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

[VigorsTheGrey]

From the DRF:

John Velazquez, the rider of Vino Rosso, said he felt Geroux rode Restoring Hope in a manner to protect Justify.

“Why would you send a horse that breaks bad and take everybody out, then come back in?” Velazquez, a Hall of Fame rider, said. “That’s his job, to protect the other horse and it worked for them. You have to give it to them.”

I know the above quote has already been posted, but I thought it worthy of a repost here...when a long time insider like John Velazquez says something as clear as this, I listen very carefully to what he is saying...I respect John very much, both as a great jockey and from what I have seen, an honest and trustworthy human being who cares for others and the sport...

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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.

I'll repeat that I'm not in favor of rabbits. If Damascus wanted to beat Fager fair and square, then he should've tried taking it to Fager.

But I do still contend that going out and running fast and grabbing or pressing the lead is a far cry different than running interference in the race, purposefully taking horses wide or blocking them or pinning them on the rail. The first scenario allows a horse and rider to run their best race if they choose to do so, while the latter doesn't.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Fager Fan should ask Dr. Fager how easy it was for him to ignore Hedevar.

I have many times. It took 2 horses to ever beat Fager, but I accept that was Fager's one flaw, that he was unratable.

[djm1959]

vino rosso had a clear shot and he didnt do a thing in stretch,,,,justify smoked him still!

i didnt bet the race, i figured id jinx justify lol so i had no money riding on the race

[Ruffian1]

Originally Posted by Tom

A. If you don't think that what Restoring Hope's jockey did to anybody that bet on him or the owners of him is a REAL problem then that in itself is a problem.

What he did was break one rule by not putting forth his best effort to win.
How do you know that? Can you prove it? And if it can be proven that he willfully led interference for his stablemate to have a better chance, he broke another rule. Then where is your proof?
These rules are very clear and very simple. And they are put in place to protect the public. Not other trainers. The public. These are well known to every jockey and trainer that has a license. Hell, one of those rules was on my trainers test in the 70's for God's sake.

I am not a customer. You, and I will assume most other here are. I go to the track or wager maybe once or twice a year at the most, if at all. It is an opportunity to see high school friends and reminisce about cutting class and going to Bowie and the old days.
Yet I am appalled at the actions taken in this race including the blinkers off of Restoring Hope that took place well after the entry, which is a rule violation and well after the betting started, which is another rule violation and you and I think others as well seem to have no cares about it at all presumably because you bet the winner? Well, if the stewards allowed that, maybe they WERE drinking that day and lost track of time? At the very least, they FAILED to protect the public
Thankfully I have seen plenty of customers in here that are mad about it regardless of who they bet. That is really good to see.

You know folks, all these people that are Stewards and management at every track in the country are, are just ordinary people. They won't bite. And the majority of them would welcome a sit down with respectful customers that had real issues to discuss. All you have to do is walk up to them and start talking to them. Act classy, act respectful, and ask for a slot of time . You might be surprised at how many would say yes. I would hope that same would be true for the Jocks representative.There is one jock that represents each colony at each track. Same goes for trainers. Just ask.
And it probably won't amount to much. But it's a start. Without face to face dialog, all that will happen is we will all type like hell to try and feel a little better. But it solves nothing. It only lasts until the next post .

I feel for the customers. I always have. That's because before I was a horseman, I WAS a customer. And that was part of what made me unique on the backside. Before becoming a hot walker my knowledge of horses came from watching Mr. Ed.
When I first started at the track it took me 3 days to learn which end crapped.
By the way, it's true, horses do talk. Just not with words. It takes a long time to learn what they are saying but they talk a lot. Just have to learn how to listen. And the eyes and mouth of Restoring Hope were loud and clear to me. So were the relaxed, well within himself strides of Justify. That race was OVER when 1:13 and change went up.
Could you hear and see that Tom? I could. Good for you. Medal is in the mail.
But Stewards, management , jocks and trainers talk with words. And they are easy to understand. But unless someone tries, it won't happen.

And so far, the words have said that that was not RH's purpose in the race.
Unless you have heard other words to the contrary. It is NOT my job nor desire to save the game. The NYRA stewards themselves showed how much they car and how competent they are by using the phrase "no one pointed it out to us." I heard those words.

The NY boys get beat at their own game. Live with it. I am sure NYRA is not keen on going down that path. I am MUCH more concerned the the herding and grabbing that go on daily at Belmont.[/QUOTE]

I have known from your previous posts that you really don't want to do anything except complain. Change takes a lot of effort. Complaining takes very little.
A heartfelt post when a rider goes down and a month later a pinhead ladened post about how riders held up races for 20 minutes to champion change for among other things, rider safety. That's just great.
Said in jest? Sarcasm? Prove you are wrong instead of you proving your own slanderous allegations? Nonsense.
I will end this discussion with you so you can get back to doing what you normally do. Any effort to explain anything to you or question your posts is a wasted one.

[Ruffian1]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

I believe you BUT I seriously doubt Baffert is gonna tell the truth about his instructions and I doubt Geroux is gonna speak out without Bafferts permission. When it comes to any controversy B.B. speaks with fork toungue and has for a long time.

I knew all I needed to know about B.B. in 1999 and I agree with everything you just wrote.

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Originally Posted by Ruffian1

I have known from your previous posts that you really don't want to do anything except complain. Change takes a lot of effort. Complaining takes very little.
A heartfelt post when a rider goes down and a month later a pinhead ladened post about how riders held up races for 20 minutes to champion change for among other things, rider safety. That's just great.
Said in jest? Sarcasm? Prove you are wrong instead of you proving your own slanderous allegations? Nonsense.
I will end this discussion with you so you can get back to doing what you normally do. Any effort to explain anything to you or question your posts is a wasted one.

