Jockey shenanigans mar BC prep races

[freddymo]

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

[my miss storm cat]

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

Somewhere Eddington winced...

[pointman]

Originally Posted by freddymo

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

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.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by pointman

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.

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

[pointman]

Originally Posted by freddymo

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

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.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by pointman

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 sometime 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.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by freddymo

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

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.

[KirisClown]

Originally Posted by freddymo

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

Stewart Elliott is blameless?