Espinoza suspended for Awesome Again ride

[Exotic1]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/87661/espinoza-suspended-for-awesome-again-ride?source=rss

[horses4courses]

Good :ThmbUp:

Also, because I'm sure Espinoza did not employ those tactics
without getting instructions from the connections, another warning
(and/or $ fine) should have been issued. In particular, to Mr. Baffert.

[Mineshaft]

i dont agree with the suspension at all. Smith should of tucked in on the rail. It was a 7 horse field theres no way he should of got in that much trouble when you are the best horse.

[dilanesp]

That's outrageous. There's nothing wrong with Espinoza and Baffert were doing, any more than it was wrong for Hedavar to be sent out to cook Dr. Fager and help Damascus.

It's part of racing that you try and hand a star horse a defeat by making the conditions inhospitable. The CHRB has no authority whatsoever to be trying to protect a horse's undefeated record.

[horses4courses]

You go out there to ride your horse to win.
There wasn't much evidence of that on Sky Kingdom.

[ArlJim78]

I completely concur with the suspension. It was a total BS rodeo ride.

[ILovetheInner]

I don't agree with that decision. Not that I argue there was monkey business going on, but the decision seems more the result of outside pressure versus what would be consistent with every day decisions steward's make. That or they want to put BC comers on notice about race riding? Really surprised by this. I agree with Dilanesp's Dr. Fager example, or plenty others I can think of, particularly if Angel had a chip on his shoulder, lol Anti Baffert fan here, but agree with his statement in the article of some going out simply to compromise Dude. It's racing, quit whining. Commendable the horse won, Espinoza is penalized by a jury of popular opinion. That should be the end of it.

[Robert Fischer]

We allow jockeys to manipulate pace and tactics. (I think some racing jurisdictions do not allow major tactic shifts).

I think when they start "herding" horses out of paths it becomes too much.

[camourous]

I think it's funny that Espinoza was complaining after the PA Derby that the other jockeys were riding just to make sure he didn't win(which didn't happen) then he goes out and actually does what he was complaining about to another horse.

[horses4courses]

We allow jockeys to manipulate pace and tactics. (I think some racing jurisdictions do not allow major tactic shifts).

I think when they start "herding" horses out of paths it becomes too much.

Agreed.

I have a problem with the way Euro trainers often use "rabbits" to
ensure a decent pace for their higher ranked stablemates.
However, it's not as slimy as putting a horse in a race whose
role is merely to "herd" the heavily favored opponent.
That's unacceptable to me. :ThmbDown:

This is horse racing, not demolition derby.

[Ocala Mike]

Smith should of tucked in on the rail.





You can do that? Don't think Mr. Smith knows that tactic.

[Fingal]

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/sports/20140927/shared-belief-put-to-the-test-to-stay-unbeaten-with-win-in-awesome-again-stakes

Espinoza didn’t know what all the fuss was about.

“They’re out of their minds,” he said. “It’s ridiculous. I would never try to hurt anybody or bump somebody, especially a horse like that.

You mean like what you did to Looking At Lucky during his Santa Anita Derby ?

[Tom]

There is a difference between race riding and having no other point to your ride than to attack another horse. He have those who bet on zero shot at any part of the payouts.

[Mineshaft]

You can do that? Don't think Mr. Smith knows that tactic.



dont know wether you being sarcastic or not

[dilanesp]

There is a difference between race riding and having no other point to your ride than to attack another horse. He have those who bet on zero shot at any part of the payouts.

Handicapping trainers' intentions is a part of handicapping. This is no different.

And people are going over the top. He didn't do anything DANGEROUS. Floating Shared Belief wide is not dangerous. He did try to help his stablemate win. And that should be totally permissible. The best horse should not be guaranteed a perfect trip by the stewards.

[GMB@BP]

You can do that? Don't think Mr. Smith knows that tactic.

You should watch the last today at SA to see what a rail ride looks like. No idea who rode the horse though.

[Tom]

Handicapping trainers' intentions is a part of handicapping. This is no different.

And people are going over the top. He didn't do anything DANGEROUS. Floating Shared Belief wide is not dangerous. He did try to help his stablemate win. And that should be totally permissible. The best horse should not be guaranteed a perfect trip by the stewards.

This is not pro wrestling, with tag teams.
The horse took money by CUSTOMERS. the jockey stole that money.
He should get a hell of a lot more than 7 days. The best horse - ALL horses - should be gauranteed a clean trip as much as possible. That ride was BS.

[cj]

Handicapping trainers' intentions is a part of handicapping. This is no different.

And people are going over the top. He didn't do anything DANGEROUS. Floating Shared Belief wide is not dangerous. He did try to help his stablemate win. And that should be totally permissible. The best horse should not be guaranteed a perfect trip by the stewards.

Not when they aren't coupled in the wagering. The 2 was supposed to be ridden to win, not help the 1 win. If that is allowed, then we have to get away from uncoupled wagering.

[Stillriledup]

Handicapping trainers' intentions is a part of handicapping. This is no different.

And people are going over the top. He didn't do anything DANGEROUS. Floating Shared Belief wide is not dangerous. He did try to help his stablemate win. And that should be totally permissible. The best horse should not be guaranteed a perfect trip by the stewards.

You can make the case for both sides of this argument, but what you said hit home with me and that is the stewards shouldn't be stepping in to guarantee a perfect trip for the next heavy favorite that runs in a stakes race.

There's no rule that says you can't ride anyway you want, you're allowed to go as wide as you want...if Smith didn't want to be that wide, he should have found a away to save ground.

[Tom]

Wrong.
Read CJ's post.

[SandyW]

Why don't we race these horses one at a time against the clock, that would solve everything.
This is total BS started by the crybaby Jerry Bailey who was not so innocent many times in his career. It called race riding, these stewards don't have minds of their own and were influenced by outside media pressure.

[Stillriledup]

Not when they aren't coupled in the wagering. The 2 was supposed to be ridden to win, not help the 1 win. If that is allowed, then we have to get away from uncoupled wagering.

What's the difference between this scenario (assuming you believed Victor was trying to help another runner) and when a jock moves out of the way to let an otherwise hopelessly boxed runner free? Isnt' that also helping someone else win by altering your own horse's path?

[cj]

What's the difference between this scenario (assuming you believed Victor was trying to help another runner) and when a jock moves out of the way to let an otherwise hopelessly boxed runner free? Isnt' that also helping someone else win by altering your own horse's path?

You can't ride to win when your horse is already spent. Don't make me close another thread with your nonsense, just move on. Thanks in advance.

[thespaah]

Good :ThmbUp:

Also, because I'm sure Espinoza did not employ those tactics
without getting instructions from the connections, another warning
(and/or $ fine) should have been issued. In particular, to Mr. Baffert.
Baffert responded with the old "wasn't me!"..
Right.

[Robert Fischer]

Maybe every top trainer should have 3 entries, and an NFL coordinator to draw up plays?

You get 1 horse that tries to win, 1 horse to herd the other favorite, and 1 horse to block the other trainer's "herding" horse. The public's money from the 2 horses that don't try, can go to pay the coordinator's salary.


There's plenty of ways to affect the pace or even race-ride without making a mockery of the race.

[SandyW]

You can't ride to win when your horse is already spent. Don't make me close another thread with your nonsense, just move on. Thanks in advance.

Is this the new thing now, if someone disagrees with you, you threaten to close the thread?
Not very sporting of you.

[thespaah]

Agreed.

I have a problem with the way Euro trainers often use "rabbits" to
ensure a decent pace for their higher ranked stablemates.
However, it's not as slimy as putting a horse in a race whose
role is merely to "herd" the heavily favored opponent.
That's unacceptable to me. :ThmbDown:

This is horse racing, not demolition derby.
Years ago, use of rabbit in stakes races was common here in the States.
It's done rarely if at all anymore

[thespaah]

Not when they aren't coupled in the wagering. The 2 was supposed to be ridden to win, not help the 1 win. If that is allowed, then we have to get away from uncoupled wagering.
it is my understanding that uncoupling of commonly trained horses is to increase the number of betting interests.

[cj]

it is my understanding that uncoupling of commonly trained horses is to increase the number of betting interests.

Of course it is. But it was implemented because, supposedly, purses were high enough that collusion wouldn't happen. Obviously it didn't work here.

[cj]

Is this the new thing now, if someone disagrees with you, you threaten to close the thread?
Not very sporting of you.

It was off topic, has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. It was him dredging up an old topic that was closed. I'm sure PA would be happy to accept your moderator application.

[SandyW]

It was off topic, has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. It was him dredging up an old topic that was closed. I'm sure PA would be happy to accept your moderator application.

Sorry no time, I'm to busy losing my money along with most of the horse players I know.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You can make the case for both sides of this argument, but what you said hit home with me and that is the stewards shouldn't be stepping in to guarantee a perfect trip for the next heavy favorite that runs in a stakes race.

There's no rule that says you can't ride anyway you want, you're allowed to go as wide as you want...if Smith didn't want to be that wide, he should have found a away to save ground.

Why do you just make stuff up and then when you are called out you will invariably ask which of these rules specifically states they can't ride however they want, but anyway...

