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

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by Ruffian1

You listen to the rider and further investigate if you deem it necessary. That is the job of the Steward. Anybody talked to Bob or Repole yet? Repole admitted a rule violation. Maybe he was just upset though.

I don't get not wanting Stewards to do their job.

And the people that post on this and other message boards are the types of people that the rules are written for. Customers. What is wrong with trying to protect them?

I don't believe their viewed as customers. More like money dispensers that talk.

[Tom]

Man, I hope I never see another TC winner in my lifetime.

[Ruffian1]

This has nothing to do with TC winners.

It has to do with The Rules Of Racing

It should not matter if this is the Belmont or the last at Charlestown.

Rules are rules.

Aren't there a bunch of threads about somebody maybe cheating the public in here and nothing is said? Riders, trainers, owners , Stewards.

Customers are angry at a lack of action aren't they?


But when it IS said, it's bad because there was a TC winner?

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Ruffian1

This has nothing to do with TC winners.

It has to do with The Rules Of Racing

It should not matter if this is the Belmont or the last at Charlestown.

Rules are rules.

Aren't there a bunch of threads about somebody maybe cheating the public in here and nothing is said? Riders, trainers, owners , Stewards.

Customers are angry at a lack of action aren't they?


But when it IS said, it's bad because there was a TC winner?

I have seen the non coupling entries working together, in fact I just saw it in a race.......it happens EVERY day, yet were supposed to care in this race, if it did even happen, which is debatable (again, there was no interference, you are along to run between horses, at least I thought you could before this farce).

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I have seen the non coupling entries working together, in fact I just saw it in a race.......it happens EVERY day, yet were supposed to care in this race, if it did even happen, which is debatable (again, there was no interference, you are along to run between horses, at least I thought you could before this farce).

Yes, we are supposed to care in this race, we are supposed to care in every race. And yes, weather it happened or not is debatable. The "rules" are there to protect the bettor. But, as with a lot of "rules" in horse racing, there seems to be a ton of grey area. The rules are open to someones opinion, and are less effective in doing what they are designed to do.

In this case the Baffert horses seem to be getting the focus, when it should be the other way around. The actions of the other part of Bafferts entry is open to debate, and every one is entitled to their opinion on what happened. Both sides of this argument have points, and what the true intentions were will never be known.
Repole stated before the race that NI was to go out with Justify, act as a "rabbit" to set table for VR's late kick. What part of this complies with the rules as they are written? Why did the stewards allow these entry's not to be coupled? Or even allow both the horses to be entered? This part is not debatable, and is a open violation of the rules. And by the way, Mr. Reople, next time you do this, remember, you need a faster rabbit.

Last night at Crookhill Downs is a example of non coupled entries working together. In the Matt Winn, Dale Romans used one of his entries, Tiz Mischief, to set up the other part of his entry, King Zachary. This is a example of why entries should be coupled. Romans used the lower priced horse to set up the higher priced horse. This is the reason for coupled entries, to protect the public from trainers setting up a race, to cash a bet on a higher priced horse. Now before any one says that I am accusing Dale Romans of "cashing a bet", I am not. The point is that a argument could be made for this. And is why the rule's for coupled entries were put in place to begin with. Dale Roman's reputation should not be questioned in regard to cashing a bet on this race, but can be. This also points out why the entries should have been coupled to begin with, to protect the integrity of the participant's and the sport in general.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Yes, we are supposed to care in this race, we are supposed to care in every race. And yes, weather it happened or not is debatable. The "rules" are there to protect the bettor. But, as with a lot of "rules" in horse racing, there seems to be a ton of grey area. The rules are open to someones opinion, and are less effective in doing what they are designed to do.

In this case the Baffert horses seem to be getting the focus, when it should be the other way around. The actions of the other part of Bafferts entry is open to debate, and every one is entitled to their opinion on what happened. Both sides of this argument have points, and what the true intentions were will never be known.
Repole stated before the race that NI was to go out with Justify, act as a "rabbit" to set table for VR's late kick. What part of this complies with the rules as they are written? Why did the stewards allow these entry's not to be coupled? Or even allow both the horses to be entered? This part is not debatable, and is a open violation of the rules. And by the way, Mr. Reople, next time you do this, remember, you need a faster rabbit.

