Ortiz wins the Kent Desormeaux Award

[Sea Hero]

Worst ride in a major stakes race ever. A one-move horse and he takes it out fast, runs it 5 paths out on both turns, doesn't get it a clear path until the eighth pole, and moves too late. Big Brown anybody?

[Dream_Police]

Game Winner wasn't there so somebody had to take his place out there.

[metro]

Castellano's rides today get honorable mention.

Let's Saez and Majid get away with 23.2 and 47.2 in the Easy Goer....then sends Cookie Dough into a 21.4 and 43.4 speed duel against Serengeti in the Acorn. :confused:

[PhantomOnTour]

I thought you folks hated Desormeaux because he gives up if he doesn't have a shot at the win.
Now he's being taken to task for his ride on Big Brown?
No one would have won on BB that day.
Learn the game

[Sea Hero]

I thought you folks hated Desormeaux because he gives up if he doesn't have a shot at the win.
Now he's being taken to task for his ride on Big Brown?
No one would have won on BB that day.
Learn the game

He's just a junk rider regardless. When he wins, he's on 3 lengths more the best horse than he wins by.

There's no excuse for taking a horse off the rail on a dry fast track at Belmont before the first turn, with a mile and three-eighths left in the race and running him wide, unless the jockey is paranoid about being conspired against, which is retarded in a race like the Belmont.

Learn reality.

[PhantomOnTour]

He's just a junk rider regardless. When he wins, he's on 3 lengths more the best horse than he wins by.

There's no excuse for taking a horse off the rail on a dry fast track at Belmont before the first turn, with a mile and three-eighths left in the race and running him wide, unless the jockey is paranoid about being conspired against, which is retarded in a race like the Belmont.

Learn reality.

Good Lord....is it your assertion that Desormeaux's ride on Big Brown is the reason he lost?

[the little guy]

Wait someone is criticizing Kent for a ride in the Belmont and it's Big Brown? Seriously? Should he have eased him earlier? This is insane.

He did massively blow it in a Belmont Stakes, but it was ten years before Big Brown.

[ReplayRandall]

Wait someone is criticizing Kent for a ride in the Belmont and it's Big Brown? Seriously? Should he have eased him earlier? This is insane.

He did massively blow it in a Belmont Stakes, but it was ten years before Big Brown.
Let's just keep things real quiet, as Kent is still a HOF'er, even though he's imperfect, just like the rest of us.

[pandy]

Bill Mott was interviewed yesterday and he said that "we" decided to leave with Tactius and try to get a spot. So Jose Ortiz was following a plan set forth by his Hall of Fame trainer. I didn't think it was a bad ride, because either you leave the gate and try to stalk, which could, and did, result in a wide trip, or, you take back and try to make one run, which isn't easy to do. Very few horses win from rallying from far off the pace. Tacitus may have been able to win that way but it's easily understandable why you'd want to try to get early position.

[GMB@BP]

Bill Mott was interviewed yesterday and he said that "we" decided to leave with Tactius and try to get a spot. So Jose Ortiz was following a plan set forth by his Hall of Fame trainer. I didn't think it was a bad ride, because either you leave the gate and try to stalk, which could, and did, result in a wide trip, or, you take back and try to make one run, which isn't easy to do. Very few horses win from rallying from far off the pace. Tacitus may have been able to win that way but it's easily understandable why you'd want to try to get early position.

Its just very easy to cherry pick rides and say should have done this or that. Just not that easy, he is a stalker type who was in the 10 post. Ortiz is pretty brilliant at getting over, and often times aggressive doing so, just did not happen in this case.

[Robert Fischer]

Jose rode Tacitus perfectly.

"Break, stay clear of trouble(just don't get him beat), and win this thing Jose!" :ThmbUp:

The post position, Tacitus' style, along with the break and position of the rivals, the pace setup, the track, and Sir Winston/Rosario, just happened to conspire against him.


Rosario had a completely different job description. "He's been thriving. (Freestyle,) Just do it Joel!":ThmbUp:



Only in the minds-eye of bettors, in our post-mortem analysis, does Jose Ortiz try unorthodox tactics.

[cj]

Jose rode Tacitus perfectly.

"Break, stay clear of trouble(just don't get him beat), and win this thing Jose!" :ThmbUp:

The post position, Tacitus' style, along with the break and position of the rivals, the pace setup, the track, and Sir Winston/Rosario, just happened to conspire against him.


Rosario had a completely different job description. "He's been thriving. (Freestyle,) Just do it Joel!":ThmbUp:



Only in the minds-eye of bettors, in our post-mortem analysis, does Jose Ortiz try unorthodox tactics.

I'm not going to crucify Ortiz over that ride, but calling it perfect is borderline insane.

[Robert Fischer]

I'm not going to crucify Ortiz over that ride, but calling it perfect is borderline insane.

You had a lot better weekend at Belmont than I did, and you are someone whose perspective I tend to respect, even when I disagree. :ThmbUp:


As someone who bet Tacitus, I could see it unfolding, for most of the race, and it was a helpless feeling.

But without the benefit of already having seen the outcome and trying to guess what tactics may have been more successful had he tried something different, I didn't have a better idea.

Before the race was run, I was fine with Tacitus drawing the #10 post. He was significantly best. He would overcome a wide trip. I wouldn't have wanted him to try to bull inside... I wouldn't have wanted him to gallop early and sit way back for a deep close... I wouldn't have wanted him to quarterhorse early and go to the lead...

Sure after the race, let's go back in the time-machine, and try some different stuff...

-but, that's simply my perspective, on why I called his ride "perfect".

You very well may have a stronger case.

[jay68802]

So, Mott tosses the Belmont because he was given the Derby? HOF for sure.

[cj]

You had a lot better weekend at Belmont than I did, and you are someone whose perspective I tend to respect, even when I disagree. :ThmbUp:


As someone who bet Tacitus, I could see it unfolding, for most of the race, and it was a helpless feeling.

But without the benefit of already having seen the outcome and trying to guess what tactics may have been more successful had he tried something different, I didn't have a better idea.

Before the race was run, I was fine with Tacitus drawing the #10 post. He was significantly best. He would overcome a wide trip. I wouldn't have wanted him to try to bull inside... I wouldn't have wanted him to gallop early and sit way back for a deep close... I wouldn't have wanted him to quarterhorse early and go to the lead...

Sure after the race, let's go back in the time-machine, and try some different stuff...

-but, that's simply my perspective, on why I called his ride "perfect".

You very well may have a stronger case.

I just found it unusual to call a ride perfect when, to be frank, the horse lost because at no point did he save any ground and the rides on him and the winner were clearly the difference in the result. It isn't like the horse was 1 to 9 and stood out over the others by leaps and bounds, but that is how he rode him.

[Robert Fischer]

I'm going to defer to you (CJ), on this. :ThmbUp:

'Perfect' is a strong word. In trying to defend/fairness to Ortiz, I was a bit biased. Ground-loss was in fact the difference.

I just found it unusual to call a ride perfect when, to be frank, the horse lost because at no point did he save any ground and the rides on him and the winner were clearly the difference in the result. It isn't like the horse was 1 to 9 and stood out over the others by leaps and bounds, but that is how he rode him.