Gomez Clinches 4th Money Title In a Row
 

Congrats to jockey Garret Gomez for being the leading rider in the nation for the 4th year in a row.

Doesnt matter, Leparoux is front runner to win the eclipse anyways.

Gomez is $194 dollars behind and he just picked up the #6 cenizo in the 8Th race if he just stays on the horse he will win the Title...

He should be ahead right now. When the day started, he was $27,000 behind. His win was worth $26,600 and he had a 5th place finish that should have been worth $1,200. My math has him ahead of Leparoux by around $800 right now. Where are you coming up with the $194 figure?

HRTV

I can't figure that out because Equibase shows that at the start of the day Leparoux was at $18,560,565 and Gomez was at $18,533,571. Gomez won a race today with a $44,000 purse. That means that first-place payed $26,400. He also ran 5th in a race with with a $53,000 purse. Fifth would have payed over $1,000. I can't figure out how Gomez could still be $194 behind.

With his victory in the 8th race, it is now official.

...prob. matters to him.

I'm surprised no one has touched on this topic....

but was it ethical for Pedroza to be "sick" so that Gomez could take over his horse and win the money title?

Since when does ethics enter the horse business.

No of course not, but Pedroza made more not riding the race.

Of course it wasn't ethical, and it was particularly unfair to bettors that may have wagered against the ML favorite with Pedroza riding in P3/P4/P6s. It sets a bad precedent.

Ramon Dominguez was only 200k behind in third. I guess all those claiming and ALW purse money really do add up.

Did he not win any stakes races?

NT

Ramon had 700 more mounts than Gomez, pretty sad if you can't take advantage of that, but than again if your the East Coast Russell Baze those low end claiming races on 4/5 favorites don't pay particularly well, as it is Julien had over 300 more mounts so it's not like he didn't have a more than fair chance as well, plus they tried to move someone off a mount in the Stake at Calder and couldn't do it, guess he's not as popular as Garrett who had far more offers than just Pedroza, I know if my pal was that close I would have done the same for him, I just don't see how the bettors suffer, it's no different than when a rider goes down and a replacement rider is named at the last minute, especially in light of the fact most here think jocks are incidental anyway. Mike Smith admitted this type of thing has ALWAYS gone on and he personally gave up mounts to Angel Cordero to win Saratoga riding titles, one time 10 mounts in 2 days, and Pat Day would ride at small tracks at night replacing jocks to win the earnings title, Julien would have done it as well and I frankly see no big deal in it.

Was the point of this post to:

A) Condone Pedroza giving Gomez a mount on the favorite

B) Insult Dominguez

C) Make up something about Leparoux trying to get a mount in a stake on a day where CrC ran an 8 race program with no stakes races

D) All of the above

Which one is it?

NT

To underline it's much to do about nothing, or any of the above.

This one incident isn't a big deal, but it is just part of the whole package where the bettor is taken for granted.

It is certainly not the same thing as a rider going down. That is an expected part of the game. What is not expected is taking an average rider off and putting a top rider on to reach a record few if any care about. As usual, the pecking order for concern ranks bettors about 18th behind pretty much everybody else.

But the horse was a short priced favorite no matter which jock rode, it wasn't like the top jock was thrown on a bomb and brought it in, the horse was meant no matter who rode him, you think Pedroza wouldn't have won as well?

To me, that isn't relevant. It is possible there are some bettors that took a stand against a speed rider like Pedroza on the Proride and they need to be protected whether you and I consider it wise or not.

The horse was 4 to 5 with Gomez, and probably 7 or 8 to 5 with Pedroza. It is certainly possible that Pedroza could have cost the horse a length, the margin of victory. Again, the information wasn't available when people made bets, so it shouldn't be changed unless absolutely necessary. Pedroza basically lied to the stewards and is being given a free pass. That is a terrible precedent to set.

how and when was it determined that he lied? has he admitted to it? If not then why do you make assertions like this as if you know it to be a fact?

