I hadn\'t heard of this. A rabbit for Justify to track and I guess to put the kaibosh on anyone who was thinking of taking it to Justify early on, like Good Magic attempted in the Preakness.
https://www.horseracingnation.com/news/Restoring_Hope_may_be_Belmont_2018_rabbit_Justify_needs_123#
it\'s hard for me to think of RH as a \"rabbit?\" He\'s more one paced and grinds, I do like him to be close to the pace but I can\'t see him getting the lead over Justify unless he\'s on the dead send suicide mission like Palice Malice first time blinkers or something? And they wouldn\'t want Justify chasing something like that anyway, so it seems unlikely.
I really hope they don\'t ride him like that because he screams Belmont Horse to me, enough speed to carve out a nice trip upfront and then the ability to carry it all the way through the wire. (at a huge number)
Although it\'s really hard to believe BB would enter anything that would jeopardize Justify in any way what so ever, so maybe RH\'s best race is sacrificed in some way?
Restoring Hope is in the race because of the owners, not the trainer.
The race purse is $1.5M and they don\'t give all of it to the winner. Plus c/b Restoring Hope and Justify are buddies.
Last year there was a discussion between West and Baffert about running West Coast in the Belmont rather than the Easy Goer, ultimately they decided on the softer spot and then West Coast ran huge causing, I think, some regret on West\'s part that he had potentially missed a big possibility to win a Classic.
Plus, in the last few years have seen more than one Baffert 3yo come in off a terrible race not just rebound but run big new one right on this day - Bayern (and the aforementioned West Coast) being the two I\'m thinking of.
Price should more than compensate any other concerns (potentially wet again?), of which pedigree does not appear to be one. He has had a less compacted schedule than either of those other two as well.
Last time that horse was first time blinkers... haven’t seen a word about it.
I believe he had Blinkers on in his first two starts no?
Yeah, you\'re right. Disregard seminar comment.
West owns the mare, which fleshes this out a bit more - says a classic placement sure wouldn\'t hurt her. So that kind of puts a different spin on this.
BL OFF. Just announced. Does this mean Baffert is worried they come after J hard and he wants this one around for the end? Starting to get a little Eddington/Rock Hard ten feel maybe.
After Abel Tasman, I\'m not feeling comfortable.
Regarding Restoring Hope\'s blinkers Baffert could be trying to have a plan B in case Justify spits the bit, but he could also be trying to create a more visually impressive lead by dulling him.
These opinions are solely my own.
Noble Indy to do a Promises Fulfilled according to owner. Hmm.
Interesting that no one has posted their thoughts on what Geroux (aka Fuzzy Thurston leading the Lombardi sweep) was doing out there with Restoring Hope.
Particularly interested in thoughts about his antics at the quarter pole when he intentionally changed lanes to cut off Tenfold who IMO was making a \" finishing second\" move while allowing Gronkowski to get through on the rail.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
That move going into the first turn is one we’ve seen before, and also with an uncoupled entry mateâ€" against a Hollendorfer horse a few years ago.
Along with the #5 essentially \'riding shotgun\' for Justify around the track in the 3-4 path until coming out of the far turn...
Belmont controversy?
https://nypost.com/2018/06/10/belmont-controversy-erupts-did-alliance-ensure-a-justify-victory/
Florent geroux aka Cal Naughton jr. Can anyone say \"shake and bake\"? That just happened!
I can\'t read people\'s minds but I can\'t help but think of Bayern\'s Breeders\' Cup Classic win, where an egregious foul went unpunished by the stewards.
The trainer of Bayern? Bob Baffert.
Restoring Hope was only in there to direct traffic.