Last night at Crookhill Downs is a example of non coupled entries working together. In the Matt Winn, Dale Romans used one of his entries, Tiz Mischief, to set up the other part of his entry, King Zachary. This is a example of why entries should be coupled. Romans used the lower priced horse to set up the higher priced horse. This is the reason for coupled entries, to protect the public from trainers setting up a race, to cash a bet on a higher priced horse. Now before any one says that I am accusing Dale Romans of "cashing a bet", I am not. The point is that a argument could be made for this. And is why the rule's for coupled entries were put in place to begin with. Dale Roman's reputation should not be questioned in regard to cashing a bet on this race, but can be. This also points out why the entries should have been coupled to begin with, to protect the integrity of the participant's and the sport in general.

Rabbit and blocking not the same thing. Not even close. Since when is it an issue to allow a horse to run fast?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Rabbit and blocking not the same thing. Not even close. Since when is it an issue to allow a horse to run fast?

I think the main point there is a horse was running uncoupled and the plan was not to try to win, as is supposed to happen by rule, but to try to aid another horse that is a separate betting interest. Seems to me Restoring Hope was there to block that plan. Two wrongs IMO.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Rabbit and blocking not the same thing. Not even close. Since when is it an issue to allow a horse to run fast?

I agree, they are different. The blocking part is your opinion, that is fine with me. The difference is that Baffert never stated that he wanted RH to "block" or protect Justify at any time. Repole stated his intentions, and that is the problem. Both should have been coupled entries, to protect the public. What happened during the race is up for the stewards to decide.

[Jeff P]

I've been a die hard horse racing fan since about the age of ten. I'm sixty now. (You do the math.)

In a thousand lifetimes I cannot for one second fathom Secretariat's connections orchestrating the kind of rider tactics being talked about in this thread.

Maybe it was a different era. But I can tell you one thing about that era.

Sportsmanship mattered.

When I watch video of Secretariat's Belmont: I see the riders of two great horses throw down. Each doing everything in their power to take it to the other.

Secretariat rose to the challenge and gave us the performance of a lifetime.

When I watch video of Justify's Belmont: I see Restoring Hope. A horse full of run going into the first turn doing his level best to do what he was bred to do.

He doesn't know Justify is undefeated. He doesn't know Justify is running for the Triple Crown.

Restoring Hope only knows one thing. Justify is in front. He accelerates because something deep inside says that he, not Justify, belongs in front.

In that instant Florent Geroux realizes what his mount is about to do. And the video shows him doing everything in his power to stop his horse from doing it.

Geroux grabs the reigns hard enough to snap Restoring Hope's head back - and steers his mount to the far outside.

Whether intentional or not, Geroux's actions end up creating a seal. His tactics effectively prevent the other riders from challenging Justify until much later in the race.

In my mind Justify was the best horse in the race and likely would have won - even if another horse had laid down a serious pace challenge.

But that wasn't allowed to happen. As another poster put it several pages back: "Bad optics."

As a die hard horse racing fan and bettor I can't help but feel the sport was cheapened because of rider tactics in this year's Belmont.

The video of Geroux grabbing the reigns going into the first turn and steering Restoring Hope to the far outside is enough to convince me he wasn't riding to obtain the best possible placing.

I strongly suspect he grabbed his mount and swung to the far outside because the last thing in the world he wanted was to put Justify's Triple Crown bid at risk.

In my mind a true sportsman competes. He gives his level best. Every single time.

Imo, what Geroux did is pretty much the opposite of that.

Make no mistake. Secretariat's Belmont was run in a different era.

Once upon a time sportsmanship mattered.



-jp

.

[cj]

It all comes down to too many conflicting interests at the top of the sport. The game is shrinking and the top is controlled by very few. That isn't good for anyone, except those at the top of course.

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

I've been a die hard horse racing fan since about the age of ten. I'm sixty now. (You do the math.)

In a thousand lifetimes I cannot for one second fathom Secretariat's connections orchestrating the kind of rider tactics being talked about in this thread.

Maybe it was a different era. But I can tell you one thing about that era.

Sportsmanship mattered.

When I watch video of Secretariat's Belmont: I see the riders of two great horses throw down. Each doing everything in their power to take it to the other.

