Justify/Restoring Hope...quite the duo

Post Reply
Tessablue
Posts: 3524
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am
Location: Boston

Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:34 pm

No, we're trying to have an adult conversation about some serious issues that are only going to continue to hamper the sport if we pretend they don't exist. Literally nobody here is talking about Restoring Hope in the context of whether or not he affected Justify's victory. That's a purely personal and subjective topic. What isn't subjective is the fact that conflict of interest and transparency issues will continue to harm the sport on a national level if people refuse to address them and just shout down anyone who tries to start a conversation.
User avatar
Big Ten
Posts: 684
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:35 am

Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:34 pm

1997 Belmont (listen to it by the 1:47 mark)
https://youtu.be/T7Auvs7LD5I

Should watch the 1997 Preakness too when Kent D closed off Touch Gold at the rail. Or how about when Edgar Prado on Saint Liam carried out Ghostzapper so wide in the 2004 Woodward?

Strategy. Pletcher and Velazquez lack any of it. No wonder I saw Always Dreaming continue to get his ass handed to him after he won the Kentucky Derby. No wonder Quality Road ran dead-last in the 2010 BC Classic because Todd didn't know how to train him and gave him terrible spacing between starts.

Michael Repole is like the same guy who complains about planned obsolescence with his iPhones and then goes buys the next one on launch day only to complain about it again because it gets slower again. I don't think Justify was asking Baffert to have another horse in there. I don’t recall Restoring Hope running in a zigzag or impeding anyone.

The SI guy is stupid. Prisoner of the moment. Kiss my asterisk. Justify can never be better than AP? American Pharoah deserves an a** for his Grand Slam considering every top horse wasn't in it. AP was lucky as hell too. SI guy doesn't understand racing tactics like Todd and JV. Can't readjust to the situation. Angel Cordero was the dirtiest rider and he's in the Hall.

Like Baffert is going to give up a $25M bonus for the owners without some insurance in there? They had days to plan things out and look for counters. Justify runs one of the fastest Derby half miles ever and survived it. Where was Vino and Noble Indy? Nowhere. Why not take advantage of it five weeks ago? Restoring Hope or no Restoring Hope, Justify would have still won.

Justify faced pace pressure in the first two legs and still won. Good Magic succumbed to Justify and Good Magic is a better horse than Vino.
Rock Hard Ten. Free House. Soul Of The Matter. Lit de Justice. Zenyatta. Justify. Cigar. Ghostzapper. Lava Man. Silver Charm.
User avatar
Big Ten
Posts: 684
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:35 am

Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:58 pm

2018 Kentucky Derby
Times: ​1⁄4 mile – 22.24; ​1⁄2 mile – 45.77; ​3⁄4mile – 1:11.01; mile – 1:37.35; final – 2:04.20.

Splits for each quarter-mile: (22.24) (23.53) (25.24) (26.34) (26.85)

2018 Preakness Stakes
Times: ​1⁄4 mile – 0:23.11; ​1⁄2 mile – 0:47.19; ​3⁄4 mile – 1:11.42; mile – 1:36.10; final – 1:55.93.
Splits for each quarter-mile: (:23.11) (:24.08) (:24.23) (:24.68) (:19.83 for final ​3⁄16)

Justify defeated one of the deepest crops in over a decade. These horses could be future champions next year like Gun Runner becoming one when he turned 4.

Good Magic - G1 (2YO champ)
Mendelssohn - G1
Audible - G1
Bolt d'Oro - G1
Magnum Moon - G1
Vino Rosso - G2

Any of them could have won last year's Kentucky Derby. Who has Vino beaten? Enticed? Restoring Hope?

McKinzie went tooth and nail against BDO and Justify defeated BDO easily. The first one was a personal match race where Justify ran a little green and won easily.

Compare it to 1997's (my fav crop)...

Silver Charm - G1
Captain Bodgit - G1
Free House - G1
Pulpit - G1
Crypto Star - G2
Concerto - G2
Hello - G2

One of the best crop in years. Just because Justify is dominating them doesn't mean it's a weak crop. He's like Smarty Jones and Big Brown with a far better crop to deal with.