Exactly, Ruffian. Thank you for posting.
Tom is a complaining waste. If it was not for this forum, he would have to go back to what he used to do- cursing at the t.v. and yelling at the neighborhood kids.

[metro]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

From the DRF:

John Velazquez, the rider of Vino Rosso, said he felt Geroux rode Restoring Hope in a manner to protect Justify.

“Why would you send a horse that breaks bad and take everybody out, then come back in?” Velazquez, a Hall of Fame rider, said. “That’s his job, to protect the other horse and it worked for them. You have to give it to them.”

Uh, you "send" because you are on the 2nd best speed in the race and were probably told that your mount's best races (coincidence or not) are when he is just off of the pace.

lmao at the "take everybody out" comment too. There wasn't a single horse that had to steady, check or break stride because of Geroux's early antics, it is all optics. By the time this is over people will be saying Florent was carrying Aaron Judge's baseball bat with him instead of a whip, clubbing his fellow jockeys over the head as he rode along.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I would feel a lot more sanguine about saying "that's just racing" if we knew exactly what happened. Get people on the record and let's find out what Geroux's actual instructions were. Let's figure out if we have to do something about overlapping ownership and uncoupling and the like.

If we know all the facts and decide to go ahead and allow it, sure, caveat gambler. But I don't think we can make that call without knowing what actually happened here.

This is what I think happened

1. Restoring Hope was entered in the race because the owners wanted him in it.

2. Baffert had no idea what the PP draw would be like when he entered Restoring Hope. So he had no idea whether he could use this horse to run interference early or not going in.

3. Restoring Hope does his best running close to the pace stalking.

The instructions were probably to get a good position early but not hound Justify (perfectly logical for both horses). They were also aware that Repole might be crazy enough to want to use Noble Indy as a semi rabbit even though Winstar owned a piece of both Noble Indy and Justify (which is the most INSANE aspect of the story). So part of the instructions may have been to keep Noble Indy wide going into the first turn if possible while trying to secure a good stalking position for Restoring Hope.

4. When Restoring Hope broke a little slow, he was rushed up a bit to get back into the race (something that happens every day at every racetrack in the US). The plan continued as expected, but after being rushed up the horse was traveling quickly going into the first turn and had a tougher time taking it. That made the drift out worse than the normal race riding that was intended.

5. Repole is whining because a horse he wanted to use as a rabbit (even though his partner in the horse also owned Justify) was not fast enough to do so. I would be furious if I was Winstar!!!!!!! Absolutely F'n FURIOUS!!!!

He's also whining about Castellano not following instruction even though he rode Noble Indy perfectly.

IMO, Castellano is the hero in all this. He may have lost mounts with Repole, but he should be gaining mounts with everyone else. Thank God he did not follow the instructions and go all out to kill off Justify with a horse also partially owned by Winstar.

[Tom]

Sarcasm? Prove you are wrong instead of you proving your own slanderous allegations?

Going to take you ball and go home because someone the internet doesn't agree with you?

Buh bye.

[davew]

Originally Posted by metro

lmao at the "take everybody out" comment too. There wasn't a single horse that had to steady, check or break stride because of Geroux's early antics, it is all optics. By the time this is over people will be saying Florent was carrying Aaron Judge's baseball bat with him instead of a whip, clubbing his fellow jockeys over the head as he rode along.

But what about ALL the horses that went straight on the first turn following Restoring Hope? they probably ran an extra length....

[GMB@BP]

Restoring Hope could have been right next to Justify, he was not asked for enough early, that was HIS choice.

Bravazo could have been as well, he had every chance to slide out of that hole as they ran the first quarter of a mile, he chose NOT too.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think the difference is that rabbits can win. You put in a rabbit, Justify gets a bad start, the rabbit goes wire to wire.

Whereas it doesn't look like Geroux was using tactics that could possibly benefit RH's chances in the race. He is just running interference for the .

I disagree 100%

First off, rabbits win about as often as Zippy Chippy did. 99.9999% of the time, the rabbit is entered with NO intention of winning. They are there to do a job for another horse in the race. That's why they're called rabbits.

The rabbit is there to get another horse in the race to run faster than they want, OR to set a suicidal pace to set it up for a stone closer, or both.

Whoever is riding the rabbit is NOT using tactics that could benefit their own mount.

Sounds kind of like your description of RH now, doesn't it?

Did anyone claim foul on RH? Did the stewards call for an inquiry? Did the horse actually commit a foul? Pretty sure the answer to all those questions is a big fat no.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I disagree 100%

First off, rabbits win about as often as Zippy Chippy did. 99.9999% of the time, the rabbit is entered with NO intention of winning. They are there to do a job for another horse in the race. That's why they're called rabbits.

The rabbit is there to get another horse in the race to run faster than they want, OR to set a suicidal pace to set it up for a stone closer, or both.

Whoever is riding the rabbit is NOT using tactics that could benefit their own mount.

Sounds kind of like your description of RH now, doesn't it?

Did anyone claim foul on RH? Did the stewards call for an inquiry? Did the horse actually commit a foul? Pretty sure the answer to all those questions is a big fat no.

Your last point is spurious. There are lots of things that are legal but unethical, and one reason for this discussion is to think about whether there should be rule changes to discourage what we think happened.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Your last point is spurious. There are lots of things that are legal but unethical, and one reason for this discussion is to think about whether there should be rule changes to discourage what we think happened.

i am fine with recoupling horses, i think this would help solve a lot of problems....

funny though, before this, there were but a few of us saying that there has been some issues with this lately.

industry wont do it but I would be fine with it.