Jockey shenanigans mar BC prep races

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

So I am curious to know how it is acceptable to run a rabbit at a speed oriented favorite at the expense of the rabbit's chances to win the race. The rabbit is a legal betting interest whose sole purpose is to compromise the chances of the favorite. The public lost money on the rabbit.

Ultimately this is no different than what happened in this race. The only difference is that the tactics changed in this race, the favorite was compromised by being carried wide. The tactics almost worked, it was a close finish.

The racing form does not put an asterisk next to the name of the rabbit reminding bettors that an agenda is at hand and to beware that this horse is not in the race to win. It does list the name of the trainer so bettor beware, the lesser of the entry, coupled or not, could possibly be in there to help his stablemate.

What bothers me more is what I can't see in the form. Like Gary Stevens running Fury Kapcori to a 1:09 and change 6f split going 1 1/4 miles.

rabbits are entered to ensure a good early pace, not necessarily to intentionally lose, or intentionally cause a wide trip.

past performances tell you who's the rabbit. they don't however let you know who's there to engage in herding. besides, sometimes rabbits get alone on the lead and stay there til the end. Aristides won the first derby when entered to set the pace for the stable star, who forgot to get going in the end of the race.
there's no way to know about these sorts of things and when they may happen again.
I think the biggest issue is bettors felt rooked, and when they bring it up, they're told too bad, get over it. it's really the only business I know of that the customer is told 'tough, stop complaining, but please keep betting'.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Danzig

rabbits are entered to ensure a good early pace, not necessarily to intentionally lose, or intentionally cause a wide trip.

past performances tell you who's the rabbit. they don't however let you know who's there to engage in herding. besides, sometimes rabbits get alone on the lead and stay there til the end. Aristides won the first derby when entered to set the pace for the stable star, who forgot to get going in the end of the race.
there's no way to know about these sorts of things and when they may happen again.
I think the biggest issue is bettors felt rooked, and when they bring it up, they're told too bad, get over it. it's really the only business I know of that the customer is told 'tough, stop complaining, but please keep betting'.

The lesser part of the entry (as I suggested) would be the one to potentially do the herding. Just because some rabbits stay there until the end doesn't justify the fact that they are in the race to sacrifice their chances of winning to soften up another horse. In an uncoupled entry bettors who wagered on the rabbit in the vast majority of cases lose their money because the rabbit was in the race to compromise another horse.

Much of what I've read in this thread seems to be that bettors lost money on Sky Kingdom and they were taken advantage of because he was in the race only to compromise the chances of another horse at his own expense.

So my question is why is one form of " sacrifice " accepted and another is not?

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

The lesser part of the entry (as I suggested) would be the one to potentially do the herding. Just because some rabbits stay there until the end doesn't justify the fact that they are in the race to sacrifice their chances of winning to soften up another horse. In an uncoupled entry bettors who wagered on the rabbit in the vast majority of cases lose their money because the rabbit was in the race to compromise another horse.

Much of what I've read in this thread seems to be that bettors lost money on Sky Kingdom and they were taken advantage of because he was in the race only to compromise the chances of another horse at his own expense.

So my question is why is one form of " sacrifice " accepted and another is not?

how is a front running horse who goes to the front being compromised? Is a speed horse supposed to be ridden differently? We know that there are two speed, or more, in a race prior to the race being run.

How did we know Sky Kingdom would be ridden to lose so much ground?

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

how is a front running horse who goes to the front being compromised? Is a speed horse supposed to be ridden differently? We know that there are two speed, or more, in a race prior to the race being run.

How did we know Sky Kingdom would be ridden to lose so much ground?

The rabbit isn't being compromised by "going to the front". The result of his actions, running as fast as he can to compromise another, is that he will ultimately have little left to win the race. It is his job.

We don't know Sky Kingdom will be ridden to lose ground. What we do know is that his trainer has another horse in the race. We also know the other horse is more likely to perform better than Sky Kingdom. As a bettor we have to know that it is conceivable that if given the opportunity, the weaker part of the entry could be used to compromise the chances of another, to potentially help his stablemate win.

For a minute let's say Sky Kingdom was outside of Shared Belief. Given the way the early pace developed Espinosa could have kept Smith inside of him and behind his stablemate. No ground would have been lost but potentially Shared Belief may have been compromised in another manner.

I'm not condoning what happened. I simply want to know why one strategy is acceptable and another is not.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

The rabbit isn't being compromised by "going to the front". The result of his actions, running as fast as he can to compromise another, is that he will ultimately have little left to win the race. It is his job.

We don't know Sky Kingdom will be ridden to lose ground. What we do know is that his trainer has another horse in the race. We also know the other horse is more likely to perform better than Sky Kingdom. As a bettor we have to know that it is conceivable that if given the opportunity, the weaker part of the entry could be used to compromise the chances of another, to potentially help his stablemate win.

For a minute let's say Sky Kingdom was outside of Shared Belief. Given the way the early pace developed Espinosa could have kept Smith inside of him and behind his stablemate. No ground would have been lost but potentially Shared Belief may have been compromised in another manner.

I'm not condoning what happened. I simply want to know why one strategy is acceptable and another is not.