Deeper crop than American Pharoah faced that had Dortmund, Firing Line, and Materiality. Mendelssohn, Audible, and Magnum Moon could be stars by next year.

Vino Rosso was never going to beat Justify whether Restoring Hope was there or not. Neither would Noble Indy. Neither one are on the level of Audible. They are only Pletcher's B-team.
Rock Hard Ten. Free House. Soul Of The Matter. Lit de Justice. Zenyatta. Justify. Cigar. Ghostzapper. Lava Man. Silver Charm.
Apollo
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:05 pm

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:01 am

agrussel wrote:
I still see everyone talking about the first few furlongs, but watching Geroux drop anchor and fall from 2nd to 9th without working RH in the second turn and entering the stretch solidifies the obstructionist goal. Geroux falls through the field to 9th, luckily not causing the trouble he was intended too, and then decides to ask RH to run.
What's the "excuse" for this 2nd to 9th move and then deciding to ride?
Yeah, it took me a long time to look at that section of the race and what Geroux did. A poster on another forum with spotlighting it early on Saturday night but I was mostly ignoring Restoring Hope after his accomplishments the first few furlongs.

The amusing aspect is that Larry Collmus called it so poorly. He emphasized, "Restoring Hope is being put to a ride...," just as Geroux essentially stalled the horse and forced trailers to deal with it.

Tenfold was the one who was compromised most when Geroux dropped anchor. Stalled and forced to look both ways before exiting clear. But I'm not sure it cost Tenfold a lower spot. He finished a few lengths back of 3rd/4th in front of him
BaroqueAgain1
Posts: 9879
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:16 pm

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:17 am

I think Justify was the best horse in all three Triple Crown races and that's why he now has that crown. His win made me very happy, but...
The issues of multiple owners/overlapping ownership groups, with their horses racing against each other, and the possible appearance of conflicts of interest are things racing can't just ignore.
My personal opinion is that Geroux was having problems with a rank RH, but I could be wrong and certainly understand why other people see it differently. Since this idea that RH was deliberately ridden to interfere with other runners has been discussed in multiple media...and not just horse racing media...IMHO we have a problem, Houston.
I don't know if it would help to calm things, but what if the NY stewards made a statement about the Belmont? Say they had a conversation with the Belmont jockeys, reviewed the replay and found that no interference or reckless riding had occurred? If they published such a statement, would it matter?
Just wondering... :?
User avatar
Katewerk
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:30 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:24 am

Spotted this on another site. I can't recall seeing it here.

https://blog.horsetourneys.com/2016/08/ ... akes-race/
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4966
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:28 am

Tessablue wrote:No, we're trying to have an adult conversation about some serious issues that are only going to continue to hamper the sport if we pretend they don't exist. Literally nobody here is talking about Restoring Hope in the context of whether or not he affected Justify's victory. That's a purely personal and subjective topic. What isn't subjective is the fact that conflict of interest and transparency issues will continue to harm the sport on a national level if people refuse to address them and just shout down anyone who tries to start a conversation.
I'm really glad to see that HRN article by Mark Midland, thanks for posting. This situation with Castellano and Noble Indy has me more concerned than the antics of Geroux with Restoring Hope. I think I commented on that last night regarding the WaPost and DRF articles in the Belmont watch thread.

I'm still at a loss how you prevent conflicts of interest in high level races with convoluted multiple ownerships and overlapping trainers involved. Requesting pre-race transparency about race tactics seems a little hard to police though. Pletcher was in a real pickle having to please both WinStar and Repole with their opposite interests. It doesn't seem fair to me to expect him to announce he was not instructing Castellano to send Noble Indy to the lead (if in fact he did). And I can't see any trainer announcing their 2nd horse will run to protect their No. 1 horse from pace pressure.

As I said before, I watch the sales and high dollar multiple ownership groups are getting more popular for buying expensive babies. This situation is only going to get more common in the coming years. There's got to be a cleaner way to solve this, but I don't know what that would be. I do agree we should have the discussion.

