Ortiz makes Zero effort to get lead and loses with massive show wagers.

[Ruffian1]

Originally Posted by razor

I posted that Ruffian and that leads me to ask another question. What exactly is a rider who rides first call for a trainer? Asmussen said Luis Contreras would ride first call for him after he moved his tack from California yet had no mount in the Azeri. If Santana is out then why would he not get the mount? He's ridden just about everything else for him leading up to it and won races so he knows the track granted he doesn't know the horse but either does Irad. Handicapping that race left me with a lot of questions of why who rides what and the thought process that goes into it.

A first call rider is basically a rider that rides everything for that trainer. Jock agents can give 2 "calls" out to trainers prior to entering in a race. His 1st call has the jockey on his horse but if that horse is not entered at the last minute for whatever reason, or scratches at the original scratch time when all jocks are named, the 2nd call would become the 1st call and the commitment would be to ride that horse.
What this does is allows riders whose last minute defection from being entered or scratched at scratch time ( not a late scratch) have a chance to still ride the race. Sometimes trainers have every intention of entering even an hour beforehand but something comes up and they do not.
But if the jockey is listed on 2 horses on the overnight when it comes out, the 1st call is the horse they are committed to ride.
Just a guess but when breakups of 1st call riders happens, there is a few days at least when everything is in limbo. Maybe they reached out to Irad's agent before Contreras had fully committed to ride 1st call and leave Calif.
That would make sense as mounts are typically lined up 1-2 weeks in advance in most cases. And in Stakes like this, it can be longer out than that.
Just a guess, but it makes sense.
Hope that helps.

[razor]

Originally Posted by Ruffian1

A first call rider is basically a rider that rides everything for that trainer. Jock agents can give 2 "calls" out to trainers prior to entering in a race. His 1st call has the jockey on his horse but if that horse is not entered at the last minute for whatever reason, or scratches at the original scratch time when all jocks are named, the 2nd call would become the 1st call and the commitment would be to ride that horse.
What this does is allows riders whose last minute defection from being entered or scratched at scratch time ( not a late scratch) have a chance to still ride the race. Sometimes trainers have every intention of entering even an hour beforehand but something comes up and they do not.
But if the jockey is listed on 2 horses on the overnight when it comes out, the 1st call is the horse they are committed to ride.
Just a guess but when breakups of 1st call riders happens, there is a few days at least when everything is in limbo. Maybe they reached out to Irad's agent before Contreras had fully committed to ride 1st call and leave Calif.
That would make sense as mounts are typically lined up 1-2 weeks in advance in most cases. And in Stakes like this, it can be longer out than that.
Just a guess, but it makes sense.
Hope that helps.

Thanks for the reply Ruffian. I guess after seeing the ride Irad gave to Terra Contreras is thinking to himself."Hell I could of done that"

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Not trying to derail the thread, just a simple question:


What % of races do YOU think had a stiff job in them in a given year?

Stiff job being defined as a horse that was on obvious contender and lowish odds, who was made sure to lose because the jock (and others) had wagers against the horse.

Not a trick question.

I wouldn't even know what to guess.

Why don't you give us your estimate?

Let me a relay a story to you from when I was a teenager. I was a hotwalker at the time and the trainer I worked for sent 3 horses to Delaware Park. I went along for the ride because I used to walk them and I wanted to bet one in particular I used to watch work every day. I can't remember the exact price but she was considered a contender and had some speed.

In the race she broke OK, but the rider took her back and never ever moved a muscle. She trailed the field every step of the race.

I remember screaming to myself that he stiffed her as I ripped up my $20 win bet. When he came back the assistant trainer asked him what happened. He told us something was wrong with her. She was not moving right and he was afraid to use her. Mentally I was calling BS because she was working regularly and got past the vet. Guess what, she never raced again. He felt something that was not apparent to even the vet and he was right.

Point being that I have no idea how many horses actually get stiffed for gambling purposes, but sometimes when it looks like an obvious stiff something may be amiss with the horse. So how can you actually know?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

So how can you actually know?

Really man? You have to remember who you're talking to here...handicapping GOD and soothsayer extraordinaire...the one...the only...

Awww, the hell with it...

[davew]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

He probably assumed, like most in this thread (including TimeForm), that she was going to get a relatively easy lead early. He broke well and hit the front...hey...working out as planned so far...then he gets passed quickly by not one but two others...he was riding too cute for words in my opinion.

I don't see how this opinion is invalid compared to the other theories put out here so far.

It happens all the time when a jockey is overconfident on a heavy favorite.

If you are part of the connections on the other horses trying to win this race, one of the possibilities would be get to the lead, slow things down, and hope you have something left for the stretch.

