Derby DQ?

[elkurzhal]

Totally wiped out the 1 twice...

[hezethebest]

Interesting and brutal for all concerned.

LL

[hezethebest]

Not surprisingly, total class from Bill Mott!

LL

[elkurzhal]

Justice

[hezethebest]

Lots of discussions coming up! At least it won't be about my top pick. LOL!

LL

[Smarty_Jones]

Glad they did the right thing. I saw it as clear as day the second it happened.

[Deleted]

May 4, 2019 17:56:28 GMT -5 elkurzhal said:

Totally wiped out the 1 twice...

Yup....and it slowed down the one when he was making a move...A shame....

[Deleted]

The Preakness or upcoming....looks like no one won on our k d tickets....

[damascus]

As far as i know only flavien prat objected. IF that is the case the objection should have been overruled immediately as Prat's mount was NOT affected in the slightest. No mention was made of any objection by War of Will's jock and with good reason as he did not have to change course, did not pull up and was not forced into any other horses. having watched thousands of races, the standard has always been was a horse prevented from finishing did it cost a horse a placing, did it cause a horse to have to alter course. NONE of that happened. Instead the horse corrected course and all horses had the length of the stretch to run to show who was capable of winning.

i am angry not just because of the fact i am out my winning wagers but we have all witnessed major bumping, impacts, horses being cutoff in this the Derby one of the typically roughly run races of the year. I find this end result to be an absurd result not just because the clearly best horse was disqualified but because he was taken completely off the board. As much as this pains me to say after my lifelong love of this sport, i am done. This on the biggest stage of the sport, in front of new and old fans this is to me the biggest crock of shit decision i have ever witnessed Jerry Bailey, Randy Moss et al provided the clear informed viewpoint that they would NOT change that result. No horse was clipped, nor horse stumbled, no horse took up in essence this was race riding at worst and under these circumstances you do not disqualify your up and coming star. That was the dumbest decision i have ever witnessed and the fact it cost me and many others significant money mandates that i never allow idiots like this to control the outcome of my livelihood any more.

Dam

[tex]

While I respect your opinion- I disagree to the extent that the 1 horse was moving and was taken out by the 7 not giving him the opportunity to continue his run which I believe would carry him past the 7 or at the very least set up a confrontation that would reveal who was actually the best. I just can’t say the the 7 was much the best when he eliminated his competition just as it was beginning. I believe we would have seen a pretty good stretch duel. He should be placed behind the horse he impeded which was the one and to another extent the 18. Just my opinion - no malice intended.

[frangooch]

Here’s how I look at it: I’ve seen much worse not taken down. So why here? Bad day for the sport. Btw, Stewards should have two minutes to render a decision. Otherwise the finish stands. I may have mentioned this 20 or so times before but, end replaying all sports!

[cherokeescot]

I agree with Damascus. The best horse did not win . Fair enough if connections of War Of Will objected but he did not. Another black eye for racing on its biggest day.

[eye123]

If your going to have an inquiry, should look like this (PS my Avatar for years)

[spiderjohn]

I was on site throughout the drama, and have no idea what went on via network chatter.I was standing next to a high profile bloodstock lexintonian discussing what we believed to be all about nothing, watching the incident probably 20 times. then we were told that the rider of #1 had filed the objection. #1 was trying to move on #7 and seemed to have good momentum when #7 veered out in front of #1, who was also blocked by #20(through no fault of #20). Neither of us expected the dq. The #20 was not the best horse in the race imo and was extremely fortunate. #1 was blocked when he was moving best, though #7 suffered the worst by far, losing a Derby win and a ton of $$. Yes--I have seen much worse go unpunished. Millions of $$ changed hands. It's over(I think...). Ended up costing me a gimmick or two--nothing substantial, however I would be upset if I was huge with #7. Inconsistency with this type of thing has been common for as long as I can remember, which is the core issue brought to light by the high profile of this instance.

[cherokeescot]

Spider, there was no objection by the #1. Objections were by the #18 Long Hot Toddy and the eventual winner who did not appear to be impacted at all. Maximum Security was placed 17th behind Long Hot Toddy. Not the outcome racing needed or wanted.

