Gomez edges Leparoux with a little help from Pedroza(Brett Favre?).

[andymays]

WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM HIS FRIENDS

By Ray Paulick

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/with-a-little-help-from-his-friends/

Excerpt:

Pedroza helped Garrett Gomez win his fourth consecutive money title by reportedly telling Santa Anita Park stewards he was not feeling well and took off Cenizo, his mount in the final race of the year at the Southern California track. Gomez got the pick-up mount, won the race, and earned more than enough money to surpass Julien Leparoux, who had been well in front when he stopped riding in early December to visit family in France.

Earlier on Dec. 31, after Gomez’s final scheduled mount of the day finished sixth, it looked as though Leparoux would win his first money title by a $194 margin. All Gomez needed to do aboard Cenizo was break from the gate, and the horse would have earned an appearance fee of $400, enough to pass Leparoux, but Cenizo won, giving Gomez mount earnings of $18,571,171, compared to Leparoux’s $18,560,371.

[cj]

Something tells me Pedroza still got his winner's share.

[rwwupl]

WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM HIS FRIENDS

By Ray Paulick

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/with-a-little-help-from-his-friends/

Excerpt:

Pedroza helped Garrett Gomez win his fourth consecutive money title by reportedly telling Santa Anita Park stewards he was not feeling well and took off Cenizo, his mount in the final race of the year at the Southern California track. Gomez got the pick-up mount, won the race, and earned more than enough money to surpass Julien Leparoux, who had been well in front when he stopped riding in early December to visit family in France.

Earlier on Dec. 31, after Gomez’s final scheduled mount of the day finished sixth, it looked as though Leparoux would win his first money title by a $194 margin. All Gomez needed to do aboard Cenizo was break from the gate, and the horse would have earned an appearance fee of $400, enough to pass Leparoux, but Cenizo won, giving Gomez mount earnings of $18,571,171, compared to Leparoux’s $18,560,371.


Some things are more important than following the written rules. Rules can never cover all situations.

Knowing and doing what is right and acting with honor outweighs all and some involved in our great game have not learned well.

Our game declines.

rwwupl

[rwwupl]

Some things are more important than following the written rules. Rules can never cover all situations.

Knowing and doing what is right and acting with honor outweighs all and some involved in our great game have not learned well.

Our game declines.

rwwupl


Exerpt from article:

“I don’t get how some people don’t understand this. I don’t even know what to say to them. This has been done numerous times, and it’s been done numerous times with more manipulation than just one race.”


Has anyone considered the customers who use "Jockeys" in their selection process and may have active pick-6's or other horizontal bets going?

The betting customers do not like "manipulation" when racing is holding their money.

What has happened that separates racing with honor?

[andymays]

Exerpt from article:




Has anyone considered the customers who use "Jockeys" in their selection process and may have active pick-6's or other horizontal bets going?

The betting customers do not like "manipulation" when racing is holding their money.

What has happened that separates racing with honor?


rwwupl :ThmbUp:

This stuff has been done before by other Jockeys. I think it would have been classy of Gomez to stop short even though he was offered a mount in the last race by Pedroza.

Pedroza should have told the stewards the real reason for not riding instead of saying he was sick. Besides that it shouldn't have been Pedrozas' decision anyway it should have been the owner/Trainers decision (who would most likely have wanted Gomez anyway). Then you also have the bettors to consider. Those that had bets in action and didn't have the winner but may have if Gomez was the original rider.

There are bigger problems in the game but the manipulation of the mount by Pedroza and Gomez looks bad in my opinion.

------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.rogerstein.com/radio/archive2.asp

The agent for Gomez was interviewed by Roger Stein on Saturday January 2nd. Good interview!

On a funny side note during the interview the Agent was taking a leak and you could hear the flush during the interview. :D

[Robert Goren]

Some things are more important than following the written rules. Rules can never cover all situations.

Knowing and doing what is right and acting with honor outweighs all and some involved in our great game have not learned well.

Our game declines.

rwwupl In the 40+ years I have been following the sport, I have never seen honor and racing mixed.

[rwwupl]

In the 40+ years I have been following the sport, I have never seen honor and racing mixed.


There has been honor involved with racing. I recall Shoemaker and his agent never had a contract, only a handshake. There are many more ,but I think this makes the point.

Things seem to be different now. I wonder if the publics opinion is influenced by these selfish manipulations?

[cj]

Is there some kind of award for winning this "title"? I can't think of a single person that gives a crap about it other than apparently Garrett Gomez.

[andymays]

Is there some kind of award for winning this "title"? I can't think of a single person that gives a crap about it other than apparently Garrett Gomez.


I don't think there is.

[OTM Al]

Is there some kind of award for winning this "title"? I can't think of a single person that gives a crap about it other than apparently Garrett Gomez.

Clearly Julien didn't care that much about it either as he left the country. People find the most amazing things to complain about...

[cj]

Clearly Julien didn't care that much about it either as he left the country. People find the most amazing things to complain about...

I'm not sure it is fair to the public when you have P3/P4/P6 bets based on the other named rider being present. It isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it does show once again how bettors are disregarded.

[46zilzal]

I'm not sure it is fair to the public when you have P3/P4/P6 bets based on the other named rider being present. It isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it does show once again how bettors are disregarded.
Since these things happen extemporaneously, how is the bettor to know unless they retract the bet WHICH they are free to do?

[OTM Al]

I'm not sure it is fair to the public when you have P3/P4/P6 bets based on the other named rider being present. It isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it does show once again how bettors are disregarded.

I think that's pushing it a bit. Horse was the morning line favorite. Besides, if you are betting on the named rider, you probably don't last long anyway (and I don't mean you as in you, but as in general public). Might as well just be betting on the horse's names

[andymays]

Since these things happen extemporaneously, how is the bettor to know unless they retract the bet WHICH they are free to do?


You can't retract P6's, P4's and P3's once they are in action.

Then you have to wonder about certain guys letting other certain guys through a hole when they wouldn't let another "non friend" through. This has always gone on but doesn't look good.