Edited to add: Wow, you guys type your thoughts much faster than I do.
firehorse
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:00 pm

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:45 am

Katewerk wrote:Spotted this on another site. I can't recall seeing it here.

https://blog.horsetourneys.com/2016/08/ ... akes-race/
That's pretty funny (and ironic, given he starts off with the example of the 'Pletcher Wall').
sweettalk
Posts: 1984
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:05 pm

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:47 am

if race riding is an issue, we need lanes staked out and gates in angled positions. if you go to window without taking things like same owner, same trainer, etc into consideration, the problem isn't "transparency in the sport", or whatever made up problem this tc win was.

you guys can keep being miserable. this is never a problem otherwise, or if it is no one ever mentions it here because i'm sure it happens every day across the country and i never see posts calling it out, but it's the absolute biggest problem in all of racing as of whatever time it was saturday when they broke from the gate.

just because no one here seems to want to enjoy it, we really don't deserve nice things. all teams in all sports and all trainers and all jockeys and all owners have issues. but by all means, complain on the internet - sorry, "discuss problems like adults" - at the expense of great things happening. unless you're actually going to act on your gripes, it's all just sour grapes because you can't be happy without being miserable.

i can't keep coming to this site if i want to stay a racing fan. racing has problems that need to be addressed (like literally every single sport in existence), but unless you want betting on rabbits (or whatever you want to call them) suspended to "prevent betting on obvious no hopers", or lanes set out to prevent race riding, i think handicapping and race riding are just part of the sport.
User avatar
Big Ten
Posts: 684
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:35 am

Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:56 am

June 5, 2018 - Justify gets the #1 post. His speedy stablemate whom Vino beat in the Wood gets #5. Hmm...

"Gee, let's have zero suspicion about that!"

Image

Like Baffert really thinks Restoring Hope is going to beat Justify and cost his owners' a $25M bonus? Why is it okay to enter rabbits but not okay to counter them?

Does Michael Repole really think having Restoring Hope was enough of a difference at beating Justify when Vino has never beaten a G1 horse or won a G1 in his career?

I think The Three Stooges would have prepared a better strategy for Vino Rosso than Todd, Johnny, and Michael did.

Image
Heroes get remembered, but legends never die.
Michael Repole,

Image

... like they'll remember Justify...

Image
Rock Hard Ten. Free House. Soul Of The Matter. Lit de Justice. Zenyatta. Justify. Cigar. Ghostzapper. Lava Man. Silver Charm.
User avatar
Treve
Posts: 4404
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:05 am

Katewerk wrote:Spotted this on another site. I can't recall seeing it here.

https://blog.horsetourneys.com/2016/08/ ... akes-race/
Thanks for the link, food for thought certainly.
A filly named Ruffian...

Eine Stute namens Danedream...

Une pouliche se nommant Trêve...

Kincsem nevű kanca...


And a Queen named Beholder
User avatar
Treve
Posts: 4404
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:10 am

stark wrote:
agrussel wrote:
It still doesn't answer why Baffert felt Justify needed this advantage/insurance policy.
The owner has already taken credit for wanting the horse in the race, said it was his bad decision, not Bafferts.
Explains the why but not the how. The owner might've insisted that the horse be running... doesn't explain the mystifying ride the horse got likely on instructin of Baffert unless you want to reach in jockey conspiracy theories of Florent and Mike discussing this going behind the trainer and owners backs. Whatever the case the horse being there doesn't explain how it was utilized.
A filly named Ruffian...

Eine Stute namens Danedream...

Une pouliche se nommant Trêve...

Kincsem nevű kanca...