[eye123]

Ouch for this guy.... ($51,000)

[chazaward69]

Stewards got the decision right. Maximum Security’s action stopped two horses a chance at hitting the board. No doubt he should be taken down. No doubt #7 was the best till the head of the stretch but the race doesn’t end there. It’s not a black eye to the sport when the rules are enforced and the outcome is correct. Let’s move on to The Preakness

[goldandmyrrh]

The 7-20 exacta would have paid $990 for $2. A little under 10k.
.
How about this guy, me, the tri would have been 2-4k for .50, I think.
.
.
05/04 6:20 PM Churchill Downs 12 $0.50 TR (PWHL) 7 / 8, 13, 14, 16, 20 / 8, 13, 14, 16, 20 $10.00 $0.00

[triguy237]

May 4, 2019 22:35:46 GMT -5 goldandmyrrh said:

The 7-20 exacta would have paid $990 for $2. A little under 10k.
.
How about this guy, me, the tri would have been 2-4k for .50, I think.
.
.
05/04 6:20 PM Churchill Downs 12 $0.50 TR (PWHL) 7 / 8, 13, 14, 16, 20 / 8, 13, 14, 16, 20 $10.00 $0.00

Ouch.
And I'm bitching here to my wife that the DQ cost me.
I had a 7-20 exacta.
Now I don't feel so bad and will stop whining.
That's a bad beat.
Sorry goldandmyrrh.

[bobtailnag]

You know what they say about opinions and I have one, just like everyone else. Prat was not really involved and shouldn't have said anything. But he did. And because he did the stewards had to look at the replays. And when they did they saw the 7 horse make a move the seriously endangered several other horses and riders. Mott even make the comment that if this was not the derby the there would have been no question the 7 horse would have been taken down. But because the stewards saw it and because they too knew what almost happened and because they knew what the rules say, they HAD NO CHOICE but to take him down. Horse racing, like all other organized sport, is not like school yard basketball where almost anything goes and the only rule is "no harm, no foul". Of course everyone who was negatively affected by the decision thinks they were cheated or robbed. Some might even be claiming "the fix was in". When anyone who is watching their favorite team loose because a ref or ump removed a key player from the game for some major infraction of the rules, no one is surprised if he gets angry even though he knows it the player deserved it.

Bev, I have to disagree with you. I believe most horse racing fans believe what the stewards did today was anything but a black eye for the sport. There was no apparent physical contact yet the rider received a major penalty for putting several riders and horses in serious jeopardy. Simply put, they saw the infraction, they investigated all what was involved, they annualized the degree of seriousness and applied the appropriate punishment. If my money was on the 7 would I still be this objective? Hell no I wouldn't, at least for the first hour or two. But I've had things like that happen to me in this sport for 60 years. I still dont like it but I accept the fact it's not always going to go my way.   




 

[propro]

First, the horse. Maximum Security ran back to his Florida Derby and proved nobody could run with him if he did that. I can't remember the last horse that does what he does...can sprint as fast as he has to for position or the lead, then instantly relaxes and shuts it down to a 25-26 second clip and then just pounds out quarter after quarter of that pace until he takes off again and throws in a furlong that nobody can stay with. If this horse can run on the turf, he'd be another Lure. I'm not sure he needs the lead the way he rates.

As for the decision, it cost me a $100 win bet. Since this race has always been a rodeo and you can get away with anything you want in the first eighth of a mile, I thought there was no way they'd take him down. I figured they'd resort to the "didn't cost a placing" if they wanted to take him down and would leave him up. One thing that amazed me was the coverage of the inquiry on NBC. Jerry Bailey should have been the first to notice that Maximum Security bore out immediately after changing to his right lead on the turn, but I didn't hear it mentioned at all (unless I missed it, then apologies).

Maximum Security wasn't going to get beat without the stewards help if they went around the track again. He will jog at 3/5 in the Preakness against a small group, but that won't make up for today.

[unusualpete]

Wrote this elsewhere. Think it would behoove players to look at adjudications the same way they do any other part of the game, with percentages. I felt the 7 stayed up 80% of the time in the kyd. If not the kyd he comes down 80% of the time. This was the 20% of the time he came down. 90 minutes later yours truly was dq'ed out of a pick 3 in SA10 for a minor infraction. Spent next to nothing, so no big loss, but the will pay was good. I felt the 9 stayed up 60% of the time. Today was the 40% of the time he came down. With both I've seen more stay up and less go down. More art than science to be sure.

