I think the simplest answer is that many people just don't want it to be true, and it's a lot easier to lash out at others for talking about it than it is to think about it as a viable possibility. But again, if it's upsetting to think about, that's solely the fault of the people involved.Charlie wrote:I have a few questions. One, why are people hell bent on denying Restoring Hope’s whole purpose in this race? Two, why can’t people question and discuss things around here without being labeled as sour lemons?
No one is saying Justify loses without RH’s help, we are saying that RH was ridden in a way to aid in his uncontested lead. Also does anyone think Baffert will admit to giving those type of instructions to a jockey, so why is anyone using him as evidence?
Maybe someone can hell me out with my questions, because you guys are perplexing.
But anyways, now it's in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ear ... ab710fd218, thanks Starine for sharing it in the other thread) and there are bits like this:
so I'm feeling pretty justified in repeatedly warning about the conflict of interest problems with these sorts of ownerships, the unfairness to the bettors when horses aren't entered to win, and the bad optics of the industry pretending to ignore a race playing out the way that one did on a national scale. The national media loves sports conspiracy theories whether they are true or not. This is an uncomfortable conversation, which means it's probably also a necessary one.Adding a layer of complexity was the fact that the other co-owner of Noble Indy, WinStar Farm, is also a majority owner of Justify. Thus WinStar Farm, unlike Repole, would have had no desire to see Noble Indy set a pace that would have hurt its prized horse’s chance at Triple Crown immortality.
I've been reading a lot of racing history lately, and I've been struck by the old "declared to win" system, which was abused in its own way but might have had a small bit of wisdom to it.