CONTESSA: "..wanted to throw up"

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Going to the inside in a small field also depends on how much horse the rider has. If you don't have a whole lot of horse, but could possibly win the race by going inside and saving a little bit of ground, then go inside.

More importantly, I think you're missing one huge thing. The only basis for defending him that would hold ANY weight is the notion that were he trying to save ground if he didn't think he had a lot of horse on the turn, one could perhaps find a TINY space in their heart to cut him some slack.

You keep talking about saving ground, but they were on the straight. Simple geometry says that there is no ground to be "saved" on a straight stretch of racetrack.

Though I am not an expert horse rider, so that may impact my math and reasoning skills...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

It depends on what the trainer's instructions are, and how much horse the rider has.

In this particular case I have to disagree with you. The horses had already gone around the turn. Ramon was not going to save any ground by going inside. You save ground if you go inside around the turn. You don't save ground by going to the inside once they've straightened away.

There is no excuse for his ride. The ride was completely moronic. Even if he had not been given any instructions, there was no reason to go inside in that situation. There was nothing to gain and everything to lose.

You are correct that if he would have gotten through and won, there would not be such a big uproar. But astute observers would still agree that it was a bad decision and that he took an unnecessary risk.

I agree with you that when it comes to deciding whether or not to go wide around a turn, it depends alot on how much horse you have. But in this case, the incident did not happen on the turn. It happened after they already straightened away in the stretch.

By the way, I have seen other jockeys make similar moves to this and I always shake my head in disbelief, no matter what the outcome is. You will notice that Garret Gomez will never make a move like that. When they hit the top of the stretch, he will always go to the outside if possible. This is the correct move. It doesn't cost you any ground to swing out once they have straightened away. It only costs you ground to go wide around the turn.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Since he disobeyed Contessa's instructions, then it was a bad ride. Again, if a hole would have opened up, it wouldn't have been considered a bad ride at all.

This is just more incorrect posting...which coincides with your posts yesterday ( where you told us we had to stop bashing jockeys....even though the posts weren't " jockey bashing " at all but a correct analysis of a racing situation ).

Even if a hole had opened it was still a " bad ride " as he took an unnecessary chance for absolutely no reason whatsoever. There were two paths, one was completely clear outside and the other would have taken an occurance to work out and offered the possibility of something extremely detrimental happening. It was an absolute no-brainer and a his decision was so bad that it offers the hint of a possibility that he had motives other than winning the race. Yet, you not only chose to defend him, but you also chastised other posters for questioning his judgement.

Being too result oriented in life, but especially in horse racing, is a very poor thing to do. " Good rides " and " bad rides " are very often NOT defined by how the race works out. Many riders give terrific rides that go completely unnoticed because they simply were on too slow a horse. This you will surely agree with. However, many riders give poor rides that also go unnoticed for both similar reasons or because their mount was good enough to overcome it. For you to think this ride in any way could have been considered anything other than a " bad ride " is a total misread of the situation.

You say we shouldn't comment on jockeys if we haven't ridden a horse. I say, based on your opinions, your's aren't qualified simply because you have.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is just more incorrect posting...which coincides with your posts yesterday ( where you told us we had to stop bashing jockeys....even though the posts weren't " jockey bashing " at all but a correct analysis of a racing situation ).

Even if a hole had opened it was still a " bad ride " as he took an unnecessary chance for absolutely no reason whatsoever. There were two paths, one was completely clear outside and the other would have taken an occurance to work out and offered the possibility of something extremely detrimental happening. It was an absolute no-brainer and a his decision was so bad that it offers the hint of a possibility that he had motives other than winning the race. Yet, you not only chose to defend him, but you also chastised other posters for questioning his judgement.

Being too result oriented in life, but especially in horse racing, is a very poor thing to do. " Good rides " and " bad rides " are very often NOT defined by how the race works out. Many riders give terrific rides that go completely unnoticed because they simply were on too slow a horse. This you will surely agree with. However, many riders give poor rides that also go unnoticed for both similar reasons or because their mount was good enough to overcome it. For you to think this ride in any way could have been considered anything other than a " bad ride " is a total misread of the situation.

You say we shouldn't comment on jockeys if we haven't ridden a horse. I say, based on your opinions, your's aren't qualified simply because you have.

Yes, I agree 100% with everything you said.