Rabbit's Jockey Bonus?

[StormAgain]

Anyone know if the jockeys of rabbits get a bonus for doing a good job?

Aaron Gryder hustled his horse up, set fast fractions and let Flintshire through to get another Sword Dancer victory.

Do they get mounts down the line? A monitary bonus for their ride?

[cj]

That would help pay for the heavy fine he should be levied.

[PaceAdvantage]

Haven't seen the head on, but on first blush, I'd have to agree with you cj.

They used to couple horses in stakes races for this very scenario...but people don't like coupled horses, so this is what you get sometimes, I suppose.

[ronsmac]

Haven't seen the head on, but on first blush, I'd have to agree with you cj.

They used to couple horses in stakes races for this very scenario...but people don't like coupled horses, so this is what you get sometimes, I suppose.There should also be a hefty fine for the trainer. I'm sure the jockeys were following instructions.

[Tom]

This is exactly why I am opposed to uncouple entries, this and collusion by less than honest trainers.

Only WWE and horse racing have tag teams.
Some days I wonder which has more integrity.

[depalma113]

That would help pay for the heavy fine he should be levied.

Heavy fine and suspension of both the trainer and jockey. That was complete garbage.

[EMD4ME]

Wait till 50% of fields are filled by 1 trainer on a consistent basis. ......

[betovernetcapper]

This is just speculation, but I'd imagine the transaction would be with the jockey's agent and the payment would be getting to ride some coveted horse in a future race. I'd also imagine in today's world where everyone has a smart phone with a camera & recording feature, this would be handled with a wink and a nod, rather than forthright statements.
Giving the joc cash would have the potential for some type of inquiry. A smart person would do it as quietly as possible.

[StormAgain]

Ok this was a bad example...how about Shining Copper's Jockey when Big Blue Kitten gets a win?

Do they get anything extra for riding to their instructions when they know they (usually*) have no shot at winning?

*Shining Copper hung tough for a couple of them.

[StormAgain]

This is just speculation, but I'd imagine the transaction would be with the jockey's agent and the payment would be getting to ride some coveted horse in a future race. I'd also imagine in today's world where everyone has a smart phone with a camera & recording feature, this would be handled with a wink and a nod, rather than forthright statements.
Giving the joc cash would have the potential for some type of inquiry. A smart person would do it as quietly as possible.

Ah yeah, that's kinda what I was thinking. Thanks!

[PaceAdvantage]

What is all this wild speculation about cash or bonus or whatever.

The rabbit was in there to help the winner. So, he helped him also get through on the rail when the opportunity presented itself. Why does there have to always be some grand conspiracy as if this was all pre-planned? This is what rabbits do...that's why horses used to be coupled in races like these.

[depalma113]

What is all this wild speculation about cash or bonus or whatever.

The rabbit was in there to help the winner. So, he helped him also get through on the rail when the opportunity presented itself. Why does there have to always be some grand conspiracy as if this was all pre-planned? This is what rabbits do...that's why horses used to be coupled in races like these.

Really? You think that wasn't pre-planned? It was pretty freaking obvious.

[EMD4ME]

Really? You think that wasn't pre-planned? It was pretty freaking obvious.

I heard Aaron had

1) Heatstroke &

2) thought the race was 5 1/2 F. Saw the far turn coming up and went for it.

3) He let Flintshire go through by coincidence as he was really feeling the heatstroke and let the horse drift out at a coincidental time (on what Aaron thought was the gallop out) :cool:

If ANYONE out there believes this wasn't 100000% planned, please let me sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

[Track Phantom]

The NBC replay I saw, it looked like Castellano was yelling (at least he had his mouth open, mouthing something) as the entered the turn. I wonder if he was notifying Gryder that he was coming up the rail.

Having the horse in as rabbit is totally fine. Moving out to make room for stablemate to come up the rail isn't quite so fine.

[thespaah]

Anyone know if the jockeys of rabbits get a bonus for doing a good job?

Aaron Gryder hustled his horse up, set fast fractions and let Flintshire through to get another Sword Dancer victory.

Do they get mounts down the line? A monitary bonus for their ride?
"Let him through"?.....Umm. When a rider is yapping at a jock in front of them yelling "coming thru"...that rider in front will move out of the way if anything to keep his horse from getting run over.
And, remember this....A jockey colony is a group of guys and gals that see each other every day. With that said, what goes around comes around.
Now, I will clarify something. If for example the horse in front is running on and not tiring and has a solid chance at a win or a good placing, then no way should that rider have ot alter his path. At that point, the faster horse is just in deep poo poo....The rider has to find another pathway.