And a Queen named Beholder
User avatar
Katewerk
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:30 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:29 am

Treve wrote:
Katewerk wrote:Spotted this on another site. I can't recall seeing it here.

https://blog.horsetourneys.com/2016/08/ ... akes-race/
Thanks for the link, food for thought certainly.
When there's a big, fat target on your back, showing up without a defence plan is tantamount to malpractice. And as a good offence is the best defence - so be it.
MySaladDays
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:39 am

Miss Woodford wrote:The bigger issue than a "tainted" Triple Crown (Sir Barton ran coked up to his eyeballs. That crown was never clean in the first place) is that there is gambling involved, and when a horse is being entered not to win but to help another horse win, while not being a coupled entry, bettors deserve to know about it. Doesn't matter if it's a $4,000 claiming race or the Belmont Stakes. People who put money on Restoring Hope are right to be angry.
ON this I agree, and have said as much in the past, about different scenarios.

I had siad I don't much cotton to the idea of "shut up and bet!"


This is why Hong Kong gets my wagering dollars these days. Honest racing, access to vet reports, etc.
MySaladDays
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:41 am

Tessablue wrote: What isn't subjective is the fact that conflict of interest and transparency issues will continue to harm the sport on a national level if people refuse to address them and just shout down anyone who tries to start a conversation.

yes
MySaladDays
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:45 am

barbaro111 wrote:Repole is a selfish whiner and has given a black eye to a sport that is already seen as "corrupt" by some--- he makes me puke
I don't take it out on the horses.....I love Justify..........but I truly despise Baffert.

Repole has a long long long way to go in terms of black eyes. ;)

I'm not a fawning synchopant so wiinning isn't everything to me.....that's for people who think face time, interviews, press covereage is that "standard" for success.....success is not just winning. It's a lot of other stuff. IMHO
MySaladDays
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:05 am

sweettalk wrote:i can't keep coming to this site if i want to stay a racing fan

YOu must live in a bubble of some sort......it's not this site. It's U.S. racing. Do you have any idea how many people leave this sport all the time, because of so many tnings that NEED to be addressed and corrrected?

How about all those horses with racing plates still attached, and their poor lips sandpapered off to erase tatooes, going on now in the kill lots ? How about druggists staying one step ahead of the testers? How about 7 YOUNG horses dropping dead because they are being given a medication without any diagnosis that they need it for performance enhancement? I could go on and on.

You don't have to come to TC forum to know how things are as well as how things are being perceived. Thousands are leaving this game every year......thousands. And they are FANS. Imagine what people who don't like or care abuot horse racing think!
barbaro111
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:43 pm

Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:50 am

Big Ten wrote:1997 Belmont (listen to it by the 1:47 mark)
https://youtu.be/T7Auvs7LD5I

Should watch the 1997 Preakness too when Kent D closed off Touch Gold at the rail. Or how about when Edgar Prado on Saint Liam carried out Ghostzapper so wide in the 2004 Woodward?

Strategy. Pletcher and Velazquez lack any of it. No wonder I saw Always Dreaming continue to get his ass handed to him after he won the Kentucky Derby. No wonder Quality Road ran dead-last in the 2010 BC Classic because Todd didn't know how to train him and gave him terrible spacing between starts.

Michael Repole is like the same guy who complains about planned obsolescence with his iPhones and then goes buys the next one on launch day only to complain about it again because it gets slower again. I don't think Justify was asking Baffert to have another horse in there. I don’t recall Restoring Hope running in a zigzag or impeding anyone.

The SI guy is stupid. Prisoner of the moment. Kiss my asterisk. Justify can never be better than AP? American Pharoah deserves an a** for his Grand Slam considering every top horse wasn't in it. AP was lucky as hell too. SI guy doesn't understand racing tactics like Todd and JV. Can't readjust to the situation. Angel Cordero was the dirtiest rider and he's in the Hall.

Like Baffert is going to give up a $25M bonus for the owners without some insurance in there? They had days to plan things out and look for counters. Justify runs one of the fastest Derby half miles ever and survived it. Where was Vino and Noble Indy? Nowhere. Why not take advantage of it five weeks ago? Restoring Hope or no Restoring Hope, Justify would have still won.