[Show Me the Wire]

I think that's pushing it a bit. Horse was the morning line favorite. Besides, if you are betting on the named rider, you probably don't last long anyway (and I don't mean you as in you, but as in general public). Might as well just be betting on the horse's names


May have to do with the pace scenariao. Pedroza is known to go for the lead type and take back, while Gomez is more patient. No matter how you view it Gomez is an upgrade and the trainer rides Gomez on his better horses.

Over all I agree with you, some people like to complain, about nada.

[cj]

I think that's pushing it a bit. Horse was the morning line favorite. Besides, if you are betting on the named rider, you probably don't last long anyway (and I don't mean you as in you, but as in general public). Might as well just be betting on the horse's names

Maybe, but it isn't the job of those in charge to decide on which factors people should bet.

[cj]

May have to do with the pace scenariao. Pedroza is known to go for the lead type and take back, while Gomez is more patient. No matter how you view it Gomez is an upgrade and the trainer rides Gomez on his better horses.

Over all I agree with you, some people like to complain, about nada.

It isn't nada. Maybe people threw the horse out because Pedroza was riding.

Again, not saying it is a huge deal, but where is the line to protect the bettor?

[andymays]

It isn't nada. Maybe people through the horse out because Pedroza was riding.


Pedroza shouldn't be lying to the stewards either. What if a Jock lies and takes off a mount and they put a poor rider on? It works both ways. Lets say they put a bad apprentice on the favorite after the P6 was in action in order to hurt the chances of that particular horse?


It's a slippery slope and sets a bad precedent when you consider the other possibilities.

[rwwupl]

Pedroza shouldn't be lying to the stewards either. What if a Jock lies and takes off a mount and they put a poor rider on? It works both ways. Lets say they put a bad apprentice on the favorite after the P6 was in action in order to hurt the chances of that particular horse?


It's a slippery slope and sets a bad precedent when you consider the other possibilities.


This thread indicates what some people in racing thinks of the customers, Nada,Nada...

They do not give a damn. Do you possibly think that could be a problem?

[andymays]

This thread indicates what some people in racing thinks of the customers, Nada,Nada...

They do not give a damn. Do you possibly think that could be a problem?


In the Roger Stein interview when the Agent for Gomez was asked about the impact on the betting public he said he never thought of that. There you go! :eek:

[Show Me the Wire]

It isn't nada. Maybe people threw the horse out because Pedroza was riding.

Again, not saying it is a huge deal, but where is the line to protect the bettor?


The above implies if Pedroza rides, the mount loses, which is not true. The people that took a stand against Pedroza lose, whether Pedroza or Gomez rode the horse, there is no need to protect the bettor from any nefarious events.

In fact, the betting public doesn't know if Gomez was offered the mount, and he refused, or that Gomez had never been offered the mount prior to Pedroza being named.

If we really want to protect the betting public, it should be disclosed which jock had the first option to ride the mount, then we can really infer intent.

[Show Me the Wire]

In the Roger Stein interview when the Agent for Gomez was asked about the impact on the betting public he said he never thought of that. There you go! :eek:

Because there was none :bang:

[cj]

Because there was none :bang:

Of course there was, even if it is minimal.

[andymays]

If we're gonna discuss this I hope everyone that has an opinion has listened to the interview with the Agent on the Roger Stein show.
Saturday January 2nd.

http://www.rogerstein.com/radio/archive2.asp

In the grand scheme of things it's not a huge deal but like I said before what if they manipulated the situation and put a bad Jockey on? Then what would be said about the maneuver in a P6 carryover situation?

[cj]

In fact, the betting public doesn't know if Gomez was offered the mount, and he refused, or that Gomez had never been offered the mount prior to Pedroza being named.


None of that matters. It said Pedroza in writing in the program. That is what people used to make their decisions either for or against. Some may have tossed the horse because of Pedroza. I know for certain jockey ability is programmed into many software apps.

Would the horse have won with Pedroza? Who knows? I realize things happen and mounts change, but it should only be because of necessity, not for some guy to get a title nobody cares about.

[andymays]

None of that matters. It said Pedroza in writing in the program. That is what people used to make their decisions either for or against. Some may have tossed the horse because of Pedroza. I know for certain jockey ability is programmed into many software apps.

Would the horse have won with Pedroza? Who knows? I realize things happen and mounts change, but it should only be because of necessity, not for some guy to get a title nobody cares about.


or Pedroza lying to the stewards about his reason for not riding the horse.

[Greyfox]

Trevor Denman is culpable here as well.
Before Race 6 he announced that Gomez would take over the mount in Race 8 automatically putting him ahead of Leparoux in money winnings.
Of course the betting public picked up on the jockey change and the Pick 3, daily double, and all bets in the final race were impacted.
Now I have no problem with Denman announcing Jockey changes. In fact that is something he should be doing. However, his added note though about the money title influenced a lot of bettors.

[Show Me the Wire]

Trevor Denman is culpable here as well.
Before Race 6 he announced that Gomez would take over the mount in Race 8 automatically putting him ahead of Leparoux in money winnings.
Of course the betting public picked up on the jockey change and the Pick 3, daily double, and all bets in the final race were impacted.
Now I have no problem with Denman announcing Jockey changes. In fact that is something he should be doing. However, his added note though about the money title influenced a lot of bettors.


If anything the change put more people on the winner. I would agree, it effected the betting public in that regard.

[joanied]

Although I don't handicap, I have to agree that switching to Gomez may have dropped the odds on that horse...but because it was announced, shouldn't that give the bettors time to change their picks if they want to? Jockey changes happen often, so why is this one a big deal...
because it has to do with the jockey earnings title...and if Pedroza lied about how he was feeling (and I think everyone knows he did), then that needs to be addressed...I am a huge fan of Gomez and Leparoux, but it seems to me that this was a rather underhanded way to gain the title...especially becuase Leparoux was out of the country so had no way to even try and get another mount for the day..."all is fair in love and war"...but this, IMO, was just kinda sneaky and not fair.