[PaceAdvantage]

Really? You think that wasn't pre-planned? It was pretty freaking obvious.So it was pre-planned that the rabbit would be in a position to clear the rail open for Flintshire turning for home?

Look, whether it was pre-planned or not doesn't really matter. You don't think Gryder would have done the exact same thing had they not "pre-planned" what you think they pre-planned?

Of course he would have...one look inside and seeing those Juddmonte colors breathing down his neck, you better believe he's getting out of the way, and he didn't have to worry about 6 getting DQ'd along with him should he impede anyone else while he cleared the path.

Nothing needed to be pre-planned...it's a no-brainer.

[cj]

"Let him through"?.....Umm. When a rider is yapping at a jock in front of them yelling "coming thru"...that rider in front will move out of the way if anything to keep his horse from getting run over.
And, remember this....A jockey colony is a group of guys and gals that see each other every day. With that said, what goes around comes around.
Now, I will clarify something. If for example the horse in front is running on and not tiring and has a solid chance at a win or a good placing, then no way should that rider have ot alter his path. At that point, the faster horse is just in deep poo poo....The rider has to find another pathway.

Yes, but you can't move out of the way if it bothers other horses.

How the stewards didn't DQ the horse is beyond me.

[PaceAdvantage]

I heard Aaron had

1) Heatstroke &

2) thought the race was 5 1/2 F. Saw the far turn coming up and went for it.

3) He let Flintshire go through by coincidence as he was really feeling the heatstroke and let the horse drift out at a coincidental time (on what Aaron thought was the gallop out) :cool:

If ANYONE out there believes this wasn't 100000% planned, please let me sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.You guys will even find a way to argue when everyone agrees with you already. Congrats.

Define "pre-planned." Maybe that's my problem.

Gryder was in there to set up for Flinty....of course he's not going to impede the Juddmonte star when he sees him breathing down his neck to the inside...you think he should have stayed right where he was? :lol:

The whole point is, he didn't have to worry about impeding anyone else because they weren't coupled...

[SuperPickle]

I don't have a problem with him moving out of the way since he was done. I have a problem with him crushing two horses when he did it.

Rabbits need to be coupled.

Not to mention there was thousands of dollars bet on both rabbits today which leads me to the fantasy of why cant I book that sweet action on a horse who's not even trying to win.

[EMD4ME]

You guys will even find a way to argue when everyone agrees with you already. Congrats.

Define "pre-planned." Maybe that's my problem.

Gryder was in there to set up for Flinty....of course he's not going to impede the Juddmonte star when he sees him breathing down his neck to the inside...you think he should have stayed right where he was? :lol:

The whole point is, he didn't have to worry about impeding anyone else because they weren't coupled...

Both Money Multiplier AND Flintshire STAYED inside on the backstretch.

Why do you think that is?

Didn't they know the speed would collapse??? Of course they did ;)

The funny part is, I am not even arguing with you or anyone :D . I agree with most everything you and everyone wrote.

[Donttellmeshowme]

I don't have a problem with him moving out of the way since he was done. I have a problem with him crushing two horses when he did it.

Rabbits need to be coupled.

Not to mention there was thousands of dollars bet on both rabbits today which leads me to the fantasy of why cant I book that sweet action on a horse who's not even trying to win.




Correct those 2 horses should of been coupled. Disgrace that they were not. Same trainer same owner and not coupled.Bullshit....

[EMD4ME]

Yes, but you can't move out of the way if it bothers other horses.

How the stewards didn't DQ the horse is beyond me.

Stewards?

My buddy keeps telling me that when the jocks pick up that phone, they are really calling the jockeys room.

I'm telling you CJ, I'm beleiving it more and more :bang: :D

[EMD4ME]

Correct those 2 horses should of been coupled. Disgrace that they were not. Same trainer same owner and not coupled.Bullshit....


Wait till 5 years from now when it's C Brown with 4 horses in the race and some other mega power has 4. With a 3rd party having 2 or 3.

It will become a bigger issue.

These powerhouse monopoly stables are not good for business.

[thespaah]

Yes, but you can't move out of the way if it bothers other horses.

How the stewards didn't DQ the horse is beyond me.
That much is certain. Again, I mentioned safety as well.

