Jockey shenanigans mar BC prep races
 

Per Teresa Genaro, of Brooklyn Backstretch;

Espinosa gets 7 days. Maragh broken arm surgery. Alvarado to the stewards.on Weds. for possible reckless riding on Moreno in JCGC.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/teresage...ers-cup-preps/

I am sure Espinoza acted alone on those riding tactics:rolleyes: Saint Bob again gets a free pass.

What Alvarado did was horrible, 30 days?

Baffert had nothing to do with it. Never discussed pre race at all. Ask all the racing authorities. It was decided a long time ago that trainers with multiple entries in a race would never conspire to use one horse to help another entrant in their barn hence all the uncoupled entries.

Are you missing an emoticon in there? Maybe :rolleyes: or ;) or even :p

He should be suspended until 7 days after Maragh returns IMO.

I have no clue why there is such outrage over simply gamesmanship. Days for what? Do they give days for no shot rabbits that pressure other speeds and compromise their chance of winning? Unless someone endangers another they are free to ride to incorporate ant tactics. Can you really KNOW Espinoza was not trying to win? I cant. I see a lot of people attempting to judge something that is completely subjective.

On that note, Did anyone hear the swill Bailey was emoting... Did he forget how the boys teamed up on Smarty Jones in Belmont. Please Mr Bailey have a heart

Disagree with that first part, Mr. Mo, but yeah.. that was classic.

Somewhere Eddington winced...

Seriously, Freddy? You can't tell the difference between a rider that is just an idiot and one that is not trying to win the race with his/her mount?

Having said that, agree about Bailey. He should have been suspended for what he did with Eddington as it was clear he was not trying to win that race. That is a fraud on the betting public.

:tro:

i think it's more a 'wait a minute, didn't baffert just go on a weeks long rant about this type of ride?' moment...
as for the ride, i think you should get called to the carpet for carrying a horse really wide, or for herding.

I agree Nick, that was pure recklessness on Jr's part and Rajiv was extremely lucky to come away with just a broken arm... I guess Moreno and WS came out okay, I havent read anything on them..

punk should get 90 days for that move
 

If I owned Shared Belief, Victor Espinoza would have got the beating of his life when he got off his hoss. Right there on the track, and everyone would know why, and no one would say a ****ing word. The guy with the white hair would get a backhander for good measure.

So a 35 claimer rabbit employed to compromise a speed type is OK?

Are you calling Jim Rome "Chris Everett"?

Not appealing.............guess he did not want the truth to come out in a court.

Rabbits have been used forever. The difference is that the rabbit is used to employ its speed to tire a horse who has speed and cannot be controlled to be rated, not used in a dangerous manner to impede a horse from winning.

You know sometimes rabbits don't know their role and forget to stop running.

A horse who has natural speed and is put on the front end is being given a fair ride, if there are two horses in a race with that same style the betting public knows that going in. Its a fair scenario.

If a closer is sent to the lead for no apparent reason then things should be explained.

This is even more important with non coupled entries.

I completely agree with the first part. As for the closer part, as maddening as it can be from a handicapping standpoint, I don't have a problem with connections sending a horse that shows a closing style on paper since it is up to them to decide tactically what they believe gives them the best chance to win a race.

We have seen sometimes that a change in tactics can really benefit certain horses, whether it be a speed horse that learns to relax over time and is taken back and turns out to be a much better closer or a horse with no speed in the past that is sent and it turns out becomes much more effective employing speed.

Sometimes the change in tactics doesn't work and the closer ends up running up the track or vice versa. But it is tactics. Even rabbits don't work sometimes, they can break badly or if the horse they are trying to push relaxes there can be two races in a race, the rabbit going along on its own and the rest of the field sitting back and racing a normal to slow pace counting on the rabbit to come back to them.

The difference is using legal methods vs. using illegal methods to impede a horse with no intent in trying to win. In the first scenario the public can ascertain the intent on paper, but not with the second. Clearly Espinoza used the latter and as you said, is not even disputing what is clear to any sane person who watched the race.