[Stillriledup]

Trevor Denman is culpable here as well.
Before Race 6 he announced that Gomez would take over the mount in Race 8 automatically putting him ahead of Leparoux in money winnings.
Of course the betting public picked up on the jockey change and the Pick 3, daily double, and all bets in the final race were impacted.
Now I have no problem with Denman announcing Jockey changes. In fact that is something he should be doing. However, his added note though about the money title influenced a lot of bettors.


I don't have a problem with it and here's why. The process of handicapping has no set in stone rules. EVERYTHING is fair game as far as handicapping goes. If you are in the paddock and you hear a jockey sneeze, you factor that into your analysis that he might be sick and not be strong enough to win. Trevor just created another 'handicapping' angle, there are hundreds of 'angles' you can use on every horse in every race to either bet on or against them...what's one more?

[Stillriledup]

Martin Pedroza is not a jock who takes off live mounts because he's sick. He's a tough SOB who's probably ridden with broken bones and dislocated joints before in his career, he's not losing a live mount for Julio unless he's being rushed to the hospital near death. I don't have a problem with him doing a favor for GOGO. I think that he was compensated and there's a great chance gogo rode that horse for free when all is said and done.

[cj]

Although I don't handicap, I have to agree that switching to Gomez may have dropped the odds on that horse...but because it was announced, shouldn't that give the bettors time to change their picks if they want to? Jockey changes happen often, so why is this one a big deal...
because it has to do with the jockey earnings title...and if Pedroza lied about how he was feeling (and I think everyone knows he did), then that needs to be addressed...I am a huge fan of Gomez and Leparoux, but it seems to me that this was a rather underhanded way to gain the title...especially becuase Leparoux was out of the country so had no way to even try and get another mount for the day..."all is fair in love and war"...but this, IMO, was just kinda sneaky and not fair.

This is true, except for those that might have bet against the horse in the P4/P6. Again, it is a minor point, but nobody was looking out for that group. I am pretty amazed people can't see how this could influence people's bets.

[Stillriledup]

Trevor Denman is culpable here as well.
Before Race 6 he announced that Gomez would take over the mount in Race 8 automatically putting him ahead of Leparoux in money winnings.
Of course the betting public picked up on the jockey change and the Pick 3, daily double, and all bets in the final race were impacted.
Now I have no problem with Denman announcing Jockey changes. In fact that is something he should be doing. However, his added note though about the money title influenced a lot of bettors.

I just mentioned your post to someone and he laughed and said "what's the guy worried about, Trevor gave him the winner in advance!"

:lol:

[Greyfox]

I just mentioned your post to someone and he laughed and said "what's the guy worried about, Trevor gave him the winner in advance!"

:lol:

Yes. And he also gave it to everyone else and his dog too. ;)
It was my single in the late horizontal exotics. Surprisingly the Pick 3 didn't pay too bad for three short odds winners.

[Stillriledup]

Yes. And he also gave it to everyone else and his dog too. ;)
It was my single in the late horizontal exotics. Surprisingly the Pick 3 didn't pay too bad for three short odds winners.


But a lot of people didnt take advantage of it. Personally, i bet on the 2nd place finisher trying to take advantage of the inflated win price. Silly me for thinking that they werent' going to 'hand' Gogo the race.

[v j stauffer]

I don't have a problem with it and here's why. The process of handicapping has no set in stone rules. EVERYTHING is fair game as far as handicapping goes. If you are in the paddock and you hear a jockey sneeze, you factor that into your analysis that he might be sick and not be strong enough to win. Trevor just created another 'handicapping' angle, there are hundreds of 'angles' you can use on every horse in every race to either bet on or against them...what's one more?

Very sharp post. As for Ron and Garrett's tactics. I can promise you if given the same opportunity for Joel I would have done EXACTLY the same thing. The idea is to try to finish in front of everybody else. That's why they keep track.

[Cardus]

Vic, I don't disagree with your opinion here, but could you not make it about you and what you would have done? Just once?

You could have done that without injecting yourself -- even hypothetically -- into your response.

[Stillriledup]

Vic, I don't disagree with your opinion here, but could you not make it about you and what you would have done? Just once?

You could have done that without injecting yourself -- even hypothetically -- into your response.

Its not a big deal that he interjected himself.

[andymays]

Very sharp post. As for Ron and Garrett's tactics. I can promise you if given the same opportunity for Joel I would have done EXACTLY the same thing. The idea is to try to finish in front of everybody else. That's why they keep track.


We have a situation on Southern California where all the big bets converge on the last race. We have P6, P4, and Super High Five.

What happens when the day comes when a guy like Pedroza (could be anyone) lies to the Stewards about being sick when he has the favorite in the last race and a low percentage Jock is given the mount and he or she gives the horse a bad ride?

Although this has been done before it sets a bad example and gives those who wish to manipulate (cheat) an avenue to do so.

And by the way it's pretty clear that Pedroza lied about being sick. The agent for Gomez was interviewed on the Roger Stein show about the incident.

[Cardus]

I didn't make a grand spectacle of it.

Just asking a question... of Vic.

[Cardus]

We have a situation on Southern California where all the big bets converge on the last race. We have P6, P4, and Super High Five.

What happens when the day comes when a guy like Pedroza (could be anyone) lies to the Stewards about being sick when he has the favorite in the last race and a low percentage Jock is given the mount and he or she gives the horse a bad ride?

Although this has been done before it sets a bad example and gives those who wish to manipulate (cheat) an avenue to do so.

And by the way it's pretty clear that Pedroza lied about being sick. The agent for Gomez was interviewed on the Roger Stein show about the incident.

Did you expect Vic to take a high road -- i.e., concern for the bettors -- on this one?

[Cardus]

Very sharp post. As for Ron and Garrett's tactics. I can promise you if given the same opportunity for Joel I would have done EXACTLY the same thing. The idea is to try to finish in front of everybody else. That's why they keep track.

Do you think Ron will do the same thing with Joel when he has Joel's book?

[cj]

Did you expect Vic to take a high road -- i.e., concern for the bettors -- on this one?

What amazes me is that so many, including Vic, are blind to the fact this shows no consideration for bettors. Switching from Pedroza to Gomez isn't much different from switching from Pedroza to Joy Scott. Either way, those that used the horse or those that didn't, somebody is taking the short end of the stick after the fact.

