Roman: Yes, looked like LRT and WOW were backing up.

sekrah: No..  Long Range Toddy who had some momentum was stopped because of this incident.  MS was put behind LRT.


The rulings make perfect sense.


Roman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But he impeded the horse, should of been placed
> last according to this ruling.
> Need more uniformity.
> Bayern, Maximum Security, racing’s biggest
> stage.
> Should not have to be this difficult of a
> subject.
> The slo motion replay I think makes it worse than
> it was.

sekrah: LRT and WOW were backing up?  No.  They weren\'t.


Roman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, looked like LRT and WOW were backing up.

Roman: Maximum Security was almost clear a length when he came over.
How can Mott’s rider claim an objection without being bothered?

P-Dub: Roman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, looked like LRT and WOW were backing up.

WOW didn\'t back up until late. He was making a move until MS nearly dropped him.

Anyone saying WOW wasn\'t affected is nuts.

Roman: He was backing up in the stretch, even if he didn’t go wide on the turn, if he would of kept his path, still wins,

Otis Bones: Unspoken rule is that jockeys won\'t claim foul if the DQ won\'t move them to a money position.  My question is why didn\'t the stewards launch an inquiry?

ajkreider: He was not clear a length.  C\'mon man.

Yes he interfered. Would I have taken him down to 17th, probably not.  But there was a clear foul.  

The \"what would have happened anyway\" game is not really knowable, which is why these rules exist.

He was the best horse, and it\'s a tough loss.  Not a crime against humanity.

T Severini: Roman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maximum Security was almost clear a length when he
> came over.
> How can Mott’s rider claim an objection without
> being bothered?


Gotta guess WoW was the \"system horse\"...really?

Simple really, when it took that long to manufacture a reason it was manufactured.

P-Dub: Roman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He was backing up in the stretch, even if he
> didn’t go wide on the turn, if he would of kept
> his path, still wins,

That tends to happen after you clip heels and have to be taken up

Roman: Not a good look for the sport.
Not a crime against humanity yes,
But a travesty in the call.
WOW, LRT trainers and riders no objection, no inquiry by the stewards, result not impacted.

Roman: He came right back up to his flank after the incident.What did I not see?

Roman: Hope he don’t win the next to legs

john9969: complete BS....was the \"winner\" affected?  I made money more $$$ with the DQ but disagree 110%. Hopefully a full feild at the preakness can expose the \"winner.\"

And feel for bad for Mott.....I would not want to win one like that,

P-Dub: Roman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He came right back up to his flank after the
> incident.What did I not see?

So you don\'t think checking off heels, while making a move, after running a mile, has no bearing on performance.

Ok.