Your point on uncoupled entries is well taken though.

Stewart Elliott is blameless?

The two incidents are completely incomparable. Espinoza made Shared Belief go slightly wider than he would've gone normally. Even though NYRA somehow hasn't made available a head-on of the JCGC, it looked like Alvarado could've killed Rajiv. Not remotely the same thing.

These things can happen though when you are "Race riding" its one of the reasons why some of us do not condone hearding horses out 6 paths. Some see it as fine.

Slightly wider? Victor practically bought SB a ticket to watch the race from the stands compared to where everybody else was in terms of paths and where his own mount should've been. Shared Belief normally goes 5-7 paths out all the way around? Victor ruined Sky Kingdom's chances to get a piece of anything. It wasn't fair to his horse or owner so if nothing else he needs to get jacked up over that.

Yup, nobody gave Sir Barton the memo. He spoiled Billy Kelly's party and went on to glory. Nothing says a rabbit's definitely gonna help another horse at their own expense. Maybe they get loose on the lead so even if they need it to win, they luck out sometimes and get left to it.

If you use Xpressbet you can see the replay and it will show the stewards inquiry head on. It looked like to me that Alvarado just thought he could make it through the opening towards the rail. I am not sure he ever saw the other horse there. The problem is that it is his responsibility to know where other horses are and not to impede. I don't think it was in any way deliberate.

National Racing Report - Migs take 9/29/14
 

Mig had a curious take on a possible scenario, which andy termed a conspiracy rheory . Espinosa did his number on Shared Belief so SB would havesometning taken out of him, so California Chrome would have a better chance in BC, after what happened to CC in the PA derby. Migs theory is that you would like to have an easy race before the big one,not a hard one, ie when working a horse have the big piece of work two out and aneasy work as the last one.

As far as rabbits go,didn't Dutrow multiple rabbits in one race a few years ago, the Woodward in 2005, Saint Liam and Commentator, after Commentator won the Whitney at Saratoga,as lone spead.

" After Saint Liam lost the Whitney Handicap at Saratoga, the trainer Richard Dutrow Jr. decided to take no chances yesterday in the Woodward at Belmont Park.

Dutrow triple-teamed Commentator, the Whitney winner, and his three horses proved to be far more than Commentator could handle. With an assist from his colony of so-called rabbits, Saint Liam dominated, winning by two lengths.

On Aug. 6, Commentator sneaked away to an easy early lead on his way to the Whitney victory over Saint Liam. Dutrow's answer yesterday was to control the pace with two speed horses.

Crafty Player and Show Boot did their job as rabbits, ganging up on the Nick Zito-trained Commentator, hounding him for as long as they could. Commentator zipped through an opening six furlongs i..............."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A9639C8B63

Here are the trip notes, couldnot find a replay,

Race Comments: SAINT LIAM came away in good order, raced close up outside while in hand, cruised up three wide on the turn, galloped to a clear lead entering the stretch and remained safely clear while wrapped up, winning in handy fashion. SIR SHACKLETON was outrun early, rallied three wide on the turn and finished gamely while no serious threat to the winner. COMMENTATOR broke well and argued the pace while under attack from both sides, disposed of his assailants after three quarters but was in no shape to handle the winner and gave way in the final furlong. SHOW BOOT contested the pace along the inside, quit on the turn, dropped far back and was distanced. CRAFTY PLAYER contested the pace from the outside, quit after five furlongs, dropped far back and was distanced despite being kept to the task.

Now lets think about this one for a second. Its the Jockey Club Gold Cup and a veteran rider of over 6,000 races aboard one of the main contenders has another one of the main contenders to his inside for the entire backstretch. He just so happens to decide at the point of the turn I am going to duck into the path of one of the horses to beat. This isn't some bug boy who saw day light and went for it, we are talking about a veteran rider in the best colony in the nation. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Now, do I think he intended to drop Maragh? No probably not. But did he intend to check him hindering his progress into the turn? Absolutely. I'm sure he will go into the stewards and argue that Big Cazanova was getting out but as it turned out he ended up having to take back out of the spot he supposedly went for and go around him.