I dont see how one horse is sacrificed, he is a front runner who will have to go head to head with another, usually superior front runner, his loss is very likely and certainly discernible.

Your analysis pre race certainly highlights why many people dont want to bet on the sport.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

I dont see how one horse is sacrificed, he is a front runner who will have to go head to head with another, usually superior front runner, his loss is very likely and certainly discernible.

Your analysis pre race certainly highlights why many people dont want to bet on the sport.

So his loss being likely and discernible makes it ok to make him a separate betting interest, available for the public to wager and lose their money?

My pre race analysis points out only a possibility, nothing more. There are no absolutes. Bettors can choose which races to wager.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

The rabbit isn't being compromised by "going to the front". The result of his actions, running as fast as he can to compromise another, is that he will ultimately have little left to win the race. It is his job.

We don't know Sky Kingdom will be ridden to lose ground. What we do know is that his trainer has another horse in the race. We also know the other horse is more likely to perform better than Sky Kingdom. As a bettor we have to know that it is conceivable that if given the opportunity, the weaker part of the entry could be used to compromise the chances of another, to potentially help his stablemate win.

For a minute let's say Sky Kingdom was outside of Shared Belief. Given the way the early pace developed Espinosa could have kept Smith inside of him and behind his stablemate. No ground would have been lost but potentially Shared Belief may have been compromised in another manner.

I'm not condoning what happened. I simply want to know why one strategy is acceptable and another is not.

Pretty obvious through 6 pages that nobody has an answer for this. You're wasting your time.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Pretty obvious through 6 pages that nobody has an answer for this. You're wasting your time.

This can go on forever and no one is changing camps.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Pretty obvious through 6 pages that nobody has an answer for this. You're wasting your time.

I have time, but thanks.

[pointman]

The difference is really simple. Running a rabbit, or to simplify it to its core, running a horse as fast as they can for as long as the horse can go is simply within the rules of the game.

Herding is against the rules and is something that drives the bettors crazy because it is giving a horse an unfair advantage over an opponent.

BTW, I did not bet Sky Kingdom and frankly thought he had no shot on paper.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

The lesser part of the entry (as I suggested) would be the one to potentially do the herding. Just because some rabbits stay there until the end doesn't justify the fact that they are in the race to sacrifice their chances of winning to soften up another horse. In an uncoupled entry bettors who wagered on the rabbit in the vast majority of cases lose their money because the rabbit was in the race to compromise another horse.

Much of what I've read in this thread seems to be that bettors lost money on Sky Kingdom and they were taken advantage of because he was in the race only to compromise the chances of another horse at his own expense.

So my question is why is one form of " sacrifice " accepted and another is not?

like i said, just because one if a rabbit, doesn't mean he's going to be 'sacrificed' at all.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Danzig

like i said, just because one if a rabbit, doesn't mean he's going to be 'sacrificed' at all.

It doesn't mean he won't.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

It doesn't mean he won't.

but one can bet him, or not, accordingly. it's there in the pp's to see he's a speedster.
however, no one is going to know by reading pp's that the longshot will be ridden so as to impede another horse, and then be pulled up and not bothered to finish. bettors have no way to act accordingly, because they don't know ahead of time.
but i guess we're 'supposed' to know which longshots are live, and which are just there to be a traffic cone. how we're supposed to know that i'm not sure.
so, bettors get told tough and nothing is done, and bettors are just whiners.
but, hey, keep betting tho!

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but one can bet him, or not, accordingly. it's there in the pp's to see he's a speedster.however, no one is going to know by reading pp's that the longshot will be ridden so as to impede another horse, and then be pulled up and not bothered to finish. bettors have no way to act accordingly, because they don't know ahead of time.
but i guess we're 'supposed' to know which longshots are live, and which are just there to be a traffic cone. how we're supposed to know that i'm not sure.
so, bettors get told tough and nothing is done, and bettors are just whiners.
but, hey, keep betting tho!

You also can see that there is a trainer who has two horses entered and one is clearly superior to the other. While one's intention may be more evident than the other, there is a choice you can make to bet accordingly as you put it.

It doesn't change the fact that in both cases there is a possibility that your money is lost before the race begins.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

You also can see that there is a trainer who has two horses entered and one is clearly superior to the other. While one's intention may be more evident than the other, there is a choice you can make to bet accordingly as you put it.

It doesn't change the fact that in both cases there is a possibility that your money is lost before the race begins.

Again, why should I waste my money on this game if I have to figure stuff like that out?

This is why it was a big deal, to protect the betting public on something I think most people will agree, never happens.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

You also can see that there is a trainer who has two horses entered and one is clearly superior to the other. While one's intention may be more evident than the other, there is a choice you can make to bet accordingly as you put it.

It doesn't change the fact that in both cases there is a possibility that your money is lost before the race begins.

everyone knows that it could be lost before each race.
yes, trainers enter more than one horse sometimes, and sometimes the less highly thought of horse wins-so, again, not sure how to figure out who is entered because he has a shot, or who is entered to run interference.
but, i guess bettors know now that it's another turd in the punchbowl to worry about...
and then we all wonder why people move their gambling to other venues.