Life At Ten - An Absolute Sham

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Zippy Chippy

WHy the hell were his odds so low if everyone knew about this? the last i saw he was 7/2 when they were going into the gate.

You only knew if you were watching ESPN. Everyone else was under the assumption that one of the biggest races of the year would be honestly ridden. The fools.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

NOT RIDE THE HORSE.

Are you serious? You may not find him the most culpable, but you're patting the guy on the back for possibly saving her life by giving her the ole' $50 gallop. Would you still feel the same way if she had incurred a terrible injury nonetheless? Just decided that well, Johnny did everything he could, he throttled her down to 6 knots...

Please, at that level, on that stage - if you're committed to just holding your breath and seeing if she does it on her own - then you need to just remember that you are at the Breeder's Cup and this is for real with the world watching, looking for an excuse. Be a professional and do the right thing. It's a pretty simple choice, really.

So he refuses to ride. They still don't have to scratch the horse. Another jockey takes the mount and now maybe his life is at risk, in addition to the horse's life.

[WJ47]

I needed Life at Ten, Blind Luck or Havre de Grace for my Pick 3!

Is the mare okay? Did they find something wrong with her?

[turfnsport]

Originally Posted by WJ47

I needed Life at Ten, Blind Luck or Havre de Grace for my Pick 3!

Is the mare okay? Did they find something wrong with her?

The report is she is doing better than your Pick 3 ticket.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by RXB

So he refuses to ride. They still don't have to scratch the horse. Another jockey takes the mount and now maybe his life is at risk, in addition to the horse's life.

He refuses to ride, putting the onus on the state vet to do his job!

[WJ47]

Originally Posted by turfnsport

The report is she is doing better than your Pick 3 ticket.

LOL! I hope I fare better tomorrow.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by RXB

So he refuses to ride. They still don't have to scratch the horse. Another jockey takes the mount and now maybe his life is at risk, in addition to the horse's life.

Assuming that they didn't scratch her, which I'm not inclined to believe would happen, but...

John did the right thing at that point if he refuses the mount.

This is what is wrong. Everyone can find a reason why they shouldn't have made the prudent decision because they can find a reason why someone else should have. It has to start with someone having the conscience to do something. In my mind, the rider and horse are most entwined at that moment - they are the two risking everything - not anyone else involved, and maybe its me, but John V looked every much like a guy that didn't want to ride that mare.

But I know what that spot is like for him so I have some compassion for his position, particularly after Quality Road last year. But I'm still critical of the decision not to express the same concern to state officials by all accounts that he expressed to his (former) peer, an empathetic someone that perhaps he felt unreasonably comfortable discussing the situation with.

When it comes to horses - practically everything is ultimately out of your control. Don't blow it when that isn't the case.

[Sericm]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

He basically stiffed her out of the gate. Lame or not lame, once that gate opens you have to ride hard all the way. If you plan on protecting the horse all the way, don't run.

You are a complete moron if you take this attitude. Obviously there was something wrong with the horse. If Pletcher or the Vets didn't see anything wrong and let her load then Velasquez did the correct thing to protect the horse. What, he should persevere with her so you could collect your crummy bet.

Better the horse DIES, than someone should lose a couple of dollars, that would be great for racing wouldn't it. The jockey should be given a medal.

[Linny]

You can't get blood from a stone. "Persevering" with LAT wouldn't have made her run any better. It might make someone who bet her feel better for a moment you they still have a losing ticket.

I don't know who is to blame but Pletcher appeared to know before JV arrived in the paddock that LAT was "not herself." He chose to go ahead and not request a vet in the paddock. JV didn't ask the vet to go over her on the track. Once it was clear at the break that LAT was not right, nothing JV could have done would have fixed things.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Sericm

You are a complete moron if you take this attitude. Obviously there was something wrong with the horse. If Pletcher or the Vets didn't see anything wrong and let her load then Velasquez did the correct thing to protect the horse. What, he should persevere with her so you could collect your crummy bet.

Better the horse DIES, than someone should lose a couple of dollars, that would be great for racing wouldn't it. The jockey should be given a medal.

BzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzT, incorrect, try again. What does Sericm win, Johnny.?