That was disgusting, period. An all around ugly look for racing. I instantly assumed that the other ownership interest\'s were financially compensated for basically doing everything they could to help the winner. The NY Post article gives the impression that it wasn\'t a full on top down \"conspiracy\" amongst all involved. While it certainly casts doubt in the direction of the jocks, it pretty much exonerates the \"money.\" Unfortunately though, nowadays most people realize everything in this country is based off of The Golden Rule, you know, the one that says, \"he who has the gold makes the rules\"
Frenchie has no comment, not even a rehearsed explanation? That looks terrible regardless of what the actual intent and instruction was. What has him so worried he\'s pleading the 5th? The situation as a whole, Justify\'s biggest threat Audible coming down with a phantom abdominal injury a week out. Obviously a business decision from the same ownership conglomerate. That\'s annoying, but you can understand it. And hey they\'ll let TAP saddle Noble Indy, but not with blinkers? Even though he ran his best with them on, and his best chance at winning is using his speed, TAP goes without? Makes sense right? But equipment wouldn\'t have mattered anyway because the multi eclipse award winning jockey JJ decided to quote, \"call his own audible\" and take him back? Really? Did Repole get played? Or is his request something else entirely?
Pretty poor all around, but when you add in the debacle that was Restoring Hope\'s ride? Literally at every stage of the race? It couldn\'t look much worse. It\'s worth mentioning that Baffert decided to scrap the blinkers on Restoring Hope for this one as well. It seems odd that the trainer\'s of the two who\'s alleged game plan was speed both were entered without the blinkers they\'d been wearing in recent starts?
I was inundated with texts and even an actual phone call immediately following the race from what would be considered casual fans, searching for some sort of clarity on what they just witnessed. Talk about horrid optics for a sport scratching for legitimacy.
Now what? Let it fade away and do/say nothing and it leaves a sour taste and soiled perception to countless people who ripped up tickets. Launch some sort of official inquiry and have it return anything nefarious on anyone on any level and the negative impact is even worse? You can\'t quantify the long term damage and fallout that would bring. Your completely damned if you do and damned if you don\'t.
Was the precedent just set on the sports biggest stage that racing as a whole is all good with covert team work, be it perceived or otherwise? Separate Connections working together on and off the track to achieve a predetermined outcome? Racing couldn\'t recover from that.
It\'s a sad day for the sport when in the most high profile race of this particular year, the key to cashing a ticket is handicapping the ownership, connections, and partnerships, both public and private, as opposed to their entries actual ability on the track.
https://mobile.twitter.com/horseracing4beg/status/1006003293372346368/video/1
Seems odd
Geroux did talk to Dave Grening:
http://www.drf.com/news/horsemen-question-gerouxs-ride-restoring-hope
The oddest thing to me in the article is the comment from the Gaming Commission steward:
Steve Lewandowski, the New York Gaming Commission steward, said Sunday that there is no plan to talk to Geroux. “Nothing was brought to our attention,†Lewandowski said.
Dude, you\'re supposed to watch the race.
From a gambling perspective, none of this had much impact on me. I never considered putting Gronkowski in my exactas. Great ride by Jose Ortiz.
So what is the point of all this? They\'re upset because Baffert had a plan, one that is perfectly legal by the way, and it worked. They need to get over it. Yes, the stewards should have taken a look, for sure, but even the NBC commentators said it was perfectly legit. How about all the previous failed triple crown attempts where horses were purposely attacked and taken out of their game so as not to win the crown? I can name quite a few. So what, this time it worked the other way. I didn\'t know Repole was such a cry baby. He wins enough on the NYRA circuit not to complain about anything.
I mean, for me, what stands out is how easy it all went after that. The whole thing was sort of anti-climactic. Those fractions were pedestrian at best. A bunch of slow, distance challenged (save Gronk) horses in futile chase mode. Gronk ran a tremendous race I thought given the fractions.
One other take away from this race is one has to weigh heavily any attempt EVER to beat the Browns, Bafferts, and Pletchers, not Saturday but most days, (a few others you could throw in) of the world.
How many people touted Mott\'s horse??? Mott is one of those old school trainers who has outstanding stock and wins like what 10-15 % of his races; and there are an awful lot of them. You bet these guys and you\'ll go broke fast; yeah, once in a while something jumps up, but overall they cannot complete with the super-charged barns. Bet Mandella on the west coast, you\'ll talk to yourself. I\'m sure you all could come up with many more old schoolers who for the most part cannot hack it anymore. Have you ever seen a Jimmy jerkins horse run two good races in a row? Seldom happens. I\'m going to stop wasting money on these hall of famers, because their era has passed. I alwsy try to be non-biased but I\'m fast coming up with a list of trainers I simply will not ever play.