1699. Riding Rules.
During the running of the race:
(a) A leading horse is entitled to any part of the course but when another horse is attempting to pass in a clear opening the leading horse shall not cross over so as to compel the passing horse to shorten its stride.

(b) A horse shall not interfere with or cause any other horse to lose stride, ground or position in a part of the race where the horse loses the opportunity to place where it might be reasonably expected to finish.

(c) A horse which interferes with another and thereby causes any other horse to lose stride, ground or position, when such other horse is not at fault and when such interference occurs in a part of the race where the horse interfered with loses the opportunity to place where it might, in the opinion of the Stewards, be reasonably expected to finish, may be disqualified and placed behind the horse so interfered with.

(d) Jockeys shall not ride carelessly, or willfully, so as to permit their mount to interfere with or impede any other horse.

(e) Jockeys shall not willfully strike or strike at another horse or jockey so as to impede, interfere with, intimidate, or injure.

(f) If a jockey rides in a manner contrary to this rule, the mount may be disqualified and the jockey may be suspended or otherwise disciplined by the Stewards

I'm sure I could find a way to ride however I wanted with all those rules, but my head is oversized for a jock.

I admit that I don't really like guys getting days for this scenario when in all likelihood he was doing what he was told with no way not to considering who was riding for (and if you read rules, the guy giving such instructions CAN get in trouble so maybe that ought to be a fun bitch for you). But, as C J has said - once you uncouple these horses and use on of the uncoupled horses as a roaming interference for the competition, you need to be punished. I don't really like it, but again, every time you change a rule over here it affects some other thing over there and this is the price you pay. The lesser of the two evils is to keep horses uncoupled and punish those that make little effort to win and a concerted effort to negatively affect the finish of others in the race.

[Rex Phinney]

i dont agree with the suspension at all. Smith should of tucked in on the rail. It was a 7 horse field theres no way he should of got in that much trouble when you are the best horse.

Unless he could find a way to jump over Sky Kingdom he wasn't getting any inside position.

Smith hustled SB pretty good at the start only to find Espinoza more than willing todo the same on his mount while drifting out. Around the first turn and down the backside Smith tried slowing SB to get in behind the 2. This didn't work either as the 2 was simply trying to get in the way, mirroring whatever speed Smith chose. It was only at the 3/8 pole when Sky Kingdom dropped out the Smith was allowed any chance to move inside.

[horses4courses]

Years ago, use of rabbit in stakes races was common here in the States.
It's done rarely if at all anymore

Interesting.
I wonder why it has died out over here - at least on the turf?
I've only been around US racing since the late 80s,
and I don't recall ever seeing that tactic used.

As you know, it's not all that common in Europe.
Aidan O'Brien probably does it most over there these days.
Godolphin occasionally, too.

I seldom react one way, or the other, to race riding.
I see the majority of riders as capable pros who do their best.
There is an elite group at the top of the game, and a larger
number who struggle at the bottom (winning well under 10%).
Those in between, for the most part, could ride anything that
I would willingly wager on, and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Yesterday, though, from the first turn I was livid.
The forcing tactics were so blatant it was embarrassing.
Then, before the home stretch, Sky Kingdom faded.
His job was done. Shared Belief was tested by him,
and the final quarter mile would see if he passed, or failed.

We all know the ending.
Bad trip, or not, I wouldn't rush to crown him as champ - yet.
Baffert is going to prep Bayern with precision in his own backyard.
A key factor will be whether Guillot and co. will send Moreno for
the Classic. He has next to no shot, but they probably ship.

[kevb]

While it is highly probable that Victor was acting on instructions, he may have been acting on his own and taking the opportunity for payback to Smith for cutting off Victor, aboard Toast of New York, in the Pacific Classic. Toast is pointing towards running the the BC Classic. That will be interesting.

[MutuelClerk]

Well deserved.

[Mineshaft]

Oh Oh here comes Shared Belief down the middle of the track lets all get out his way and open up a gigantic hole for him so he can get the perfect trip. Its called race riding people.


Look that race was a Grade 1 race with rats in it. Shared Belief could of fell down 3 times and still won. Smith needs to use better judgement in a 7 horse field if hes on the best horse in the race.

If im Espinoza im definetely appealing the 7 days.

[iceknight]

You can make the case for both sides of this argument, but what you said hit home with me and that is the stewards shouldn't be stepping in to guarantee a perfect trip for the next heavy favorite that runs in a stakes race.

There's no rule that says you can't ride anyway you want, you're allowed to go as wide as you want...if Smith didn't want to be that wide, he should have found a away to save ground. Have you ever read the jockey's manual? There are very clear rules in almost every jurisdiction on how jockeys should ride and not just ride merrily in any manner.

"Jockeys going to the post in any race shall race their mount to win, shall give their best efforts in the race to their mount and the public, and shall ride their mount out until the finish line is passed" (Rule 1692)

Link (http://www.chrb.ca.gov/query_rules_and_regulations_database.asp?form_quer y_action=display_rule&form_query_rule_number=1692&form_query_rule_title=Requirements+for+Horse%2C+Tr ainer+and+Jockey%2E&form_query_article=Requirements+for+Horse%2C+Train er+and+Jockey%2E&form_query_article_index=9&form_query_argument=1692)

Ok I just notice that jhs has mentioned rules for you too.

[dilanesp]

Why do you just make stuff up and then when you are called out you will invariably ask which of these rules specifically states they can't ride however they want, but anyway...

1699. Riding Rules.
During the running of the race:
(a) A leading horse is entitled to any part of the course but when another horse is attempting to pass in a clear opening the leading horse shall not cross over so as to compel the passing horse to shorten its stride.

(b) A horse shall not interfere with or cause any other horse to lose stride, ground or position in a part of the race where the horse loses the opportunity to place where it might be reasonably expected to finish.

(c) A horse which interferes with another and thereby causes any other horse to lose stride, ground or position, when such other horse is not at fault and when such interference occurs in a part of the race where the horse interfered with loses the opportunity to place where it might, in the opinion of the Stewards, be reasonably expected to finish, may be disqualified and placed behind the horse so interfered with.

(d) Jockeys shall not ride carelessly, or willfully, so as to permit their mount to interfere with or impede any other horse.

(e) Jockeys shall not willfully strike or strike at another horse or jockey so as to impede, interfere with, intimidate, or injure.

(f) If a jockey rides in a manner contrary to this rule, the mount may be disqualified and the jockey may be suspended or otherwise disciplined by the Stewards

I'm sure I could find a way to ride however I wanted with all those rules, but my head is oversized for a jock.

I admit that I don't really like guys getting days for this scenario when in all likelihood he was doing what he was told with no way not to considering who was riding for (and if you read rules, the guy giving such instructions CAN get in trouble so maybe that ought to be a fun bitch for you). But, as C J has said - once you uncouple these horses and use on of the uncoupled horses as a roaming interference for the competition, you need to be punished. I don't really like it, but again, every time you change a rule over here it affects some other thing over there and this is the price you pay. The lesser of the two evils is to keep horses uncoupled and punish those that make little effort to win and a concerted effort to negatively affect the finish of others in the race.

None of those rules prohibits what Espinoza does. And I actually suspect he will get a court to rule that way and it's going to be a huge embarassment for the California stewards (especially when they are cross-examined regarding all the other times they allowed similar conduct to occur in races).

[dilanesp]

Have you ever read the jockey's manual? There are very clear rules in almost every jurisdiction on how jockeys should ride and not just ride merrily in any manner.

"Jockeys going to the post in any race shall race their mount to win, shall give their best efforts in the race to their mount and the public, and shall ride their mount out until the finish line is passed" (Rule 1692)

Link (http://www.chrb.ca.gov/query_rules_and_regulations_database.asp?form_quer y_action=display_rule&form_query_rule_number=1692&form_query_rule_title=Requirements+for+Horse%2C+Tr ainer+and+Jockey%2E&form_query_article=Requirements+for+Horse%2C+Train er+and+Jockey%2E&form_query_article_index=9&form_query_argument=1692)

Ok I just notice that jhs has mentioned rules for you too.

Espinoza followed that rule too. There's no way his mount can win unless he tries to take Shared Belief off his game.

The fact that his conduct also helped Fed Biz does not mean he wasn't riding to win.

EDIT: If you interpret that rule any other way it means rabbits are illegal.

[JustRalph]

Years ago, use of rabbit in stakes races was common here in the States.
It's done rarely if at all anymore

I think it's still done in big money races. It's just not as detectable. I see riders run off for no damn good reason, especially in turf races. I gotta think trainers talk to each other.........

[ronsmac]

Espinoza followed that rule too. There's no way his mount can win unless he tries to take Shared Belief off his game.

The fact that his conduct also helped Fed Biz does not mean he wasn't riding to win.

EDIT: If you interpret that rule any other way it means rabbits are illegal.
Though rabbits weren't and aren't illegal, it is poor sportsmanship. Lukas used to use terms like class, sporting,etc. but then tried to beat Holy Bull with a rabbit. Zenyatta had no speed and still didn't need a rabbit.

