Question for owners, trainers, racing secs

[ultracapper]

4th race at SA today Roger Stein entered Luckbox Sam with Severino up and Harness Mentality with Couton up. This morning I'd noticed that Couton was moved to Luckbox Sam and Delgadillo was named on Harness Mentality. Since then, Harness Mentality has been scratched.

1) Does all this moving of jockeys around cost anybody any money?
2) Does Severino get paid?
3) Did Delgadillo have to give consent to be named from what I think now looks like a horse that was always intended to be scratched?
4) Does Delgadillo get paid?
5) Does Stein have to pay the track anything for moving jocks around and/or scratching horses?
6) Does Stein have to explain himself to anybody?

[Appy]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

4th race at SA today Roger Stein entered Luckbox Sam with Severino up and Harness Mentality with Couton up. This morning I'd noticed that Couton was moved to Luckbox Sam and Delgadillo was named on Harness Mentality. Since then, Harness Mentality has been scratched.

1) Does all this moving of jockeys around cost anybody any money?
2) Does Severino get paid?
3) Did Delgadillo have to give consent to be named from what I think now looks like a horse that was always intended to be scratched?
4) Does Delgadillo get paid?
5) Does Stein have to pay the track anything for moving jocks around and/or scratching horses?
6) Does Stein have to explain himself to anybody?

1) Delgadillo lost his ride pay
2) Yes
3) No, and it is possible that horse was scratched due to the rider change being unpalatable
4) Rider only gets paid to exit the starting gate aboard his mount.
5) No
6) May have to give reason for scratch

[Al Gobbi]

In California you have to have a rider named at the time of the draw. In this case both riders were drawn as alternates to be listed on the horses since no firm call was given at the time of entries being taken.

[chadk66]

varies from state to state

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

4th race at SA today Roger Stein entered Luckbox Sam with Severino up and Harness Mentality with Couton up. This morning I'd noticed that Couton was moved to Luckbox Sam and Delgadillo was named on Harness Mentality. Since then, Harness Mentality has been scratched.

1) Does all this moving of jockeys around cost anybody any money?
2) Does Severino get paid?
3) Did Delgadillo have to give consent to be named from what I think now looks like a horse that was always intended to be scratched?
4) Does Delgadillo get paid?
5) Does Stein have to pay the track anything for moving jocks around and/or scratching horses?
6) Does Stein have to explain himself to anybody?

1) There is no " moving " of jockeys. Both riders were named as alternate. The jockey's name applied to the horse means absolutely nothing. The office can put whoever they wish in that spot. It is in no way binding. The early proofs of the pp's will have that name. They'll be changed for the official Form that goes to press. Naming of alternates is a way of protecting an owner or trainer who for whatever reason wasn't able to secure a jockey at the times the races were drawn. They can put whoever they choose on their horse as long as it's done by scratch time.

2) See answer to question #1.

3) Not sure how you read the horse was " always " intended to be scratched. As for Aggie being named the is an agreement between trainer and agent to name on before scratch time.

4) No. For a rider to receive a jocks fee he must pass the scale on his way out to ride the horse. After that if the horse is scratched he will receive a jockeys fee. The start of the race is not the criteria.

5) No. He does have to state a reason for the scratch in a field of only 8. In larger fields, especially with also eligibles, no reason for scratching is necessary.

6) Only the second half of answer #5.

[Stillriledup]

There you have it UC, right from a man with jocks agent experience in So Cal.

[ultracapper]

Thanks to all. To the untrained eye, it looks like moving around jockeys.

[ultracapper]

Vic, you've been/are a jockey's agent. Can you explain something about the 9th race Saturday at Santa Anita?

Maldonado has had a great deal of success with Jeff Bonde. #8 in the 9th, Unbridled Loyalty was rode by Maldonado last time, and looks very competitive in here, yet Maldonado ends up on #2 trained by Eoin Harty, a guy he rarely ever rides for, and a horse that seemingly is no more favorable in this race than Bonde's horse. And Bonde turns to Quinonez, a guy he rarely ever uses. Why would Maldonado leave a competitive horse from a barn he has had a great deal of success with and move to a horse from a barn he very seldom has anything to do with? And why would Bonde then turn to a jock he seldom uses on what seems to be a very well meant entry?

Same subject, but an aside. There are times I can not make heads or tails why Rafael Bejarano, the leading jockey in the colony by daylight, ends up on some of the mounts he's on. I can't think of a specific instance, but in general, there have been numerous times he has seemingly had multiple choices in a race, and he ends up on what is very obviously not the best option, and the race result goes on to prove it.

Your input is appreciated.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

Vic, you've been/are a jockey's agent. Can you explain something about the 9th race Saturday at Santa Anita?

Maldonado has had a great deal of success with Jeff Bonde. #8 in the 9th, Unbridled Loyalty was rode by Maldonado last time, and looks very competitive in here, yet Maldonado ends up on #2 trained by Eoin Harty, a guy he rarely ever rides for, and a horse that seemingly is no more favorable in this race than Bonde's horse. And Bonde turns to Quinonez, a guy he rarely ever uses. Why would Maldonado leave a competitive horse from a barn he has had a great deal of success with and move to a horse from a barn he very seldom has anything to do with? And why would Bonde then turn to a jock he seldom uses on what seems to be a very well meant entry?