I understand that most don't care. But, in a game where bettors have been getting the shaft for so long, I'm going to speak up every chance I can when they get shafted again. As usual, we are an afterthought in the process. Nobody doubts the agent was looking out for his rider. Of course any agent would do the same thing. What is said is the stewards didn't make a stand against this. They are supposed to look out for us.

[Show Me the Wire]

We have a situation on Southern California where all the big bets converge on the last race. We have P6, P4, and Super High Five.

What happens when the day comes when a guy like Pedroza (could be anyone) lies to the Stewards about being sick when he has the favorite in the last race and a low percentage Jock is given the mount and he or she gives the horse a bad ride?

Although this has been done before it sets a bad example and gives those who wish to manipulate (cheat) an avenue to do so.

And by the way it's pretty clear that Pedroza lied about being sick. The agent for Gomez was interviewed on the Roger Stein show about the incident.

The change took place with the intent to win. The stewards would not be so lenient allowing a change in your hypothetical situataion.

Why look for problems where there are none? You do have a gigantic axe to grind. Don't you?

[Show Me the Wire]

............... Switching from Pedroza to Gomez isn't much different from switching from Pedroza to Joy Scott......


Too funny :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Dahoss9698]

Its not a big deal that he interjected himself.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4424/buttkissingphoto.jpg (http://img33.imageshack.us/i/buttkissingphoto.jpg/)

[affirmedny]

Is there some kind of award for winning this "title"? I can't think of a single person that gives a crap about it other than apparently Garrett Gomez.

Yes there is an award. The leading money winning jockey almost invariably wins the Eclipse award.

[andymays]

Yes there is an award. The leading money winning jockey almost invariably wins the Eclipse award.


I think Borel gets it this year. We'll see.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

What amazes me is that so many, including Vic, are blind to the fact this shows no consideration for bettors.

It is absolutely amazing.

[affirmedny]

Writing this from memory, but I believe in 1974 the great filly Chris Evert was a few dollars short of winning the money title for all ages and sexes that year. Somehow there was miraculously an allowance race that popped up on new year's eve that she fit the conditions for even though she had already won the filly triple crown. Not exactly the same scenario but a situation where the rules were "bent" to hand somone a title. She jogged of course.

[cj]

You could have done that without injecting yourself -- even hypothetically -- into your response.

It helps those I've seen driving around with those WWVD bumper stickers.

[v j stauffer]

Vic, I don't disagree with your opinion here, but could you not make it about you and what you would have done? Just once?

You could have done that without injecting yourself -- even hypothetically -- into your response.

Ron is the agent for a leading rider. I am the agent for a leading rider. I don't understand your post?

[v j stauffer]

Do you think Ron will do the same thing with Joel when he has Joel's book?

That sounds awful. Hope Joel doesn't fire me and hire Ron.

[Grits]

It helps those I've seen driving around with those WWVD bumper stickers.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I swear, if you weren't a moderator, you'd be banned for your smart mouth.

[v j stauffer]

What amazes me is that so many, including Vic, are blind to the fact this shows no consideration for bettors. Switching from Pedroza to Gomez isn't much different from switching from Pedroza to Joy Scott. Either way, those that used the horse or those that didn't, somebody is taking the short end of the stick after the fact.

I understand that most don't care. But, in a game where bettors have been getting the shaft for so long, I'm going to speak up every chance I can when they get shafted again. As usual, we are an afterthought in the process. Nobody doubts the agent was looking out for his rider. Of course any agent would do the same thing. What is said is the stewards didn't make a stand against this. They are supposed to look out for us.

I always try to be an advocate for the bettors. I am one myself. I wear a couple of hats. As an agent I have no problem with what happened.

[andymays]

I always try to be an advocate for the bettors. I am one myself. I wear a couple of hats. As an agent I have no problem with what happened.


Vic, in California we have short fields and we have one Jockey Agent representing two journeyman jockeys (not only you) in races with uncoupled Owner/Trainer entries combined with the fact that we have Tri's and Supers in those short fields. It is all within the rules but how is any of this good for the bettor?

[v j stauffer]

Vic, in California we have short fields and we have one Jockey Agent representing two journeyman jockeys (not only you) in races with uncoupled Owner/Trainer entries combined with the fact that we have Tri's and Supers in those short fields. It is all within the rules but how is any of this good for the bettor?

It's only bad for the bettor if people are cheating. I don't cheat. I don't know anybody that does. I'm sure it exsists but rarely at this level. Too much money to be made by just excelling.

[andymays]

It's only bad for the bettor if people are cheating. I don't cheat. I don't know anybody that does. I'm sure it exsists but rarely at this level. Too much money to be made by just excelling.

Whether people are cheating or not is not the point and who's to say. All that stuff makes it easier to cheat and it can have the appearance of impropriety so why allow it?

When you make a bet do you always bet on your guys mount or do you ever bet against him?

[v j stauffer]

Whether people are cheating or not is not the point and who's to say. All that stuff makes it easier to cheat and it can have the appearance of impropriety so why allow it?

When you make a bet do you always bet on your guys mount or do you ever bet against him?

If an agent makes a bet in a race his rider participates in he MUST wager on his rider. Can't even make an exacta box.

[andymays]

If an agent makes a bet in a race his rider participates in he MUST wager on his rider. Can't even make an exacta box.


I know that's the rule for Trainers as well but we all know it's not enforced (or it's impossible to enforce).

[cj]

I always try to be an advocate for the bettors. I am one myself. I wear a couple of hats. As an agent I have no problem with what happened.

I certainly understand that and said as much. As a bettor though, it is a potential problem. When people wagered in the horizontal bets, they did it with the impression Pedroza would be riding. Please, lets not kid anyone here and pretend he is on par with Gomez. If something really happened that Pedroza needed off, that is part of the game. Since it didn't, there really is no reason for it. The gambler should be considered before some record few care about.

Unfortunately, agents, trainers, stewards, jockeys, etc. usually forget about us.