Justify faced pace pressure in the first two legs and still won. Good Magic succumbed to Justify and Good Magic is a better horse than Vino.

okey dokey: i love Seattle Slew- but please tell me who he beat in his triple crown victory? oh yeah, Sanhendrin, Run Dusty Run- oh they were awesome: spare me that garbage: does the fact that Seattle Slew beat mediocre horses diminish his crown? hell no it doesn't. that is such a tired argument. A horse
can only beat horses who show up: winning the crown is a great individual feat for a young horse, no matter who shows up. There are only a ouple triple crown horses who really had great competition and that was Secretariat (Sham) and Affirmed (Alydar). It seems to me that often when there are triple crown winners, there is one dominant horse and the rest are so-so. that does not bother me-- it is what it is. Winning the triple crown is a great achievement. period.
barbaro111
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:43 pm

Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:07 am

Horse racing needs a central authority- until that happens this industry will continue to be chaotic. and there is no chance that there will ever be a
horse racing commissioner--- so we can expect more of the same ---
Tessablue
Posts: 3524
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am
Location: Boston

Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:28 am

Katewerk wrote:Spotted this on another site. I can't recall seeing it here.

https://blog.horsetourneys.com/2016/08/ ... akes-race/
I'd seen people talking about this blog but couldn't find the original; thanks for posting. The 2016 Travers is one of my favorite races and it's fascinating to view from this new light. I wonder how often this goes on and if Geroux's ride was substantially less subtle than it was supposed to be. I also think that blog illustrates how quickly this situation gets very complicated if all horses involved have approximately the same chance- there are certainly situations where raceriding (and to clarify, I think what RH did extends well beyond the definition of raceriding) constitutes giving a horse the best chance to win. Races like this one, where there's one horse that the connections definitely want to win and another who is not even urged until he's well behind, aren't going to be very common- but they do magnify the issues present.
Sparrow Castle wrote: I'm really glad to see that HRN article by Mark Midland, thanks for posting. This situation with Castellano and Noble Indy has me more concerned than the antics of Geroux with Restoring Hope. I think I commented on that last night regarding the WaPost and DRF articles in the Belmont watch thread.

I'm still at a loss how you prevent conflicts of interest in high level races with convoluted multiple ownerships and overlapping trainers involved. Requesting pre-race transparency about race tactics seems a little hard to police though. Pletcher was in a real pickle having to please both WinStar and Repole with their opposite interests. It doesn't seem fair to me to expect him to announce he was not instructing Castellano to send Noble Indy to the lead (if in fact he did). And I can't see any trainer announcing their 2nd horse will run to protect their No. 1 horse from pace pressure.

As I said before, I watch the sales and high dollar multiple ownership groups are getting more popular for buying expensive babies. This situation is only going to get more common in the coming years. There's got to be a cleaner way to solve this, but I don't know what that would be. I do agree we should have the discussion.

Edited to add: Wow, you guys type your thoughts much faster than I do.
I thought Repole was being terribly unfair to Castellano, but I understand his frustrations more having watched that replay on the HRN article. A separate issue here that hasn't really been brought up is how trainers can effectively hold the careers of jockeys hostage when it comes to races like this. Does anyone remember the 2014 Awesome Again? Victor takes Shared Belief ten wide on an uncoupled Baffert horse to help Fed Biz, Baffert claims he has no idea why it happened, Victor gets suspended. Later in the year, Victor rides American Pharoah. It's a pretty minor price to pay when the reward is getting the opportunity to ride monsters.

One possible solution I can think of would be including trainers in jockey suspensions if the jockey is suspended for what appears to be purposeful interference or riding a horse to lose. This could get messy fast, but there needs to be some way to sort of get around the plausible deniability that is built into the sport for trainers.

Another thing I would really like to see is an indication of ownership percentages when it comes to these big partnerships. We still have no idea who owns the larger part of Noble Indy, if anybody. That's a major piece of the puzzle left obscured, and a system wherein the percentages are indicated clearly in the program could do a lot to clear up that confusion. Of course, it doesn't help if the percentage is exactly 50/50- in which case, perhaps there should be some method of "declaring" which owner takes precedence in the event that one or both have other entities in the race.
Post Reply