Telling you this for your own good. Believe me. When dq'ed, it hurts a lot less to think like a calculator.

[Deleted]

...lol...if one reviews the stretch run one would also note that some riders move red thier horses when they saw the trouble ahead and some jocks restrained thier mounts as well...the judgement was fair....

[unusualpete]

Take a look at this.

[dblakers]

First let me say I wheeled the 1 War of Will up and down in exacta's and tri's. Just watched the replay again and Maximum Security was so much the best it isn't even close. Was there some interference yes there was, but this is the kentucky Derby. The race that all trainers, owners, and Jocks want to win. A race where Jockeys are allowed to be more aggressive. A race where if you read post jockey comments every year always horses get bumped, cut off etc.. and never a DQ. Reading comments from multiple sites it amazes me that so many people think this was the right call, think that somehow on a wet track with horses all around, that a jockey can 100% control a thousand pound animal and have him run straight the whole way around. People who believe this should find a site that allows you to see head on replays of races, you will see horses running sideways into each other all the time. Everyone knows that if this was Baffert, even Omaha Beach, Mandella, the horse does not get taken down. Truth is this is terrible for Horse racing fans, bettors like me. From here on out every jockey should object every year, because trust me something happened to someone.

[hezethebest]

I said early on in this thread that there would be considerable discussion about the DQ and there has been. While I had no vested interest in the ultimate outcome of the inquiry yesterday and I appreciate the difficult task that Stewards are assigned with, I always cringe when I do have a vested interest in an inquiry situation because of the relative inconsistency I've seen over decades of loving the sport. I've seen results in worse incidents not disturbed by the Stewards as well as lesser incidents resulting in a DQ. I too, try to establish a percentage in my mind of how they will rule. Yesterday I was 60/40 thinking they might let it stand but that's basically a coin toss. I do agree that a time limit should be placed on them. Too many inquiries drag on unreasonably. Either something happens effecting the outcome or not. They shouldn't need 15 minutes. Immediately following the decision yesterday I received several texts from some of my readers suggesting a "fix" was in. When it takes so long it's not unreasonable for the casual fan to worry about collusion and whether a certain decision will benefit the decision makers better than the alternative. Those casual fans are the same ones who are more likely to follow the money when betting only a few times a year so of course they feel they got the screws put to them with the DQ of one of the top favorites and they don't have the necessary race experience to be objective about it. I do agree that there at least should have been objections from others than the non effected ultimate winners jockey for the Stewards to come to their conclusion. If there wasn't, then it's a shame. JMHO.

LL

[tc]

the 17th place finisher ran one hell of a race! That unfortunately should not really be lost in all of this and it likely will. Seems to me his herd dynamics are pretty strong as it looked like he really was fighting there at the end when they were coming for him. A gallant effort regardless of the DQ.

[Coin toss]

Give me 60-40 on every coin flip...I'd be a rich man.

[quickcall]

The best horse in the race was placed 17th. That’s a shame.

[bobtailnag]

From the Bloodhorse: "Kentucky's rule on interference is in line with most jurisdictions in which if it's determined a horse interferes with another horse, costing that horse a placing, the horse who caused the interference will be placed behind the horse with which it interfered.

Kentucky's interference rule reads: "A leading horse, if clear, is entitled to any part of the track. If a leading horse or any other horse in a race swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause the same result, this action shall be deemed a foul. If a jockey strikes another horse or jockey, it is a foul. If in the opinion of the stewards a foul alters the finish of a race, an offending horse may be disqualified by the stewards." (All three stewards agreed to disqualify the 7 horse.)

This rule applies to every race, a $10,000.00 claimer and the Kentucky Derby. If stewards in other jurisdictions have chosen to ignore  that rule in a similar situation, it does not allow all stewards in other jurisdictions to allow them to ignore it. Unfortunately we all know of situations where laws were ignored and justice was denied - i.e. look at the upper reaches of our federal government. Regardless, we are not a nation of justice, we are nation of law.  I say again, the stewards had no choice. It is their responsibility to enforce the rules and the rules are clear. The owners still have the option to appeal. "We'll just have to look at the films and see what we think after looking at the films," West said. Let's see what happens.