[rwwupl]

I certainly understand that and said as much. As a bettor though, it is a potential problem. When people wagered in the horizontal bets, they did it with the impression Pedroza would be riding. Please, lets not kid anyone here and pretend he is on par with Gomez. If something really happened that Pedroza needed off, that is part of the game. Since it didn't, there really is no reason for it. The gambler should be considered before some record few care about.

Unfortunately, agents, trainers, stewards, jockeys, etc. usually forget about us.


It is not hard to tell where people are coming from on Pace or anyplace else. The people who benefit from the take are mostly for more of the same. It is hard to rationalize their defense of the one sided thinking that dominates racing.

They do not give a damn about the customers . When they learn to respect the people who put their money down on bets, the game may have a chance at revival.

Racing is a participatory sport for the customers,and some believe that customers have no rights at all. The "Take" people do not want to hear from us, but they gladly accept our money. How sweet it must be.

[Stillriledup]

I certainly understand that and said as much. As a bettor though, it is a potential problem. When people wagered in the horizontal bets, they did it with the impression Pedroza would be riding. Please, lets not kid anyone here and pretend he is on par with Gomez. If something really happened that Pedroza needed off, that is part of the game. Since it didn't, there really is no reason for it. The gambler should be considered before some record few care about.

Unfortunately, agents, trainers, stewards, jockeys, etc. usually forget about us.

I know i'm grasping at straws here, but i'll give it a shot anyway. There are absolutely no 'rules' in handicapping that says ANY information is off base. There's no one who can say "this one handicapping theory/angle is legit and you can use but this other handicapping theory/angle is NOT legit and you can't use it" You can use ANYTHING you can get your hands on as a way to select winners.

Who's to say that a handicapper didn't know in advance of the pick 4 or pick 6 that Gomez was a few bucks away from winning the money title and that handicapper knew that Gomez and Pedroza are good friends (i'm making this up, i dont know if theyre friends at all) and he came up with a crazy angle that there would be a late change and he capitalized on that? You never can say that another handicapper wasn't smarter than you and bet on the Pedroza horse because he came up with a crazy theory that Martin would leave the track early? Should that player be penalized for his amazing guess that Pedr would leave early? I say no.

If i was your friend and called you an hour before the first race and told you "single pedroza's horse in the last race because i have a theory that he won't be able to ride and that a better jock will pick up that mount" and then, because of this new racing rule that you got passed with all your e mails to the right people, that horse runs for purse money only, how would you feel? You'd be like "woh, wait a minute, i bet on that horse strictly because i guessed that Pedroza would go home" Who are you to tell that handicapper that his theory shouldnt get rewarded?

[Stillriledup]

I certainly understand that and said as much. As a bettor though, it is a potential problem. When people wagered in the horizontal bets, they did it with the impression Pedroza would be riding. Please, lets not kid anyone here and pretend he is on par with Gomez. If something really happened that Pedroza needed off, that is part of the game. Since it didn't, there really is no reason for it. The gambler should be considered before some record few care about.

Unfortunately, agents, trainers, stewards, jockeys, etc. usually forget about us.

Not all jockeys are able to make their scheduled mounts. When you wager on a horiz, that's part of the risk you take. You make those bets knowing that there's a chance the jocks will change at the last second. You say the gambler should be considered, my question is WHICH gambler? The gambler who specifically wagered on Pedroza's mount because he made a great educated guess that Pedroza would be replaced and a much better jock would take his place? THAT gambler? Or, the gambler who wasn't as smart?

[Dahoss9698]

I know i'm grasping at straws here, but i'll give it a shot anyway. There are absolutely no 'rules' in handicapping that says ANY information is off base. There's no one who can say "this one handicapping theory/angle is legit and you can use but this other handicapping theory/angle is NOT legit and you can't use it" You can use ANYTHING you can get your hands on as a way to select winners.

Who's to say that a handicapper didn't know in advance of the pick 4 or pick 6 that Gomez was a few bucks away from winning the money title and that handicapper knew that Gomez and Pedroza are good friends (i'm making this up, i dont know if theyre friends at all) and he came up with a crazy angle that there would be a late change and he capitalized on that? You never can say that another handicapper wasn't smarter than you and bet on the Pedroza horse because he came up with a crazy theory that Martin would leave the track early? Should that player be penalized for his amazing guess that Pedr would leave early? I say no.

If i was your friend and called you an hour before the first race and told you "single pedroza's horse in the last race because i have a theory that he won't be able to ride and that a better jock will pick up that mount" and then, because of this new racing rule that you got passed with all your e mails to the right people, that horse runs for purse money only, how would you feel? You'd be like "woh, wait a minute, i bet on that horse strictly because i guessed that Pedroza would go home" Who are you to tell that handicapper that his theory shouldnt get rewarded?

Very sharp post. Pass the bong.

[Stillriledup]

Very sharp post. Pass the bong.

Thanks for the compliment, glad you were able to follow along.

[Dahoss9698]

Thanks for the compliment, glad you were able to follow along.

As a fellow contrarian, I can certainly appreciate the effort. But that was one of the more ridiculous theories I have ever read. Congrats.

[joanied]

I think Borel gets it this year. We'll see.

I hope you are right...toss out the earnings part of it, and I see Calvin getting it...8 straight on Rachel, and his Bo-Rail ride in the Derby...plus he was in the spotlight...
Mike Smith must be on the nominee list also...and his ride on Z in the Classic was, well...classic!!
My vote goes to Calvin:ThmbUp:

[Zman179]

This isn't the first time this has happened. I've seen it whenever a big record was on the line for a jockey and he didn't have a mount for the last race. More recently when Leparoux won 6 races in a row at Churchill and was going for the record, he didn't have a mount in the last race. He picked up a mount at the last minute. I remember when Mike Smith was going for the yearly stakes record and was tied on the last day. Robbie Davis gave up his mount to Smith and the horse won.

I've seen this happen quite a few times on both coasts. For the jockeys it's a win/win situation. This way the jockey picking up the live mount has a chance at winning the record and the jockey giving up the mount still gets paid as if he rode it himself. Personally I don't have a problem with it since it very rarely occurs.

