Is the Derby a horse race or a spectacle? You can\'t have it both ways. If CD/KHRC wants a 20 horse spectacle of hellbent speed dirt horses running in front of 150,000+ fans then don\'t treat the Derby like a Thu afternoon claimer. If 20 horses isn\'t unsafe, then why is the BC Classic at CD limited to 14 horses, why not 20 horses there? Also, take a look at the start of the race when the horses in the auxiliary gate all bear in because of the huge gap to the main gate. Can CD spend a few bucks and purchase a 20 horse gate - because, you know, safety is a priority, right? Also, if safety is a priority, how about installing a false rail on the home turn so that jockeys know there will be room down inside and not panic looking for space. This is very common in Europe where rodeo riding is very unusual.
That DQ was a pathetic farce. Saez was not whipping left handed, the horse bore out most likely from all the infield commotion, the noise, the thousands of bodies, the security standing on the turf course, whatever. Did he make contact, yeah. But this \"could have been a disaster, blah blah\" we are now basing DQs on what could have happened? And we are now basing DQs on what a horse \"might\" have had left in the tank?
The bottom line is that the horse awarded first place was NEVER winning that race. Ever. And that is what the DQ should be based upon. By taking down the winner is a horse being elevated who had no chance to win. In this case, YES, and it\'s absolute garbage. The field could have run four more laps and Country House was NEVER getting by the true winner. Every horse had a 1/4 mile to get by the winner and couldn\'t do it.
And now, there are threads about Servis surreptitiously using this or that enhancer - we are now conspiracy theorists that the stewards are in the pockets of trainers like Mott, McGaughey, etc? No wonder this game is fuc*ed.
It is also why I have moved 90% of my handle to Betfair and overseas racing. Is it 100% better. No. Is it 80-90% better. Yes. Stewards don\'t steal races from the betting public. If a jockey is found to have \"fouled\" he/she is fined and suspended. Take a look at the YouTube video of the 2015 Irish Champion Stakes. Watch the incident in the stretch. NO DQ. Are drugs 0% of the game there. NO. But it is a tiny percentage, where here, it is 100% of the game.
I have happily taken my money elsewhere.
This is the bottom line to me:
“we are now basing DQs on what could have happened? And we are now basing DQs on what a horse \"might\" have had left in the tank?â€
“Every horse had a 1/4 mile to get by the winner and couldn\'t do it.â€
https://twitter.com/CarsoniPH/status/1125028240144457730?s=09
Adios. Here\'s the head on NBC didnt show. I dont want to play horses where this move is legal.
Also. I\'ve changed my opinion, Saez is guilty of letting Max switch leads in the turn just after ye looked over his shoulder and saw WoW about to mow him down. He lied. He meant to drift out, but his green horse bolted.
Even Game Winner had to move 2 paths wider because of this crap.
Correct me if I\'m wrong, but from reading other threads it appears you profited from the DQ.
If so, your opinion is tainted and meaningless.
I didn\'t mention a thing about how this affected me. I posted that I played the Pletchers.
There is not a intellectually honest person on the planet that would watch that new angle and say with a straight face that it isn\'t much more egregious than they first thought.
No one!
https://twitter.com/CarsoniPH/status/1125028240144457730?s=09
Watch that 5 times in a row and tell me that is perfectly fine racing.
I understand that where money is involved - particularly with respect to horse racing and gambling- emotions run high. Everyone is entitled to an opinion just not to their own set of facts. It seems to me that those who are upset at the DQ fall into two camps: Camp 1- whatever MS did had no impact on the winner and it’s unfair to move up an deserving horse, particularly in the Derby. Whatever equitable surface appeal the Camp 1 argument may have that has never ever been the rule in any jurisdiction. Every single person on this board has lost what seemed to be a win even though he horse that was moved up was not fouled. Since the foregoing statement can’t be logically or factually challenged is it the Camp 1 position that because it was the Derby that rule of disqualification should be ignored? Camp 2 seems to be that because Gaffalione and his horse did not go down there should be no DQ notwithstanding the indisputable visual evidence that a. MS came over three paths quite suddenly and b. Gafilliones horses legs actually became intertwined with MS. If I have accurately stated camp 2s position that also makes no sense to me. Requiring a disastrous spill for a DQ has never ( thankfully) been the rule and amidst all the discussion about horses that weren’t going to win, if we are being honest we will never know if the 1 horse “might have wonâ€. We do know he was deprived of a fair chance. The fact that all the horses had a 1/4 mile to run is totally irrelevant in determining whether there was an egregious foul. Finally, on this issue, the stewards were guilty of gross negligence in not putting up an inquiry sign immediately. Had they done so, I respectfully suggest there would not be nearly the brouhaha we are all experiencing. Any bets as to the stewards being suspended or fired?