I also don't buy the argument that multirace bettors have calculated things down to a specific number of lengths that a rider will cost a horse. Gomez sometimes costs a horse a length. You never know how its going to play out. You're implying that somebody figured the horse could win but kept it off their ticket because they felt Pedroza would not get the job done by costing the horse a length? please. there are many things to worry about in racing that effect bettors. this isn't one of them.

If you listen to Gomez's agent on the radio show out of California (forget the name), it is obvious. They don't even try to hide it. Why assert I'm making false allegations if you didn't bother to investigate? You are doing exactly what you throw at me.

As for you other assertions, you are wrong. There are people that do exactly what you say shouldn't be worried about. They obviously are using computers and jockey ability is a part of the equation. I also suspect they are much better gamblers than you.

Of course he did win stakes races. A bunch of 75k stakes races, arlington million and came second in the classic. 2010 will be his breakthrough year into the elite class.

It obviously was a unique situation and really what could be done? Go down and perform a physical on Pedroza? You may be right in that a certain, very small % of betters may have made a different decision based on the jockey change but being right and having a workable solution are two seperate items.

The best part of Ron Anderson's radio interview with Roger was when you could hear the toilet flush on Anderson's end of the phone call. Roger was amused and Ron started to studder abit. You can hear the show replay at http://www.rogerstein.com/

I know that personally I have tossed out plenty of Pedroza mounts in every kind of wager you can imagine where I guarantee I would have left the horse in with Gomez on. I seriously doubt I'm the only one.

I asked where you got your information, and you're telling me its something you implied from listening to Gomez's agent on the radio. so you're speculating, let's be honest. I don't really doubt what happened, but I'm not going to go around and call someone a liar either based on hearsay.

of course people use jockey ability as part of the equation, but its only one small part of the equation.
what you are alleging, is that there are some very sophisticated and "smart" gamblers who make pass or play decisions whether or not to use a horse on a multirace ticket based solely on the rider. ie: Gomez up, the horse is a play. Pedroza up on same horse in same race, its a pass, off the ticket. I would think that if the calculated difference in riding ability between Gomez and Pedroza alone was enough to make one horse have a higher rating than the other, that the smart player might include both horses or pass the bet entirely if it made the ticket to costly. The average difference in outcome that Gomez can be expected to have over an experienced journeyman like Pedroza on a particular horse in a particular race is not very large. In this case there certainly was much more uncertainty due to the many firsters and inexperienced runners. I don't think any programs exist that can accurately get a fix on those factors.

In short, I don't believe anyone, smart player or not, passed on that horse against that field due to Pedroza having the mount.

No doubt you're right, there are better gamblers out there than myself. Did you feel that by stating that it somehow makes your argument stronger? For the record, I suspect that you also don't stack up that well against the best gamblers.

Pedroza doesn't win as much as Gomez, but its not only due to the fact he isn't as good a rider as Gomez. If Gomez rode every mount of Pedroza's last year instead of Martin, how much better do you think he would have done? A little better but not as much as you might think.

In the race in question, the horse was an obvious play. It was the morning line favorite even with Pedroza. It didn't take the best jockey in the land to make it look like a strong play.

The stewards could certainly ask for proof. At the very least, he should now be punished for obviously making a joke of the system. Gomez can then pay him for his suspension time as well. That way maybe people would think again before trying this again.

Probably not, but I am saying you are showing you don't realize the level of sophistication that goes into some people's methods. A P4 or a P3 or a win bet are still all about getting value, so it is very possible the difference in riders could be the difference between using a favorite and not using it. A good bettor is trying to bet value, not cash tickets that are underlays. You do that by finding favorites that are suspect. I'm sure you do know that much, but it seems you are conveniently overlooking it here.

Jim, I've read a lot of good posts by you, so I'm sure you know that it's not a question of whether a horse is an obvious favorite. It's a question of whether the horse will offer value (in this case) as part of a multi-race ticket.

The rider is just one part, as you said. But the difference between Gomez and Pedroza is a piece of significant information that could easily put a bet in or out of whatever value threshold a good bettor is looking for. We can argue about how important this particular info was, but I don't think there can be any argument about whether the info was relevant.

I completely agree with cmorioles on this.

--Dunbar