Jockey shenanigans mar BC prep races

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by golfer

2 things here. #1, I can understand your concern, because if YOU were held responsible for the rides of Pedro Cotto Jr, you'd have every right to be worried about a lifetime suspension

But more importantly, IMO, literally seconds after the Cali race ended Jerry Bailey called out Victor Espinoza's ride. Now, some may not like Jerry Bailey, but I think it would be difficult to call him clueless about race riding?

No one is saying that it wasnt exactly what it looked like, but the question is does he deserve a suspension because of it? Name another case like this where a jockey got suspended for floating a horse a extra path wide. I cant think of a single one in 30 years. He didnt make contact woth the other horse, he didnt cut him off, he didnt put him in a dangerous sport regardless of what jms says, being wide is not dangerous. It is actually where jockeys who dont like the way their mounts are traveling go.

This idea that the horse was 7 wide or used as a battering ram is exaggerated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZYIKaXPtPU


Denman called him 4 wide in the 1st turn

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No one is saying that it wasnt exactly what it looked like, but the question is does he deserve a suspension because of it? Name another case like this where a jockey got suspended for floating a horse a extra path wide. I cant think of a single one in 30 years. He didnt make contact woth the other horse, he didnt cut him off, he didnt put him in a dangerous sport regardless of what jms says, being wide is not dangerous. It is actually where jockeys who dont like the way their mounts are traveling go.

This idea that the horse was 7 wide or used as a battering ram is exaggerated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZYIKaXPtPU


Denman called him 4 wide in the 1st turn

How about this possible scenario/solution. Do what the NHL does when it comes to supplemental discipline (former players are in charge of the "player safety" position), put former Jockey's in the position to make the determination, as opposed to Stewards, who you quite rightfully don't trust to understand the nuances of what occurred?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by golfer

How about this possible scenario/solution. Do what the NHL does when it comes to supplemental discipline (former players are in charge of the "player safety" position), put former Jockey's in the position to make the determination, as opposed to Stewards, who you quite rightfully don't trust to understand the nuances of what occurred?

Far too many Stewards are ex jockeys which is why we have many of these issues already. The NFL doesnt employ ex NFL players as refs because you dont have to have played to be able to interpret the rules and identify violations.

I would prefer to see a system of fines as opposed to days anyway. With reduced schedules a lot of those days are dark anyway and often simply wind up being a vacation. Meanwhile the connections that had Espinoza booked for this weeks stakes races (and other smaller ones) are left scrambling at the last minute to find a replacement who most likely in a larger field is going to be inferior.

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I would prefer to see a system of fines as opposed to days anyway. With reduced schedules a lot of those days are dark anyway and often simply wind up being a vacation. Meanwhile the connections that had Espinoza booked for this weeks stakes races (and other smaller ones) are left scrambling at the last minute to find a replacement who most likely in a larger field is going to be inferior.

This is a good idea. And I appreicate you talking candidly about this.

The sad truth is social media plays a part in sports, and life now. And as flawed as it is, it has actually done some good. Look at the NFL. It took backlash from social media (and every other human being not name Roger Goodell) to properly punish Ray Rice.

We might be asking for things in a different way, but I think the crux of it all is most people agree there needs to be some changes. What and how to enforce them are not as easily pinpointed but doesn't meant they shouldn't happen.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Jay Frederick

This is a good idea. And I appreicate you talking candidly about this.

The sad truth is social media plays a part in sports, and life now. And as flawed as it is, it has actually done some good. Look at the NFL. It took backlash from social media (and every other human being not name Roger Goodell) to properly punish Ray Rice.

We might be asking for things in a different way, but I think the crux of it all is most people agree there needs to be some changes. What and how to enforce them are not as easily pinpointed but doesn't meant they shouldn't happen.

Agreed but some changes that people want in racing arent always ones that they will continue to like once implemented.

[Jay Frederick]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Agreed but some changes that people want in racing arent always ones that they will continue to like once implemented.

Fair point. But how could more accountability be something that people won't like going forward?

If I make a mistake at work, I get called into my bosses office. If I continue to make the same mistake, I get in trouble for it.

Why does it seem like the racing industry as a whole doesn't work that way?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Agreed but some changes that people want in racing arent always ones that they will continue to like once implemented.

Then change it back. Or modify the change to make it better. But doing nothing is not acceptable if this industry want to keep it's regular players.

The fact is still the fact, regardless of how anyone inside the business wants to spin it. Espinoza took his horse out of contention in an attempt to influence the outcome of the race, not to win it. There are rules against that regardless of how one may choose to interpret it.

Chuck, you said "a path or two", Denman said 4, the replay clearly show it was wider than that. But really that is immaterial. The fact remains that people wagered money on this horse to run a race that would at least put him in contention (however foolhardy that decision may or may not have been), not to purposely be taken out of the race in the first turn.

Bad rides are part and parcel of the game, as gamblers we've come to accept that - You can't read a day in the selections room without someone mentioning a jock taking a horse back and not sending speed, or watching lone speed setting 25/50 while pressers leave him 2 lengths clear, etc.

But this was a whole new level. This was premeditated race fixing. If you choose to call that "drama", well, there's really no point in furthering the discussion.

Everyone has a breaking point. I routinely churned way more money than I care to admit each year in this sport, for many, many years. I routinely took bad beats, and even once in a while benefited from a poor ride by a competing jockey. I took it in stride and kind of sloughed it off.

That said - I no longer do. I am now a very casual player as I still love the sport - but have had enough of the nonsense and refuse to accept the opinion and position this industry's takes against it's customers.

My breaking point was the 2014 Belmont Stakes. To date, not one turf writer (to my knowledge, and multiple exhaustive searches since still bear this out) spent one moment asking Jose Ortiz, his agent, Richard Violette, or anyone from My Meadowbrook Farm why the only "need the lead" horse was pulled in the first turn & subsequently taken out of the race. Not one. You just chalk that up to "a poor ride'? As Jim said, it's difficult enough to effectively handicap a race, now you have these decisions being made and zero follow up?

Give me dated nickles at Tampa all day long - at least I know where I stand.