Did Restoring Hope help Justify tactically in the Belmont...?

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[metro]

Originally Posted by Reggae

Saez didn't save ground he had no where to go. No way to move up after Resorting Hope boxed him in after the first 1/6th mile. That's not Bravazo's race. Bravazo was outplayed, he didn't have a perfect trip and I can't see why you keep saying that. You simply must not know the horse.

Saez choose his fate, had nothing to do with getting boxed in by another jockey If Bravazo is really that opposed to rail rides they should have been more defiant going into first turn with the path they preferred.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/st...84491919273984

One horse "troubling the early rhythms" of another horse is a-ok, but a third horse interposing to discourage that troubling is to "cross the line" in some way that warrants investigation?

[deathandgravity]

Best horse won the race, just not sure how good the competition was?

This just part of horse racing & no different then Shake the Bank being the rabbit for Better Talk Now in all those races he won.

[Track Phantom]

Can anyone confirm, or say with a straight face that:

1. Baffert entered Restoring Hope because he thought that colt could win the Belmont
2. Baffert did EVERYTHING in his power to give Restoring Hope the best chance to win the Belmont
3. Baffert did not instruct rider Geroux to do anything, be it overtly or subtly, that would compromise the chances of Restoring Hope to the benefit of Justify?

My opinion is very simple.... Baffert told Geroux to get out of the gate with Restoring Hope and sit on the flank of Justify, thereby forcing anyone else that wanted to pressure Justify to travel at least three wide. I also think Baffert told Geroux to not press Justify or go to the lead in front of Justify. This is the reason why Geroux floated very wide was to take the early sting out of Restoring Hope and not get in the way of Justify early.

All of this leads to one serious theme....too many good horses are in the hands of too few trainers (and owners). When horses are entered in a race without serious intent to win but to change the race dynamics (i.e. rabbit) or create early chaos (i.e. blocker), we have a major problem and it becomes a slippery slope. This problem doesn't exist if all 10 horses in the Belmont were trained by 10 different trainers.

I don't recall the name of the horse but didn't a Chad Brown runner on the turf, a rabbit of sorts, shift way out from the rail in a G1 to allow the favorite to roll up the inside? Two different betting interests but clearly a "team" approach. If connections are willing to "cheat" (for lack of a better term) in full view of the public, what are they willing to do out of view from the public?

Welcome to 21st century horse racing.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by BlueChip@DRF

So, is Justify a good horse or did he beat the best of a bad crop? Maybe the BC can answer that.

I don't know who, but someone opined this was the strongest 3-YO crop in years.

I think Audible, Good Magic, Bravaso and a few others may have something to say in the later 3-YO races.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Can anyone confirm, or say with a straight face that:

1. Baffert entered Restoring Hope because he thought that colt could win the Belmont
2. Baffert did EVERYTHING in his power to give Restoring Hope the best chance to win the Belmont
3. Baffert did not instruct rider Geroux to do anything, be it overtly or subtly, that would compromise the chances of Restoring Hope to the benefit of Justify?

My opinion is very simple.... Baffert told Geroux to get out of the gate with Restoring Hope and sit on the flank of Justify, thereby forcing anyone else that wanted to pressure Justify to travel at least three wide. I also think Baffert told Geroux to not press Justify or go to the lead in front of Justify. This is the reason why Geroux floated very wide was to take the early sting out of Restoring Hope and not get in the way of Justify early.

All of this leads to one serious theme....too many good horses are in the hands of too few trainers (and owners). When horses are entered in a race without serious intent to win but to change the race dynamics (i.e. rabbit) or create early chaos (i.e. blocker), we have a major problem and it becomes a slippery slope. This problem doesn't exist if all 10 horses in the Belmont were trained by 10 different trainers.

I don't recall the name of the horse but didn't a Chad Brown runner on the turf, a rabbit of sorts, shift way out from the rail in a G1 to allow the favorite to roll up the inside? Two different betting interests but clearly a "team" approach. If connections are willing to "cheat" (for lack of a better term) in full view of the public, what are they willing to do out of view from the public?

