A terriffic race marred by over zealous administrators.
If interference had to be called I would have called it the other way.
But no harm no foul, to my eye.
A solid final time. 1 + 1/4 mile horses, maybe?
Win one, lose one, break even? Thought McKinzie did not deserve to come down today, but thought he did not deserve to go up at Los Al either. Both looked very good today and did nothing to change any opinions regarding their lofty positons in terms of their Derby status.
When a horse gets beat less than a head, it’s a tough sell to say the outcome wasn’t effected when he was bumped not once but several times at 2 different points in the race. McKenzie came out 2 paths in the last 1/16 making constant contact. I did not have a dog in the fight.
Regardless of the outcome it was nice to see a horse race. NOTHING that ran in Tampa or NY today deserves to be anywhere near Louisville on Derby Day. Those 2 races were deplorable!!!
FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When a horse gets beat less than a head, it’s a
> tough sell to say the outcome wasn’t effected
> when he was bumped not once but several times at 2
> different points in the race. McKenzie came out 2
> paths in the last 1/16 making constant contact. I
> did not have a dog in the fight.
>
> Regardless of the outcome it was nice to see a
> horse race. NOTHING that ran in Tampa or NY today
> deserves to be anywhere near Louisville on Derby
> Day. Those 2 races were deplorable!!!
Absolutely correct. Noting in TPA nor AQU was inspiring.
Sitting at the 1/16 pole, had a large P3 ending with McKinzie and several going forward. I had no problem with the call but obviously disappointed by it. Regardless of the DQ, what a great race. The Kilroe really good too.
Trying to figure out this Big Cap on a sloppy track.
What was it that put you off of the Tampa runners - being a second and a half slower than the speedball War Story, or crawling home after blazing through 6F in almost 1:14?
I thought if the race had gone the other way and Bold had won it they may have DQ\'d him for dropping in at the top of the stretch. But I had no doubt (or I suppose I should say very little doubt) that if they didn\'t find the earlier incident to be an infraction they were going to take McKinzie down for drifting out late. You can\'t drift out 2 paths and make contact in late stretch with a horse you beat by a head and not expect to be taken down.
The interesting thing for me was how the Stewards viewed the earlier incident at the top of the stretch. Did they ever say? Does anyone know how that is supposed to work, if say Bolt causes interference at the top of the lane and McKinzie causes interference in deep stretch? Does one negate the other or do the Stewards get to decide which was the bigger infraction? Is there a rule written for that?
Just curious if anyone knows.
Decent writeup here.
https://www.horseracingnation.com/news/Stewards_Bolt_dOro_McKinzie_decision_unanimous_in_San_Felipe_123
mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought if the race had gone the other way and
> Bold had won it they may have DQ\'d him for
> dropping in at the top of the stretch. But I had
> no doubt (or I suppose I should say very little
> doubt) that if they didn\'t find the earlier
> incident to be an infraction they were going to
> take McKinzie down for drifting out late. You
> can\'t drift out 2 paths and make contact in late
> stretch with a horse you beat by a head and not
> expect to be taken down.
>
> The interesting thing for me was how the Stewards
> viewed the earlier incident at the top of the
> stretch. Did they ever say? Does anyone know how
> that is supposed to work, if say Bolt causes
> interference at the top of the lane and McKinzie
> causes interference in deep stretch? Does one
> negate the other or do the Stewards get to decide
> which was the bigger infraction? Is there a rule
> written for that?
>
> Just curious if anyone knows.
I believe they announced that the blame at the top of the stretch was inconclusive, and found McKinzie at fault late. I thought Bolt came in on the turn, while a guy sitting next to me said it was the other way around. I told him he was nuts, he thought otherwise.
Great race.
At the top of the stretch it looked like Bolt passed him and Mckinzie came right back at him. I have watched it plenty of times and can not tell who caused the contact at the top of the stretch. Down the stretch I thought it was a no brainer. He should of came down.
For people more educated than me that is twice now Mckinzie has been involved in a DQ. Is something up with the horses running style?
In the head on replay looks like he runs with a bit of a crab. Unless that was running away from the stick.
I was however taken back by Baffert’s reaction. Maybe someone should of reminded him of Bayern.
Bottom line these are the two best three year old right now.
Add salt to the wound Smith suspended 3 days.
More elaborate steward quotes from the bloodhorse article.
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/226439/bolt-doro-defeats-mckinzie-via-dq-in-san-felipe
So in reading this, had Bolt been deemed to interfere with McKinzie at the top of the lane, and McKinzie been deemed to interfere with Bolt in deep stretch, these would have been \"offsetting.\" So in that case they let it stand? Is that written somewhere?
I\'m just curious if that is actually written or this is open interpretation.
Anyone know?
IMO Bolt absolutely dropped in and Javier race rode McKinzie at the top of the lane, for what it\'s worth. That being said, Mike Smith waited until he absolutely had to to ask McKinzie the question. Not questioning the ride. Just saying.
Nothing is ever easy in this game.