And if I did bet on the horse thinking that Pedroza was riding only to find that Gomez took the mount, I'd automatically realize that I'll be getting the world's most honest ride since Gomez REALLY wants this race. Gomez couldn't even try holding back, because that would make Pedroza look like a fool.

[cj]

And if I did bet on the horse thinking that Pedroza was riding only to find that Gomez took the mount, I'd automatically realize that I'll be getting the world's most honest ride since Gomez REALLY wants this race. Gomez couldn't even try holding back, because that would make Pedroza look like a fool.

What about the opposite? The person that didn't bet horse because Pedroza was riding. I can't believe some of you people actually bet. It is no wonder we get crapped on by the powers in charge.

[cj]

As a fellow contrarian, I can certainly appreciate the effort. But that was one of the more ridiculous theories I have ever read. Congrats.

That is an insult to ridiculous.

[Stillriledup]

That is an insult to ridiculous.

The truth hurts sometimes.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

What about the opposite? The person that didn't bet horse because Pedroza was riding. I can't believe some of you people actually bet. It is no wonder we get crapped on by the powers in charge.

It just goes to prove that this might be the only topic in which industry leader's opinions are correct (Mullins too).

[Dahoss9698]

I can't believe some of you people actually bet.

The truth hurts sometimes.

[cj]

The truth hurts sometimes.

I'm actually hoping they do...a lot.

[statepierback]

This thread is much ado about nothing. Jock changes happen all the time. Its part of the game.

[cj]

Sure, this isn't a big deal, but where does it end? Maybe next time they randomly switch post positions after bets are done. Or, how about they slap an extra 10 pounds on one of the horses, just for kicks.

I understand changes happen, but they shouldn't happen for no reason.

[Stillriledup]

Sure, this isn't a big deal, but where does it end? Maybe next time they randomly switch post positions after bets are done. Or, how about they slap an extra 10 pounds on one of the horses, just for kicks.

I understand changes happen, but they shouldn't happen for no reason.
Yesterday, 11:57 PM #64
Stillriledup
Registered User


Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 434
vCash: 1000 Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I certainly understand that and said as much. As a bettor though, it is a potential problem. When people wagered in the horizontal bets, they did it with the impression Pedroza would be riding. Please, lets not kid anyone here and pretend he is on par with Gomez. If something really happened that Pedroza needed off, that is part of the game. Since it didn't, there really is no reason for it. The gambler should be considered before some record few care about.

Unfortunately, agents, trainers, stewards, jockeys, etc. usually forget about us.



Not all jockeys are able to make their scheduled mounts. When you wager on a horiz, that's part of the risk you take. You make those bets knowing that there's a chance the jocks will change at the last second. You say the gambler should be considered, my question is WHICH gambler? The gambler who specifically wagered on Pedroza's mount because he made a great educated guess that Pedroza would be replaced and a much better jock would take his place? THAT gambler? Or, the gambler who wasn't as smart?

[cj]

Not all jockeys are able to make their scheduled mounts. When you wager on a horiz, that's part of the risk you take. You make those bets knowing that there's a chance the jocks will change at the last second. You say the gambler should be considered, my question is WHICH gambler? The gambler who specifically wagered on Pedroza's mount because he made a great educated guess that Pedroza would be replaced and a much better jock would take his place? THAT gambler? Or, the gambler who wasn't as smart?

That is probably the biggest reach I've ever seen in my life. It is embarrassing you actually posted it twice.

[Stillriledup]

That is probably the biggest reach I've ever seen in my life. It is embarrassing you actually posted it twice.

It might be a reach, but technically i'm correct. If one bettor capitalizes on his wacky theory, who are we to tell him that his theory is off limits and can't be used? What if i saw Pedroza limping in the paddock the day before and thought "hey, what if he decides to take off his mounts halfway thru the card the next day?" Are you telling me that i can't use that piece of handicapping info that i sniffed out?

[Greyfox]

Two great riders.
Three cheers for Gomez, he brought me home a lot of winners.
Well done Leparoux, ....as a fact, I don't usually play the tracks he is on.

[BetCrazyGirl]

The bettors were not screwed over with this, if you didn't play a horse that had the capability to win that is your own fault.

[Greyfox]

What if i saw Pedroza limping in the paddock the day before and thought "hey, what if he decides to take off his mounts halfway thru the card the next day?" Are you telling me that i can't use that piece of handicapping info that i sniffed out?


Of course that would be something that you could, and possibly should use.
And good on you for "sniffing" that tidbit out.
But ...do you know who might replace him on the card?

Puglisi.....or Bejarano or Talamo or Baez...or Arambula ????

[Dahoss9698]

It might be a reach, but technically i'm correct. If one bettor capitalizes on his wacky theory, who are we to tell him that his theory is off limits and can't be used? What if i saw Pedroza limping in the paddock the day before and thought "hey, what if he decides to take off his mounts halfway thru the card the next day?" Are you telling me that i can't use that piece of handicapping info that i sniffed out?

You aren't correct. There is no theory here. There was no handicapping anything here. Pedroza took off a mount midway through a card, in order for Gomez to win the money title. No one could have sniffed that out.

You either don't understand what CJ is saying, or are just pretending you don't. No one is saying any handicapping theory can't be used. That isn't the discussion here. The discussion is about bettors taking it again, by a system that doesn't care about them.

As has been mentioned, it's not the worst thing that has ever happened. But just another example of a broken system. Big difference between what CJ is saying here and your silly theories.

[Greyfox]

The bettors were not screwed over with this, if you didn't play a horse that had the capability to win that is your own fault.

BetCrazyGirl.
Those of us who singled Cenizo would beg to differ.
We had a filly who won. The price was considerably shorter than it should have been. It's just that simple.

[PaceAdvantage]

Vic, I don't disagree with your opinion here, but could you not make it about you and what you would have done? Just once?

You could have done that without injecting yourself -- even hypothetically -- into your response.Why shouldn't he interject? Being a jockey agent (and a race caller), I for one would EXPECT him to interject his opinion and personal experiences on such matters.

We have a variety of "name" people participating here in this forum, and I would *HOPE* they interject their expert opinion when the situation calls for it...