I remember years ago when the California trainers first started performance enhancing shall we shall and Charlie Whittingham suddenly became a 5% winning trainer. I thought Charlie must have forgot how to train horses or something.
Yeah Mott\'s going to beat Baffert. not in this universe. I mean, seriously, why do we spend so much time handicapping, all this money for all these products, sheets, workouts, racing forms, etc. Chad brown takes over; forget that the horse ran slow numbers in mile races on polytrack. he\'ll get lit up today. He only had the horse for a couple weeks. if he had him for a month he probaly wins, right?
Pletcher, Baffert, Brown, Rudy Rod, Assmussen, Brad Cox, Joe Sharp, Jason Servis, Navarro, so so many others.
OK, lastly, and this RANT will end.
Why don\'t they have Breeder\'s Cups at Belmont anymore. Could there be any more perfect venue for racing\'s biggest days? geez, that drives me crazy. every year so cal.
If the brilliant NBC commentators said it was perfectly legit, then it must have been ok. ðŸ˜,
Btw: what\'s not being mentioned in many circles is the stunt Geroux plays at the quarter pole.
Good Luck,
Joe B
Couldn\'t agree more...breaks slow, rushes up, attempts to float half the field wide in the clubhouse turns, \'rides shotgun\' for more than a mile and conveniently slides over in front of Tenfold coming out of the far turn...whatever...
What was the infraction? He carried the other horse wide? His job was to protect Justify. Jockeys used to race ride back in the day, not so much anymore. Who would you disqualify if you were a steward? This complaint is on the level of chrome\'s owner a few years back.
Indeed.
Could be innocent, could be . . . not.
One little detail I haven\'t seen posted here. Geroux noted that his mount is an extremely aggressive horse. So when he was rushed up to gain a forward position he became rank. That was, in large part why he needed to moved out wide. He didn\'t want to run up on Justify.
Most surprising to me was hearing John Velazquez say Noble Indy was unable to make the front. That is he couldn\'t run fast enough. He\'d have to have gone 10 wide early?
Lastly, the pace was a couple of seconds faster than the Brooklyn and about 1/2 second overall. In the Brooklyn the place horse War Story routinely runs -3\'s. I don\'t agree with the notion of a pedestrian pace.
Yes Geroux\'s account seems ???
Dana666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what is the point of all this? They\'re upset
> because Baffert had a plan, one that is perfectly
> legal by the way, and it worked. They need to get
> over it. Yes, the stewards should have taken a
> look, for sure, but even the NBC commentators said
> it was perfectly legit. How about all the previous
> failed triple crown attempts where horses were
> purposely attacked and taken out of their game so
> as not to win the crown? I can name quite a few.
> So what, this time it worked the other way. I
> didn\'t know Repole was such a cry baby. He wins
> enough on the NYRA circuit not to complain about
> anything.
>
> I mean, for me, what stands out is how easy it all
> went after that. The whole thing was sort of
> anti-climactic. Those fractions were pedestrian at
> best. A bunch of slow, distance challenged (save
> Gronk) horses in futile chase mode. Gronk ran a
> tremendous race I thought given the fractions.
>
> One other take away from this race is one has to
> weigh heavily any attempt EVER to beat the Browns,
> Bafferts, and Pletchers, not Saturday but most
> days, (a few others you could throw in) of the
> world.
>
> How many people touted Mott\'s horse??? Mott is one
> of those old school trainers who has outstanding
> stock and wins like what 10-15 % of his races;
> and there are an awful lot of them. You bet these
> guys and you\'ll go broke fast; yeah, once in a
> while something jumps up, but overall they cannot
> complete with the super-charged barns. Bet
> Mandella on the west coast, you\'ll talk to
> yourself. I\'m sure you all could come up with many
> more old schoolers who for the most part cannot
> hack it anymore. Have you ever seen a Jimmy
> jerkins horse run two good races in a row? Seldom
> happens. I\'m going to stop wasting money on these
> hall of famers, because their era has passed. I
> alwsy try to be non-biased but I\'m fast coming up
> with a list of trainers I simply will not ever
> play.