[ArlJim78]

at no point was he trying to win the race, that wasn't his mission and everyone that watched the race knew what was going on. it was bush league.
this superstar jockey "accidentally" let his mount drift out four paths on the first turn making no attempt whatsoever to save ground? sure he was trying to win by racing out of the gate to lose a ton of ground on the turn, one of the all time great winning moves. yeah right.

[johnhannibalsmith]

None of those rules prohibits what Espinoza does. And I actually suspect he will get a court to rule that way and it's going to be a huge embarassment for the California stewards (especially when they are cross-examined regarding all the other times they allowed similar conduct to occur in races).

I've said that I basically consider it race riding based on the fact that is has been in the past and probably will be considered that at some point in the future. I said I didn't really like the days given here, but understand them.

None of that has anything to really do with the rules and why I posted them. The king of "I can make any claim I want and it is up to you to prove me wrong because credibility is overrated" claimed that riders can do whatever they want to do. My post, and the rules posted, were to rebut that slice of genius.

I think it's a dicey ruling and be very unsurprising if it gets appealed and he serves something less when it blows over or something. But I don't think they are on nearly the shaky ground that you do. They are consistent in their inconsistency and if that was grounds for court reversals, the docket would be a steady parade of race replays. The rules are clearly vague (I like that) enough to where costing a guy ground loss by running interference with a mission impossible non-effort to win may cost you a placing or even a day or more of pay.

[Dark Horse]

I think it's funny that Espinoza was complaining after the PA Derby that the other jockeys were riding just to make sure he didn't win(which didn't happen) then he goes out and actually does what he was complaining about to another horse.

That was Baffert as well.

Agree with suspension, but imo they only did so because the race was on national tv, and called out there for Espinoza's dirty trick.

[Rex Phinney]

The 2 horse being it's own betting interest is the issue.

You can't have a horse out there taking money and then give it a ride like that. Every betting interest has to be giving an honest effort to win. Espinoza was certainly toeing that line.

That being said, Baffert playing the innocent card is BS. I like him a lot but that was not a good look yesterday. Have to think Victor went out there with at least a hint from Bob as to the gameplan.

[Stillriledup]

The 2 horse being it's own betting interest is the issue.

You can't have a horse out there taking money and then give it a ride like that. Every betting interest has to be giving an honest effort to win. Espinoza was certainly toeing that line.

That being said, Baffert playing the innocent card is BS. I like him a lot but that was not a good look yesterday. Have to think Victor went out there with at least a hint from Bob as to the gameplan.

In California, they have decided that having more betting interests is more important than coupling horses in the wagering. Personally, i HATE coupled horses, i don't see a need for it, but, that's just me.

Here's a question i have for you. If Victor was #1A and not his own betting interest, would his ride have been acceptable and even commended?

[Fager Fan]

In California, they have decided that having more betting interests is more important than coupling horses in the wagering. Personally, i HATE coupled horses, i don't see a need for it, but, that's just me.

Here's a question i have for you. If Victor was #1A and not his own betting interest, would his ride have been acceptable and even commended?

Coupled or uncoupled, a horse should only be entered to give its best effort to win. Clearly, this horse was used to impede the favorite and give its stablemate a better chance of winning. That shouldn't be allowed. The jock deserved a suspension. It's a shame Baffert doesn't get the same, but the jock isn't going to throw the trainer under the bus because then he'll get no more mounts from that trainer.

[magwell]

Seven days for that ? that's a joke Trevor made a big deal of it or nothing would have happened , you would think Espinoza dropped Smith to get seven days, I guess the stewards never seen Cordeo ride......that is total B.S. :ThmbDown:

[Fager Fan]

Seven days for that ? that's a joke Trevor made a big deal of it or nothing would have happened , you would think Espinoza dropped Smith to get seven days, I guess the stewards never seen Cordeo ride......that is total B.S. :ThmbDown:

As part of an entry for all intents and purposes, it was blatant and well-deserved. He was in the field only to hinder the chances of the favorite and help his stablemate.

[ultracapper]

Just watched it for the first time. Can you say Fourtyniner-Winning Colors-Preakness Stakes?

[madera12227]

That was Ezpinoza thinking about the breeders cup 5 million dollar race.

Ezpinoza wanted shared belief to work much harder. He did.

Ezpinoza was thinking about California Chrome.

He made shared belief work for that win and it might effect him in the breeders cup and give California Chrome an advantage.

Baffert might had some influence. Impossible to prove that Baffert had a saying.

[Mineshaft]

is there any bad blood between Baffert and Hollendorfer?

sound like Espinoza gave Smith a dose of his own medicine for a race that Smith had Espinoza pinned down in

[Grits]

Ezpinoza was thinking about California Chrome.

FWIW, he wasn't being paid to think, at least not about Chrome, who from his ugly finish in the PA Derby, has a ways to go to be at an advantage in the Classic.

[Rex Phinney]

is there any bad blood between Baffert and Hollendorfer?

Not specifically but I think out here in California there is Baffert then there is everyone else. Most trainers relish any chance they have to get a horse who can outperform the Baffert barn. Bob in his heart of hearts I think believes he can and should win every stakes race on dirt out here. He seemed truly heartbroken that he had lost to a 1/5 favorite. LOL

[onefast99]

That was Ezpinoza thinking about the breeders cup 5 million dollar race.

Ezpinoza wanted shared belief to work much harder. He did.

Ezpinoza was thinking about California Chrome.

He made shared belief work for that win and it might effect him in the breeders cup and give California Chrome an advantage.

Baffert might had some influence. Impossible to prove that Baffert had a saying.
Lots of possible theories to why he rode his horse that way but SB did get the job done and CC didn't!

[Stillriledup]

Coupled or uncoupled, a horse should only be entered to give its best effort to win. Clearly, this horse was used to impede the favorite and give its stablemate a better chance of winning. That shouldn't be allowed. The jock deserved a suspension. It's a shame Baffert doesn't get the same, but the jock isn't going to throw the trainer under the bus because then he'll get no more mounts from that trainer.

Rex says that the uncoupling is the "issue"

I want to know, is it the issue, or not.

[Rex Phinney]

Rex says that the uncoupling is the "issue"

I want to know, is it the issue, or not.

If you had money on Sky Kingdom would you be convinced he was ridden in a way that gave him an honest chance to win? Keep in mind the horse finished last after all this.

There wasn't a coupled entry in the race Saturday so I'm not sure why it matters, in this specific case, ll the $$$ that came in on Sky Kingdom was basically doomed, and that's not a good thing.

[Mineshaft]

Jim Rome just said on his show that he had no problem with Espinoza and his tactics. He said we are all big boys here.

[Stillriledup]

If you had money on Sky Kingdom would you be convinced he was ridden in a way that gave him an honest chance to win? Keep in mind the horse finished last after all this.

There wasn't a coupled entry in the race Saturday so I'm not sure why it matters, in this specific case, ll the $$$ that came in on Sky Kingdom was basically doomed, and that's not a good thing.

My question was this. If SK was coupled with Fed Biz, would Victor still be getting a 7 day suspension and would there be this "outcry".

[Stillriledup]

Jim Rome just said on his show that he had no problem with Espinoza and his tactics. He said we are all big boys here.

Yes, but if his horse got beat, would he still be as "ok" with it. Its easy to be ok with it after you still end up winning.

[Rex Phinney]

Yes, but if his horse got beat, would he still be as "ok" with it. Its easy to be ok with it after you still end up winning.

He kind if set it up by saying that they still won, I took it to mean that it didn't matter because his horse won anyway. Hollendorfer and Smith both had the same type attitude.

If his horse got beat because of these tactics I would expect his opinion to be different yes, who wouldn't?

[Fager Fan]

Rex says that the uncoupling is the "issue"

I want to know, is it the issue, or not.

It's one issue. Funds wagered on him had no shot of winning as the trainer had no intent on winning.

The other issue is whether stablemates should ever be entered to be a pacemaker or any other help to another horse in the barn. Shouldn't all horses be entered for the right reason, which is to run to the best of their ability and hopefully win or get in the money?

It's two horses against one. Either a horse is good enough to win on its own merits or it's not.

[Fager Fan]

He kind if set it up by saying that they still won, I took it to mean that it didn't matter because his horse won anyway. Hollendorfer and Smith both had the same type attitude.

If his horse got beat because of these tactics I would expect his opinion to be different yes, who wouldn't?

They can afford to take this stance because it makes them look even better, that their horse won despite the tactics. Like you, I think he'd have a different opinion if it cost his horse the race.

[Tom]

Jim Rome just said on his show that he had no problem with Espinoza and his tactics. He said we are all big boys here.

Not his call. There are rules.
His opinion counts for nothing, other than he chose to take the high road.

[Stillriledup]

It's one issue. Funds wagered on him had no shot of winning as the trainer had no intent on winning.

The other issue is whether stablemates should ever be entered to be a pacemaker or any other help to another horse in the barn. Shouldn't all horses be entered for the right reason, which is to run to the best of their ability and hopefully win or get in the money?

It's two horses against one. Either a horse is good enough to win on its own merits or it's not.

