by Roman Approval’s owner. Interesting dilemma for stewards as Inordinate was entered as a racehorse and not a hare. Gryder’s actions were so obvious as to be blatant. IMO, his actions are race fixing.
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/owner-stews-rabbits-actions-sword-dancer-files-appeal/
New York State Gaming Commission will not hear the case. Flintshire is still the winner and Inordinate and Roman Approval are still 5th and 6th respectively.
Link: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/214716/new-york-will-not-hear-sword-dancer-appeal
I wish they would use the proper terminology.
Inordinate was used as a PACEMAKER, which are common in Turf racing, esp in Europe. They are used to guarantee a true pace, and give their stablemate something to run at, but they often benefit the whole field by setting a true pace.
A RABBIT on the other hand is used to draw a hard to rate front runner into a speed duel, and is something you see in dirt racing. They are entered to specifically target a certain horse. Classic example being the great Dr Fager v Damascus duels where Damsacus’ trainer Frank Whiteley took to entering a rabbit, sometimes two, to suck the hard to rate front running Dr Fager into insane early fractions.
You can ignore a Pacemaker, and they often are ignored (watch some of the Euro G1 races where the pacemaker is bowling along 20L ahead and the rest of the field cantering behind). Harder for a an unratable horse to ignore a Rabbit.
.
.
IMO this much to do about nothing.
I don’t think this falls into the category of race fixing. Inordinate had no shot of winning, and his stablemate was deliberately let through on the rail. That’s business, not race fixing. Whether or not Inordinate bothered the horse next to him enough to be placed behind that horse is the stewards’ decision.
Maybe Inordinate didn’t belong in the race, and every day there are horses running in races that they have no business running in, and every day crazy longshots win. That’s racing. It’s not race fixing to run a pacesetter or a rabbit or whatever, that’s business and very obvious to the betting public.
And the stewards can discipline riders for infractions even if the horse does not get dq’d.
[QUOTE=Palm Beach;8829547]
I don’t think this falls into the category of race fixing. Inordinate had no shot of winning, and his stablemate was deliberately let through on the rail. That’s business, not race fixing. Whether or not Inordinate bothered the horse next to him enough to be placed behind that horse is the stewards’ decision.
Maybe Inordinate didn’t belong in the race, and every day there are horses running in races that they have no business running in, and every day crazy longshots win. That’s racing. It’s not race fixing to run a pacesetter or a rabbit or whatever, that’s business and very obvious to the betting public.
And the stewards can discipline riders for infractions even if the horse does not get dq’d.[/QUOTE]
“Maybe Inordinate didn’t belong in the race”
IMO his form suggested otherwise. 2 wins, Group 3 and listed placed in France.
“his stablemate was deliberately let through on the rail”
A subjective opinion based on not based on any facts. He came out from the rail coming out of the turn which happens in just about any race with any horse. Very few are really good at hugging the rail coming out of a turn. Physics.
There was another horse right behind him on the rail but went to the outside inside of holding position. The winner was making a big move as is often done at this point in the running. IMO he could have startled him and he jigged sideways slightly interfering with Roman Approval.
There is good and bad “racing luck”. Part of the game. IMO Roman Approval ran very rank most of the race. Lucky to beat a horse. He was the 3rd longest shot of the board.
The punters were pretty much spot on with the results.
The interesting thing is Roman Approval and Inordinate "tangled a few races back. Inordinate won but was DQed to 5th.
[QUOTE=Palm Beach;8829547]
I don’t think this falls into the category of race fixing. Inordinate had no shot of winning, and his stablemate was deliberately let through on the rail. That’s business, not race fixing. Whether or not Inordinate bothered the horse next to him enough to be placed behind that horse is the stewards’ decision.
Maybe Inordinate didn’t belong in the race, and every day there are horses running in races that they have no business running in, and every day crazy longshots win. That’s racing. It’s not race fixing to run a pacesetter or a rabbit or whatever, that’s business and very obvious to the betting public.
