How on earth is this acceptable?

Question

OK, I have been reading about jockeys conspiring to keep the Triple Crown Hopeful from winning in the Belmont.

Of course, I have read lots of talk about Prado trying to box in Big Brown in the Preakness and also read that his owner was FURIOUS with Prado and actually apologized to Dutrow. (If I am wrong, please correct me!)

And now as I am reading more about Belmont and the Triple Crown Race...this is a known fact it seems.

HOW IN THE h**l IS THIS ACCEPTABLE?

Acceptable to the Horse Racing Administrators (not sure what they are called, and I am kinda cranky right and don't want to look), the Jockeys Association, the Track Association, etc??? Or even the fans/crowd?

I am quite sure that all of these horses and their owners are put out there to WIN, and if not win to get the best place possible. NOT to keep another horse from winning and/or making history! Right or wrong?

Or is this just all talk, rumors and excuses for why a horse didn't win?

Answer 1

That's what a good jockey gets paid for!

Answer 2

It can all depend on the barrier draw. If Big Brown gets a bad draw and a not so good start to the race then he would get blocked in as he has slower horses infront and around him.

Sometimes trainers or owers have more than one horse in a race and I can imagine would be willing to sacrifice one horses chances of winning to increase anothers.

Answer 3

No, horses aren't always in a race to win.  Sometimes a trainer or owner will use a rabbit to run the legs off a horse that likes to be up front -- they used a rabbit to neutralize Bellamy Road in the Kentucky Derby a few years ago.  

The rabbit's name was Spanish Chestnut.  He was a miler so I don't believe his connections thought he could win or even hit the board.  Things like that are part of horse racing.  It's not cheating.  A good horse will overcome it.    

Regarding Prado boxing in Big Brown, Dutrow used Prado as a mount on other horses after that, so perhaps Dutrow was just blowing smoke.  Prado didn't apologize.  Click the link in my source list to read Prado's comment.          

Mike Wrecka 07 has it backwards about Secretariat and Sham.  Sham didn't try to take out Secretariat in the Belmont.  Secretariat's jockey decided to take out Sham.  He said that he saw Sham before the race and he looked a little off.  He knew Sham's jockey intended to stay close to him so he decided to test him early -- it worked.  It might have even worked too well, Sham never raced again.  

There's a video on youtube where they talk about it.  It's called Secretariat's Triple Crown - Part 2.  Do you think Secretariat's jockey was unethical for testing a horse he thought looked off?  If not, then you shouldn't get upset when jockeys use tactics that could cause a favorite horse to lose (as long as the tactics aren't cheating or blatant interference).

On edit:  As far as I know, Dutrow is the only person who said that Riley Tucker's owners were upset.  They never confirmed or denied.  

Dutrow's gotten repeatedly caught doping his horses, etc, so I seriously doubt he's above lying.  I can't say for certain either way, but perhaps Riley Tucker's owners just don't want to get in the middle of it.  Sorry, but I can barely tolerate Dutrow (but I'm rooting for Big Brown anyway).  

Unlike Dutrow, Prado is regarded as ethical.  I taped the Preakness and watched Prado's ride three times now.  I honestly don't see him trying to box in Big Brown.  

Even if he did, there's no worry that Prado will use Casino Drive in the Belmont for anything except a win.  He's not one of the jockeys that was accused of sacrificing his horse to get Smarty Jones beat -- he's the guy who beat Smarty Jones on a longshot.

Answer 4

I'm afraid it is called tactics!  It is very rare, and I've certainly neer heard of, a group of jockeys conspiring together, but certainly one jockey may go into a race thinking he is going to box in another horse.

At the end of the day as long as no intererence takes place and the riding is not dangerous, there are no rules against it.  It happens all the time here in GB and tactics are what make the racing so interesting!

I don't see the harm in a jockey sitting in beside another horse, holding him in a box.  Each jockey is there to win.

Dutrow was a total baby for crying foul over Prado's ride.  If Prado is not riding one of Dutrow's horses why the h**l shouldn't he do his best to win on his own mount, even if that involves boxing in another horse?!

Answer 5

All the above answers have been right on target. . .

Why would a jockey not do everything in his power to win a race. You can have a wonderful horse and a inexperienced jockey and lose a race.  It is a great jockey like Prado that can manuever his horse through the pack right into the Winner's circle.