Secretariat rose to the challenge and gave us the performance of a lifetime.

When I watch video of Justify's Belmont: I see Restoring Hope. A horse full of run going into the first turn doing his level best to do what he was bred to do.

He doesn't know Justify is undefeated. He doesn't know Justify is running for the Triple Crown.

Restoring Hope only knows one thing. Justify is in front. He accelerates because something deep inside says that he, not Justify, belongs in front.

In that instant Florent Geroux realizes what his mount is about to do. And the video shows him doing everything in his power to stop his horse from doing it.

Geroux grabs the reigns hard enough to snap Restoring Hope's head back - and steers his mount to the far outside.

Whether intentional or not, Geroux's actions end up creating a seal. His tactics effectively prevent the other riders from challenging Justify until much later in the race.

In my mind Justify was the best horse in the race and likely would have won - even if another horse had laid down a serious pace challenge.

But that wasn't allowed to happen. As another poster put it several pages back: "Bad optics."

As a die hard horse racing fan and bettor I can't help but feel the sport was cheapened because of rider tactics in this year's Belmont.

The video of Geroux grabbing the reigns going into the first turn and steering Restoring Hope to the far outside is enough to convince me he wasn't riding to obtain the best possible placing.

I strongly suspect he grabbed his mount and swung to the far outside because the last thing in the world he wanted was to put Justify's Triple Crown bid at risk.

In my mind a true sportsman competes. He gives his level best. Every single time.

Imo, what Geroux did is pretty much the opposite of that.

Make no mistake. Secretariat's Belmont was run in a different era.

Once upon a time sportsmanship mattered.



-jp

.

GREAT post, Jeff.

[Denny]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Your point of view is based off your belief that Noble Indy/Castellano weren't interested in the lead. My point of view based off of the aerial view is that at around the 10 second mark Noble Indy was challenging for the lead but trying to get position outside of 3 horses. At that point RH sprinted ahead of him and made a right hand turn floating from the 6 path to eventually the 3 path. It took over 20 seconds before he worked his way into a stable position where Castellano would have been able to then brush into the lead. Whether Castellano intended to challenge Justify early for the lead to me is a non issue. The actions of RH made that an impossibility. For RH to make a right hand turn in front of Noble Indy and essentially block him from challenging Justify in the first 30 seconds of the race, dictated that A) RH would have no chance to win B) Noble Indy would have a tiny chance to win c) Provide Justify with an unchallenged lead throughout since those were the only 2 speeds in the race.

I find this completely unacceptable. The fact that this type of crap is a pattern with Baffert means that his is a problem that is now completely out of hand. If this is what racing has become, then frankly they need to limit entries to one horse per owner and one horse per trainer. It appears that is too difficult to properly police the sport.

I am in total agreement with this entire post.

Something needs to be done.

[jay68802]

One other small point, did Repole really think that NI best chance was dueling with Justify? IMO, he needs his head examined on that, because that is probably not the way NI gets his best finish position. And if that did happen, the bettors were protected with VR, if the entry was coupled.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Ruffian1

This has nothing to do with TC winners.

It has to do with The Rules Of Racing

It should not matter if this is the Belmont or the last at Charlestown.

Rules are rules.

Aren't there a bunch of threads about somebody maybe cheating the public in here and nothing is said? Riders, trainers, owners , Stewards.

Customers are angry at a lack of action aren't they?


But when it IS said, it's bad because there was a TC winner?

Google "sarcasm."
Then Google "clue"

I am posting about the whining in this thread, not the rules of racing.
BTW, what SPECIFIC rule was violated?

[Denny]

Agree with Jeff's post too.

Though would add that Restoring hope broke a step slow and didn't just do what horses do - he was urged vigorously by his rider to do so.
Then when he got just in front of Nobel Indy, the rider steers him into that opponents path.

(the overhead shows it all)

Justify probably wins the race regardless, but, that isn't the point.

There was visible actions taken by a stablemate to insure it.

RH should forfeit money won - $30,000 and geroux ought to be fined/suspended.

Repole also comes out of this looking bad and should be sanctioned imo. Stating one of his horses wasn't trying to win at all.

The game/sport smells right now if nothing is done about any of it