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

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Ruffian1

Yeah, we do. Geroux screwed the pooch and everyone that bet on his horse to say nothing of the owner. I would mention the groom but who cares about that person. He or she probably has zero morals anyway.

If you bet on RH, you deserved to lose!
This is the game they have set up - uncoupled entries.
Live with it or change it.
I say change it, and while we are at it, come up with something more fair and intelligent than than putting the 3 stooges in a booth with a TV screen ( an liquor) and expecting good policing of the game. The idea is totally absurd.

Let's go after the REAL problems.
NYRA has a history of steward incompetence.

[GMB@BP]

Twitter

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

And it would have made the race virtually un-bettable. I don't care how much Churchill makes or doesn't make, but I do want the Big Events to continue to be playable races and not become, for all practical purposes, non-betting exhibitions.

Right, to me its all a part of the handicapping puzzle. Just another element, heck the Whales cannot program this one in their computers!

[Aerocraft67]

Sport of kings indeed—not necessarily noble. We're playing their game. We get it their way, not ours, despite the presence of Burger King Saturday. As a handicapper, I accept that and factor in the connections' shenanigans. As a fan and booster, I share the unease of this discussion.

A certain mystique might be part of racing's charm, but not to the extent that the whole thing is fixed beyond observable comprehension. The game is confounding enough played fair.

I'd hope to avoid some of the most egregious and opaque shenanigans by playing big races with the most scrutiny. This thing unfolded with as much attention as the sport can get. In that sense it wasn't particularly deceptive, even if it wasn't particularly ethical.

[chiguy]

So let me see if I have this right. The guy who entered two horses so that one could wear out the favorite so the other horse could pounce and pass the tiring favorite is upset because he believes the trainer of the winner came up with a game plan to combat that? Seems to me it is sour grapes. Respect Mike R. and everything he has put into the game but this is just dumb. In fact if you watch the reply as they enter into the far turn it sure appears that Noble Indy drifts out slightly to allow Vinno Rosso to come through a hole that wasn't there before the drift. A few years ago we had a couple of knuckleheads from the CC ownership group crying after the Belmont and now this in 2018. Can anyone lose with grace anymore?

[metro]

Originally Posted by chiguy

So let me see if I have this right. The guy who entered two horses so that one could wear out the favorite so the other horse could pounce and pass the tiring favorite is upset because he believes the trainer of the winner came up with a game plan to combat that? Seems to me it is sour grapes. Respect Mike R. and everything he has put into the game but this is just dumb. In fact if you watch the reply as they enter into the far turn it sure appears that Noble Indy drifts out slightly to allow Vinno Rosso to come through a hole that wasn't there before the drift. A few years ago we had a couple of knuckleheads from the CC ownership group crying after the Belmont and now this in 2018. Can anyone lose with grace anymore?

Yep, and players who bet regularly wonder why the jockey on a horse that projected to be the 2nd best speed in the race had the audacity to try and get a two wide trip, right off of the other speed. Heck, TimeformUS had the early pace projected just like it played out.....



....yet the hand-wringing continues.

[papillon]

Originally Posted by Tom

If you bet on RH, you deserved to lose!
This is the game they have set up - uncoupled entries.
Live with it or change it.
I say change it, and while we are at it, come up with something more fair and intelligent than than putting the 3 stooges in a booth with a TV screen ( an liquor) and expecting good policing of the game. The idea is totally absurd.

Let's go after the REAL problems.
NYRA has a history of steward incompetence.

Ok big man, I'm looking forward to your reply to Jerry Brown's post over at TG that he loaded up on RH. Why did that fool who deserved to lose do that? Because at RH's odds and his sheets he was a great bet, esp. given that just like last year Baffert's horses had miraculously been running new tops all day long. Belmont loves Baffert. SA? Not so much. His horses I've been told for 2 months are the horses that can not only win races but are proof of greatness, come in 3rd in glorified allowances.

I tip my hat at all the worldclass bettors gloating over 3/5 favorites.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by papillon

I tip my hat at all the worldclass bettors gloating over 3/5 favorites.