Sure, everyone should be trying to win. I just think that some feel if he's coupled, its ok to be the "rabbit" essentially.

Of course, another factor is that horsemen generally dont care too much about the public and bettors, its their game and their track and if the "idiots and addicts" want to bet, that's on them. As far as they are concerned, coupled or not coupled is the same thing because coupling doesn't change how they are going to train, ride or instruct to ride either horse.

[GMB@BP]

In a sport that has questionable scruples with the general public we want horses being pushed to the 6th path on the first turn for no apparent reason................should help the sport letting that happen.

A rabbit has a front running style, taking them to the front does not hinder their best chance of winning.

I have no idea how going 5 wide 5 wide helped Sky Kingdom, thats what people are saying in this thread....mind boggling.


and of course classy connections are not going to say anything, after a win especially.

[Exotic1]

Yes, but if his horse got beat, would he still be as "ok" with it. Its easy to be ok with it after you still end up winning.


Baffert would have been "ok" with it too, if Shared Belief lost.

Good to know everyone is ok. The people that wagered on SB may not have been so ok at the 1/8th pole.

[GMB@BP]

He is not appealing...........not a shock.

He would be asked in a court about the whole situation and if anyone else knew the strategy.

[Tom]

Baffert said that he was testing Fed Biz to see if he should run in the Classic.
Now he knows - if he runs, he will need TWO muggers instead of one.

Maybe Tonya Harding is looking for some work.

[BlueShoe]

That's outrageous. There's nothing wrong with Espinoza and Baffert were doing, any more than it was wrong for Hedavar to be sent out to cook Dr. Fager and help Damascus.
Thought that I was the only one old enough to recall Hedavar, the so called rabbit for mighty Damascus. :) Often forgotten is that Hedavar was a very good horse in his own right, at one time holding a world record for a mile. Recall cashing, for what was for me at the time a very large bet, on him when he caught a field without Damascus, Dr. Fager, or Buckpasser, and was an easy wire to wire winner.

[Mineshaft]

What was Shared Beliefs Beyer?

[Tom]

101

[Stillriledup]

What was Shared Beliefs Beyer?

You mean his "Scott Norwood figure"? :D

[porchy44]

The irony is if Espinoza's horse would have gone on to win, there would of not even been a DQ. If he would of hit the board and not faded badly there would not be a suspension.

Probably got to admit, that if this was the 3rd race of 5,000 claimers on a Thursday afternoon, no suspensions would have been given.

I have seen horses run "balls to the wall" in route races laughing the entire time knowing that the horse would fade badly. Also two jockeyes going crazy on the front knowing either one would hit the board. If I know this they have to know it too.

[Stillriledup]

The irony is if Espinoza's horse would have gone on to win, there would of not even been a DQ. If he would of hit the board and not faded badly there would not be a suspension.

Probably got to admit, that if this was the 3rd race of 5,000 claimers on a Thursday afternoon, no suspensions would have been given.

I have seen horses run "balls to the wall" in route races laughing the entire time knowing that the horse would fade badly. Also two jockeyes going crazy on the front knowing either one would hit the board. If I know this they have to know it too.

This is 100% true. If Espinoza wins, he doesn't get DQd or suspended. You're also right when you say that if this was a 5k claimer, nothing happens either.

Right on both accounts.

[GMB@BP]

This is 100% true. If Espinoza wins, he doesn't get DQd or suspended. You're also right when you say that if this was a 5k claimer, nothing happens either.

Right on both accounts.

I think it should be looked at..........Jocks get suspended all the time for questionable rides in Europe.

[Stillriledup]

I think it should be looked at..........Jocks get suspended all the time for questionable rides in Europe.

Some disagree with me, but i feel that jocks help other jocks all the time, by getting out of the way. There are a LOT of questionable rides that never end up in suspensions or fines....so, if they're going to suspend Victor for this, they need to start handing out suspensions like candy.

What about the horse in the Pacific Classic who dueled up with Game On Dude? That horse 1) hindered another horse 2) made no real attempt to win

Yet, no fine or suspensions.

Same thing with the Pa Derby, there was a similar situation where a jock rode specifically to beat another horse at the detriment of his own mount.

[Exotic1]

This is 100% true. If Espinoza wins, he doesn't get DQd or suspended. You're also right when you say that if this was a 5k claimer, nothing happens either.

Right on both accounts.

The bettors in this case were fortunate - no impact to the running order of finish. Are there enough disincentives and punitive measures in place so that serious impeding (aka serious "herding") doesn't happen too often? Better to be proactive before the races are run with disincentives and penalties than to disqualify and change the running order of finish. All IMO.

[GaryG]

At one time this was commonolace, it was called race riding. Take a look at Day's ride on Forty Niner in the 1988 Preakness. His mission was to keep Winning Colors from winning. As I remember she held on for 3ed and he was badly beaten.

[thespaah]

Interesting.
I wonder why it has died out over here - at least on the turf?
I've only been around US racing since the late 80s,
and I don't recall ever seeing that tactic used.

As you know, it's not all that common in Europe.
Aidan O'Brien probably does it most over there these days.
Godolphin occasionally, too.

I seldom react one way, or the other, to race riding.
I see the majority of riders as capable pros who do their best.
There is an elite group at the top of the game, and a larger
number who struggle at the bottom (winning well under 10%).
Those in between, for the most part, could ride anything that
I would willingly wager on, and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Yesterday, though, from the first turn I was livid.
The forcing tactics were so blatant it was embarrassing.
Then, before the home stretch, Sky Kingdom faded.
His job was done. Shared Belief was tested by him,
and the final quarter mile would see if he passed, or failed.

We all know the ending.
Bad trip, or not, I wouldn't rush to crown him as champ - yet.
Baffert is going to prep Bayern with precision in his own backyard.
A key factor will be whether Guillot and co. will send Moreno for
the Classic. He has next to no shot, but they probably ship.
Before states changed their rules regarding coupling of entrants due to common trainers, the use of a rabbit was more easily detectable.
The so called 'weaker half' of the entry would be a speedball with middling accomplishments.
Trainers would enter a rabbit when their horse was a mid pack to closer while the horse to beat needed to be on or just behind the lead in order to have a chance.
Also, in instances where a race was written where weights were assinged, the rabbit would get sometimes as much as 10 to 15lbs break in weight from the highweight.
On a side note
I have noticed over maybe the last 5 or ten years the term "handicap" has all but been dropped. Meaning horses are no longer handicapped by weight.
For example, The Whitney used to be a handicap. Weights were assigned.
Now it is a "stakes". Weight is according age.

[Exotic1]

At one time this was commonolace, it was called race riding. Take a look at Day's ride on Forty Niner in the 1988 Preakness. His mission was to keep Winning Colors from winning. As I remember she held on for 3ed and he was badly beaten.

Ok. I don't know of that incident in particular. Basically, the rider is saying to you, "I don't give a flying about the wagers you placed on my horse, I don't give a double flying on the wagers you placed on the horse I'm trying to prevent from winning and to top it off I don't give a flying about you under any circumstances..." Plain and simple.

[Exotic1]

And when I say rider, by extension that would mean the "connections" that gave those instructions. I understand it's part of a strategic plan to discourage the opposing trainer from entering their horse in a race that I think I have a very good chance of winning. But, this type of action should be held to non betting races, wherever they have them.

[Mineshaft]

101



damn didnt think it would be that high.

[Exotic1]

damn didnt think it would be that high.

I guess that's what the projection for Fed Biz was and it fit with the other races.

[Rex Phinney]

The irony is if Espinoza's horse would have gone on to win, there would of not even been a DQ. If he would of hit the board and not faded badly there would not be a suspension.

"If" is a strong word, usually followed by something not applicable to the argument.

Sky Kingdom didn't win the race, after 6 furlongs he fell apart badly and finished last, this only further proves the point Espinoza was not riding to win, and that the ride was so bad the horse didn't even finish in the same zip code as the others.

Since there seems to be alot of "what if" going around let's try this.

What if you had money on the 2 horse? Would you be upset that Espinoza rode him like bull in a china shop? How about if you had him completing the tri behind Shared Belief and Fed Biz?

What if you had SB singled in the pick 6 and he lost because of Espinoza's ride?

[davefulche]

I guess everyone wants a refund on Shake the Bank when he was a rabbit for Better Talk Now. Intentions are part of handicapping. Sky Kingdom wasn't beating Shared Belief on his best day. Fed Biz was the only horse with a shot and even then needed SK to help. Victor should have gotten no days. This happens all the time and I can't believe of all people Bailey criticized the situation. He compromised a much better race horse in a much bigger race.

[Stillriledup]

"If" is a strong word, usually followed by something not applicable to the argument.

Sky Kingdom didn't win the race, after 6 furlongs he fell apart badly and finished last, this only further proves the point Espinoza was not riding to win, and that the ride was so bad the horse didn't even finish in the same zip code as the others.

Since there seems to be alot of "what if" going around let's try this.

What if you had money on the 2 horse? Would you be upset that Espinoza rode him like bull in a china shop? How about if you had him completing the tri behind Shared Belief and Fed Biz?