This is a racing forum for crying out loud...if Vic isn't supposed to interject himself here, where is he supposed to interject himself?

I take it you think a guy like Dave Schwartz shouldn't interject his thoughts on how he handled handicapping a certain race or writing a certain piece of code for handicapping software...

I take it you think a guy like CJ shouldn't interject his thoughts on how he assigned a certain pace figure to a Kentucky Derby contender....

I think my point has been made...loud and clear.

[PaceAdvantage]

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4424/buttkissingphoto.jpg (http://img33.imageshack.us/i/buttkissingphoto.jpg/)I suppose I get one of these too....:rolleyes:

Dahoss, what graphic should I post to represent Cardus' all too obvious agenda?

[Stillriledup]

You aren't correct. There is no theory here. There was no handicapping anything here. Pedroza took off a mount midway through a card, in order for Gomez to win the money title. No one could have sniffed that out.

You either don't understand what CJ is saying, or are just pretending you don't. No one is saying any handicapping theory can't be used. That isn't the discussion here. The discussion is about bettors taking it again, by a system that doesn't care about them.

As has been mentioned, it's not the worst thing that has ever happened. But just another example of a broken system. Big difference between what CJ is saying here and your silly theories.

I guess this comes down to who is the decider of what is a handicapping theory and what is not. The great thing about race handicapping is that you're allowed to use any theory, regardless of how bizarre, to select winners and no one should be able to tell you that you can't use it.

[rwwupl]

You aren't correct. There is no theory here. There was no handicapping anything here. Pedroza took off a mount midway through a card, in order for Gomez to win the money title. No one could have sniffed that out.

You either don't understand what CJ is saying, or are just pretending you don't. No one is saying any handicapping theory can't be used. That isn't the discussion here. The discussion is about bettors taking it again, by a system that doesn't care about them.

As has been mentioned, it's not the worst thing that has ever happened. But just another example of a broken system. saying here anBig difference between what CJ is d your silly theories.


Any player with experience should understand and appreciate what CJ is talking about. The same old talking points,excuses and one sided rationalization promoted by those who like the status quo and refuse to consider that there are many interests in racing and all need to be treated with fairness,respect and clarity.

We have the people in place sworn to see that this is done, but they all seem to reside on one side of the fence. This thread is a good example and likeness of the fuzzy thinking of those who run our game.

Maybe that is why we are not doing so well

[Show Me the Wire]

Today Baffert has two horses entered in the same race, Gomez is named on one and Pedroza names on the other. Refering back to my point about knowing which rider had his choice of mounts, prior to a rider being named is more important to the protection of the wagering public, this is a prime example.

Which jockey had his choice of mounts is very important information, especially in light of Pedroza giving up a winning mount to Gomez. The public should be privy, for its protection, whether Pedroza had his choice of mounts.

One horse has established its current ability around two turns and the other is yet unproven at the distance, interesting scenario. Situations like this one makes racing interesting, yet frustrating to new and experienced participants.

Andymays this is a topic for you to grind your axe about looking out for the wagering public.

[Dahoss9698]

I suppose I get one of these too....:rolleyes:

Dahoss, what graphic should I post to represent Cardus' all too obvious agenda?

I don't really think Cardus has an agenda. I think he made a valid point about Vic trying to make it about him. But, if you must use a graphic, I think I'd go with this one.....:lol:

As for my picture, it was meant as a joke. However, it's fitting considering the person I intended it for does what the picture represents any chance he gets in regards to Vic.

See, we just made this thread about Vic. Mission accomplished.

[Dahoss9698]

Today Baffert has two horses entered in the same race, Gomez is named on one and Pedroza names on the other. Refering back to my point about knowing which rider had his choice of mounts, prior to a rider being named is more important to the protection of the wagering public, this is a prime example.

Which jockey had his choice of mounts is very important information, especially in light of Pedroza giving up a winning mount to Gomez. The public should be privy, for its protection, whether Pedroza had his choice of mounts.

One horse has established its current ability around two turns and the other is yet unproven at the distance, interesting scenario. Situations like this one makes racing interesting, yet frustrating to new and experienced participants.

Andymays this is a topic for you to grind your axe about looking out for the wagering public.

In this race you are talking about, the riders are Gomez and Martin Garcia. Not Pedroza.

[Show Me the Wire]

In this race you are talking about, the riders are Gomez and Martin Garcia. Not Pedroza.

OOPs. For some reason (medication?) Pedroza registered, instead of Garcia, while glancing at the entries.

My apologizes to Pedroza and his agent.

[Stillriledup]

Today Baffert has two horses entered in the same race, Gomez is named on one and Pedroza names on the other. Refering back to my point about knowing which rider had his choice of mounts, prior to a rider being named is more important to the protection of the wagering public, this is a prime example.

Which jockey had his choice of mounts is very important information, especially in light of Pedroza giving up a winning mount to Gomez. The public should be privy, for its protection, whether Pedroza had his choice of mounts.

One horse has established its current ability around two turns and the other is yet unproven at the distance, interesting scenario. Situations like this one makes racing interesting, yet frustrating to new and experienced participants.

Andymays this is a topic for you to grind your axe about looking out for the wagering public.


You say that the wagering public should be privy to this important piece of information. I agree, it would be great to know the thinking behind why certain jocks ride certain horses. I think that anyone who wants this stuff for their handicapping needs to purchase a bunch of expensive racehorses and get a top trainer and a top jocks agent on their speed dial and wallah, instant information. If i spend a few hundred grand (or more) on horseflesh and had Bob Baffert at the touch of a button, why should that information go out to you? I'm the one who spent the tens of thousands of dollars to get 'into' racehorse ownership so i can have info that maybe a person like yourself doesn't have access to. See what i'm saying? This info that you speak of IS available to someone who finds a way to get 'friendly' with top trainers and top agents and with one phone call, can get this stuff for their own handicapping.