[thespaah]

Correct those 2 horses should of been coupled. Disgrace that they were not. Same trainer same owner and not coupled.Bullshit....
NYRA stopped coupling horses in stakes races years ago.
They got the go ahead from the Gaming and Racing Board.....
Let's say for a moment they go back to the old rules where coupled entries were required when, 1, common ownership. 2 common trainer 3.a combination of both or either.....When Pletcher, Brown, Assumussen have 7 of the 10 horses going to the gate, you'd end up with 4 or 5 betting interests.

[EMD4ME]

Since when does the 1 get DQ'd if the 1A is DQ'd for interference?

Am I missing something here guys/gals?

[thespaah]

Stewards?

My buddy keeps telling me that when the jocks pick up that phone, they are really calling the jockeys room.

I'm telling you CJ, I'm beleiving it more and more :bang: :D
"Do I sound like I'm ordering a pizza?!!!!!!"

[PaceAdvantage]

Since when does the 1 get DQ'd if the 1A is DQ'd for interference?

Am I missing something here guys/gals?Always been that way...where you been?

That was the incentive to NOT do what we saw DONE today....

[cj]

Since when does the 1 get DQ'd if the 1A is DQ'd for interference?

Am I missing something here guys/gals?

If it helps the stablemate that can happen.

[EMD4ME]

Always been that way...where you been?

That was the incentive to NOT do what we saw DONE today....

I must be losing it at 40.

If the 1 or the 1A gets scratched, the other becomes Purse Money Only. (nowadays).

On to DQ's:

You're telling me that if the 1 wires the field by 25 gate to wire and the 1A causes a mishap for 4th late in deep stretch, they used to take down BOTH the 1 and 1A?

How in the world, can someone who's whole life is this game, not remember that?

[EMD4ME]

If it helps the stablemate that can happen.

That I vaguely do remember. But not an automatic DQ of the entire entry for any foul caused by any one of them.

Thanks CJ

[Track Phantom]

I didn't watch the replay, but didn't American Freedom come way out to the 4 or 5 path early, allowing Arrogate clean sailing on the inside? That looked intentional to me. Nothing wrong with it, I guess, just thought it was interesting in the context of this thread.

[PaceAdvantage]

You're telling me that if the 1 wires the field by 25 gate to wire and the 1A causes a mishap for 4th late in deep stretch, they used to take down BOTH the 1 and 1A?I didn't tell you this. :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

That I vaguely do remember. But not an automatic DQ of the entire entry for any foul caused by any one of them.

Thanks CJYou're the first one using the word automatic...now you're moving the goalposts.

Let's just leave it at...yes...the 1 can be DQ'd too if the 1a causes interference.

[EMD4ME]

I didn't tell you this. :lol:

I have to admit, that was funny :D :D :ThmbUp:

[EMD4ME]

You're the first one using the word automatic...now you're moving the goalposts.

Let's just leave it at...yes...the 1 can be DQ'd too if the 1a causes interference.

I don't even know where the goalposts are :lol: :lol: :lol:

Shoot, I'm still looking for the finish lines !!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[chenoa]

I must be losing it at 40.

If the 1 or the 1A gets scratched, the other becomes Purse Money Only. (nowadays).

On to DQ's:

You're telling me that if the 1 wires the field by 25 gate to wire and the 1A causes a mishap for 4th late in deep stretch, they used to take down BOTH the 1 and 1A?

How in the world, can someone who's whole life is this game, not remember that?

Had that happen to me in Woodbine years and years ago, :1: finished 1st but :1a: was 4th and caused interfence. :1: came down as did my jaw and took a while to pick it up off the floor. :lol: :lol:

[EMD4ME]

Had that happen to me in Woodbine years and years ago, :1: finished 1st but :1a: was 4th and caused interfence. :1: came down as did my jaw and took a while to pick it up off the floor. :lol: :lol:


What year? What decade?

[chenoa]

What year? What decade?
Late 80's or early 90's, I know it was a Woodbine T-Bred race. First time I had ever saw that happen and was surprised, didn't know if that happened at other tracks or just a Woodbine thing.

[chenoa]

EMD have you ever witnessed any inquiries in Hong Kong racing. I witnessed an inquiry there once where they placed the winner 3rd and placed the 3rd place horse 1st.

[thespaah]

Since when does the 1 get DQ'd if the 1A is DQ'd for interference?

Am I missing something here guys/gals?
I have been going to the races for 40 years and cannot recall such a scenario.....
If there was such a rule and it was enforced, there would be a racetrack which resembled a pile of smoldering rubble.

