Can't have it both ways

[Perfect Drift]

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.

[JimP]

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?”

“Every horse had a 1/4 mile to get by the winner and couldn\'t do it.”

[sekrah]

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.

[Perfect Drift]

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.

[sekrah]

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.

[rezlegal]

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 won”. 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?

[JR]

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?

[JR]

Whether or not he profited is meaningless.

[atakante]

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?

[JR]

Irrelevant

[ChiTownJoe]

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.

[JimP]

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.

[JimP]

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.

[rezlegal]

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.

[sekrah]

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.