[cj]

You say that the wagering public should be privy to this important piece of information. I agree, it would be great to know the thinking behind why certain jocks ride certain horses. I think that anyone who wants this stuff for their handicapping needs to purchase a bunch of expensive racehorses and get a top trainer and a top jocks agent on their speed dial and wallah, instant information. If i spend a few hundred grand (or more) on horseflesh and had Bob Baffert at the touch of a button, why should that information go out to you? I'm the one who spent the tens of thousands of dollars to get 'into' racehorse ownership so i can have info that maybe a person like yourself doesn't have access to. See what i'm saying? This info that you speak of IS available to someone who finds a way to get 'friendly' with top trainers and top agents and with one phone call, can get this stuff for their own handicapping.

You really think those spending a "few hundred grand (or more) on horseflesh" are really doing it to get this very small extra edge at the windows? That is even sillier than your last hypothetical. Well, no, nothing could be that silly.

[Stillriledup]

You really think those spending a "few hundred grand (or more) on horseflesh" are really doing it to get this very small extra edge at the windows? That is even sillier than your last hypothetical. Well, no, nothing could be that silly.

Im not suggesting that a person should spend that kind of money to get some hypothetical edge, im just saying that someone who DOES spend the money, deserves to get that edge if he wants it.

[Cardus]

Why shouldn't he interject? Being a jockey agent (and a race caller), I for one would EXPECT him to interject his opinion and personal experiences on such matters.

We have a variety of "name" people participating here in this forum, and I would *HOPE* they interject their expert opinion when the situation calls for it...

This is a racing forum for crying out loud...if Vic isn't supposed to interject himself here, where is he supposed to interject himself?

I take it you think a guy like Dave Schwartz shouldn't interject his thoughts on how he handled handicapping a certain race or writing a certain piece of code for handicapping software...

I take it you think a guy like CJ shouldn't interject his thoughts on how he assigned a certain pace figure to a Kentucky Derby contender....

I think my point has been made...loud and clear.

First, what do Vic and "expert opinion" have to do with each other?

He has no "personal experience" on this matter. To what "personal experience" are you referring? (Therefore, was this a situation that "call[ed] for it?")

I had no problem with his opinion -- I used those words in my post -- but had a problem with Vic interjecting himself at least somewhat inappropriately, namely because I've seen this elsewhere. The Paulick Report, for openers, comes to mind.

I don't have an agenda here. I only reacted, not provoked (which, to me, would be "having an agenda" or "trolling").

As for comparing him to CJ: I don't know what to say.

[v j stauffer]

First, what do Vic and "expert opinion" have to do with each other?

He has no "personal experience" on this matter. To what "personal experience" are you referring? (Therefore, was this a situation that "call[ed] for it?")

I had no problem with his opinion -- I used those words in my post -- but had a problem with Vic interjecting himself at least somewhat inappropriately, namely because I've seen this elsewhere. The Paulick Report, for openers, comes to mind.

I don't have an agenda here. I only reacted, not provoked (which, to me, would be "having an agenda" or "trolling").

As for comparing him to CJ: I don't know what to say.

Huh?

[PaceAdvantage]

First, what do Vic and "expert opinion" have to do with each other?

He has no "personal experience" on this matter. To what "personal experience" are you referring? (Therefore, was this a situation that "call[ed] for it?")The personal experience of being a jockey agent to a leading rider.

If you read Vic's post again, he was merely reacting to what was written earlier about Gomez' agent.

I get that the "more famous" among us are going to have their fair share of detractors on here...but I'm sure you're also familiar with the fact that I tend to be overly protective of such people, especially when I feel they are being unfairly jumped upon.

For the record, I don't know Vic beyond what I see and hear on TV and what I read on this board.

[andymays]

Practice of Late Jockey Changes Hurts the Sport

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/01072010-practice-of-late-jockey-changes-hurts-the-sport/

Excerpt:

Agent Anderson was also said that at least four jockeys were willing to give up their mounts so Garrett would win the title, adding that Cordero and Pat Day would get pick-up mounts on New Year’s Eve to win money titles. That‘s true, but going the extra mile is different.

This is a practice whose time should come to an end in the interests of protecting the public. It doesn’t look good when people you see and compete with on an every day basis does you this kind of favor.

Then, would it be wrong if a fan were to ask: “What other favors do jockeys do for one another?”

[Cardus]

The personal experience of being a jockey agent to a leading rider.

If you read Vic's post again, he was merely reacting to what was written earlier about Gomez' agent.

I get that the "more famous" among us are going to have their fair share of detractors on here...but I'm sure you're also familiar with the fact that I tend to be overly protective of such people, especially when I feel they are being unfairly jumped upon.

For the record, I don't know Vic beyond what I see and hear on TV and what I read on this board.

The "personal experience" to which I was referring was the situation of switching jockeys for reasons not bona fide (i.e., merely to win an earnings or win title).

I should have made this clear. My mistake.

[andymays]

Equidaily has this on their website:


http://www.rogerstein.com/archives/100102.wma

>>> AUDIO: Garrett Gomez's agent, Ron Anderson explains late jock change that earned his jock the 2009 money title... "Garrett was going for a situation that was going to be historical... Martin taking off was more -- my interpetation -- of a respect thing to Garrett... And I've got news for everybody -- he wasn't the only guy that offered to come off their horses..." From Sat's Roger Stein Show [interview at 4:00]

[rwwupl]

Practice of Late Jockey Changes Hurts the Sport

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/01072010-practice-of-late-jockey-changes-hurts-the-sport/

Excerpt:

Agent Anderson was also said that at least four jockeys were willing to give up their mounts so Garrett would win the title, adding that Cordero and Pat Day would get pick-up mounts on New Year’s Eve to win money titles. That‘s true, but going the extra mile is different.

This is a practice whose time should come to an end in the interests of protecting the public. It doesn’t look good when people you see and compete with on an every day basis does you this kind of favor.

Then, would it be wrong if a fan were to ask: “What other favors do jockeys do for one another?”


Thanks Andymays and John Pricci,Executive Editor of Horserace Insider for helping to explain what should not be needed to be explained but seems necessary these days.

I can only hope that the racing managers learn what is right and wrong and govern accordingly,and put our game back on track. :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

And for the record, in case anyone is confused, I agree with CJ 100% in this thread. What happened in this race was another in a long line of disregard for the lifeblood of this game...the bettor.