I thought that is why they ran races, for the purse. Has it changed so now everyone gets a participation trophy?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Really man? You have to remember who you're talking to here...handicapping GOD and soothsayer extraordinaire...the one...the only...

Awww, the hell with it...

I wasn't even trying to be critical of his view because he's clearly an astute race watcher and amazing note taker.

I'm claiming ignorance on my part.

I can't tell the difference between a legitimate stiff job, instructions from the connections to run a certain way, a bad decision by the rider, or a horse with physical issues that lead to a sub par performance. I may not be an elite race watcher, but after over 40 years I'm not an idiot either. There's a lot of stuff going on that we don't know about. Handicappers tend to form these incredibly strong opinions on strategy and how to ride without ever having actually ridden a horse, looking at huge samples of hard data to know what actually works in what situations, or knowing the details of the race.

Lemon Drop Husker's view that the rail was not ideal at OP on the 18th is an extremely important insight. If you agree with it (and I do), then gunning the favorite aggressively to duel inside may not have been such a smart move either. The options for that ride were bad and bad.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I wasn't even trying to be critical of his view because he's clearly an astute race watcher and amazing note taker.

I'm claiming ignorance on my part.

I can't tell the difference between a legitimate stiff job, instructions from the connections to run a certain way, a bad decision by the rider, or a horse with physical issues that lead to a sub par performance. I may not be an elite race watcher, but after over 40 years I'm not an idiot either. There's so much stuff going on that we don't know about and handicappers rend to form these incredibly strong opinions on strategy and how to ride without ever having actually ridden a horse, looking at huge samples of hard data to know what actually works, or knowing the details of the race.

I mean Lemon Drop Husker's view that the rail was not ideal at OP on the 18th is an extremely important insight. If you agree with it (and I do), then gunning the favorite aggressively to duel inside may not have been such a smart move either. The options for that ride were bad and bad.

I was ONLY addressing the following two lines of yours:

"Point being that I have no idea how many horses actually get stiffed for gambling purposes, but sometimes when it looks like an obvious stiff something may be amiss with the horse. So how can you actually know?"

The answer is he CAN'T know with any sort of certainty short of wearing a wire and recording a conversation among the parties before or afterwards....or conducting an investigation into betting patterns where the betting parties are known.

Other than that, he can't KNOW. He thinks he knows. He convinces himself he knows. But he doesn't really know. He might know on rare a occasion, but that's pretty much just luck and coincidence. Oh, he'll tell you all about subtle hand grips, subtle non-hand grips, leg positions, non-leg positions, movements, non-movements, whatever he has to do to back-fit the situation into some sort of plausibility....before long, if you listen enough, you're convinced almost 75% or so of the races run every day are fixed (assuming a 25% win rate for the paranoid handicapper, give or take a few % points)...as his posse all nod their bobble-heads in agreement.

And if he can't get you there, he'll start talking about photo finishes and that dreaded "line they draw."

Whatever helps you sleep at night after dropping a few g's I suppose.

As Casey Kasem once cried in some outtakes played over and over again by Howard Stern back in the day, "PONDEROUS, F-in ponderous."

[Thomas Roulston]

I always bet some moderate amount of money on the second choice to show in these situations - on the theory that three things can happen and two of them are good.

[howardjim]

A friend of 40+years had a successful career in racing as a DRF chart maker, jockey's agent, bloodstock agent and owner of "Jack's Blue Card", a northern California tip sheet that did well when people actually went to racetracks.

He was an originator or participant in a number of "scores" as he preferred to reference races or payoffs rigged in one way or another. He guessed at least 25% failed and shared some useful advice over the years.

Enamored of his experiences, one afternoon at SA, leaning on the walking ring rail, he replied to my question on inside information, "the only useful information a trainer can impart is if his horse is "live", and most think they are."

He became fatally ill a few years back and loosened up about his experiences, one being a race at Los Al in which he paid every jockey and still lost when the rider of the favorite, paid to be out of the money, couldn't restrain his rank but fast mount. The jock's efforts were obvious, regardless the horse won. Jack bore no grudges though entering the jock's room after the race, he said the rider expected a fight until their conversation.

Weeks before he died Jack asked if my action was profitable. I answered yes and he implored me to continue without fear of dishonesty. The stories stopped. He said most races were run fairly though if I heard too many tales, they would break my confidence unjustly.

FWIW I took his advice.

[Dahoss9698]

My 2 cents, it was a horrible ride. I said it as I watched it live and I still think that. Was it some tin foil hat conspiracy by Irad to cash a bet? Of course not. That's crazy talk. But I agree that it should be investigated because the ride was soooo bad.