Same subject, but an aside. There are times I can not make heads or tails why Rafael Bejarano, the leading jockey in the colony by daylight, ends up on some of the mounts he's on. I can't think of a specific instance, but in general, there have been numerous times he has seemingly had multiple choices in a race, and he ends up on what is very obviously not the best option, and the race result goes on to prove it.

Your input is appreciated.

First rule of thumb when trying to solve the "who rides who" puzzle. Don't try.

There are a myriad of factors that can go into who ends up riding particular horse. They almost always have nothing to do with something as simple as which horse a jock and his agent think is best. I had Rosario 28 months. I'll bet it was less than 10 times where the decision came down to something as simple as who do we think is the best horse that day. Hardly ever happened.

Just a couple of examples. Remember I have no personal knowledge on this particular situation.

Bonde chose to enter late and Maldonado's agent did not want to anger Eoin Harty.

Jeff and Edwin collectively decided this horse isn't running for Maldonado. Sometimes change just for change's sake works out.

Sometimes a trainer will tell an agent don't turn around Harty. I'm entering in here just to take a look but I'll probably scratch. Or I was forced by the owner to enter and I'll deal with that before scratch time.

How did Quinonez end up with the mount? This is an even tougher guessing game. Could be any one of a hundred things.

Because it might have been a late entry maybe many of the top guys were already taken.

He's been helping, working a lot of breezers, at Bonde's in the morning and Jeff throws him a bone.

Alonzo won a race for the owner when he had horses with different trainer.

The owner's wife's favorite letter is Q. Anything is possible.

As far as Bejarano is concerned. You asked and answered your own question.
You say you can't figure out why he ends up on what you perceive to be an inferior horse. Then in the same paragraph acknowledge that Rafael is the daylight leader in the standings.

That by definition means his agent Joe Ferrer, who is excellent BTW, is making the exact correct decision in most cases.

Best overall advice for this puzzle. Remember it's a HORSE race. Not a JOCKEY race. Concentrate the bulk of your work on that fact.

Hope this helps a bit.

[Stillriledup]

Good post Vic, thanks.

I want to discuss your "who rides who" puzzle.

I go into the handicapping puzzle armed with specific information on each runner, detailed trip notes, gallop out notes, company notes, bias notes, etc and with that info, i make an educated guess as to why a jock might be riding one horse over another. I especially like it when i see a jock "choose" a longer priced morning line horse that i suspect is better than the shorter priced horse they got off, that gives me more confidence.

I go into that puzzle knowing to never use any jockeys "opinion" to supersede my own, i have no problem telling myself a jock "picked the wrong horse".

I think if you go into the handicapping puzzle knowing that jocks often will not make a selection based on that day's race or the current talent of the horse, you will be better off. You'll also be better off knowing the talent of the runners and their prospects for that day's race rather than "trusting" a jock to "pick the winner for you".

There are many reasons, like you say, a jock can make a pick, but if you know your horse, the jocks "pick" won't really be much of a factor...in fact, if i love a horse i've been waiting for, i hope Bejarano picks against the horse, i'd rather take the shot that my information is accurate and take the higher price and cross my fingers.

Here's a question i have for you.....have you seen or experienced a situation where your jock lost out on a mount because the trainer (or owner) said they wanted to bet on their runner and wanted a less "known" rider in order to get a better win price? I've seen (my own opinion) situations up north where trainers wouldnt use Russell so they can get a better price....it probably happens rarely because if you can get Russell, you get Russell......have you seen this type of situation or heard about it with any other trainers going to a lesser rider to get a better win price?

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Here's a question i have for you.....have you seen or experienced a situation where your jock lost out on a mount because the trainer (or owner) said they wanted to bet on their runner and wanted a less "known" rider in order to get a better win price? I've seen (my own opinion) situations up north where trainers wouldnt use Russell so they can get a better price....it probably happens rarely because if you can get Russell, you get Russell......have you seen this type of situation or heard about it with any other trainers going to a lesser rider to get a better win price?

Wouldn't the winning purse be likely to pay out a lot more than a winning bet? And if the horse towers over the field so much that you can afford to trade out the best rider for a lesser rider, then the horse's odds are going to be low anyway. Doesn't make much sense to me for an owner or trainer to do.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Good post Vic, thanks.

I want to discuss your "who rides who" puzzle.

I go into the handicapping puzzle armed with specific information on each runner, detailed trip notes, gallop out notes, company notes, bias notes, etc and with that info, i make an educated guess as to why a jock might be riding one horse over another. I especially like it when i see a jock "choose" a longer priced morning line horse that i suspect is better than the shorter priced horse they got off, that gives me more confidence.

I go into that puzzle knowing to never use any jockeys "opinion" to supersede my own, i have no problem telling myself a jock "picked the wrong horse".