Dude, you’re just plain wrong. DQs are levied for infractions, not to determine who the best horse was. Slower horses benefit from DQs all the time. It’s just the way the rule book is written. And excusing MS bearing out due to extraneous factors is ridiculous. Bottom line is he bore out, impeded one or more horses affecting their progress. Simple DQ. Unfortunate but aren’t all DQs?
Whether or not he profited is meaningless.
Lost in all these discussions is Flavien Prat\'s impact on the whole episode.
Here he pauses for a suspiciously long while before he agrees with the questioner that he wasn\'t impacted and then mumbles something that can be interpreted as \"Yeah, I was affected after all...\": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNKj7xQvbIo
I\'m curious to find what people think about Flavien Prat\'s conduct:
a) The guy should be given a medal for letting justice be served
b) He\'s just an opportunist who though had the right to had no business in filing an objection since his horse wasn\'t involved
Does his behavior serve as a desirable precedent going forward? Does this happen very often, where jockeys for good (concern for the overall safety of the sport/horses) or bad (just looking for any excuse to gain a spot or two and collect better checks) reasons try their hand?
Or to look at it another way, as an owner, are you now more or less willing to pick Flavien for your mount?
Irrelevant
https://twitter.com/RichardMigliore/status/1124832049016209410
Mig has a nice photo of last yr with Ryan Moore on Mendelson with his leg right between Noble Indy. Said you can find a photo every year like the WOW/MS photo on the turn.
I disagree with the DQ and I don’t fall into either of the “only†2 camps as you describe them. I didn’t have any money on any of the horses that were involved. And my position on the DQ decision is not based on any emotion. I just watched all the relays and concluded that it was a mistake to DQ the winner for what happened at the top of the stretch. If that is the new standard for a DQ in the Derby then we’re probably going to have many objections and DQs to sort out in the future. There is always bumping and jostling like this in the Derby. The CD stewards have now drawn a new line for permissible behavior. This new standard is not going to help racing in the long run. It’s going to be just more fuel on the “ban racing†fire.
I will. They showed this same angle on the TV broadcast. I can watch this replay 100 more times and it won’t change my opinion. Full disclosure: I had no money at stake on any of these horses, and no attachment to any of the involved parties. It’s purely my objective opinion.
Jim- you are entitled to your opinion. But it is not objective- it is subjective. Objective analysis is fact based, measurable or observable. Subjective opinions offer a point of view and a judgment.mYour is demonstrably the latter, not the former. But you are entitled to it.
Jim, you and others are doing a real disservice to the debate by pretending that Derby winners routinely do what Max did.
JimP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I disagree with the DQ and I don’t fall into
> either of the “only†2 camps as you describe
> them. I didn’t have any money on any of the
> horses that were involved. And my position on the
> DQ decision is not based on any emotion. I just
> watched all the relays and concluded that it was a
> mistake to DQ the winner for what happened at the
> top of the stretch. If that is the new standard
> for a DQ in the Derby then we’re probably going
> to have many objections and DQs to sort out in the
> future. There is always bumping and jostling like
> this in the Derby. The CD stewards have now drawn
> a new line for permissible behavior. This new
> standard is not going to help racing in the long
> run. It’s going to be just more fuel on the
> “ban racing†fire.
If the Derby is the 6th at Parx today, the horse comes down. You can think there should never be any DQs, or that herding should be allowed no matter the safety issue, but if there are rules then that was an easy DQ.
Jim,
Just for clarification puposes the altercation wasn\'t at the top of the stretch. Took place approaching the 5/16\'s.
How about last year\'s Belmont?
If that edition were to take place this year after the KD DQ saga...one could argue Bravazo\'s chances to hit the board was severely limited after the \"race riding\" on Restoring Hope. Ok, one can say that was in the first turn. If so, is the new norm that you can go crazy before the stretch run but have to be in your best behavior after the second turn?
Seems like a whole new can of worms has been opened...and there will likely be many more objections and long waits to find the Triple Crown race winners from now on.
This wasn\'t bumping and jostling.
This was a horse coming out 2-3 paths, directly in front of a horse that was making a move at full speed into the stretch. It\'s dangerous, significantly affected WOW, and a foul.
I didn\'t like Prat lodging an objection, and Mott didn\'t have to say what he did. Nobody needed to hear him tell us the difference between the Derby and a 10k claimer on a Thursday. This is the part that irritates me. Just shut up until the decision, then tell us about 10k claimers and stewards doing the right thing.