[EMD4ME]

I have been going to the races for 40 years and cannot recall such a scenario.....
If there was such a rule and it was enforced, there would be a racetrack which resembled a pile of smoldering rubble.


oUqHVP02yM0

[EMD4ME]

EMD have you ever witnessed any inquiries in Hong Kong racing. I witnessed an inquiry there once where they placed the winner 3rd and placed the 3rd place horse 1st.

I don't even know how to watch/find the Hong Kong races.

Are they that subjective/liberal there?

I can see a clean scenario where that is justifiable.

2 horse's come flying down the lane. 1 horse impedes other horse bad, victim is so impacted, he/she falls back to 3rd.

2nd finisher doesn't deserve the win. Leave them 2nd. DQ winner to 3rd, put 3rd horse up to win spot.


That involves common sense so doesn't happen here (amongst many other reasons).

Good to hear!

[thespaah]

Both Money Multiplier AND Flintshire STAYED inside on the backstretch.

Why do you think that is?

Didn't they know the speed would collapse??? Of course they did ;)

The funny part is, I am not even arguing with you or anyone :D . I agree with most everything you and everyone wrote.
Ok...I viewed head on replay several time.. Starting half way down the back stretch final time, the rider on the :2: takes two looks back at the :6: ,,,,,the :5: leads. as they enter the far turn, the rider on the :5: is really driving. he knows his mount is almost out of gas. As they pass the quarter pole, the rider on the :2: knows the :5: is going to back up into his horse. the rider on the :2: has to check significantly. he looking for a hole to go wide.
Meanwhile, the :5: is out of petrol and that rider is looking back at the :6: because he has to know that one is on the engine. As the :2: finds a hole and escapes the rail, the :5: now tired finally finds a sliver of room to get out of the way of the charging :6:.......The :5: does make contact with a horse to the right. But nothing to write home about.
I'm not one for these "IT'S FIXED!!!!" conspiracy theories. So I do my own research. And let us not forget, I am an honest person. If I see a rider do something stupid or give a crap ride, gloves come off.

[thespaah]

oUqHVP02yM0
Precisely the incident which led to my reference to the racetrack in ashes

[tophatmert]

Not sure why they ride Flintshire like he needs to save every inch of ground to beat these guys he's been beating. You can't be afraid of losing a little ground to Twilight Agenda, can you ?

[EMD4ME]

Precisely the incident which led to my reference to the racetrack in ashes

Great minds think alike ;) :ThmbUp:

You're screwed if we think alike :D

[cj]

I have been going to the races for 40 years and cannot recall such a scenario.....
If there was such a rule and it was enforced, there would be a racetrack which resembled a pile of smoldering rubble.

I have definitely seen it happen before at least a few times. Of course these days it is nearly impossible since there are hardly any entries left. I seem to remember it in a big trotting race last year that involved Pinkman.

[Fager Fan]

NYRA stopped coupling horses in stakes races years ago.
They got the go ahead from the Gaming and Racing Board.....
Let's say for a moment they go back to the old rules where coupled entries were required when, 1, common ownership. 2 common trainer 3.a combination of both or either.....When Pletcher, Brown, Assumussen have 7 of the 10 horses going to the gate, you'd end up with 4 or 5 betting interests.

Maybe then they'll break up the mega stables that aren't doing the real training on that many.

[thespaah]

Great minds think alike ;) :ThmbUp:

You're screwed if we think alike :D
Oh...I think we can break a few lamps and get away with it....LOL

[thespaah]

Maybe then they'll break up the mega stables that aren't doing the real training on that many.
Ok...By what method would you think a free market private operated business can be regulated out of existence?
BTW, if the so called mega stables are only sending out 15 or 20% of their horses to the track, what difference would it make?
If you are referring to the Pletchers, Browns, Assumssens, etc who have tons of talent in their barns and can cram the entry box of a graded stake, well you might have a point. Now, i will ask again, by which method would you limit the ability of a business to conduct legitimate business?
BTW,..NASCAR tried to limit the number of teams to three for any one owner or company. The owners that had large operations had a come to Jesus meeting with the boys in Daytona Beach and convinced them this was a bad idea.....They came to an agreement. 4 is the limit.
Now, can you see the day where a racing jurisdiction tells these guys that they can't put for example, more than two in the entry box for any one race?
I am not arguing here. Just looking at this from all angles.
IN a perfect world, there would be enough top horses to go around so that no trainer would have a dominant operation. We don't live in a perfect world

[thespaah]

I have definitely seen it happen before at least a few times. Of course these days it is nearly impossible since there are hardly any entries left. I seem to remember it in a big trotting race last year that involved Pinkman.
Wow..I had no idea there was such a rule.
I can see where that scenario may cause "quite a stir" among the attendees....
Stepping back from this. Such a rule is illogical.
Even though the entrants are one betting interest, their performances are independent.
Unless of course the rule was written this way to prevent shenanigans among the coupled entrants. Such as a collusion to interfere with a superior entrant and alter the order of finish. But.....I really don't see that happening.
Anyway

[SuperPickle]

Not sure why they ride Flintshire like he needs to save every inch of ground to beat these guys he's been beating. You can't be afraid of losing a little ground to Twilight Agenda, can you ?

