Most Impressive in Defeat?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Well, it isn't quite the same. We are told when horses won't have a whip, so why not when they won't use it?

What is the harm in divulging it? That is all I'm asking. We aren't talking about instructions about race strategy or anything. I don't see what the rider change matters, wouldn't hurt a thing to divulge the info with his regular rider either.

And yes, it is a handicapping factor. If whip use didn't matter, nobody would use them. You know that. So not using one is a disadvantage in a game where races are decided by scant margins.

and couldn't a jock get questioned if it was felt he didn't prevail to the wire?

the sooner everyone involved in this sport comes to grips with bettors being a huge factor, the better.
we are told about lasix, blinkers, shoes, jock changes, weight difference, etc. whether a whip is used should be public info as well.

i guess going forward it's something bettors need to take note of in baby races, whether they go to the stick or if it's just carried along for ballast.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and couldn't a jock get questioned if it was felt he didn't prevail to the wire?

the sooner everyone involved in this sport comes to grips with bettors being a huge factor, the better.
we are told about lasix, blinkers, shoes, jock changes, weight difference, etc. whether a whip is used should be public info as well.

i guess going forward it's something bettors need to take note of in baby races, whether they go to the stick or if it's just carried along for ballast.

If a rider is riding without the whip you are told. Unless you are in possession of a crystal ball you wont be able to tell if the rider is going to use the one he has in his hand. Sure in this case Gary Stevens is going to go to extreme lengths to follow the instructions of the biggest trainer in the game but trust me it is dicey with the rest of them and the rest of us.