After having a few days to settle down, my final thoughts are:
- WOW was significantly impacted and deprived of his chance to win. Without the interference I think he had a real shot to win.
- Prat should have kept his mouth shut and never lodged an objection. He had every chance to win, wasn\'t impeded, and just wasn\'t good enough.
- Long Range Toddy finished 18th and also should have said nothing, going the same route as WOW. If the objection doesn\'t get you on the board or a check, why bother?
If this happens, Maximum Security wins and I bitch and moan about how my horse got impeded. Wouldn\'t be the first time, and I can live with it. But once the objections were lodged, it\'s difficult not to take him down.
I agree with that!
Also watching the replays Max comes out twice. First just going into the turn by 1-2 paths goes back to the rail and then again comes out by 3-4 paths. The ruling was correct. Only other camp of thought is it\'s the derby let it go; like last minute of a college basketball game, don\'t call the foul just take your lumps.
I was there for both days. Oaks day was ruled by juice, so it was with little surprise that juice played such a huge part in horse racing biggest day. Rather sad that I told a friend that the game had come down to playing which trainer rather than which horse.
Byk was taking an unofficial survey among his guests. The interesting thing is the media & jockeys were on the side of no DQ, and all 3 trainers were in favor of the DQ.
No DQ: Byk, Johhny D, Beyer, Grening, Migliore, T. Black.
DQ: Amoss, Calhoun, Arnold.
Migliore also mentioned that Bill Boland who served in multiple capacities including as a jockey who himself claimed foul in a Derby was in the no DQ camp.
I thought MiG made a great point about the whip and how Saez was able to correct Maximum because of the whip.
the biggest issue for me is Prat calling foul. he told the NBC interview post race that he was bounced SIDEWAYS.
if that doesn\'t leave a bad taste in your mouth, I don\'t know what would.
I can\'t get past the fact we are talking about a rule is a rule and emphasizing rules so much but the whole industry is nothing but liars, cheats, and frauds.
it is disgusting.
I have cut back significantly in the amount I play because of all the unsavory b/s behind the scenes.
I am not well connected like some of the guys on here who know the scoop and the trainers and have \"insider\" knowledge of this sort of thing.
I used to love handicapping races and having the thrill of being \"right\" on a longshot if it comes in.
Now the times I do play I am more concerned about who is also in the race that might be cheating and run something unpredictable?
It\'s completely ruined the sport, at least for me.
Not saying what Prat did was cheating but it is still right up there with the shady dishonest garbage that plagues the sport and makes it harder and harder to enjoy.
I agree with this general thought above.To me it’s what comes next. For the first time in 145 runnings of the most popular race in the world, the winner was taken down in real time, the betting outcome literally turned upside down. If you don’t think this will drastically change things going forward you’re being naive.
Expect the number of objects/inquires to go through the roof, and like I said the other day, we’ll all have the privilege of playing the waiting game on the biggest days to see who gets taken down or not. And quite honestly I see it being a total disaster. The calls of corruption and “the fix is in†will grow incessantly louder. People will be turned off in droves.
Once the ginnie is out of the bottle they don’t go back in. The precedent was set and now we’ll have to deal with it. Some will say this opinion is much to do about nothing, making mountains out of mole hills. But just look at every other sport (or any facet of life really) where a precedent was set and how there was no looking back after. A brave new world for sure.
On another tip, if both MS and Country House run in MD the spectacle will be unlike anything I can remember. I think the patrons will be insanely pro Max Security, to a fever pitch. Conversely Mott likely gets jeered and treated like a heel. My guess is everyone involved suspects this, and I don’t think Country House will run one way or another. MS will get Hammered at the windows, which could lend itself to a decent betting race. I’m really interested in the crowd reaction in a 2019 world. I didn’t plan on going, just planned on NY this spring, but now I want to be there just to see the reactions. And hopefully recoup some money at the same time.
What do you guys think? It’s a forgone conclusion that MS gets bet to an obscene level right? Country House goes off at a better price than any derby winner in my lifetime? I think there’s real emotion at play and it will represent itself in dollars at the (insanely slow) Baltimore windows. Two full weeks for the anger to build.
Think about it, if you keyed the favorite (until the last tick) on top of a couple not impossible “longshots†in a minimal $10 Tri, that ruling cost you ~$36,000. And That’s a fairly common wager, most especially on derby day. The anger will be real and MS with his ever growing backstory will become the undisputed “champion†of the people...
MS is not running in the Preakness with no TC on the line.
Damn, I didn’t see that. That will certainly temper the Preakness. As you can tell from above, I was looking forward to him running.
I\'m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you that trainers that West uses don\'t think it should be a DQ.