Welcome to 21st century horse racing.

I think this is a good, well argued post.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

I don't recall the name of the horse but didn't a Chad Brown runner on the turf, a rabbit of sorts, shift way out from the rail in a G1 to allow the favorite to roll up the inside? Two different betting interests but clearly a "team" approach. If connections are willing to "cheat" (for lack of a better term) in full view of the public, what are they willing to do out of view from the public?

Welcome to 21st century horse racing.

2016 Sword Dancer.

Inordinate at 50-1 was all over the place for Juddmonte Farm/Chad Brown.

Stablemate Flintshire, odds on at 1-5, won with an inside rally.

Inordinate later won the San Juan Capistrano at Santa Anita for different connections.

[Hambletonian]

Every person who bet on Restoring Hope got completely screwed.

Geroux should get days...does anyone here honestly believe he rode that horse to obtain its very best placing?

Be interesting to know if the connections of Restoring Hope were in any way compensated.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Can anyone confirm, or say with a straight face that:

1. Baffert entered Restoring Hope because he thought that colt could win the Belmont
2. Baffert did EVERYTHING in his power to give Restoring Hope the best chance to win the Belmont
3. Baffert did not instruct rider Geroux to do anything, be it overtly or subtly, that would compromise the chances of Restoring Hope to the benefit of Justify?

My opinion is very simple.... Baffert told Geroux to get out of the gate with Restoring Hope and sit on the flank of Justify, thereby forcing anyone else that wanted to pressure Justify to travel at least three wide. I also think Baffert told Geroux to not press Justify or go to the lead in front of Justify. This is the reason why Geroux floated very wide was to take the early sting out of Restoring Hope and not get in the way of Justify early.

All of this leads to one serious theme....too many good horses are in the hands of too few trainers (and owners). When horses are entered in a race without serious intent to win but to change the race dynamics (i.e. rabbit) or create early chaos (i.e. blocker), we have a major problem and it becomes a slippery slope. This problem doesn't exist if all 10 horses in the Belmont were trained by 10 different trainers.

I don't recall the name of the horse but didn't a Chad Brown runner on the turf, a rabbit of sorts, shift way out from the rail in a G1 to allow the favorite to roll up the inside? Two different betting interests but clearly a "team" approach. If connections are willing to "cheat" (for lack of a better term) in full view of the public, what are they willing to do out of view from the public?

Welcome to 21st century horse racing.

We can argue the motivations and compensations, but can't really argue with anything you said. If Geroux hadn't done the "steer ridiculously wide early" move it could have been a lot more subtle, but his job was to discourage pressers. That's not the same as fixing a race and Justify may well have won anyway, but it wasn't pretty. Not much to argue with anything you said.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Yea, thats what I mean, something that had no impact on the finish is the central focus while certainly the goal seems to be to take away something from the horse, which I think is wrong.

The connections have no one to blame but themselves if anything is "taken away" from the horse. To have a horse steered way wide and then parked in a spot to block pressers did make things easier. Justify may have well have cruised anyway, but if you want full credit don't stack the deck.

In the long run they'll just see "Triple Crown" next to his name and no one but the diehards like us will remember the details anyway.

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

Excerpt:

But there are a couple of problems for horse racing here. Potentially big problems.

One is that this controversy increases the level of suspicion and distrust in a sport that is already steeped in suspicion and distrust. The betting public, already a cynical bunch, will only further wonder whether they’re wagering on legitimate competitions.

The other problem is that mega-owners and mega-trainers with huge stables increase the conflicts of interest in big races. WinStar Farm owns part of Justify, but also owns part of Noble Indy – and, if you recall, also owns part of Audible, also trained by Pletcher. That horse finished a fast-closing third in the Kentucky Derby and, coming out of that race, was considered the prime competition for Justify at the Belmont. But Audible was surprisingly scratched from the Belmont in late May, leading to widespread suspicion that WinStar was sidelining the most serious threat to Justify’s Triple Crown.

