tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1354333762076619269.post8117264912360108571..comments2023-11-17T12:09:40.494-05:00Comments on Foolish Pleasure: ResponsibilityValerie Grashhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02696887655473752690noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1354333762076619269.post-59834563816057589272008-07-27T07:22:00.000-04:002008-07-27T07:22:00.000-04:00Put David Cohen on the list, when he was riding at...Put David Cohen on the list, when he was riding at Phiily Park I thought he was overusing the whip. <BR/><BR/>Oddly at Monmouth I notice he's much more polite, maybe the stewards in NJ are more watchful on the matter.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03874325506841146077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1354333762076619269.post-43096495189944733182008-07-24T10:08:00.000-04:002008-07-24T10:08:00.000-04:00There's an Arkansas case I remember coming across,...There's an Arkansas case I remember coming across, where the horse who won was disqualified because his jockey was carrying an electric device (so, sort of similar). The owner challenged the commission because there was no rule that mandated disqualification and redistribution of purses for possession of an electric device.<BR/><BR/> The interesting part, though, is that the court held that the <I> owner </I> was in the best position to monitor the jockey. I remember the case because you just never, ever see that language in cases. The court basically said "well, you were obviously happy with him, because you hired him." If there were more cases like that, then owners would actually have to be vigilant in hiring both jockeys and trainers. I hope this comment isn't too far off topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com