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.