Listen. John Velazques is a jockey, he's not a vet, he's not a trainer, he's not a groom and he's not a state steward. He's a jockey, which means AS a jockey he's paid to do ONE THING. Ride. The. Horse.

He's NOT to be making decisions on when he should try and when he should not try. Hes paid to ride to win and give full effort to do that. If he feels that he WONT be able to give full effort he is not supposed to go in the gate with that mount.

Trainers train, judges judge, vets vet, stewards stew and RIDERS RIDE.

If that horse goes into the gate and the gate opens, as a bettor, i'm to assume the horse is 100 percent fit to ride. If the jock decides he's not going to ride that mount out all the way, i have to assume he didnt' give full effort to win. That's called a stiff job.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Assuming that they didn't scratch her, which I'm not inclined to believe would happen, but...

You're right that if he refuses to ride, that gives Pletcher a chance to say "I'm not putting another rider on the horse." I think our basic feelings on the matter are fairly similar. My point is just that if Velasquez has gone to the vet and expressed concern, and the vet says nope, she's running, then maybe JV feels that staying aboard and wrapping up is the safest thing for the horse. Hard to say; lots of politics and jockey-trainer relationship stuff involved, too. (The Maker-Gomez incident as a case in point.)

[Shelby]

I hold Todd P. in the highest regard....I've never seen or heard stories of him putting a horse in danger. He is certainly a talented, money-making top trainer, so I have to think that surely he wouldn't deliberately run a horse that wasn't acting right...but, yet, he did

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by RXB

You're right that if he refuses to ride, that gives Pletcher a chance to say "I'm not putting another rider on the horse." I think our basic feelings on the matter are fairly similar. My point is just that if Velasquez has gone to the vet and expressed concern, and the vet says nope, she's running, then maybe JV feels that staying aboard and wrapping up is the safest thing for the horse. Hard to say; lots of politics and jockey-trainer relationship stuff involved, too. (The Maker-Gomez incident as a case in point.)

I know how these things go in the day to day grind of racing and I've been in the middle of a similar situation. My exasperation obviously is not directed at you, but just with the reality that we just can't seem to help but to offer up ammunition for those taking aim at the sport.

It's Breeder's Cup day. A national audience can hear the jock at t-minus 69 seconds tell them that his mount, the favorite, does not feel right at all.

That's it. End of story. If elite national jockey riding for elite national trainer on elite national racehorse in premier championship race tells the television audience how poorly his horse is warming up - PULL THE PLUG.

I thought I was just about immune to this sort of amateurish thing happening in racing and yet I feel among the most outraged that I had to watch it on our premier "Championship" day.

By all accounts the filly is fine, but my god, I am so sick about hearing about Congress that the last thing I want to hear about is Congress investigating racing again. We get more ambulances, a fancier cast, better access to the gaps, no more Equipoise, pre-race exams - BUT THE JOCK GOES ON TV BEFORE THE RACE AND SAYS SORRY CHARLIE - and what??!?!?!? She gets the $50 gallop.

It's a bullshit move when it's a $7,500 claimer and some poor shmuck is getting one rammed up his ass plain as day and it's just as shallow a maneuver in a Grade I race even if you (we) find the motives more palatable. It doesn't justify the risks posed and it certainly doesn't justify the dead money in the pools.

[chickenhead]

I noticed about 3 days ago on TVG, in an interview Pletcher was asked one of those inane, open ended questions about the distaff, like "you have 2 horses entered, how are you feeling about that race?", he talked solely about Malibu Prayer for about 1 minute, how well she was doing, where he wants her placed, that she's kind of overlooked, etc, without referencing L@10, end of answer.

It was odd enough that I remember thinking "that's odd". Could be totally unrelated, maybe he was just tired of talking about L@10 and was giving MP's owner a reach around, but it was odd.

[exiles]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

It happens all the time. The jock warms the horse up, and something doesn't feel right. The jock says something to the state vet. After watching the horse, the state vet typically scratches the horse. Ergo, the jockey can absolutely be blamed in part. But none of this is reported to equibase of course.

T.P new she wasn,t right and still run her.
Quote from the DRF (Todd Pletcher, said after the race that he was concerned while saddling in the paddock because Life At Ten was acting, in his words, “abnormally quiet,”)