I think if you go into the handicapping puzzle knowing that jocks often will not make a selection based on that day's race or the current talent of the horse, you will be better off. You'll also be better off knowing the talent of the runners and their prospects for that day's race rather than "trusting" a jock to "pick the winner for you".

There are many reasons, like you say, a jock can make a pick, but if you know your horse, the jocks "pick" won't really be much of a factor...in fact, if i love a horse i've been waiting for, i hope Bejarano picks against the horse, i'd rather take the shot that my information is accurate and take the higher price and cross my fingers.

Here's a question i have for you.....have you seen or experienced a situation where your jock lost out on a mount because the trainer (or owner) said they wanted to bet on their runner and wanted a less "known" rider in order to get a better win price? I've seen (my own opinion) situations up north where trainers wouldnt use Russell so they can get a better price....it probably happens rarely because if you can get Russell, you get Russell......have you seen this type of situation or heard about it with any other trainers going to a lesser rider to get a better win price?

Good stuff Riles. Of course you do realize that when you say the "jock" chose a particular horse over another it's almost always the agent who made the decisions. Elite riders don't want to be bothered with day to day questions like that. They pay their agents ALOT of money and expect them to make the correct calls. Also it allows the jockey himself to maintain cordial relations with the trainer who's horse he didn't ride. He just says something like. What? That damm agent of mine. We could have ridden your horse? I'll talk to him right away. Never does.

In all the time I worked for Joel only once did he make a choice. It was a two year old filly sprint stake at HP. Mark Glatt asked me about a filly who he really loved. Can't remember her name. I told him I'd already given the call to Kelly Breen on a filly named Bickersons who we had just ridden in the BC JUV FILLIES. Away from me Mark got Joel alone and convinced him to overrule my decision and ride his filly. Joel took me aside and said he'd rather stay with Glatt. Ok I said you're the boss. Normally I would have stood my ground much firmer. I didn't in this case though for two reasons.

1. This was very rare for Joel. Didn't want to shoot him down when he kinda got the squeeze play run on him. He is the boss. No reason to fall on my sword for one race.

2. Spinning Breen wouldn't damage me near as much because he was a Jersey guy and not likely to run many in So. Cal. anyway.

Needless to say Bickersons won by about 80 lengths. Our horse finished 4th. The purse was $100,000. Joel felt so badly he offered to pay me right then and there the amount I would have made had we stayed on Breen's filly. Of course I didn't take it. We were a team. Win or lose. He offered to take me and Tina to Morton's his treat. When I got finished there I think he wished he'd just given me the $1500 check.

Many agents look at stakes different that normal overnight races. They believe normal protocol goes out the window. Try to ride the winner no matter what and do damage control afterwards. I 100% subscribed to that theory. It made for some very upset trainers. Most at the end of the day understood. They pretty much had no choice. Most would cool off in a day or two. Some would be much more upset. Many times I would be " FIRED FOR LIFE ". Which usually translates to about two weeks in the penalty box. Joel never served more than about three weeks of a life sentence.

When I had Martin Garcia I did get "life" from one trainer and it stuck. Bruce Headley. Filly and mare stake at Santa Anita. Baffert had 4 nominated. Checked with him about ten days out and then again 3 days before entries. Bob told me 100% sure he was not running. Go ahead and ride another horse. Told Headley he had the call. Morning of entries BB calls and says he's changed his mind and entered a filly with Martin up. Here we go!

My hands were totally tied. Martin would have fired me on the spot if I took off Baffert's. Headley went ballistic. Fired me for life and took me to the stewards. That cost a handy little $500.

Was Baffert wrong? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Things change at a big stable. Garcia is his go to guy. He expects him to be available even at the 11th hour or later. All part of being an agent.

A jock may tell you after a race or workout he doesn't want to ride a certain horse. It's then the agents job to delicately wiggle away from that one without burning any bridges.

As far as trainers using lesser known riders to cash a bet. I never saw any indication of that on the So. Cal circuit. Besides with all the great research you do SRU. That one would stick out like a sore thumb after just a couple races.

Hope that helps.

[ultracapper]

Killer stuff Vic. Thanks for the input.

[iceknight]

Vic, this thread is amazing. thanks for sharing.

Also I like the touch of humor about the favorite letter Q.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Wouldn't the winning purse be likely to pay out a lot more than a winning bet? And if the horse towers over the field so much that you can afford to trade out the best rider for a lesser rider, then the horse's odds are going to be low anyway. Doesn't make much sense to me for an owner or trainer to do.

Not necessarily. What if the winning owner is only a small partner in the horse, lets say the guy owns 10% of the horse and he's a big bettor...(of course, he would have to either be managing the horse or have the ear of the guy managing the horse).

Also, some people love to bet, they like they idea of 'putting one over". Also, its not the worst thing in the world to finish 2nd because you got outridden, many horses get to "keep the condition" while cashing the 2nd place check.

You are right, it doesn't make sense and many times if the connections can get the top guy, they're going to get him.....not everything that every owner does makes sense though!