>
> I remember years ago when the California trainers
> first started performance enhancing shall we shall
> and Charlie Whittingham suddenly became a 5%
> winning trainer. I thought Charlie must have
> forgot how to train horses or something.
>
> Yeah Mott\'s going to beat Baffert. not in this
> universe. I mean, seriously, why do we spend so
> much time handicapping, all this money for all
> these products, sheets, workouts, racing forms,
> etc. Chad brown takes over; forget that the horse
> ran slow numbers in mile races on polytrack. he\'ll
> get lit up today. He only had the horse for a
> couple weeks. if he had him for a month he probaly
> wins, right?
>
> Pletcher, Baffert, Brown, Rudy Rod, Assmussen,
> Brad Cox, Joe Sharp, Jason Servis, Navarro, so so
> many others.
>
> OK, lastly, and this RANT will end.
>
> Why don\'t they have Breeder\'s Cups at Belmont
> anymore. Could there be any more perfect venue for
> racing\'s biggest days? geez, that drives me crazy.
> every year so cal.
Excellent post.
Yes, the other Baffert herded Noble Indy wide. But to my eye, Justify broke so sharply and got to the lead rather easily that I\'m not so sure NI mattered without the \"interference\". And if Repole was using NI to soften up Justify for his other horse.......then son you just got out smarted by a guy far better than you. Quit sniveling.
If NI rushed up to soften Justify, would people complain how \"unfair\" that was?? Doubt it. Its part of the game, and if you can help your horse win without breaking the rules too bad for the others. RH rushed up and didn\'t allow NI to engage Justify. After that, the other horses had their chances to run him down. They weren\'t good enough. This \"interference\" narrative is overblown.
I\'ve seen rabbits entered many times in big races. I\'ve seen jealous Woody Stephens sacrifice his own horse, because a filly whipped him in the Kentucky Derby.
This isn\'t anything new, its not illegal. Ever watch a NASCAR race with guys from the same outfit??
As to your other point, this is the nature of sports today. Deep pocketed owners, doing whatever it takes to win. The Warriors signing KD, Yankees and Red Sox sparing no expense signing stars, New England with Spygate. Horse racing has syndicates and trainers that will do whatever it takes. We\'ve discussed Baffert\'s record in New York, one that is as likely as Arcangues winning the Classic.
While we have no proof, many people much more in tune to the game than me, have wondered out loud about the methods of their successes. I find it hard to believe that these guys are just that much better at training a horse than the rest.
I\'ve been a racing fan for 40+ years, and my view of all sports is a lot more jaded than it was in my youth. I\'m starting to care less and less about all of it, and for those that know me its something they would never imagine happening. The only thing I root for now is the team I\'m betting on.
I didn\'t really enjoy watching the Dubs in the finals. That was about the most anti climactic championship I\'ve ever seen....and I\'ve loved that team since before they moved to Oakland.
The rich get richer, in sports and in life, and they don\'t care much how it happens or what you think about it.
One of several things getting lost in this is the effect on bettors. If those two were being use to set up other horses, someone who bet on EITHER Noble Indy or Restoring Hope got screwed-- the horse was not in there to win. It is no different than betting on a horse that got stiffed.
After watching 6 straight Baffert horses run tops on Belmont day, and with there being no chance he was being entered as a rabbit, I used Restoring Hope heavily. Every dollar was thrown away.
whats the difference what happened in the belmont or running a rabbit to ensure a fast pace, both seem a little crooked. forgot who posted this but this is thelife we have chosen
philywheel
Aren\'t those factors we need to consider as bettors? What is the intention here--why is this particular horse in the race? Is it that any different than a trainer dropping a horse in a claiming race who either runs last or runs off the screen? Can anyone fault you for taking a stand on a long-shot in a race where long shots (often very improbable ones) have often panned out very well? I certainly couldn\'t fault that logic because if you win, you\'re gonna get paid, but did you honestly think Baffert was going to try and beat his triple crown chance with his other horse? That\'s the only thing I don\'t really follow. But again, no one should fault the stand. I certainly don\'t. It\'s better than a jackass like myself betting Hoffburg, I also used Justify in multi-race exotics (but Hoffburg was throwing away money at terrible odds, respectively, like he had any chance to win--I\'ll bet a Mott horse again when Saratoga gets polytrack-and a Tapit no less, the most overrated sire in racing history).