It was an egregious decision and he deserves a months suspension. Seeing as the NY stewards come up short on pretty much everything they do though he will likely get less.

I joked about it being a conspiracy theory.

Commentator hardly " sneaked away " to an easy early lead. He ran 46.41 and 1:09.76. Saint Liam couldn't keep up with him. The notion that Commentator somehow stole that race is ludicrous.

He ran hard every step of that race. 122 or 124 beyer I believe.

Take that up with Bill Finley who wrote the NY Times article quoted from, or did you skip that part of the post. I didnot write it, Finley did !

Interesting that Bailey rode SL and was so critical of Espinosa on his ride vs Shared Belief., of course the rabbits were part of an entry in the Woodward which was not the case at SA saturday

It wasnt Bob Baffert that told Espinoza to go wide and hinder Shared Beliefs chances. It was this guy:



How can Shared Belief even be considered Top 3 yr old if he did not run in any of the Triple Crown races?

Tiznow

He was being facetious.

;)

I hope tonalist or S.B. win so i can see him go Chernobyl.

Shared belief got floated out. That's racing. 7 days is ridiculous.

You are right 7 days is ridiculous for not putting forth an effort to have his horse win the race and defrauding the betting public. Not to mention tactics that could have turned in to Mike Smith using a power chair for the rest of his life. I say 30 days minimum.

The horse who was a path wider than he was won so who is to say that his tactics caused the horse to not win? Or perhaps long shots should just do their best to stay out of the big bad favorite way?

What tactics would you suggest that he should have taken that would have given his mount the best chance to win? The DRF isnt a script. Riders change tactics without notice all the time. Saying that he shouldnt have gone 4 wide in the first turn isnt an implication that he wasnt trying because the horse got beat 20 lengths. He might have gotten beaten 20 lengths regardless of what he did. Do we really want stewards basing decisions based on their preconceived notions of what should happen based on their handicapping of the race?

Every racing day at Parx horses are put into this exact same position by riders looking to get off of a dead rail. Even with less skilled riders and far less talented horses no one is getting put in power chairs.

Someone was complaining about integrity issues on social media concerning this ride and suspension. IMO the integrity problem is when big name horses, 2/5 shots, pretty horse people and bloggers start to affect the decision making process of the stewards which in some jurisdictions is pretty shaky already.

He eased the horse after Shared Belief got past him. Did we hear anything about his horse coming away with any kind of injury to warrant such? If that doesn't scream that his sole purpose was to agitate and try and get Shared Belief beat nothing does. Those in the game that keep defending such nonsense shouldn't be surprised when bettors eventually say WTF already(this is not a stab at you), its hard enough handicapping horses and now I got to handicap whether or not the jockey is going to give me an honest effort. It failed the smell test to me. Now to give full disclosure here my only exposure to this was using the horse in BCQualify to try and make up a 25 buck deficit. Why they would use a race with a 3/5 undefeated horse as the last in the contest is another issue but since I'm whining ;) I might as well mention it even though it is completely off topic.

I'm not sure what I think is the more ridiculous opinion right now, that he deserved to be suspended or that he and Baffert didn't concoct this scheme together.

The horse was finished before the final turn. I doubt that being in the 3 path would have made 3/8ths of a mile difference.

Lets have an honest discussion here. In 80% of the races run in this country you have to consider what the jockeys effort level is going to be for certain horses. Longshots are often ridden with less than maximum effort. Dropdowns are often "carefully handled". Why do people think bug riders strting out get so many chances? They will let them run because often they dont know any better.

Do i think that it was a coincidence that Espinoza did what he did? No. But can we really start suspending people based on speculation? Because pushing a horse out an extra path or 2 on the turn isnt the crime that it has been made out to be.