What if you had SB singled in the pick 6 and he lost because of Espinoza's ride?

You Blame Mike Smith for getting hung wide.

[horses4courses]

Before states changed their rules regarding coupling of entrants due to common trainers, the use of a rabbit was more easily detectable.
The so called 'weaker half' of the entry would be a speedball with middling accomplishments.
Trainers would enter a rabbit when their horse was a mid pack to closer while the horse to beat needed to be on or just behind the lead in order to have a chance.
Also, in instances where a race was written where weights were assinged, the rabbit would get sometimes as much as 10 to 15lbs break in weight from the highweight.
On a side note
I have noticed over maybe the last 5 or ten years the term "handicap" has all but been dropped. Meaning horses are no longer handicapped by weight.
For example, The Whitney used to be a handicap. Weights were assigned.
Now it is a "stakes". Weight is according age.

Yes, handicaps are all but gone from US racing.
I don't think that bettors, or those directly involved, really miss them, either.

[ArlJim78]

I guess everyone wants a refund on Shake the Bank when he was a rabbit for Better Talk Now. Intentions are part of handicapping. Sky Kingdom wasn't beating Shared Belief on his best day. Fed Biz was the only horse with a shot and even then needed SK to help. Victor should have gotten no days. This happens all the time and I can't believe of all people Bailey criticized the situation. He compromised a much better race horse in a much bigger race.

There is no comparison between using a rabbit and what they did with Sky Kingdom. When you enter a rabbit the field has the choice of running up front or laying way back. The presence of a rabbit does not mean that the rest of the field is immediately forced to race in a way they don't want to.
The pace might help those who close, but it doesn't mean that any of the others are compromised. They might have to adapt but that is racing.

Also in the case of Shake The Bank there was always the outside chance that he could pull off the upset which I believe he did once or twice. So yes there was the intention to try to steal the race if he could.

However when you enter a horse as a blocker whose sole purpose is to impede the path of A specific horse, that is another matter entirely and I'll bet those few folks who bet Sky Kingdom to win didn't know that he was only going to be used on defense.
If this is all fine as you imply then where do you draw the line? Can a trainer enter three blockers in a big race, and assign each of them to cover the main competitors? Shall it be like football half the horses are on offense and half on defense, the winner being the horse who is best able to shake loose from his defenders? What about double or triple teaming a top horse, should that also be part of it? Pretty soon it starts to look like demolition derby.

It wasn't right when Bailey did it and it's not right this time.
Also it makes zero difference how good the horse is or how big the race is.

[Tall One]

I think it's still done in big money races. It's just not as detectable. I see riders run off for no damn good reason, especially in turf races. I gotta think trainers talk to each other.........



Agreed. Hell, Zito used a rabbit a couple times to help set up Strike The Gold's late run, and everybody knew what he was doing as he announced it before hand.

[Rex Phinney]

There is no comparison between using a rabbit and what they did with Sky Kingdom. When you enter a rabbit the field has the choice of running up front or laying way back. The presence of a rabbit does not mean that the rest of the field is immediately forced to race in a way they don't want to.

Exactly, I'm dumbfounded over here with all the talk about "rabbits" it isn't the same. If they want to run Sky kingdom thru 21 second fractions while keeping him in his own lane that's fine. That's the kind of stuff your horse has to be good enough to not get involved in, but it doesn't involve contact between horses impeding someone's route or pushing them into the parking lot.

[dilanesp]

Exactly, I'm dumbfounded over here with all the talk about "rabbits" it isn't the same. If they want to run Sky kingdom thru 21 second fractions while keeping him in his own lane that's fine. That's the kind of stuff your horse has to be good enough to not get involved in, but it doesn't involve contact between horses impeding someone's route or pushing them into the parking lot.

Where was the contact?

He forced the horse wide. No different than Angel Cordero did numerous times in races.

Forcing a horse wide is no different than boxing a horse in. It's race-riding.

[dilanesp]

There is no comparison between using a rabbit and what they did with Sky Kingdom. When you enter a rabbit the field has the choice of running up front or laying way back. The presence of a rabbit does not mean that the rest of the field is immediately forced to race in a way they don't want to.
The pace might help those who close, but it doesn't mean that any of the others are compromised. They might have to adapt but that is racing.

Also in the case of Shake The Bank there was always the outside chance that he could pull off the upset which I believe he did once or twice. So yes there was the intention to try to steal the race if he could.

However when you enter a horse as a blocker whose sole purpose is to impede the path of A specific horse, that is another matter entirely and I'll bet those few folks who bet Sky Kingdom to win didn't know that he was only going to be used on defense.
If this is all fine as you imply then where do you draw the line? Can a trainer enter three blockers in a big race, and assign each of them to cover the main competitors? Shall it be like football half the horses are on offense and half on defense, the winner being the horse who is best able to shake loose from his defenders? What about double or triple teaming a top horse, should that also be part of it? Pretty soon it starts to look like demolition derby.

It wasn't right when Bailey did it and it's not right this time.
Also it makes zero difference how good the horse is or how big the race is.

You are comparing situations where there could be some danger ("demolition derby") to entirely safely forcing the favorite wide, a maneuver that Angel Cordero did many times.

You guys who are saying this is wrong need to say why it is wrong:

1. Is it wrong because they were allegedly not trying to win and were harming one horse to help another? That's exactly what a rabbit does. (By the way, I reject they were not trying to win. Sky Kingdom benefitted from forcing Shared Belief to have a bad trip. It increased his small chance of winning.)

2. Is it wrong because Espinoza forced another horse wide? That's exactly what Cordero did many times in races.

3. Is it wrong because Espinoza was "impeding" a horse? That's not true. He never bumped Shared Belief, never took his path, etc. He just forced him out.

4. Is it wrong because it was on national television and Shared Belief is a star with an undefeated record?

[Stillriledup]

Exactly, I'm dumbfounded over here with all the talk about "rabbits" it isn't the same. If they want to run Sky kingdom thru 21 second fractions while keeping him in his own lane that's fine. That's the kind of stuff your horse has to be good enough to not get involved in, but it doesn't involve contact between horses impeding someone's route or pushing them into the parking lot.

Of course its the same. Its a horse "not trying to win" while specifically hindering the chances of another runner. Its exactly the same.

[Tom]

Yes, handicaps are all but gone from US racing.
I don't think that bettors, or those directly involved, really miss them, either.
We don't have any handicap horses left.

[open_question]

I also am confused by the suspension.

What Victor Espinoza did would be called, in basketball or football, running an outside screen. Makes sense for Shared Belief's competitors.

We've seen outside screens in racing before. If memory serves, Mike Smith on Lion Heart fanned Smarty Jones and Stewart Elliott wide during the Preakness, so wide that Elliott took Smarty back and then moved inside, closer to the rail. Tom Durkin certainly called Smith's tactic a case of "fanning wide."

We've seen inside screens used to equal effect in horse racing. CA Chrome was the victim of an inside screen in the PA Derby, when CJs Awesome kept him inside and tight behind Bayern until entering the stretch. Thing is, Chrome wasn't going to win on the day, but the opposition didn't know that. They planned to keep him pinned down behind an inside screen as long as it took to beat him.

Javier Castellano, Calvin Borel, and Rosie Napravnik have been criticized for herding, but no action has been taken against them for that. As far as I know, no stewards at any track have shown signs of being overly concerned about herding. Now, all of a sudden, CA stewards are concerned about Espinoza running a screen?

They must realize that a tough suspension for Espinoza may appear biased in favor of a particular colt and his high-profile connections.

The stewards must be consistent; if they believe herding is, not a legitimate screen-like tactic, but a serious problem that needs to be addressed in racing, then they better prepare themselves for a whole slew of similar calls.

If those calls are made, then fans will know that running a screen is an illegal tactic in West Coast racing.

If those calls are not made, then fans will suspect that the CA stewards are, indeed, biased in favor of particular high-profile connections.

[Tom]

Stewards do a generally poor job at every level.
Bad call, no call, no explanations, inconsistency.

Stewards generally fit the description of minimal performance.
Racing needs to seriously take control of stewards.

[MutuelClerk]

The stewards I've seen over the years are too busy watching sports or eating the racetracks food. They're usually horseman who couldn't make it in the game and now sit in judgment of others. Tax dollars at work.

[classhandicapper]

The issue here is that the horses were not coupled.

This is not the first time a high level horse like this got targeted even though one trainer didn't do the targeting with multiple horses and the riders doing the targeting sacrificed their horse to some extent.

I seem to recall multiple jockeys taking pot shots at Smarty Jones in the Belmont stakes with highly unusual premature moves that seemed designed to make him rank and move too soon. All those attackers finished buried off the board even though they were among the contenders and probably should have picked picked up a piece of the check. Of course they denied it, but I call BS. There was no way they were going to win that way and they knew it but they did it anyway.

When race riding (which IMO is legitimate) crosses over into the self sacrifice of an uncoupled horse or increased danger it's a problem.

[dilanesp]

The issue here is that the horses were not coupled.

This is not the first time a high level horse like this got targeted even though one trainer didn't do the targeting with multiple horses and the riders doing the targeting sacrificed their horse to some extent.