The rabbit issue I can deal with.
The deliberate interference with (at least) two horses while clearly not trying to win COUPLED with Mike Smith\'s apparent shout-out to Florent Geroux after the race, FOLLOWED by the stewards\' \"nothing to see here\" comment . . . well, it all stinks.
And I didn\'t bet the race.
JB\'s timely reference to the 2014 Awesome Again makes it look even worse.
I haven\'t chosen to bet NASCAR or Roller Derby; I\'ve chosen to bet horse racing. Horse racing gives enough \"eff yous\" to the bettors without throwing in jockeys being directed by trainers to do what Geroux did.
Can\'t help but remember what Jeff Mullins said
\"The problem, Mullins said, \'are all the addicts and idiots crying because they lost a $2 bet,\' and then demanding a level playing field. \'It will never be a level playing field. There are a lot of things people don\'t know, and won\'t know\'.\"
\"If you bet on horses, I would call you an idiot,\" Mullins also told The Times. \"I don\'t bet; there\'s a reason they call it gambling. I train to win and that\'s all I care about. It\'s not my problem (if the general public is deceived). They ought to bring in slot machines, then we could run our horses and make a living without worrying about some crybaby calling the stewards and raising a fit.
I was in the same boat and that is the part that annoys me.
Is this equal when WinStar took Gettysburg from Pletcher and gave him to Asmussen? He killed me with Governor Malibu
In the Awesome Again example Shared Belief still won the race! Baffert said on The Today Show today in his homespun style, the other horse can\'t rate and get dirt in his face so he had to be sent like that. Florent put him in the right spot, and he just wasn\'t good enough. I think they had a plan and it worked. That\'s all.
Nothing Mullins said there isn\'t obvious to anyone who plays the game.
If you\'re worried about cheating and not knowing every possible fact, you\'d never bet another horse, or buy another stock .
hellersorr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rabbit issue I can deal with.
>
> The deliberate interference with (at least) two
> horses while clearly not trying to win COUPLED
> with Mike Smith\'s apparent shout-out to Florent
> Geroux after the race, FOLLOWED by the stewards\'
> \"nothing to see here\" comment . . . well, it all
> stinks.
>
> And I didn\'t bet the race.
>
> JB\'s timely reference to the 2014 Awesome Again
> makes it look even worse.
>
> I haven\'t chosen to bet NASCAR or Roller Derby;
> I\'ve chosen to bet horse racing. Horse racing
> gives enough \"eff yous\" to the bettors without
> throwing in jockeys being directed by trainers to
> do what Geroux did.
What exactly did Geroux do that was so heinous??
He was sent, no surprise, and NI couldn\'t outrun him early. He went wide, and NI took back.
After that there every horse had a chance to run him down. They couldn\'t. There was no \"blocking\" down the backstretch. Justify got the lead, nobody was good enough to run him down.
If you bet on Geroux, you can rightfully feel your horse never had a shot.
Woody Stephens made his horse run dead last in the Preakness so he could ruin Winning Color\'s chances.
Shit happens in a horse race. Personalities get involved, egos get involved. In a perfect world all of the horseys get a perfect trip. Not gonna happen.
As for anything else, you guys are making WAY too much out of this.
Fuck this guy. How many times has he come out on top in Saratoga due to good trips received from other horses in Todd’s barn? Sorry bud, you were just caught up in a much bigger pond this time. Is there a reason for controversy? Maybe? This stuff has been happening in the game for hundreds of years, and for this asshat to come out and claim foul is right up there with the owner of California Chrome in 2014. ... and does anyone really think Noble Indy was going to soften up Justify? Promises Fufilled couldn’t and neither could Good Magic, but some how Noble Indy is? Give me a break and go hawk some more flavored water at convienence stores...
It starts a little early in the day for Californians.
