4/19 (CT): Charles Town Classic (G2), 5 undercard stakes

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by -BT-

what are you talking about? are you saying he's riding less to diminish his chances of getting injured?

I didn't implicate anything about his rides on either. I said, it must be nice, to get choice, odds on mounts in big stakes, and have that be your weekend, no other mounts.

He looses on both, and forbid anyone from noticing or making a comment? i didn't know he was untouchable at this site. Zenyatta, Smith.... who's next that people can't offer a comment on

-bt-

Your comment was so poorly written and with the odds on loss comment what would you expect?

There is no doubt statistically that riding more increases your chance of getting hurt. Why ride a 20 mdn claimer at 1/5 if you are Mike, Gary, or any "made" rider? So yes when you dont see those guys in those races its by choice with many reasons.

[-BT-]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Your comment was so poorly written and with the odds on loss comment what would you expect?

There is no doubt statistically that riding more increases your chance of getting hurt. Why ride a 20 mdn claimer at 1/5 if you are Mike, Gary, or any "made" rider? So yes when you dont see those guys in those races its by choice with many reasons.

sorry i couldn't articulate my thoughts to you and your standards.

and, you certainly are wowing me with statistic like jockeys who ride less are less likely to get injured.

again, my point is the guy had two choice mounts this weekend, lost them both.....nobody is allowed to bring it up?

-bt-

[bare it all]

Originally Posted by -BT-

again, my point is the guy had two choice mounts this weekend, lost them both.....nobody is allowed to bring it up?

-bt-

Who would you put up on them instead? Emollient just didn't have it - that other pace horse kept on and won. I'm not sure the ride on her cost her the win. She just got beat. With Game On Dude - that horse just doesn't tend to win unless he's uncontested for the lead. Now the speed that went with him killed themselves and set it up for someone to come pick up the pieces. I'm not a smith fan myself but I think these were fair losses. Horses are overhyped and get bet accordingly.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by bare it all

Who would you put up on them instead? Emollient just didn't have it - that other pace horse kept on and won. I'm not sure the ride on her cost her the win. She just got beat. With Game On Dude - that horse just doesn't tend to win unless he's uncontested for the lead. Now the speed that went with him killed themselves and set it up for someone to come pick up the pieces. I'm not a smith fan myself but I think these were fair losses. Horses are overhyped and get bet accordingly.

jockeys are incredibly overrated.

There is a reason why Mike Smith gets all the choice mounts. He wins big on big days. When he starts consistently losing, the better mounts will be lost for him as well.

Unlike other professional athletes, jockeys dont have contracts and they do not automatically get the best mounts because of a multi-year contracts they signed with a trainer or owner. IF you can prove you can win the big races consistently, the calls will come your way. Plain and simple.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

jockeys are incredibly overrated.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by -BT-

sorry i couldn't articulate my thoughts to you and your standards.

and, you certainly are wowing me with statistic like jockeys who ride less are less likely to get injured.

again, my point is the guy had two choice mounts this weekend, lost them both.....nobody is allowed to bring it up?

-bt-

well...

but do you really think that both lost because of the ride? that it was smiths fault they lost? what jockey would have won with them, and how do you know that?
horses aren't robots. somedays are better than others.