And the stewards can discipline riders for infractions even if the horse does not get dq’d.[/QUOTE]
I have never believed that horse racing is a team sport. IMHO, this was an obvious team play and move during a race and well beyond a horse being just a pacesetter. Any other jockey, not connected to Flintshire, would not have voluntarily yielded the position even while fading. Rosario picked his position, it was up to him to manuever around other horses. I do agree that it is not race fixing and not the correct term for me to use.
I’ve had some casual conversations about “set ups” with some of the leading jockey’s I have known. Some still active.
It would take more than 2 jockeys to have any shot of pulling off a “set up” with any kind of confidence. Unless it was a 3 horse race.
Most good jocks riding good horses study the other horses and their PPs and have a “plan”. But horses being horses and racing being racing things seldom go completely as planned.
To quote Steve McQueen from the movie Tom Horn;
Well, if I’d have killed that kid, it would have been the best shot I ever made"
Or, If I set up that jock/horse, it would have been the best set up I ever made.
I think it’s pretty obvious that the one Juddmonte horse, Inordinate, was out there to set the pace for the other, Flintshire, and it’s pretty obvious he pulled off the rail to let his stablemate through. Now that in and off itself is not a crime, but he did interfere with Roman Approval when he pulled out, so that should have at least resulted in an infraction for the jockey, and possibly a reversal of placings between Inordinate and Roman Approval. I don’t think the winner should be taken down as he was “much the best”, even if he did benefit somewhat from his stablemate opening the hole for him.
The jockey on Inordinate looked over his shoulder to see where the stablemate was, and then pulled over to let him through. It was more than “physics”.
The interference with Roman Approval was unintentional however. I don’t believe that that was “team tactics”.
Flintshire was 1-5 on the morning line…how often that does that happen?
He is a FREAK right now.
Javier was yelling at Aaron to get out of the way, which is why Aaron looked back like he did.
[QUOTE=Palm Beach;8830283]
If you look at the form and the morning line, Flintshire was 1-5…how often that does that happen???
Take off your rose covered glasses.
He is a FREAK right now.
Javiersaid get OUT OF M Y WAY.[/QUOTE]
LOL he will contintue to dominate/
[QUOTE=Drvmb1ggl3;8830195]
He was in there for no other reason than to be a pacemaker.
Pacemakers are often Graded stakes placed horses. Frankel’s pacemaker, his half brother Bullet Train, was a G3 winner. Hell, Godolphin were using Cherry Mix, a horse that had finished 2nd in the Arc, as a pacemaker in the last couple of years of his career.
The jockey on Inordinate looked over his shoulder to see where the stablemate was, and then pulled over to let him through. It was more than “physics”.
The interference with Roman Approval was unintentional however. I don’t believe that that was “team tactics”.[/QUOTE]
No disrespect intended but I suggest you watch the reply a few more times.
He in no way “pulled over” his horse drifted out. I have watched countless races over the years and more horse do this than not. Its part of my job. I have also some experience on the back of racehorses. It is not as easy as it looks to keep a horse on the rail coming out of a turn. For reasons I gave. Real jocks will back me up on this.
However it looked like he could have taken the rail back. He looked back as any good jock would do to make sure he had a clear line. IMO it was racing luck that his stablemate was right there and not the other who was behind him but choose to go to the outside.
I know all about pacemakers. I have spent plenty of time Europe racing. How they are used in Europe is a lot different they how they are used here IMO and experience.
Racing in Europe is completely different than racing here in ovals. The “rail” doesn’t come in play much if at all. The run for home is much longer and the horses are often spread across the track. Something that rarely happens here.
My point for bringing up Inordinate’s form was to show that he was not completely out of his league. Most rabbits, pacemakers in this country are. I have seen some rabbits beat the “hunter” much to the disappointment of the connections.
The rules have changed in the past 2 horses with the same connections were always coupled. One of the reasons for this was to protect the integrity of the race. If the rabbit was DQed so was the stablemate.
I side with the stewards because the stewards by and large have to side with the “visual facts” not conjecture.