I seem to recall multiple jockeys taking pot shots at Smarty Jones in the Belmont stakes with highly unusual premature moves that seemed designed to make him rank and move too soon. All those attackers finished buried off the board even though they were among the contenders and probably should have picked picked up a piece of the check. Of course they denied it, but I call BS. There was no way they were going to win that way and they knew it but they did it anyway.

When race riding (which IMO is legitimate) crosses over into the self sacrifice of an uncoupled horse or increased danger it's a problem.

To me, the Smarty Jones argument cuts the other way. If those riders really did this, they exposed a horse who was overrated and unworthy of winning the Triple Crown. At any rate, the best horse won the 2004 Belmont anyway.

But also, even what you describe is part of racing. There was a locally famous race here in the 1970's, where Riva Ridge shipped out for the Hollywood Derby. A whole bunch of horses took shots at him on the lead, trying to soften him up for Quack, who had won the Hollywood Gold Cup as a 3 year old in record time and was in fantastic form. Riva Ridge survived all the challenges and ran 1:59 and change wire to wire and handily beating Quack.

Nobody wrote about how inappropriate it was that all those riders tried to soften up Riva Ridge. They all wrote about how good Riva Ridge was to overcome adversity. This is all part of the sport.

[Rex Phinney]

Of course its the same. Its a horse "not trying to win" while specifically hindering the chances of another runner. Its exactly the same.

What part of "altering another horses path" do you not understand?

A rabbit is not the same as a horse being sent out to crowd, lean on and force wide another horse for 6 furlongs of a 9 furlong race.

[Rex Phinney]

I also am confused by the suspension.

What Victor Espinoza did would be called, in basketball or football, running an outside screen. Makes sense for Shared Belief's competitors.

We've seen outside screens in racing before. If memory serves, Mike Smith on Lion Heart fanned Smarty Jones and Stewart Elliott wide during the Preakness, so wide that Elliott took Smarty back and then moved inside, closer to the rail. Tom Durkin certainly called Smith's tactic a case of "fanning wide."

We've seen inside screens used to equal effect in horse racing. CA Chrome was the victim of an inside screen in the PA Derby, when CJs Awesome kept him inside and tight behind Bayern until entering the stretch. Thing is, Chrome wasn't going to win on the day, but the opposition didn't know that. They planned to keep him pinned down behind an inside screen as long as it took to beat him.

Javier Castellano, Calvin Borel, and Rosie Napravnik have been criticized for herding, but no action has been taken against them for that. As far as I know, no stewards at any track have shown signs of being overly concerned about herding. Now, all of a sudden, CA stewards are concerned about Espinoza running a screen?

They must realize that a tough suspension for Espinoza may appear biased in favor of a particular colt and his high-profile connections.

The stewards must be consistent; if they believe herding is, not a legitimate screen-like tactic, but a serious problem that needs to be addressed in racing, then they better prepare themselves for a whole slew of similar calls.

If those calls are made, then fans will know that running a screen is an illegal tactic in West Coast racing.

If those calls are not made, then fans will suspect that the CA stewards are, indeed, biased in favor of particular high-profile connections.

"Screening" is legal in Basketball and to some extent Football. I'd challenge you to go find a source that says "screening" is a legal race riding move.

I compare it more to an auto race, imagine one driver having inside position and then taking his car straight thru a turn in order to ruin the chances of the car outside him. Now imagine the driver doing the "screening" has a teammate directly in front of the happenings.

[GMB@BP]

Some disagree with me, but i feel that jocks help other jocks all the time, by getting out of the way. There are a LOT of questionable rides that never end up in suspensions or fines....so, if they're going to suspend Victor for this, they need to start handing out suspensions like candy.

What about the horse in the Pacific Classic who dueled up with Game On Dude? That horse 1) hindered another horse 2) made no real attempt to win

Yet, no fine or suspensions.

Same thing with the Pa Derby, there was a similar situation where a jock rode specifically to beat another horse at the detriment of his own mount.

That horse was a front running specialist, the fact he went to the front is questionable?

[dilanesp]

What part of "altering another horses path" do you not understand?

A rabbit is not the same as a horse being sent out to crowd, lean on and force wide another horse for 6 furlongs of a 9 furlong race.

Altering another horse's path occurs in at least 6 races out of 10.

If that's the standard for a suspension, then you want to outlaw raceriding.

[dilanesp]

"Screening" is legal in Basketball and to some extent Football. I'd challenge you to go find a source that says "screening" is a legal race riding move.

I compare it more to an auto race, imagine one driver having inside position and then taking his car straight thru a turn in order to ruin the chances of the car outside him. Now imagine the driver doing the "screening" has a teammate directly in front of the happenings.

Do you think it should be illegal to box a horse in, like was done to Precisionist in the 1986 Breeders' Cup Classic?

I mean, at some point, these arguments seem to devolve into "the favorite should never have a bad trip".

[A. Pineda]

at no point was he trying to win the race, that wasn't his mission and everyone that watched the race knew what was going on. it was bush league.
this superstar jockey "accidentally" let his mount drift out four paths on the first turn making no attempt whatsoever to save ground? sure he was trying to win by racing out of the gate to lose a ton of ground on the turn, one of the all time great winning moves. yeah right.

That's a new winning strategy. You race wide in order to allow three competitors - the :7: , the :8: , and the :5: in this case - to pass inside of you and save tons of ground.

I wish they could have given Baffert days, too.

[Rex Phinney]

Altering another horse's path occurs in at least 6 races out of 10.

If that's the standard for a suspension, then you want to outlaw raceriding.

Obviously right? I mean on a card full of 10 races I see horses pushed 5 wide in at least 6 of them.

Get a grip. It was an unsportsmanlike ride, plain and simple, one that everyone should be rooting to see less of. If you have a problem with it and think this type of thing should be ok, I don't know what to tell you.

[burnsy]

Do you think it should be illegal to box a horse in, like was done to Precisionist in the 1986 Breeders' Cup Classic?

I mean, at some point, these arguments seem to devolve into "the favorite should never have a bad trip".


I tend to agree. People are even calling rabbits cheap too? Half of an entry was used as a rabbit all the time when I was younger. That's how it was done. Plus, Mike Smith is a big boy. He's the most experienced one out there. He never even attempted to take his horse back.....and there are times I think he likes to be 8 wide. If I see it, you think the other jocks are not going to bait him into it? He got double teamed, but hey, that's part of the game. That horse is good enough in a chump race like that to be placed anywhere. If you play along....you kind of deserve it. His ride was the dumbest move of all. Espinoza at least knew what he was doing. What' s Smith's excuse? This is a political move to "look" fair for the big fave. Mike Smith is not as good as people make him, that was too easy.

[Dark Horse]

The shortest trip around the track is still the rail. The inside rail that is. Not the outside rail, or wherever it may be that Espinoza was herding SB.

Boxing in is unfortunate, but it revolves around the first idea. The horse still gets an inside trip and usually gets a chance to find space in the stretch. Essentially, it's a traffic problem. But to force a horse to race 8 lengths more, as with SB, is plain and simple cheating. First and foremost of the people betting on the race.

Ever since he retired Game On Dude, Baffert has been acting like the world owes him something. He was even complaining about Mystery Train who messed up the pace for Fed Biz. The guy has lost it. Imo, he was behind the dirty tactics just as he was behind boxing in CC a week earlier, so that Bayern had the cleanest trip possible. He's basically spelling it out, with his complaints and especially his denying the entire concept in the last race.

[Dark Horse]

Adding;

This is happening because Bob Baffert believes his one-dimensional speed horses should have uncontested leads. And in his universe he can cheat to get such a lead, but if other speed horses force his horse into a speed duel that's cheating.

[open_question]

Pull the Pocket's (Dean Towers?) take: "The Espinoza suspension (http://www.paulickreport.com/news/people/espinoza-suspended-seven-days-for-careless-riding-in-awesome-again/). Politics? Backbiting? Fair or unfair? I don't know, but I suspect it was not done to "protect bettors". Bettor protection is about priority 1,100 on a list of 1,104 things in this sport."

http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com

[Bruiser1]

At one time this was commonolace, it was called race riding. Take a look at Day's ride on Forty Niner in the 1988 Preakness. His mission was to keep Winning Colors from winning. As I remember she held on for 3ed and he was badly beaten.

I remember that well and it was far worse, with no actions (I can recall) taken by the Stewards.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-05-29/sports/sp-5423_1_forty-niner-challenge

[Fager Fan]

The issue here is that the horses were not coupled.

This is not the first time a high level horse like this got targeted even though one trainer didn't do the targeting with multiple horses and the riders doing the targeting sacrificed their horse to some extent.

I seem to recall multiple jockeys taking pot shots at Smarty Jones in the Belmont stakes with highly unusual premature moves that seemed designed to make him rank and move too soon. All those attackers finished buried off the board even though they were among the contenders and probably should have picked picked up a piece of the check. Of course they denied it, but I call BS. There was no way they were going to win that way and they knew it but they did it anyway.