I used to think you were smart.
You do understand it is exactly this kind of cynicism that has soured the sport in most people’s eyes. When you accept cheating as part of the game, the game is on its last leg.
“A planâ€. You mean like put your horse out there and get everyone else behind you in as much trouble as you can for as long as you last. That’s cool.
C’mon, you’re smarter than that. Geroux had the 2 path locked up. To make a move on Justify meant using the 3 path. You think Baffert doesn’t understand the concept of ground loss?
Who exactly chested?
A couple of thoughts from a neutral corner:
First, the game wouldn\'t be on it\'s last leg even if every race were thought to be fixed; people love gambling and would always enjoy the idea of predicting the fix. People bet on dog fights and dog races and bet their last few dollars on the lottery even when they know their chances of winning are less than that of being hit by lightening. If they could see cockroach races, I bet (see - people will be on anything) they\'d bet on those as well.
As far as Justify, I don\'t think anyone claiming he isn\'t a deserving TC winner nor wouldn\'t have won the race without Restoring Hope entered, but the concern is simply that if the race had been closer, Restoring Hope might have made a difference. To some, it\'s cheating and to others, not.
Finally, I hope we haven\'t seen Justify\'s last race and hope there\'s a horse that can give him a fight later in the year (and that Restoring Hope or similar not entered in the race so no questions after the fact.)
Any of us are only as smart as the last ticket we cashed! I did not cash in the Belmont. I had a giant exacta with Justify over Hofburg, and I had Justify singled in pick 4. Smart would have been buying the T-G analysis. Then I would have cashed huge on the pick 4. I did not have that bomb in the turf race they nailed. I usually buy it on big days too, but for some reason I didn\'t on Saturday.
I was referring to your ideas about race riding and protecting Justify, none of which are the supposed responsibilities of the jockey. This isn’t football. Blocking isn’t allowed.
Cheating? I guess it depends on your tolerances. I’d like to think the race is about each horse against the other. Not teams. But, instead, the simple ability of each horse racing against the other on a particular day. But I also wish for drug free racing so I’m probably a bit too optimistic.
JR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was referring to your ideas about race riding
> and protecting Justify, none of which are the
> supposed responsibilities of the jockey. This
> isn’t football. Blocking isn’t allowed.
Just curious.
When did this blocking take place??
The sport is descending to the depths of professional wrestling. They can have it. I’m losing interest.
So you’re OK with Geroux “the man’s†ride? I’m sticking with Gulfstream.
JR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you’re OK with Geroux “the man’s†ride?
> I’m sticking with Gulfstream.
You didn\'t answer the question
Dana666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aren\'t those factors we need to consider as
> bettors? What is the intention here--why is this
> particular horse in the race? Is it that any
> different than a trainer dropping a horse in a
> claiming race who either runs last or runs off the
> screen? Can anyone fault you for taking a stand on
> a long-shot in a race where long shots (often very
> improbable ones) have often panned out very well?
> I certainly couldn\'t fault that logic because if
> you win, you\'re gonna get paid, but did you
> honestly think Baffert was going to try and beat
> his triple crown chance with his other horse?
> That\'s the only thing I don\'t really follow. But
> again, no one should fault the stand. I certainly
> don\'t. It\'s better than a jackass like myself
> betting Hoffburg, I also used Justify in
> multi-race exotics (but Hoffburg was throwing away
> money at terrible odds, respectively, like he had
> any chance to win--I\'ll bet a Mott horse again
> when Saratoga gets polytrack-and a Tapit no less,
> the most overrated sire in racing history).
A few things:
- Yes, trying to crystal ball trainer intent is a part of the game. Like gauging pace in the race, or numerous other factors, it\'s assumption-based. In this instance, let\'s forget the 20-20 hindsight we seem to have, and look at it from the front end. Big Day Bob has an astounding record shipping into Belmont in prime time. The Belmont itself is a race in which horses frequently make a big forward move and then disappear, but they have it on their resume for the breeding shed. Most importantly, a 37-1 horse doesn\'t have to win for you to make money. There was an $88 exacta with a horse who had as many question marks as Restored Hope, and he was 24-1. So IF the horse was not well meant, and you didn\'t have x-ray vision into trainer intent, your money was flushed down the crapper.