Thank you, your compliment is appreciated!

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Aerocraft67

Sport of kings indeed—not necessarily noble. We're playing their game. We get it their way, not ours, despite the presence of Burger King Saturday. As a handicapper, I accept that and factor in the connections' shenanigans. As a fan and booster, I share the unease of this discussion.

A certain mystique might be part of racing's charm, but not to the extent that the whole thing is fixed beyond observable comprehension. The game is confounding enough played fair.

I'd hope to avoid some of the most egregious and opaque shenanigans by playing big races with the most scrutiny. This thing unfolded with as much attention as the sport can get. In that sense it wasn't particularly deceptive, even if it wasn't particularly ethical.

Yes, I agree here...we are indeed playing their game, on their home court, constantly battling the egregious home court advantages that besot the pure sport that we love...the sport that in the perfect-world-horse-race would have all entrants running on the level, to garner the best placing they can, to muster to the real goal: A solid, fair motive, devoid of alterior intention.

But to “factor in the connections’ shenanigans” which is what I did in my initial observation to start this thread off in Post Number 1 (and this thought was no doubt implanted into me by others on this board, so it was by no means my original thought), is to imbibe a drink half-filled with reality, and half-filled with impure thoughts...an inner corruption brought on by participation in the realities of the sport....

When horse races become chess games, and steeds become pawns to be sacrificed as part of a larger strategy of gain, and in spite of clearly written rules against such strategems, when fairness is consumed in the fire of greed, the Racing Gods are not pleased, blessings are withdrawn, and gazes toward heaven are rebuked by thunder and lightening bolts...

[Aerocraft67]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Yes, I agree here...we are indeed playing their game, on their home court, constantly battling the egregious home court advantages that besot the pure sport that we love...the sport that in the perfect-world-horse-race would have all entrants running on the level, to garner the best placing they can, to muster to the real goal: A solid, fair motive, devoid of alterior intention.

But to “factor in the connections’ shenanigans” which is what I did in my initial observation to start this thread off in Post Number 1 (and this thought was no doubt implanted into me by others on this board, so it was by no means my original thought), is to imbibe a drink half-filled with reality, and half-filled with impure thoughts...an inner corruption brought on by participation in the realities of the sport....

When horse races become chess games, and steeds become pawns to be sacrificed as part of a larger strategy of gain, and in spite of clearly written rules against such strategems, when fairness is consumed in the fire of greed, the Racing Gods are not pleased, blessings are withdrawn, and gazes toward heaven are rebuked by thunder and lightningbolts...

"I just peed a little?"

[papillon]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Neither Rock Hard Ten nor Purge finished on the board after their speed duel "troubling the early rhythms" of Smarty Jones (to use Jay Hovdey's phrase). They nuked their own chances solely to make sure that the favorite didn't win.

Do you believe they did that because they were acting as undercover, uncoupled agents of Birdstone, or colluding out of sheer hatred of Smarty Jones?

Do believe either had a chance taking back?

Is it possible that both saw each other as an opponent that must be vanquished, as much as they did Smarty Jones, which created an even more intense speed duel than they would have been a part of anyway just because neither gave 2f*ucks about the TC? They'd already established that they were cut throat SOB's, who just wanted to win.

Smarty Jones wasn't a victim, he ran them into the ground and almost won by open lengths. Unfortunately, Birdstone was in the race too.

This is nothing like Sat. RH, despite all of the revisionism by apologists, is in no way connected to Windstar, clearly scrupulous, unidentified Chinese billionaires, or the world's most beloved, upstanding citizen, George Soros. Other than by trainer. Bettors had a right to trust that he was in the race to, at the very least, attempt to finish it as opposed to sauntering down the stretch while his jockey was jovially conversing with the jockey on Noble Indy. They had a right to assume that even if the orders were "don't impede Justfy," that they did not also include "but try your damdest to impede every other horse."