When race riding (which IMO is legitimate) crosses over into the self sacrifice of an uncoupled horse or increased danger it's a problem.

Why uncoupled? It's just as wrong when the horse is coupled. This isn't just about those who bet on the self-sacrificed horse, but also about those who bet on the horse who's being targeted. Imagine what we'd be hearing if this gelding came up a head short. Also this is about the owners and trainers of targeted horses and the purse money they can lose.

[Tom]

When you know your horse is just plain not good enough....you cheat.
Many here would reward that.

The horse should be suspended as well - hit the owner.
Maybe he will wise up and use low-life riders like Victor.

Not to worry about Victor - he appears fully qualified to make a nice living mugging people at the airport, or hitting liquor stores on weekends.

[cnollfan]

Adding;

This is happening because Bob Baffert believes his one-dimensional speed horses should have uncontested leads. And in his universe he can cheat to get such a lead, but if other speed horses force his horse into a speed duel that's cheating.

:ThmbUp:

[dilanesp]

I remember that well and it was far worse, with no actions (I can recall) taken by the Stewards.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-05-29/sports/sp-5423_1_forty-niner-challenge

There's a bunch of them that happened at Pimlico. That one, Codex against Genuine Risk in 1980, Bet Twice against Lost Code in the Pimlico Special. The Maryland officials, correctly, never suspended any of the riders involved. Because that's part of horse racing.

[Stillriledup]

There's a bunch of them that happened at Pimlico. That one, Codex against Genuine Risk in 1980, Bet Twice against Lost Code in the Pimlico Special. The Maryland officials, correctly, never suspended any of the riders involved. Because that's part of horse racing.

They're just opened a can of worms with suspending jocks who help out non coupled runners.

Or, they haven't opened a can of worms and singled out Victor because this was a "high profile" race.

[cj]

Rick Dutrow did this running two rabbits against Commentator. Pretty sure they were not coupled with Saint Liam, and very sure they did more than just help ensure a fast pace.

[Rex Phinney]

There's a bunch of them that happened at Pimlico. That one, Codex against Genuine Risk in 1980, Bet Twice against Lost Code in the Pimlico Special. The Maryland officials, correctly, never suspended any of the riders involved. Because that's part of horse racing.

So do you like these tactics? I mean you sound like you want to see more of it, like it should be going on every race. Just because it has been called one way forever does not make the tactics right or sportsmanlike.

What if the CHRB is just trying to set a tone leading up to the Breeders Cup? How would you like to see a horse like Wise Dan lose a race over some crap like this?

It was an unsportsmanlike ride, something noone should root for or try to defend, quit crying about a suspension of a jockey who probably didn't have anything good to ride anyway.

[Stillriledup]

So do you like these tactics? I mean you sound like you want to see more of it, like it should be going on every race. Just because it has been called one way forever does not make the tactics right or sportsmanlike.

What if the CHRB is just trying to set a tone leading up to the Breeders Cup? How would you like to see a horse like Wise Dan lose a race over some crap like this?

It was an unsportsmanlike ride, something noone should root for or try to defend, quit crying about a suspension of a jockey who probably didn't have anything good to ride anyway.

I would love to see Wise Dan lose because someone tried to beat him. I don't bet too many 2-5 shots, so if a 2-5 loses, that means i at least had a fighting chance to cash.

[dilanesp]

So do you like these tactics? I mean you sound like you want to see more of it, like it should be going on every race. Just because it has been called one way forever does not make the tactics right or sportsmanlike.

What if the CHRB is just trying to set a tone leading up to the Breeders Cup? How would you like to see a horse like Wise Dan lose a race over some crap like this?

It was an unsportsmanlike ride, something noone should root for or try to defend, quit crying about a suspension of a jockey who probably didn't have anything good to ride anyway.

Here's how I feel, specifically:

1. There's a lot of things that go on in horse racing, like in every sport, which are not specifically written down in the rules. If you look at NASCAR, there are practices as to when people can make passes and let other cars by. If you look at MLB, there are practices with respect to pitching inside. If you look at the NHL, there are practices with respect to enforcers and when they go after other players.

2. To say point 1 is NOT to say that all unwritten practices are good. Perhaps some aren't. And a rulemaking body can go after practices that are not good. MLB has taken action against pitchers who headhunt, for instance. But the key is, if you are going to do that, you announce a rule, in advance, so everyone knows it and then you go after violators. You don't wait until a big game like a playoff game and then suspend a player for something that was never before said to be against the rules.

3. I believe that forcing horses wide is a longstanding part of raceriding, and that in the past, it has only been punished when there was actual bumping or a safety risk. Floating out, though, like in the 1980 or 1988 Preakness, the 1988 Pimlico Special, or all sorts of Cordero rides over the years, has never been punished in the past.

4. I also think that forcing horses wide is not much different in kind from other tactics that trainers use, including with uncoupled entries, to gain an advantage, such as rabbits, boxing horses in, etc.

5. Therefore, as I currently understand the practices of the game, I don't think Espinoza did anything wrong.

6. If the CHRB wanted to change the practices, they shouldn't do that by suspending a person for a high profile ride in a high profile race. They should announce it ex ante.

7. I don't believe the CHRB actually wanted to change the practices, and I think riders will continue to be permitted to force horses out at California tracks in the future. I think the CHRB singled Espinoza out because it was an undefeated favorite in a big race on national television.

8. I don't think there should be different rules for undefeated favorites in big races on national television.

[Rex Phinney]

Here's how I feel, specifically:

1. There's a lot of things that go on in horse racing, like in every sport, which are not specifically written down in the rules. If you look at NASCAR, there are practices as to when people can make passes and let other cars by. If you look at MLB, there are practices with respect to pitching inside. If you look at the NHL, there are practices with respect to enforcers and when they go after other players.

2. To say point 1 is NOT to say that all unwritten practices are good. Perhaps some aren't. And a rulemaking body can go after practices that are not good. MLB has taken action against pitchers who headhunt, for instance. But the key is, if you are going to do that, you announce a rule, in advance, so everyone knows it and then you go after violators. You don't wait until a big game like a playoff game and then suspend a player for something that was never before said to be against the rules.

3. I believe that forcing horses wide is a longstanding part of raceriding, and that in the past, it has only been punished when there was actual bumping or a safety risk. Floating out, though, like in the 1980 or 1988 Preakness, the 1988 Pimlico Special, or all sorts of Cordero rides over the years, has never been punished in the past.

4. I also think that forcing horses wide is not much different in kind from other tactics that trainers use, including with uncoupled entries, to gain an advantage, such as rabbits, boxing horses in, etc.

5. Therefore, as I currently understand the practices of the game, I don't think Espinoza did anything wrong.

6. If the CHRB wanted to change the practices, they shouldn't do that by suspending a person for a high profile ride in a high profile race. They should announce it ex ante.

7. I don't believe the CHRB actually wanted to change the practices, and I think riders will continue to be permitted to force horses out at California tracks in the future. I think the CHRB singled Espinoza out because it was an undefeated favorite in a big race on national television.

8. I don't think there should be different rules for undefeated favorites in big races on national television.

Did you have any $$$ on the race and if so was it against Shared Belief?

[dilanesp]

Did you have any $$$ on the race and if so was it against Shared Belief?

No. I watched the race on NBCSN and was cracking up laughing when they rounded the first term.

[Stillriledup]

Here's how I feel, specifically:

1. There's a lot of things that go on in horse racing, like in every sport, which are not specifically written down in the rules. If you look at NASCAR, there are practices as to when people can make passes and let other cars by. If you look at MLB, there are practices with respect to pitching inside. If you look at the NHL, there are practices with respect to enforcers and when they go after other players.

2. To say point 1 is NOT to say that all unwritten practices are good. Perhaps some aren't. And a rulemaking body can go after practices that are not good. MLB has taken action against pitchers who headhunt, for instance. But the key is, if you are going to do that, you announce a rule, in advance, so everyone knows it and then you go after violators. You don't wait until a big game like a playoff game and then suspend a player for something that was never before said to be against the rules.

3. I believe that forcing horses wide is a longstanding part of raceriding, and that in the past, it has only been punished when there was actual bumping or a safety risk. Floating out, though, like in the 1980 or 1988 Preakness, the 1988 Pimlico Special, or all sorts of Cordero rides over the years, has never been punished in the past.

4. I also think that forcing horses wide is not much different in kind from other tactics that trainers use, including with uncoupled entries, to gain an advantage, such as rabbits, boxing horses in, etc.

5. Therefore, as I currently understand the practices of the game, I don't think Espinoza did anything wrong.

6. If the CHRB wanted to change the practices, they shouldn't do that by suspending a person for a high profile ride in a high profile race. They should announce it ex ante.

7. I don't believe the CHRB actually wanted to change the practices, and I think riders will continue to be permitted to force horses out at California tracks in the future. I think the CHRB singled Espinoza out because it was an undefeated favorite in a big race on national television.

8. I don't think there should be different rules for undefeated favorites in big races on national television.

I like this post.

It did SEEM as if there was a double standard at work here...and that the punishment was only handed down because of the magnitude of the race, the nat tv exposure and the horse who got floated wide is a "chosen" horse.

