Restoring Hope’s role in the Belmont Stakes highly debatable

With the early tactics by Restoring Hope the subject of national headlines following Saturday’s 2018 Belmont Stakes, Horse Racing Nation bloggers Laura Pugh (Dueling Down the Stretch) and Chip Gehrke (On the Air with Dr. Derby) debated their potential effect on Justify’s Triple Crown sweep.

We’ll start with the most obvious question: Did the ride aboard Restoring Hope improve Justify’s chances of winning?

Laura: No, It did not. Noble Indy broke poorly and wouldn't have made the lead after that anyway. Quotes from his jockey, Javier Castellano, confirm that. 

Chip: I agree with Laura. No, Justify is just too good. With or without Restoring Hope jockey Florent Geroux’s questionable tactics, Justify could have won from anywhere on Saturday to become the sport’s 13th Triple Crown winner. He didn’t need the help.

Do you believe Restoring Hope was ridden in a way to benefit Justify?

Laura: I have no idea how anyone can be so cavalier in saying without a doubt, yes. Once Noble Indy broke slow, there was no need for such a thing. Restoring Hope also broke poorly, but was hustled to catch up because his best chance to hit the board — as trainer Bob Baffert often said leading into the race — was to be close to the lead. That much can be seen by looking at his past performances. I don't believe him moving out into the clubhouse turn, then back in, was done to block rivals. The horse was clearly pulling, and Geroux needed to get him settled. Once he did, he dropped back down to conserve ground.

Chip: It was crystal clear from the start that something was up. Geroux took Restoring Hope extremely wide on the first turn to prevent any horse from Posts 6-10 a chance for the lead. Then he steered Restoring Hope inward, stopping Bravazo from possibly using the opening to lap onto Justify. Finally, after the race, Justify’s jockey, Mike Smith, made the not-so-brilliant decision to call out in Geroux’s direction a “you da man” on national TV.

Mike Repole, owner of Noble Indy and Vino Rosso, said before the race his Noble Indy would be sent to the front to pressure Justify, opening things up for Vino Rosso’s late run. Why are those tactics OK in racing, but not Restoring Hope’s use to negate them?

Laura: If one lacks integrity, so does the other. Repole was clear in multiple articles that he wanted the horse used to soften Justify up. If that is OK, then in my eyes so is the possibility that Restoring Hope was to be used to negate Noble Indy. 

Chip: I’m not sure why the term “rabbit” has been used in regard to Noble Indy. A rabbit in horse racing is one with no chance or credentials to win, and only in the race to set a pace. Noble Indy has won a Grade 2 race running on or near the lead. Repole’s ire at Noble Indy never getting to the front is valid, as is his questioning of the jockey, Castellano.

Would the reaction be different if jockeys had used tactics to try and compromise rather than help Justify’s bid for the Triple Crown? Just remembering the 2004 Belmont and Smarty Jones…

Laura: Every horse that lost after exposure to a rabbit, especially in the Triple Crown, is said to have not been worthy of the title because a true champion overcomes everything. We all know even champions in this sport can lose a couple. It would have been no different this time around had Noble Indy run with Justify.

Chip: Absolutely. The majority of media and fans want to see a Triple Crown, creating a double standard. Imagine if real tactics were used in Saturday’s race, such as those like were used in the 2004 Belmont, and Justify had lost. You would be singing a different tune.

What would you say racing should do to rectify this? There’s no rule against entering horses that don’t appear to have a shot at winning.

Laura: There needs to be some sort of ruling, and trainers or owners entering more than one horse should be coupled. Aiding a stablemate or compromising the chances of another horse could be considered a DQ-worthy offense.

Chip: I agree. There needs to be a ruling and changes to the “rabbit” cases. I think a horse with an obvious lack of credentials, entered in a major stakes by the same trainer/owner of a major contender, should be examined by stewards.

What is this incident’s effect on racing?

Laura: Simply put, I think this is much ado about nothing. Unless stewards believe there’s reason to look into it, the reports are like a gossip column from the losing side, and nothing will change.

Chip: It was a big deal in my eyes after it happened. But now it is a big deal for many more people with Restoring Hope’s ride being covered by national media outlets. Even fellow trainers questioned it, with D. Wayne Lukas saying afterward, “That was strange the way they sent him up there. I mean, he compromised a few horses with blocking and so forth.” NBC analyst Randy Moss also called attention to Restoring Hope “running interference” on the broadcast. Non-fans or new fans could see this and have their opinion on racing soured.