Answer 6

Well, it's not really fair, but that's the sort of thing that has happened forever in horse racing.  The great Man O War lost a single race and it was because he was boxed in at the rail and the jockey outside of him knew that if he moved, he'd get beat by Man O War, so he made sure not to move too soon.

It's not really allowed.  It's sort of fixing the race... sort of the thing that gangsters would do.  However, it's hard to prove it.  Jockeys have to have some leeway.  Sometimes jockeys have to make a move and they find out later that it's the wrong move to have made... that doesn't make it a violation or something reviewable.  

Jockeys are not allowed to do anything dangerous... a couple months ago, Garrett Gomez was up on Final Fling... he made it through at the rail then another jockey brought his horse over and slammed Garrett's horse into the rail... the horse almost fell but did manage to hold itself up, run forward and finish 2nd... the other horse and jockey got DQed.

Angel Cordero was historically a dangerous rider.  He'd do just about anything to win and he served many suspensions for it.  I don't like the guy, even now.  When Gary Stevens was a young rider, Cordero flung his horse out wide so Gary's horse clipped heels with it.  Cordero asked Gary to come to his hearing and defend him.  Gary did go, but the people at the hearing said "Gary, if you don't want to be here, you don't have to be," so Gary left and Cordero got suspended.

Angel Cordero is also the reason that Genuine Risk lost the Preakness... he floated his horse very wide to keep Genuine Risk wide, then he whipped her in the face.  But the video was inconclusive, despite the fact that Genuine Risk had a huge welt over her eye the next morning, so Cordero didn't get suspended.

Sometimes hurting another horse's chances is part of the strategy.  Sometimes you know that you can't catch the horse, so you have to go with it from the start.  That's the case of Sham in the Belmont.  Sham's jockey was told to stay with Secretariat from the start because Sham was beaten in the Derby and Preakness because he couldn't catch Secretariat.  It's a strategy that wasn't very good (Sham finished last), but their old strategy wasn't going to work either.

It's hard to prove whether it was just strategy or cheating.  For Smarty Jones, it's entirely possible that some of those jockeys thought that they should press the pace because they thought their horse would have the stamina to run on and win.  It would be really hard to prove that the jockey didn't think he had a chance of winning by doing what he did.

I know that Dutrow was mad at Prado.  I didn't hear about Prado's horse's connections being mad.  I don't think that horse was going to win anyway.  As for Dutrow, he's always shooting off his mouth... that's horse racing... he had to know that his horse would be targetted... he's been a trainer long enough to know what goes on during a race... Edgar was just doing his job.

Answer 7

It's just the way it is. Just a fact of all races, wether it is horses or cars, or motos.

Answer 8

yes jockeys absolutely try their hardest to prevent a triple crown from happening. they want to be the first to do it since 78.   just look at when smarty jones went for it.  those horses ganged up on him and cost him the triple crown without a doubt.  it is kinda messed up BUT, the triple crown is supposed to be hard.  the belmont stakes is the test of the champion. if a horse is to be worthy of being called a triple crown winner he must overcome this obstacle.  look at when secretariat won.  there is no way that the jockey of sham thought that his horse could run like that and win the race, he did it to take out secrateriat with him. unfortunately for him it backfired and we got to witness the greatest performance by a thouroughbred ever.  i love big brown and i say , bring it, let them team up on him.  if he cant persevere he doesnt deserve the crown.  but i got a feeling those other jockeys can try all they want to stop big brown.  he's not smarty jones.  he appears to have more poise.   he wont jump to the lead on the back stretch.  and weve seen four wide is no problem.  in the end. you cant stop what you cant catch.

Answer 9

Its acceptable and its what makes horse racing exciting.    Nobody handed Smarty Jones, Funny Cide or any others an easy trip so Big Brown shouldn't get one either.  That would be unfair to all the horses who worked for it.  

Seattle Slew got trapped behind a wall of horses in the KD so he bullied his way through.  Alydar and Affirmed were so close together at the end of the Belmont that Affirmed's jockey couldn't use the right whip and Alydar couldn't use the left.  Photo here: http://www.jockeysite.com/jphotos/fotos/...

Big Brown so far has gotten an easy trip.  Prado pulling along side him in the Preakness was childs play.  I for one hope they give him h**l in the Belmont so we can see what he's really made of.

Answer 10

You've got one great horse in Big Brown, but I think that horse racing is just like NASCAR or any other race. Everyone is in it to win. Whatever it takes.

P.S. I'm hoping BB wins this weekend.  He's something else.