I don't agree as a bettor but respect your opinion on this.

Dont agree with what part?

I as a participant in most areas of the industry also have a hard time believing that anyone who bets and is disgruntled about a particular ride will get more than a brief few seconds of satisfaction when a rider gets a 7 day suspension. I mean are you rooting for him to get sunburned while lounging on the beach?

What I gathered from your post is that I should just STFU and quite whining cause that is how things go. I feel the bettors were defrauded by a jock not even attempting to compete in the race. We don't agree and I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change my mind. So I can either accept the way things are or cut my handle even more than I already have.

There were a few shenanigans that went on in the JCGC, have heard very little in the way of any rulings from that race.

The two california trained horses had, well, questionable rides.

The game is falling apart yet the people in the industry keep telling us that there is nothing to see here, move along. Not picking on Chuck but racing has an image issue big time to go along with many other issues. Can you imagine if horses were floated to the 7 path on the first turn in every race as just part of race riding. If its such a great tactic why dont we see it done more?

Yes, the apologists for this sport are pathetic.

How come you don't see rides like that on the favorite, taking out a longshot??????


Espinoza is so obviously guilty, you can tell by watching him in the race, and how he has phrased his answers since.

David Grening ‏@DRFGrening · 12m12 minutes ago
Junior Alvarado was suspended 15 days by the stewards for Saturday's Gold Cup ride. He has 48 hours to decide whether or not to appeal.

Another dismissive post.

It boggles the mind how anyone can defend the status quo.

15 days seems kind of weak honestly.

If he doesnot contest it, I believe it is cut in half.:o

7 days, its totally worth it to ride reckless.

This idea that you have that every horses is 100% ridden to win every time is myopic. If you wont accept that then pretty much everything else you believe will be wrong as well.

A lot of people toss out the bettor card like you did here and whine that you arent betting anymore or have been disrespected. It is pretty weak.

I'm of the opinion that the way 36-1 shots are ridden is low on the list of racings ills. There are bad rides in hundreds of races a week. There have been bad rides for as long as racing has been around. This isnt new. Social media is new.

The way it seems to go now is whatever issue you guys have with racing gets thrown into the "game is falling apart" category, daring anyone in the business to defend it. I will say again when the stewards are being influenced by social media and the status of the horses in question you can really start wondering about image issues.

I am in the opinion that the betting public has a better platform than they ever have in the past and thats why you actually see some movement when issues are brought to light, albeit at a snails pace in most cases.

What status quo? Are you of the mindset that every horse is ridden 100% to win every time? Seriously?

It boggles the mind that some cant understand what point I'm trying to make.

The betting public is a quite diverse population and based on twitter and facebook a very vocal part of it is clueless despite the best efforts of many to try to give them a clue.

Naturally many people wind up following the clueless because what they say might sound good even though it is completely wrong.

It is for that very reason that racing is essentially doomed. Regardless of what racing does and what rules are passed most people are going to believe their preconceived notions anyway. Racing has done a miserable job educating people and even when smart guys like some of the visable public figures go out of their way to try to help educate people they are routinely savaged on social media for taking a stance that may not pan out.

The real irony is that in speaking to a bunch of trainers, officials, owners and jockeys I have found support for suspending Espinoza and support for not suspending him. Probably close to 50-50.

I can see if there was a pre existing warning, him getting days here. I could see it if the Stewards had been proactive against similar aggressive riding tactics recently.

I think they are simply punishing Espinoza because of grumbling about a popular horse (you know one of those that may "save" racing) and an unpopular trainer who almost benefited.

Stewards are generally bad enough already. If we start letting popularity bleed into the decisions...

I can't recall but did Rajiv get days for his ride in the 2011.Belmont where he screwed Mucho Macho Man because he got taken off the mount or when he cut off Gary Stevens going into the first turn in this year's Derby?

2 things here. #1, I can understand your concern, because if YOU were held responsible for the rides of Pedro Cotto Jr, you'd have every right to be worried about a lifetime suspension;)

But more importantly, IMO, literally seconds after the Cali race ended Jerry Bailey called out Victor Espinoza's ride. Now, some may not like Jerry Bailey, but I think it would be difficult to call him clueless about race riding?

1. It was a graded stakes race almost universally you can expect an effort from a horse in that type of race instead of him used as a battering ram.

2. Weak? Another trainer saying **** the bettors. Nice.

The 2nd sentence is EXACTLY what i am talking about. The idea that bettors can take whatever stance they want without a counter BECAUSE WITHOUT YOU THE GAME FAILS TO EXIST!!!!!

Jesus cant there be a discussion on a topic without all the dramatics?

No one is saying that it wasnt exactly what it looked like, but the question is does he deserve a suspension because of it? Name another case like this where a jockey got suspended for floating a horse a extra path wide. I cant think of a single one in 30 years. He didnt make contact woth the other horse, he didnt cut him off, he didnt put him in a dangerous sport regardless of what jms says, being wide is not dangerous. It is actually where jockeys who dont like the way their mounts are traveling go.

This idea that the horse was 7 wide or used as a battering ram is exaggerated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZYIKaXPtPU


Denman called him 4 wide in the 1st turn

How about this possible scenario/solution. Do what the NHL does when it comes to supplemental discipline (former players are in charge of the "player safety" position), put former Jockey's in the position to make the determination, as opposed to Stewards, who you quite rightfully don't trust to understand the nuances of what occurred?

