9/27 (SA): AwsmAgn, FrntRnnr, Chndelier, Zenyatta, Rodeo Dr. (G1's)

[Danzig]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ome-again-ride

Bob Baffert trains both Sky Kingdom and Fed Biz, but told the Santa Anita publicity office he had nothing to do with the tactics employed by Espinoza.

"These guys are fierce competitors," Baffert said, alluding to Espinoza, Smith, and others in the jockey colony. "I see it happen to my horses when you have a good one. I didn't tell Victor to do that. He stayed away from my other horse, Fed Biz…Game On Dude, that's why I retired him, because he was starting to get mugged, every race. I didn't cry about it. I just retired him."



no, bob, you cried about it after the race, and then again when you announced his retirement.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ome-again-ride

Bob Baffert trains both Sky Kingdom and Fed Biz, but told the Santa Anita publicity office he had nothing to do with the tactics employed by Espinoza.

"These guys are fierce competitors," Baffert said, alluding to Espinoza, Smith, and others in the jockey colony. "I see it happen to my horses when you have a good one. I didn't tell Victor to do that. He stayed away from my other horse, Fed Biz…Game On Dude, that's why I retired him, because he was starting to get mugged, every race. I didn't cry about it. I just retired him."



no, bob, you cried about it after the race, and then again when you announced his retirement.

And then again after the Goodwood as well.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ome-again-ride

Bob Baffert trains both Sky Kingdom and Fed Biz, but told the Santa Anita publicity office he had nothing to do with the tactics employed by Espinoza.

"These guys are fierce competitors," Baffert said, alluding to Espinoza, Smith, and others in the jockey colony. "I see it happen to my horses when you have a good one. I didn't tell Victor to do that. He stayed away from my other horse, Fed Biz…Game On Dude, that's why I retired him, because he was starting to get mugged, every race. I didn't cry about it. I just retired him."



no, bob, you cried about it after the race, and then again when you announced his retirement.

Utter horseshit. As someone mentioned on the selections thread. You don't totally take yourself out of the race by "Race Riding". Sky Kingdom basically was eased after he was no longer able to keep up to Shared Belief.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by jms62

Utter horseshit. As someone mentioned on the selections thread. You don't totally take yourself out of the race by "Race Riding". Sky Kingdom basically was eased after he was no longer able to keep up to Shared Belief.

Exactly.

That Baffert isn't livid with Espinoza is the only truth coming from him.

[RockHardTen1985]

And here is a tweet from a well respected horse racing guy....

Of course the outrage is not that Shared Belief was floated out, but that he was floated out by a Baffert longshot. That's horse racing.

[pointman]

Well that settles the issue.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by pointman

Well that settles the issue.

Not at all, but you guys act like I'm the only one defending that side of it.

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

And here is a tweet from a well respected horse racing guy....

Of course the outrage is not that Shared Belief was floated out, but that he was floated out by a Baffert longshot. That's horse racing.

Does this mean it's the correct opinion?

I've got tons of respect for Doug, but he's wrong here. Has nothing to do with Baffert other than he had to know what was going on. If he didn't then he should never ride Espinoza again.

The issue is bettors who played Sky Kingdom did so under the pretense he would be ridden to actually win the race. His rider had other ideas.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Jay Frederick

Does this mean it's the correct opinion?

I've got tons of respect for Doug, but he's wrong here. Has nothing to do with Baffert other than he had to know what was going on. If he didn't then he should never ride Espinoza again.

The issue is bettors who played Sky Kingdom did so under the pretense he would be ridden to actually win the race. His rider had other ideas.

Anyone who bet Sky Kingdom in this race has issues, I agree with that.

[Jay Frederick]

Not my kind of horse either, but also irrelevant.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Jay Frederick

Does this mean it's the correct opinion?

I've got tons of respect for Doug, but he's wrong here. Has nothing to do with Baffert other than he had to know what was going on. If he didn't then he should never ride Espinoza again.

The issue is bettors who played Sky Kingdom did so under the pretense he would be ridden to actually win the race. His rider had other ideas.

The horse who won the race was outside the horse that you are claiming wasnt ridden to win the race.

So.....how does one say without using the odds that the horse in the 4 path wasnt ridden to win while the one in the 5 path who actually did win was? Sure you can assume that Smith didnt want to be out there and Espinoza did but now we are assuming as opposed to actually judging if any rules were violated.

If the odds are a determining factor are we now holding rider on long shots to different standards than those riding favorites? Do we want Stewards decisions based on assumptions? Everybody knows everything about high profile stakes horses like SB and CC. Do the stewards or everyday player know if some horse in an allowance race doesnt like to be stuck inside and that is why the other jocks may try to pin him down? Do we want the top races judged differently than the everyday races?

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The horse who won the race was outside the horse that you are claiming wasnt ridden to win the race.

So.....how does one say without using the odds that the horse in the 4 path wasnt ridden to win while the one in the 5 path who actually did win was? Sure you can assume that Smith didnt want to be out there and Espinoza did but now we are assuming as opposed to actually judging if any rules were violated.

If the odds are a determining factor are we now holding rider on long shots to different standards than those riding favorites? Do we want Stewards decisions based on assumptions? Everybody knows everything about high profile stakes horses like SB and CC. Do the stewards or everyday player know if some horse in an allowance race doesnt like to be stuck inside and that is why the other jocks may try to pin him down? Do we want the top races judged differently than the everyday races?

No need to make it difficult. For me, it boils down to common sense. Does anyone think Espinoza rode his horse to win?

I would have been totally fine if after meeting with the stewards, there was no suspension. At least they talked to him about it. That's all I'm asking for. More accountability.

I acknowledge there is a ton of gray area with the policing of riding. I'd just like to see more questions being asked about questionable rides.

If we take Baffert at his word, he knew nothing about what Espinoza was going to do. In that case the punishment is appropriate. Espinoza didn't put forth any effort to win. He should be punished. Plain and simple.

Maybe (and it's a big maybe) if there was some accountability in the sport it might appeal to gamblers more. And yes, I fully realize other sports have accountability issues as well.