,) and that's why you said "Now it's gunna be real close." Then, the horse seems to hesitate or slightly slow up. His stride is not quite as big and he doesn't quite cover the ground he looked like he was going to be able to cover. Why is that? That is because he is responding to being bumped ,and he has to move to his right a bit. That big stride he had an instant before now changes, and he doesn't cover the ground you thought he would have. You then said that the winner wouldn't let him by. That wasn't true. The horse had to slightly change what he was doing, and couldn't use his same stride. If the leading horse hadn't come over, then the outside horse would of gone right by late in that race. This so called "incidental contact" was enough to slow up the outside horse just enough to keep him from being able to go by. To not even have a public sign of an inquiry was out of line, and absurd. Sadler was expecting one. Everyone on TVG WAS EXPECTING ONE...........NOTHING!!..It was pathetic.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

You said "NOWWW IT'S GUNNA BE REAL CLOSE." Look at what happens(ON THE PAN) just after you say NOWW. He has to hesitate slightly. After that he has lost that momentum that was gunna be just enough to get by. That's where the winner of the race was determined. In between the word "NOWW," and the phrase "It's gunna be real close." Something the winner did caused the horse in 2nd place to have to change what he was doing. What he was doing was gunna be good enough to go by.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

When you say "It's," that horse on the outside comes towards the viewer watching the pan. His energy was all forward before that, but then he comes sideways towards the viewer. That's in response to the leading horse. Going sideways is not an efficient way to go forward. He went sideways because of what the leader did(came out on him.) The horse who ran 2nd was best. I know that. You know that. Whether you admit it is doubtful.