- Obviously, wagering in this game is a \"to each his own\" stratagem. Personally, I couldn\'t be happier to see bettors dismiss Bill Mott or other trainers who don\'t get a 38% hit rate at some, but not all, meets, or who don\'t have an armada of three year olds ready for the Derby each year. My disregard for Mott in the 2011 Breeders Cup Classic cost me what still would have been the biggest payday of my sad wagering life. When he gets hot, as he frequently does at Saratoga, even with Todd and Chad lurking in the weeds, I won\'t ignore him simply because he\'s old school.
- Re:Tapit -- see Richiebee somewhere else on the board.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of several things getting lost in this is the
> effect on bettors. If those two were being use to
> set up other horses, someone who bet on EITHER
> Noble Indy or Restoring Hope got screwed-- the
> horse was not in there to win. It is no different
> than betting on a horse that got stiffed.
>
> After watching 6 straight Baffert horses run tops
> on Belmont day, and with there being no chance he
> was being entered as a rabbit, I used Restoring
> Hope heavily. Every dollar was thrown away.
After reading many of the statements about the ride, the main concern I have is with the statement from the owner of Restoring Hope -- West declined comment on whether Restoring Hope was used to block for Justify, who settled into a comfortable, unpressured advantage that he never relinquished.
“Everyone looks at things differently,†West said. “We didn’t belong in the race, anyway, and that is my fault.â€
It appears to me that he is basically saying that since his horse did not belong in the race -- and presumably Baffert told him so -- that it is kind of OK if his horse was used in such a way to assist Baffert\'s other horse who definitely belonged in the race -- (even though this owner of Restoring Hope was never informed of the strategy). I think the word \"anyway\" tips that off. If they were coupled (same owners) the outcry would be fiercer. And, it seems like West\'s apparent feelings about the use of his horse -- to block -- are true.
Oh. Taking RH wide into the turn to prevent Noble Indy from challenging for the lead from the outside. Then, seeing that NI wasn’t a threat, bringing RH back over on to the flanks of Justify to keep the Lukas horse pinned down inside. You saw it a different way I guess. It was a weird ride.
trackjohn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Couldn\'t agree more...breaks slow, rushes up,
> attempts to float half the field wide in the
> clubhouse turns, \'rides shotgun\' for more than a
> mile and conveniently slides over in front of
> Tenfold coming out of the far turn...whatever...
A disgraceful performance . . . thirty days would be justified. And I didn\'t risk a nickel on the race.
JR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh. Taking RH wide into the turn to prevent Noble
> Indy from challenging for the lead from the
> outside. Then, seeing that NI wasn’t a threat,
> bringing RH back over on to the flanks of Justify
> to keep the Lukas horse pinned down inside. You
> saw it a different way I guess. It was a weird
> ride.
Anybody who harbored any doubts, shouldn\'t, given Smith\'s call-out immediately after the race . . .
Those who think it was merely race riding will be the first to cry foul next year when TAP has 5 entered in the Derby and he turns it into a rodeo. Since the stewards took no action, the ride was clearly legit... but IMO it sets a piss poor precedent. All thoroughbred owners should boycott Frenchie for a year! Of course that is a joke, since we all know that there is zero collaboration in this industry... except for the collusion necessary among participants to \'guarantee\' the outcome of certain races, like this year\'s Belmont...
This was EXACTLY my point, (and exactly the same \"logic\" I used to play the race)
I agree. I bet for next year\'s Triple Crown, they\'ll bring in the big guns:
* https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/18/outrage-in-tuscany-after-jockey-in-sienas-famous-palio-horse-rac/
I can hook Pletcher and Chad Brown up with some wiseguys for a small fee.
To your point about gambling on everything from lotteries to cockroach races, the wagerer knows going in what the odds are for each of those bets. He’s taking a calculated risk based on all available information. When that information is proven to be false or misleading, then you are a patsy in the 3 card monte game.
I love it! Liven up the sport. Add a little Allison/Yarborough flare to it. The ratings would be yuge!