My sense in watching all four of his races in the states that the jockey is told to cover him up. I don't think it has anything to do with ground. A lot of Euro's are trained to accerlate when they're in the clear. I think that's the deal here.

[kdavis7837]

I didn't watch the replay, but didn't American Freedom come way out to the 4 or 5 path early, allowing Arrogate clean sailing on the inside? That looked intentional to me. Nothing wrong with it, I guess, just thought it was interesting in the context of this thread.
Stunned me a bit, but I assumed with the removal of blinkers they were trying to slow AF down a bit, he had the speed to put Nyqust away he certainly could have handled these up front, I wonder if Arrogate wasn't suposssed to be AF,s rabbit but just got brave out front, stuff happens, he certainly was the better horse today either way
I couldn't resist the 7 to 1 on AF when I placed a bet, even though I knew blinkers removed and other speed, didn't think Bafferts other was the threat !
That was a big leap in class, late blomming 3 YO I quess, or so they say

[PaceAdvantage]

I have been going to the races for 40 years and cannot recall such a scenario.....
If there was such a rule and it was enforced, there would be a racetrack which resembled a pile of smoldering rubble.Well, since tracks are killing entries as much as they can as field sizes shrink, naturally, you're not going to be seeing this as often, but I saw it plenty of times over the years.

Rest assured, if part of an entry causes interference which aids the other half of the entry, they are both being placed behind the offended horse.

I thought this was pretty much common knowledge among non-newbies.

[clocker7]

Here are some links:

http://www.albanylaw.edu/media/user/glc/disqualifications_and_coupled_entries.pdf

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-07-16/sports/sp-4270_1_horse-racing-notes

[tophatmert]

My sense in watching all four of his races in the states that the jockey is told to cover him up. I don't think it has anything to do with ground. A lot of Euro's are trained to accerlate when they're in the clear. I think that's the deal here.
Agreed ,but they might be playing with fire a bit. He is good that's for sure.

[Fager Fan]

Ok...By what method would you think a free market private operated business can be regulated out of existence?
BTW, if the so called mega stables are only sending out 15 or 20% of their horses to the track, what difference would it make?
If you are referring to the Pletchers, Browns, Assumssens, etc who have tons of talent in their barns and can cram the entry box of a graded stake, well you might have a point. Now, i will ask again, by which method would you limit the ability of a business to conduct legitimate business?
BTW,..NASCAR tried to limit the number of teams to three for any one owner or company. The owners that had large operations had a come to Jesus meeting with the boys in Daytona Beach and convinced them this was a bad idea.....They came to an agreement. 4 is the limit.
Now, can you see the day where a racing jurisdiction tells these guys that they can't put for example, more than two in the entry box for any one race?
I am not arguing here. Just looking at this from all angles.
IN a perfect world, there would be enough top horses to go around so that no trainer would have a dominant operation. We don't live in a perfect world

I could easily see a rule that one has to be with their horses for X days in a week (say 5), averaged over a month perhaps, to be considered their trainer, else the trainer who IS with them must be considered their trainer of record. they could write the rule to provide for exceptions that make sense.

Making up the training charts isn't doing the real training. That's done by the person who has hands on their legs and eyes on them out on the track in the mornings.

[Ruffian1]

I could easily see a rule that one has to be with their horses for X days in a week (say 5), averaged over a month perhaps, to be considered their trainer, else the trainer who IS with them must be considered their trainer of record. they could write the rule to provide for exceptions that make sense.

Making up the training charts isn't doing the real training. That's done by the person who has hands on their legs and eyes on them out on the track in the mornings.

Back in Maryland in the 70's and early 80's, if a trainer was not present for more than 48 hours, the horses needed to run in the name of the asst. trainer. I had to switch my horses to my asst. when I would take my family to the beach for a week.
That rule went away over time . I don't remember the exact circumstances as to why it did though.