Stewards Statement

[FrankD.]

From Blood Horse:

Barbara Borden, chief steward for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission issued the following statement:

\"The riders of the 18 and 20 horses in the Kentucky Derby lodged objections against the seven horse, the winner, alleging interference turning for home leaving the quarter pole. We had a lengthy review of the race, interviewed affected riders and determined that the seven horse drifted out and impacted the number  1, who in turn interfered with the 18 and 21. Those horses were all affected. Therefore we unanimously determined to disqualify number seven and place him behind 18. That is our typical procedure.\"

[Roman]

The chart reads that only the 20 horse lodged an objection.

[T Severini]

Crafting

That woman is not honest.

[Roman]

I watched the news conference with the stewards, had trouble with the audio, all I heard was bull#$@&

[Roman]

Here’s the rule
\"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.\"

According to Bloodhorse, an appeal might be coming.

How clear was he when he came over looks like the only question now.

[TGJB]

That’s completely different than the Bayern rule, which required the California stewards to determine that it DID (not could) cost a horse a placing.

[Roman]

Jerry,
When you watch the infraction, how far was MS in front?
It looks to me at least 3/4 ths of a length.
What does clear mean. Is it 1 length?

[TGJB]

He definitely wasn\'t clear, which doesn’t by itself make it a foul. But you can also be more than a length clear and get taken down for herding or dropping over into someone’s path. These things are always judgement calls.

[Boscar Obarra]

Not only not clear, but the other horses forelegs got tangled up briefly in  MS\'s hind legs.

[JimP]

I think the only question was did it alter the order of finish.

“If in the opinion of the stewards a foul alters the finish of a race, an offending horse may be disqualified”

I don’t see how the stewards concluded that the incident altered the finish of the race. WoW did get impeded, but he recovered, continued racing, and then backed up. How can they say they know that WoW wouldn’t have stopped in the stretch without the incident. Looked to me like he was just out run. And there was no interference with CH. The incident didn’t even slow him. He just got out run by MS. Taking down MS was a travesty. Another black eye for racing.

[T Severini]

Not familiar with the \"Technical Foundation\" for challenging a Stewards Ruling, but the only horse with a \"claim\", (Which wasn\'t lodged), was Long Hot Toddy. He did \"Take Up\' momentarily, but made no Objection. (He was clearly dead in the water).  The review is valued at millions, so I\'d think the Wests would pursue it. Very questionable manipulation by the Stewards. Even their crafted post race statement was founded on fabrication.

We\'ll see how the place horse fairs hereafter. He sure caught a monumental break by the stewards. They say the ruling was \"unanimous\". They sure must have deliberated on that for a while to reach such a conclusion. Some real arm twisting \"politics\" was going down there.

JimP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the only question was did it alter the
> order of finish.
>
> “If in the opinion of the stewards a foul alters
> the finish of a race, an offending horse may be
> disqualified”
>
> I don’t see how the stewards concluded that the
> incident altered the finish of the race. WoW did
> get impeded, but he recovered, continued racing,
> and then backed up. How can they say they know
> that WoW wouldn’t have stopped in the stretch
> without the incident. Looked to me like he was
> just out run. And there was no interference with
> CH. The incident didn’t even slow him. He just
> got out run by MS. Taking down MS was a travesty.
> Another black eye for racing.

[rezlegal]

Once you grudgingly acknowledge that WOW got impeded- he was impeded bigly- the discussion is over. There is no factual or visual evidence that he fully recovered. Consider yesterday the racing gods evening up for Firenze Fire debacle. I do concur that if winner were owned by claiborne or Three Chimneys there might have been a different outcome.

[T Severini]

rezlegal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once you grudgingly acknowledge that WOW got
> impeded- he was impeded bigly- the discussion is
> over. There is no factual or visual evidence that
> he fully recovered. Consider yesterday the racing
> gods evening up for Firenze Fire debacle. I do
> concur that if winner were owned by claiborne or
> Three Chimneys there might have been a different
> outcome.


WoW didn\'t lodge an objection. The jock knew it was the Derby on a slop surface and his horse was beaten. Best rationale is Long Hot Toddy, but they didn\'t object either and faded just as badly. No doubt the horse came out, but no horse was knocked sideways. It happens out of the gate there all the time. It happens on the near turn there all the time. It happens.  Out of gas on this one, next race, but have to review the Firenze Fire race again. thx

[sekrah]

Long RANGE Toddy filled an objection according to the stewards. Keep up with the facts Clown.

[dcost328]

LRT did not file an objection that I saw on the simulcast feed (not NBC)

Seems the only info about LRT objecting came long after the fact which makes this whole thing stink of something awful even more than it already did.