Lezcano, Ortiz, Jr. and L. Saez suspended
 

Does anyone know the specific rides or reasons? I see Equibase has L. Saez riding this weekend at Belmont and Kentucky Downs. J. Lezcano and Ortiz, Jr. are without mounts for the foreseeable future. Any info would be appreciated.

"David Grening , Saratoga , 2018-09-01 - DRF Live Posted : Sep 1, 2018, 2:30 PM

Several jockeys fined, suspended for careless riding"

http://live.drf.com/nuggets/44838-se...areless-riding

And of course nobody serves their suspension at Saratoga.

Does anyone look deeper into the incidents that caused the fines and suspensions to take place? It seems that if they are found guilty then someone would suspect race manipulation which loosely translates into fixing. If the jockey lost control of horse or horse ran this way on its own accord then there should be no penalty. One can only assume these were fixed horse races based on suspensions and penalties. Then again fixing in horse racing never happens and is only a myth.;)

Why is Saez serving days NEXT week instead of THIS week?
To accommodate his stakes ride maybe?

Hardly a punishment.

Have not reviewed (a second time specifically for this) the races with the incidents in question.

A minority of the fouls were temper flare-ups, and that is obviously unacceptable.

Most of the fouls were 'herding' or encroaching with a tired horse. Of these herding fouls, - maybe a third of these were rewarded by not changing the order of finish. A couple of those rewarded rides were awarded wins, and then later given a wrist-slap $1k fine in the Jockey's name to be paid by the happy connections.

You kind of force the hand of the jocks when you put them in a situation where there is value in fouling.

I have nothing against the stewards as human beings. I think they should be given jobs with the track at an equal salary and benefits. They just aren't competent with their current task. There needs to be serious overhaul in both staff and oversight, as well as defining the rules. NYRA has some knowledgeable horseplayers on staff that could consult. There are trainers that could contribute insight.

Greatest meet of the year, but you have stooges in the stewards role, and you have races intentionally carded with 5 or 6 horses.
I guess they don't want to seem to perfect, so they display some flaws?

The fact that suspensions are never served at prestige meets is complete corruption. There is no excuse for it and no other professional sport would tolerate it. For instance, when Tom Brady was suspended for alleged involvement in deflating footballs, the commissioner's office didn't allow him to time an appeal so that it would be served in pre-season games. Same with corked bat suspensions in baseball-- they don't get served in spring training. If your team's in a pennant race, too bad. The Black Sox were suspended in the middle of a pennant race in 1920.

Every racing official who tolerates this is corrupt, doesn't care about the integrity of the sport, and should be removed by the appropriate regulatory agency. And every rule that permits this should be repealed.

The vast, vast majority of suspensions are based on conduct within a race, where the only relevant evidence is the various videotapes of the race and whatever statements are given to the stewards by the riders. There is no basis whatsoever for a long appeal. Appeals should take a day.

And there's also no reason to stay every suspension pending appeal. In the courts I practice, the standard default rule is that you DON'T get a stay when you lose a case or motion. It starts to run. There are plenty of people in jail right now while they appeal their convictions.

The stewards suspend you, that should be it. It starts that minute. If the rider can get it overturned by the racing commission the next day, then he or she can ride again. Otherwise, they serve it.

And the "designated race rule" is also pure corruption and should be eliminated. You get suspended 2 days before the BC Classic? Fine. You lose the mount. Don't want to lose the mount? Should have thought of that before you violated the rules.

That's how it works in every other profession. If a lawyer gets suspended by their state bar, they don't get to argue their Supreme Court appeal next week under the "designated case rule". If a doctor gets suspended by the medical board, they don't get to perform heart surgery the next week under the "designated procedure rule".

The whole thing is corrupt, and it goes a long way to illustrating what the regulatory problems are with horse racing.

You mean.......business as usual

The steward's latitude lax attitude towards disciplining reckless riding is a major factor on the prevalence of this dangerous practice but there is another factor at blame.
Jockeys are especially sensitive to the belief held by many members of the public that they are mere passengers and not real athletes so they feel obligated to show just how important their actions are, even if it puts the lives of their fellow riders and horses at risk. I despise "race riding" (the practice of trying to win, not by getting the best out of their own mount, but by preventing their competitors from running their best. This need to prove their role as active "real athletes" is likely behind the practice of many riders towards overuse of the whip as well. They won't get mounts if they do not show that they will not do anything or everything to prevent the other guy from winning. Add the fact that they will be handled with kid gloves for infractions and racing becomes a demolition derby.

I recall when Pat Day was given days for an infraction which took him off his ride in an upcoming Belmont Stakes. What most riders would have done is appeal the suspension just so they could ride the big race while their appeal was being decided, even when they knew they were guilty. Day refused to play that game and took his suspension like an honorable man though it cost him the ride.

How come Luis Saez was suspended for "failing to maintain a straight course" and not Mike Smith?

Pat Day would not have to appeal the ruling to ride in the Belmont Stakes. The designated race rule provides that path. I cannot recall the example you referenced but I'm surprised that Pat didn't take advantage of this rule.

I don't recall the exact year but it was several years ago and and the rule may have changed. His thinking was that he felt he was guilty and could not in good conscience use any way to delay punishment to avoid missing the race
I'm not familiar with the designated race rule. How does it go?

Is there anything one thing that can happen in horse racing that you don't call FIXING.

Me thinks you might be setting a trap. If so you got me.

I recall this as being true, and it shows the respect he had for the sport and the rules that is missing today. With trainers able to designate their assistant as a trainer during a suspension, to the joke of a suspension given to Desormeaux, seems that the governing bodies of this sport do not want to deal out real punishment, only token penalty's.