Pretty funny that you use the tired Internet strategy of repeating a Valid point as if it diffuses it. It doesn't. This is becoming more of an argument against the way I feel the industry treats its paying customers than it is about the issue. i need to step away. you win chuck bettors are stupid and if one goes away 2 more will follow or maybe it is just me being naive and thinking I am playing a game that will be policed to insure integrity to its customers.

Far too many Stewards are ex jockeys which is why we have many of these issues already. The NFL doesnt employ ex NFL players as refs because you dont have to have played to be able to interpret the rules and identify violations.

I would prefer to see a system of fines as opposed to days anyway. With reduced schedules a lot of those days are dark anyway and often simply wind up being a vacation. Meanwhile the connections that had Espinoza booked for this weeks stakes races (and other smaller ones) are left scrambling at the last minute to find a replacement who most likely in a larger field is going to be inferior.

I would prefer to discuss racing topics without all the dramatics about the "industry treats its customers bad" prattle.

Doesn't the of the word "prattle" in this context kind of highlight and underscore the absolute utter disregard of those in the industry to its customer? You are on an absolute roll this morning making my points for me.

You should get 7 days for incessant whining.

Actually it should be 7 racing days like an NFL suspension is for games not days.:D

This is a good idea. And I appreicate you talking candidly about this.

The sad truth is social media plays a part in sports, and life now. And as flawed as it is, it has actually done some good. Look at the NFL. It took backlash from social media (and every other human being not name Roger Goodell) to properly punish Ray Rice.

We might be asking for things in a different way, but I think the crux of it all is most people agree there needs to be some changes. What and how to enforce them are not as easily pinpointed but doesn't meant they shouldn't happen.

Chucks strategy for discussing this is to mock jms, say nothing factual while making tired and redundant remarks that dismiss valid points of people that are fed up being taken for granted by this sport, and then close his case by saying case closed, there is nothing here.

Then repeat ad nauseam.

It's like listening to Pee Wee Herman keep saying "I know you are but what am I?"

And Chuck, while yeah, bad rides are normal, and not every horse in every race is ridden to win, this horse was intentionally ridden to lose. Regardless of his odds, his bettors were treated fraudulently, plain and simple.

By the way, the tired excuse that it happens all the time, so stop whining? How does it make it okay?

It disgusts me that people so easily take it up the ass when it comes to things like getting their money taken from them (and other things in life). People have become complacent because they have learned to expect to be treated unfairly.

It is not okay to be screwed over and those doing the screwing need to be held accountable.

Agreed but some changes that people want in racing arent always ones that they will continue to like once implemented.

Fair point. But how could more accountability be something that people won't like going forward?

If I make a mistake at work, I get called into my bosses office. If I continue to make the same mistake, I get in trouble for it.

Why does it seem like the racing industry as a whole doesn't work that way?

Then change it back. Or modify the change to make it better. But doing nothing is not acceptable if this industry want to keep it's regular players.

The fact is still the fact, regardless of how anyone inside the business wants to spin it. Espinoza took his horse out of contention in an attempt to influence the outcome of the race, not to win it. There are rules against that regardless of how one may choose to interpret it.

Chuck, you said "a path or two", Denman said 4, the replay clearly show it was wider than that. But really that is immaterial. The fact remains that people wagered money on this horse to run a race that would at least put him in contention (however foolhardy that decision may or may not have been), not to purposely be taken out of the race in the first turn.

Bad rides are part and parcel of the game, as gamblers we've come to accept that - You can't read a day in the selections room without someone mentioning a jock taking a horse back and not sending speed, or watching lone speed setting 25/50 while pressers leave him 2 lengths clear, etc.

But this was a whole new level. This was premeditated race fixing. If you choose to call that "drama", well, there's really no point in furthering the discussion.

Everyone has a breaking point. I routinely churned way more money than I care to admit each year in this sport, for many, many years. I routinely took bad beats, and even once in a while benefited from a poor ride by a competing jockey. I took it in stride and kind of sloughed it off.

That said - I no longer do. I am now a very casual player as I still love the sport - but have had enough of the nonsense and refuse to accept the opinion and position this industry's takes against it's customers.

My breaking point was the 2014 Belmont Stakes. To date, not one turf writer (to my knowledge, and multiple exhaustive searches since still bear this out) spent one moment asking Jose Ortiz, his agent, Richard Violette, or anyone from My Meadowbrook Farm why the only "need the lead" horse was pulled in the first turn & subsequently taken out of the race. Not one. You just chalk that up to "a poor ride'? As Jim said, it's difficult enough to effectively handicap a race, now you have these decisions being made and zero follow up?

Give me dated nickles at Tampa all day long - at least I know where I stand.

GREAT post. Well done.

A whole lot of words but in the end you aren't doing anything but what you accuse me of. Rabbits are intentionally ridden to lose yet a lot of the same people who are disgusted by the ride are accepting of that tactic. Because a rabbit once won it's ok? Because you can handicap it it's ok? If you shoot a guy and kill him or you stab him or kill him he is still dead right?

Rabbits can win races, horses that are eased after they are used to do dirty work never do.

The rabbits can win defense?

The rabbits can win defense is much better than the "I'm an insider, thus, I know better than you" defense.

Stealing money is not ok Chuck, no matter how hard you try to obfuscate the matter.

Saying it's okay because it happens all the time is the response of a spineless pusssy.

Dutrow had a coupled entry of 3 horses,not the case in the SB ,FedBiz race where Baffert had 2 entered separately. Also in the Commentator / Saint Liam case, they speed sandwiched Commentator, not taking him 4-5 wide. I don't know why I can't find a replay of this race. If someone can please do. This sparked outrage at the time.