It also seemed like the suspension was because the horse (victor) failed to fire and run a great race. In other words, if Shared Belief was the one who carried out the 39-1 shot and then went on to win, would they have DQd him and or suspended the rider? Quick answer is not a snowballs chance in hell.

Also, by suspending the jock, you're essentially telling the connections that they have to ride their horses a certain way and there are certain strategies they aren't allowed to employ. What if a jock and or trainer determines not only does my horse need to travel away from other horses, but the 7 path is actually the best path on the first turn? Who's to say Victor or Baffert didnt walk the track and determine specifically how to ride this particular horse?

Its a big grey area for sure and very inconsistent with the standard that has been set over the years for "not trying to win" or "Hindering other horses" or "helping other horses"

Its not Victor's fault that Smith was outside him......because if Smith was not outside Victor, nothing would have been said or done due to the "wideness" of Victor.

[Rex Phinney]

Its not Victor's fault that Smith was outside him......because if Smith was not outside Victor, nothing would have been said or done due to the "wideness" of Victor.

It's getting pretty deep in here, Smith was in the gate directly outside of the 2. Assuming Espinoza is on a Kamikazee mission there is no way Smith can go anywhere except be outside him.

Espinoza didn't appeal the penalty, what more do you need to know about it?

[Dark Horse]

To back up my earlier comment. From Bloodhorse:

Bob Baffert trains both Sky Kingdom and Fed Biz, but told the Santa Anita publicity office he had nothing to do with the tactics employed by Espinoza.

"These guys are fierce competitors," Baffert said, alluding to Espinoza, Smith, and others in the jockey colony. "I see it happen to my horses when you have a good one. I didn't tell Victor to do that. He stayed away from my other horse, Fed Biz…Game On Dude, that's why I retired him, because he was starting to get mugged, every race. I didn't cry about it. I just retired him."

Without a doubt Baffert equates not getting an uncontested lead for his one-dimensional speed horses with 'mugging'.

And what do we see immediately after he retires Game On Dude? Two actual muggins. Both of California horses not trained by Baffert, also the two leading contenders for 3 yo horse of the year. In each case a longshot without any chance of winning was sacrificed to give one of Baffert's speed horses an uncontested lead against an odds-on favorite. It worked with Bayern, it almost worked with Fed Biz.

And in the case of Fed Biz, Baffert even manages to accuse Mystery Train of messing up the pace .... Again, he meant that the horse dared to challenge his one-dimensional speed.

What does Baffert think? That people are completely stupid? This is the guy who deserves a suspension; not so much Espinoza.

[Stillriledup]

It's getting pretty deep in here, Smith was in the gate directly outside of the 2. Assuming Espinoza is on a Kamikazee mission there is no way Smith can go anywhere except be outside him.

Espinoza didn't appeal the penalty, what more do you need to know about it?

Smith couldn't have taken back right out of the gate and dropped over to the inside? If Victor is asking his horse to run early and Smith is asking his horse to run early too than yeah, they're going to be close to each other. Smith's other option was to grab a hold and race from behind. There wasn't just one option.

[Rex Phinney]

Smith couldn't have taken back right out of the gate and dropped over to the inside? If Victor is asking his horse to run early and Smith is asking his horse to run early too than yeah, they're going to be close to each other. Smith's other option was to grab a hold and race from behind. There wasn't just one option.

You are forgetting that out of the gate Espinoza knew what his plan was and Smith didn't. Smith came out of the gate with the thought to get a good stalking position, he seemed content for that to be outside Fed Biz and maybe even outside Sky Kingdom if needed. He probably is making sure he doesn't get bull rushed by Mystery Train from the outside.

Smith goes the first 1/8 hustling his horse pretty good in order to ensure a stalking position, considering he only has 2 horses inside him and Mystery Train never shows up to press the pace Smith thinks he is a good spot, after the first 1/8 the trouble starts, by the time they get to the turn Smith was trying to slow but it was too late. After that what do you want him to do, stop the horse? Any slowdown Smith could have done smooth enough to not upset his mount Espinoza would have just mirrored. Watch them go down the back stretch and you can see Smith trying to slow, This is when Imperative moves in to the rail spot. It didn't matter, Espinoza mirrors the pace all the way until his horse has had enough and practically stops at the 3/8 pole.

[Stillriledup]

You are forgetting that out of the gate Espinoza knew what his plan was and Smith didn't. Smith came out of the gate with the thought to get a good stalking position, he seemed content for that to be outside Fed Biz and maybe even outside Sky Kingdom if needed. He probably is making sure he doesn't get bull rushed by Mystery Train from the outside.

Smith goes the first 1/8 hustling his horse pretty good in order to ensure a stalking position, considering he only has 2 horses inside him and Mystery Train never shows up to press the pace Smith thinks he is a good spot, after the first 1/8 the trouble starts, by the time they get to the turn Smith was trying to slow but it was too late. After that what do you want him to do, stop the horse? Any slowdown Smith could have done smooth enough to not upset his mount Espinoza would have just mirrored. Watch them go down the back stretch and you can see Smith trying to slow, This is when Imperative moves in to the rail spot. It didn't matter, Espinoza mirrors the pace all the way until his horse has had enough and practically stops at the 3/8 pole.

You're giving me the "when he realized it it was too late" scenario. I'm talking about making a call before the race. He could have dropped back and made one run...and if that was his plan before the race, he would have avoided the nonsense.

[Tom]

He should make that call?
Seriously?

[Stillriledup]

He should make that call?
Seriously?

No, i'm just trying to illustrate that there were at least 2 options of how to ride the horse, not 1 option like some are trying to argue.

[Tom]

He made a choice how to ride - the right one -then he had no choice after Victor decided he didn't want to try to do his job and give those who bet on him any chance at all.

[dilanesp]

He made a choice how to ride - the right one -then he had no choice after Victor decided he didn't want to try to do his job and give those who bet on him any chance at all.

I think this line is both false and dishonest.

It's false because in fact, compromising the chances of the favorite increases the chances that Espinoza's horse would win. If Shared Belief runs off with the race, no horse, including Sky Kingdom, has a chance. So Espinoza's action was consistent with trying to win the race.

It's dishonest because not a single person who says this bet on Sky Kingdom or actually cares about his bettors. They are just saying this when what really pisses them off is what was done to Shared Belief. But since they know Shared Belief has no right to a perfect trip, they shed crocodile tears for Sky Kingdom's put-upon bettors.

[Rex Phinney]

I think this line is both false and dishonest.

It's false because in fact, compromising the chances of the favorite increases the chances that Espinoza's horse would win. If Shared Belief runs off with the race, no horse, including Sky Kingdom, has a chance. So Espinoza's action was consistent with trying to win the race.

It's dishonest because not a single person who says this bet on Sky Kingdom or actually cares about his bettors. They are just saying this when what really pisses them off is what was done to Shared Belief. But since they know Shared Belief has no right to a perfect trip, they shed crocodile tears for Sky Kingdom's put-upon bettors.

Dude I don't know what corner of the galaxy you are coming from on this. But this is about the 10th concept you have dreamed up that is just about 12 kinds of crazy.

You are trying to say that the ride Espinoza gave Sky Kingdom actually betters his chance of winning??????

WATCH Sky kingdom at the 3/8th's pole. This is what happens to horses when you ride them like Espinoza did, a professional who makes his living riding horses would know this.

You sound like someone who just has it in for Shared Belief, Jim Rome or both. I'm not sure what is going on there but I just thought I'd point out that what you are saying is ridiculous.

[Tom]

I think this line is both false and dishonest.

It's false because in fact, compromising the chances of the favorite increases the chances that Espinoza's horse would win. If Shared Belief runs off with the race, no horse, including Sky Kingdom, has a chance. So Espinoza's action was consistent with trying to win the race.

It's dishonest because not a single person who says this bet on Sky Kingdom or actually cares about his bettors. They are just saying this when what really pisses them off is what was done to Shared Belief. But since they know Shared Belief has no right to a perfect trip, they shed crocodile tears for Sky Kingdom's put-upon bettors.

Wrong.
Wrong. And a tad Bizzare as well
Wrong. Like, totally, dude.

[Stillriledup]

I think this line is both false and dishonest.

It's false because in fact, compromising the chances of the favorite increases the chances that Espinoza's horse would win. If Shared Belief runs off with the race, no horse, including Sky Kingdom, has a chance. So Espinoza's action was consistent with trying to win the race.

It's dishonest because not a single person who says this bet on Sky Kingdom or actually cares about his bettors. They are just saying this when what really pisses them off is what was done to Shared Belief. But since they know Shared Belief has no right to a perfect trip, they shed crocodile tears for Sky Kingdom's put-upon bettors.

Totally agree. The "outrage" was how dare anyone bother or hinder everyone's precious fanboy horse and they disguised that as pretending they cared that Victor gave his horse "less" of a chance to win. And you're right, carrying the favorite wide and wider increases your chances because it lessens his.

[cj]

You don't increase the chances of winning by decreasing those of the favorite when you are ALSO decreasing yours at the same time.