We need more transparency, not less. Maybe if more poor rides were questioned by stewards and racing officials, we as bettors wouldn't feel like everything is always stacked against us.

I will say this, watching Irad ride everyday, I was not at all surprised. He rates EVERYTHING, which is odd because what made him successful as a bug was his aggressiveness.

[EMD4ME]

Here's what I find amazing...

After all this scrutiny, Irad comes back to NY. The rail may be dead today. In race 1, you had a big bell go off as a loose as a goose jogger just stopped while racing inside. Irad had his horse, the fav, near the inside for most of the race.

In race 2, 3/4 of the much less "named" jocks rode way off the rai.....so it was obvious to those guys..

Ayala KNEW to ride the leader off the rail in race 2 at AQU but IRAD ORTIZ, hugged the rail like it was golden in race 2.


I didn't bet the 1, so please don't say that I bet him and he lost blah blah blah.


It's amazing how Irad finds ways to ride just so terribly, especially on possibly biased racetracks.

Draw your own conclusions but I just find it amazing, that's all I'm trying to say.

[Ruffian1]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Here's what I find amazing...

After all this scrutiny, Irad comes back to NY. The rail may be dead today. In race 1, you had a big bell go off as a loose as a goose jogger just stopped while racing inside. Irad had his horse, the fav, near the inside for most of the race.

In race 2, 3/4 of the much less "named" jocks rode way off the rai.....so it was obvious to those guys..

Ayala KNEW to ride the leader off the rail in race 2 at AQU but IRAD ORTIZ, hugged the rail like it was golden in race 2.


I didn't bet the 1, so please don't say that I bet him and he lost blah blah blah.


It's amazing how Irad finds ways to ride just so terribly, especially on possibly biased racetracks.

Draw your own conclusions but I just find it amazing, that's all I'm trying to say.

I have no idea why handicappers are sure that riders and trainers truly know a bias when one exists

The vast majority absolutely did not understand it when I was active and from what I see not much has changed.

But by thinking many or all do, it drives handicappers crazy wondering why some jocks did what they did or didn't do what they didn't do.

Just thought I would mention it.
Maybe it helps somebody.

[chenoa]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

My 2 cents, it was a horrible ride. I said it as I watched it live and I still think that. Was it some tin foil hat conspiracy by Irad to cash a bet? Of course not. That's crazy talk. But I agree that it should be investigated because the ride was soooo bad.

We need more transparency, not less. Maybe if more poor rides were questioned by stewards and racing officials, we as bettors wouldn't feel like everything is always stacked against us.

I will say this, watching Irad ride everyday, I was not at all surprised. He rates EVERYTHING, which is odd because what made him successful as a bug was his aggressiveness.

Vic Stauffer compared it to Steph Curry shooting 2 for 19 and having a bad day, and that's what Ortiz had, case closed.

This coming from a former CA steward, surely, you wouldn't expect anything different to come out of his big mouth!!!

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by chenoa

Vic Stauffer compared it to Steph Curry shooting 2 for 19 and having a bad day, and that's what Ortiz had, case closed.

This coming from a former CA steward, surely, you wouldn't expect anything different to come out of his big mouth!!!

If Ortiz was a low rung jock at a C track and not a top 2 or 3 rider in the game (as well as being the guy who has previously been accused by some pundits as working in tandem with his brother) he wouldn't have gotten nearly the critique he received.

[Ruffian1]

Originally Posted by chenoa

Vic Stauffer compared it to Steph Curry shooting 2 for 19 and having a bad day, and that's what Ortiz had, case closed.

This coming from a former CA steward, surely, you wouldn't expect anything different to come out of his big mouth!!!

He could not be more wrong IMO.

I know he is not here to defend himself but this is not about him, it's about reality.

Had Irad not looked over like the cat with the canary feathers in his mouth 3 seconds after the break he might not have set off the actions that followed.

He did not look, he starred.

And if I am that outside local rider , I think the same way. Here... taste some of this!

Jocks are competitive . Real competitive. And jocks who have to watch out of town riders come in and get 1-5 shots in Grade 2's while they ride maidens and nw/2's Monday through Friday for much smaller purses, are REALLY competitive.

He screwed himself from the git go. You don't waltz in to a jocks room and go out and start stylin' leaving the gate. All he needed was a comb to fix his hair going into a 1st turn that obviously snuck up on him. Stylin was exactly what he did. He got cute. And the leading rider stuck it where it needed to be stuck.
That is what happened folks. It's a shame that people that are supposed to know don't say what it really is.
Some like keeping the people in the dark, in the dark.

Why not help people that love the game see and explain things for the way they really are?
I don't get that.
Whatever the case, that's exactly what I saw.
The raw unedited version.
Hope that helps.
That's what happened.