The ever INNOVATIVE Kent D

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

He is a nasty, ego maniacal ass. He cares little for the horses he is on. It is all about himself. How else do you explain his statement when asked about the greatest disappointment in his career. The interviewer asks him about missing the triple crown on Real Quiet and whether that was the biggest disappointment in his career. He says No. That losing the riding title last year at Saratoga was his biggest disappointment. Hello? And how about after every race. If the horse loses, he pulls the horse up short and comes back quickly, I assume to get back to the Jock's room faster. But if he wins, he gallops out his horse so that he has this nice little ceremony from himself. He is a symbol of much that is wrong with the sport. he has been riding terribly since his Belmont mess.

A wee bit dramatic arent we? He's a friggin jockey not the head of CDI. All he does is ride the horses around the track and you are calling him a symbol of something.

[pgiaco]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

A wee bit dramatic arent we? He's a friggin jockey not the head of CDI. All he does is ride the horses around the track and you are calling him a symbol of something.

He is supposed to do a lot more than "ride the horse around the track" The time and money spent to get a horse ready to run deserves a lot more than some half assed, pin headed effort that Kent often provides. He is trusted to give his best effort, which sometimes he CLEARLY does not, and is on a horse (especially a young horse) to give him or her a racing education. It is also his job to provide feedback to the horse's connections into what the animal did right or wrong in the race which he often is not interested in doing.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by pgiaco

He is supposed to do a lot more than "ride the horse around the track" The time and money spent to get a horse ready to run deserves a lot more than some half assed, pin headed effort that Kent often provides. He is trusted to give his best effort, which sometimes he CLEARLY does not, and is on a horse (especially a young horse) to give him or her a racing education. It is also his job to provide feedback to the horse's connections into what the animal did right or wrong in the race which he often is not interested in doing.

Obviously his job is to do a little more than ride the horses around the track although how much more is debatable. That wasnt my point.

My point was that his impact or any jockey's impact is truly overrated in regards to an individual race and completely overrated if one is to say that Kent D is "a symbol of much that is wrong in the game today".

Kent not following instructions, riding out to the wire or providing feedback really has no impact on the game as a whole. If kent's performance is that bad, trainers wont ride him any longer and the show will go on.

[pgiaco]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Obviously his job is to do a little more than ride the horses around the track although how much more is debatable. That wasnt my point.

My point was that his impact or any jockey's impact is truly overrated in regards to an individual race and completely overrated if one is to say that Kent D is "a symbol of much that is wrong in the game today".

Kent not following instructions, riding out to the wire or providing feedback really has no impact on the game as a whole. If kent's performance is that bad, trainers wont ride him any longer and the show will go on.

Riding out to the wire becomes pretty important when you have him in a triple or super and he wraps up and gets beat.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by pgiaco

Riding out to the wire becomes pretty important when you have him in a triple or super and he wraps up and gets beat.

Im well aware of kent's problems with riding out to the wire and how far that goes back which is way back into the early 90's. Im also aware of ramifications of the super and triple bets. Again, this has nothing to do with my original point.

Kent or any other jockey's impact on the game/sport/industry of horse racing is extremely tiny. He is not a symbol of anything in my opinion. He is a jockey that is extremely skilled and puts in rides that are at times brilliant and at other times baffling.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Im well aware of kent's problems with riding out to the wire and how far that goes back which is way back into the early 90's. Im also aware of ramifications of the super and triple bets. Again, this has nothing to do with my original point.

Kent or any other jockey's impact on the game/sport/industry of horse racing is extremely tiny. He is not a symbol of anything in my opinion. He is a jockey that is extremely skilled and puts in rides that are at times brilliant and at other times baffling.

He seems to have great instincts for riding but has a brain the size of a walnut.

Meaning if he thinks about his ride, he'll do something stupid, hence the baffling rides.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

hes not right as of late..after he made all that money in the tc hes not riding very well...mott about to comit suicide..needs to dump him and use garcia or corny again........