That seemed like a smart business decision to me, but it was not well received by those who wanted to see whether Justify was good enough to beat all comers.

When you combine the benching of Audible with the blocking of Restoring Hope, you start to wonder: Is Justify a great horse, or a horse who got a lot of help looking great? Was he a legitimate Triple Crown champion, or the beneficiary of some outcomes that were manipulated by humans to dilute the competition?

---

Last edited by Andy Asaro; 06-11-2018 at 07:20 PM.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

Don't forget the horse that was parking Shared Belief while Fed Biz rode the rail in the Awesome Again.

If I recall, Espinoza got himself a suspension for that stunt. At least the stewards were doing their job that day.
Of course, Baffert who probably instructed him to do it, got off scott free.

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Can anyone confirm, or say with a straight face that:

1. Baffert entered Restoring Hope because he thought that colt could win the Belmont
2. Baffert did EVERYTHING in his power to give Restoring Hope the best chance to win the Belmont
3. Baffert did not instruct rider Geroux to do anything, be it overtly or subtly, that would compromise the chances of Restoring Hope to the benefit of Justify?

My opinion is very simple.... Baffert told Geroux to get out of the gate with Restoring Hope and sit on the flank of Justify, thereby forcing anyone else that wanted to pressure Justify to travel at least three wide. I also think Baffert told Geroux to not press Justify or go to the lead in front of Justify. This is the reason why Geroux floated very wide was to take the early sting out of Restoring Hope and not get in the way of Justify early.

All of this leads to one serious theme....too many good horses are in the hands of too few trainers (and owners). When horses are entered in a race without serious intent to win but to change the race dynamics (i.e. rabbit) or create early chaos (i.e. blocker), we have a major problem and it becomes a slippery slope. This problem doesn't exist if all 10 horses in the Belmont were trained by 10 different trainers.

I don't recall the name of the horse but didn't a Chad Brown runner on the turf, a rabbit of sorts, shift way out from the rail in a G1 to allow the favorite to roll up the inside? Two different betting interests but clearly a "team" approach. If connections are willing to "cheat" (for lack of a better term) in full view of the public, what are they willing to do out of view from the public?

Welcome to 21st century horse racing.

When a trainer/owner enters two horses in the same race, it should be understood that the 2 horses aren't going to compromise each other's chances in any way. They aren't going to duel, box each other in, block each other, float each other wide, herd each other, or do anything else that routinely happens at racetracks every single day as part of strategic riding.

Here's the problem.

If the horses are uncoupled and one is being used as a rabbit of some sort, bettors may not be aware of that. That means a lot of money will be lost on a horse that's not even trying. That unacceptable. That's why I have a bigger problem with what Repole said than anything that was done on Restoring Hope. People bet Noble Indy thinking his Derby was a throw out and that his prior race was good enough to fit in if he got a good trip. But the intention was to use him to keep the pace fast. Repole was upset that Castellano rode him correctly!

If I owned Restoring Hope my instructions would have been to try to get a stalking position in 2nd but to not get involved with Justify because that would guarantee my own doom. That's more or less how he was ridden. The complicating issue was that he was away a little slowly and asked hard to get into the race. So he was traveling quickly as they entered the turn.

Now interpret that as you will.

Did he stay wide on the turn solely to make it difficult on Noble Indy (who backed off and made the move irrelevant anyway) or was it just harder to take the turn because he was still traveling quickly?

I have to ask one other question.

I didn't think Restoring Hope had any chance, but he was entered before Baffert knew what the post position draw would be. If he was only entered to make it tougher for Noble Indy to press the pace, that would have been tough to do if he drew outside of Noble Indy. Maybe the owners just wanted him in there even though Baffert knew he didn't have much of a chance??