Noble Indy was entered as Repole's uncoupled entry with Vino Rosso. His silks were changed to reflect that. Repole announced as loud and clear as Damascus' trainer did Hedevar that NI was running to test Justify on the lead and give VR a fighting chance. NI is not a sprinter, he has shown he can go a route of ground. Bettors were allowed to assess whether they wanted to take a shot on him with those odds. That he might hang on for 3rd or 4th was a real possibility, that the field might let him go, allowing him to possibly win was too. For those here complaining that coupled entries screw them out of money--the NI/VR situation is exactly what you say you want, it is fair for bettors and competitors. It is transparent.

Horses entered with no intention to compete screw you more. You don't care now, because you are in love with Justify, but karma's a b*tch so the next time it might be horse you have money on.

Castellano on NI chose not to contest, as much as did Geroux on RH. And in the post race interview when a reporter introduced his question with "Repole's horse NI," Walden interupted him with a belly laugh saying "you mean Windstar's horse," and the whole panel had a great chuckle. Geroux did the same thing to Mendelssohn. Just as he rode looking back at Mendelssohn in the derby, he road a good portion of the belmont looking backwards as well. Castellano swung out 4 wide on Audible shortly after the break pushing Enticed into Mendelssohn who was pinned by Magnum moon, then swung back. It is clear as day in the stills, given the Belmont antics and players, it is even ugly "optics." The only difference was Malibu Moon., but ordinary people, who've gone back to watch it now, think it was intentional too, rightly or wrongly. Justify's overnight Belmont ratings were dismal, the some of the lowest in the past 18 years, and 6 points lower than Smarty's.

True rabbits are sprinters like Hedevar. Speedy routers are "rabbits." If Hedevar had run offense against Fager like RH did, Damascus would be hated to this day. Why would anyone race against Justify now? Who wants to be just another Shared Belief? Brown, Mott, Romans are now saying they are moving these horses to turf. I'm thinking we'll be hearing a change of plans regarding Mendelssohn as well. If Justify runs in NY again, he may be booed. If he runs in CA...he has to some how overcome Baffert's CA curse for his superhorses.

Good for Repole. A billionaire from Queens is likely the only one with the "f*ck'em" cajones big enough to do it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

I don't like rabbits either and think every horse should be in it to win it, but you're right that there is a big difference between a rabbit and a blocker. One is simply setting a pace, which the competition can ignore. The other is actively blocking or herding, etc. to impede the competition. Big difference.

Good luck ignoring the rabbit when you have a horse like Holy Bull or something similar...a horse who is always on the lead...

Ask Holy Bull (well, you can't know, because he's dead) if he was going to ignore Comanche Trail (Tabasco Cat's rabbit) in the 1994 Travers.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Prioress Ply

This, in my mind, is precisely what will end the sport as we know it.

Bro, sport ain't ever gonna end. Nice story though.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Lono

I'm with you on this one and think PA may be to close to the business. A rabbit can go wire to wire if left alone, West said it best that he thought it was a quarter horse race. If another horse was on the out side of Restoring hope he would have went over the outside fence. Then to drop in on Bravzo to stop him was disgraceful. Too much money at stake and the Hay Oats and Water Gang just found a new way to get it all. Or should I say (The Integrity of Racing Gang) ha.

What are you talking about? Too close to the business. Clueless wonder.

Don't start giving us "what ifs" now. If a horse was on the outside of RH he would have went over the outside fence? Whatever. Another cool story.

Rabbits are just as interfering as RH. You have a major contender who is a need-to-lead or a horse who is almost always on the lead, and you enter a rabbit...you might as well just block it into oblivion...same thing.

You guys are just ranting about RH because of "optics."

What Repole set out to do was no different.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by papillon

Ok big man, I'm looking forward to your reply to Jerry Brown's post over at TG that he loaded up on RH. Why did that fool who deserved to lose do that? Because at RH's odds and his sheets he was a great bet, esp. given that just like last year Baffert's horses had miraculously been running new tops all day long. Belmont loves Baffert. SA? Not so much. His horses I've been told for 2 months are the horses that can not only win races but are proof of greatness, come in 3rd in glorified allowances.

I tip my hat at all the worldclass bettors gloating over 3/5 favorites.

Oh, I get it now. You're a shill. Makes total sense.