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Im well aware of kent's problems with riding out to the wire and how far that goes back which is way back into the early 90's. Im also aware of ramifications of the super and triple bets. Again, this has nothing to do with my original point.

Kent or any other jockey's impact on the game/sport/industry of horse racing is extremely tiny. He is not a symbol of anything in my opinion. He is a jockey that is extremely skilled and puts in rides that are at times brilliant and at other times baffling.

I read the following in a editoral in the Bloodhorse a couple of years ago. I then checked it out and found that it is indeed true. McCarron has a class at his jockey school in Kentucky. He focus's on the impact of a jockey's ride on not only the outcome of a given race but the money lost by owners and breeders. His example? A race about 2 years ago at Toga when Kent was on Capote's Crown. He didn't ride the horse out in a Grade 1, missed third by a photo. The photo was of him standing up on the horse. He had given up on the horse at the top of the stretch. The horse took him to forth. Your point is what I am concerned about. I think the jock's may excuse away their rides by saying the same thing. Come on, after seeing the Haskell, you mean it never crossed your mind about what could have happened in the Belmont if he didn't give up on the horse? NOT THAT HE WOULD HAVE CAUGHT DA TARA, but didn't you wonder a bit how he may have done?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

I read the following in a editoral in the Bloodhorse a couple of years ago. I then checked it out and found that it is indeed true. McCarron has a class at his jockey school in Kentucky. He focus's on the impact of a jockey's ride on not only the outcome of a given race but the money lost by owners and breeders. His example? A race about 2 years ago at Toga when Kent was on Capote's Crown. He didn't ride the horse out in a Grade 1, missed third by a photo. The photo was of him standing up on the horse. He had given up on the horse at the top of the stretch. The horse took him to forth. Your point is what I am concerned about. I think the jock's may excuse away their rides by saying the same thing. Come on, after seeing the Haskell, you mean it never crossed your mind about what could have happened in the Belmont if he didn't give up on the horse? NOT THAT HE WOULD HAVE CAUGHT DA TARA, but didn't you wonder a bit how he may have done?

This is only Kent's third season at Saratoga so all of this had to have happened since 2006. I dont doubt it happened. My point is that I dont remember the race or the horse and i doubt many others do. It is rather insignificant.

Without being on Big Brown it is impossible for you or I to know what the horse was feeling like. I would imagine after the Eight Belles tragedy that Kent was going to be a little cautious. How do you know that the owner didnt give him "just in case" instructions? It would be extremely ignorant to think that Kent pulled him up because he didnt feel like riding him out.

When I read the critiques on racing forums heaped upon ride after ride I find myself wondering how many critics have EVER been on top of a horse. Sometimes, horses just dont do what you want them to. No matter, if the race doesnt come out like planned, its automatically the jockey's fault. Some rides will be "good" and some "bad" but at the end of the day more times than not the best horse wins.

There are basic laws of business. If your gardner is bad and your yard looks like crap, you find a new gardner. If Kent continuously gives bad rides and is this awful symbol, how does he continue to get good mounts? Are all of these people stupid? Bill Mott stupid?

When I first got to this site all i ever saw was people beating the crap out of Gomez. Now, I dont ever see a word. Did he suddenly learn how to ride? Or is he just getting better horses?

For the record, I am not denying that a ride CAN make a difference in a race. At the same time, the laws of averages kick in.

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Obviously his job is to do a little more than ride the horses around the track although how much more is debatable. That wasnt my point.

My point was that his impact or any jockey's impact is truly overrated in regards to an individual race and completely overrated if one is to say that Kent D is "a symbol of much that is wrong in the game today".

Kent not following instructions, riding out to the wire or providing feedback really has no impact on the game as a whole. If kent's performance is that bad, trainers wont ride him any longer and the show will go on.

And why do you think he came out here in the first place? He wasn't getting mounts out there. Let me change my word symbol to reflect my meaning. He symbolizes much that is wrong with the sport. However I doubt that will help anything. Some folks just like to argue.