Whether I, the stewards or anyone thinks there was a conspiracy is irrelevant. Weak circumstantial evidence rarely ends up with a guilty verdict.
The visual facts show very clearly that nothing usual happened. Things that don’t happen in races on any given day or track.
If the horses weren’t owned by the same person the take away would have been the the jock on Inordinate forked up by letting the winner through.
Whether this was a well orchestrated “setup” no one will ever know. Unless the racing police are holding back video and voice surveillance.
Here is a good discussion of both sides of the rabbit issue.
…
[QUOTE=gumtree;8830578]
No disrespect intended but I suggest you watch the reply a few more times.
He in no way “pulled over” his horse drifted out. I have watched countless races over the years and more horse do this than not. Its part of my job. I have also some experience on the back of racehorses. It is not as easy as it looks to keep a horse on the rail coming out of a turn. For reasons I gave. Real jocks will back me up on this.
However it looked like he could have taken the rail back. He looked back as any good jock would do to make sure he had a clear line. IMO it was racing luck that his stablemate was right there and not the other who was behind him but choose to go to the outside.
I know all about pacemakers. I have spent plenty of time Europe racing. How they are used in Europe is a lot different they how they are used here IMO and experience.
Racing in Europe is completely different than racing here in ovals. The “rail” doesn’t come in play much if at all. The run for home is much longer and the horses are often spread across the track. Something that rarely happens here.
My point for bringing up Inordinate’s form was to show that he was not completely out of his league. Most rabbits, pacemakers in this country are. I have seen some rabbits beat the “hunter” much to the disappointment of the connections.
The rules have changed in the past 2 horses with the same connections were always coupled. One of the reasons for this was to protect the integrity of the race. If the rabbit was DQed so was the stablemate.
I side with the stewards because the stewards by and large have to side with the “visual facts” not conjecture.
Whether I, the stewards or anyone thinks there was a conspiracy is irrelevant. Weak circumstantial evidence rarely ends up with a guilty verdict.
The visual facts show very clearly that nothing usual happened. Things that don’t happen in races on any given day or track.
If the horses weren’t owned by the same person the take away would have been the the jock on Inordinate forked up by letting the winner through.
Whether this was a well orchestrated “setup” no one will ever know. Unless the racing police are holding back video and voice surveillance.[/QUOTE]
I just can’t buy the “drifted out” story. Here is the replay, timed from the middle of the turn.
https://youtu.be/V-pPGzRUEVg?t=133
He looks over to see where the stablemate is and gets out of his way.
He then completely stops riding the horse… which you would expect, as his job was done. He was done making the pace for the Flintshire, who had just gone by. That was classic pacemaking. That horse was not in the race to try to win it, he was solely there to make pace for his more illustrious (and 1/9 in the betting) stablemate.
I don’t believe it was an “orchestrated “setup””, in that he didn’t intentionally go out with the intent of taking Roman Approval out of the race. That was accidental, and sloppy, riding. But I will stand by the assertion that Inordinate was in that race for no other reason than to be a pacemaker for Flintshire. Not that there is anything wrong with that mind you, pacemakers are common in big G1s in Europe, and Juddmonte, like many of the big Euro outfits, would be one of the few outfits that can afford to drop a sizable entry fee for a pacemaker.
If I do have a problem with the use of pacemakers, it’s that they are the domain of the ultra big wealthy outfits, as most owners aren’t going to i) have an spare G3 quality horse sitting around that they can throw in to make the pace and ii) the deep pockets to be able to pay the extra entry fee.
Paulick is running a homepage poll on this. It appears the thinking on DQ Flintshire/Inordinate, DQ Inordinate, or let results stand is evenly divided into thirds.
Disappointed that the current lean is to DQ both Flintshire and Inordinate 
Maybe DQ Inordinate but Flintshire took advantage of an opening. The jock on Inordinate could or could not have made that move to the right. I really don’t believe that Inordinate didn’t know Roman Approval was there.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
