Kentucky Derby Disqualification, Post-Mortem

[Teach]

First, I believe the stewards made the right decision. Let me state: I have no axe to grind. I wagered $10 on a handful of supers, but I didn’t have either Maximum Security or County House on top.

As Bill Mott stated, “If this were a maiden claimer…” and not the Kentucky Derby... Yes, I too believe Maximum Security’s number would have come down, in a heartbeat (I ask: "Why didn't the stewards immediately post the 'Inquiry' sign"?). With a jaundiced view, did they hope that the 'incident' on the far turn would go away, quietly?

Frankly, I had bet #1 War of Will. Gaffalione was “sitting chilly” on the rail just behind the front-runners. I thought he had a stranglehold on his horse. On the far turn, Gaffalione found a seam and began to challenge Maximum Security. Just then, Luis Seaz moved Maximum Security outside to the 3 or 4 path. Saez created what I call a “Carom Effect” as he pushed the horses to his outside further toward the center of the racetrack.

Further, the horse that suffered the most (Gaffalione did a great job from preventing his colt from starting a chain-reaction pile-up) was War of Will. This 3-year old was literally “climbing up the back” of Maximum Security. As an aside: Talk about the distaste some had when Maximum Security’s number disappeared from the tote-board. I ask: What would the betting people and “newbies,” in particular, have thought if there had been a multi-horse pile-up on the far turn?

Finally, Luis Saez then swerved back to the inside and bumped Johnny Velazquez’s horse, Honor Code, coming up the rail. In the end, I believe the stewards were justified in taking Maximum Security’s number down.

In conclusion, the ones I feel most sorry for are the owners: Gary and Mary West, and trainer Jason Servis. Sadly for them, they went from exhilaration to disappointment, in literally: “the blink of an eye”.

[Teach]

All you need to know is that Maximum Security’s jockey, Luis Saez, violated the rules and regulations of thoroughbred racing with regard to “interference”. Saez’s actions impeded another horse, War of Will (yes, I had bet the horse). Saez’s swerve to the outside could have caused serious injury to several jockeys and horses. Indeed, it was a near miracle that a jockey didn’t suffer a potential career-ending spill. In the end, War of Will would finish off the board. Saez’s actions, in my opinion, were blatant; they seriously compromised War of Will’s chances.

As far as President Trump chiming in with “political correctness”. I find that hard to fathom. It would be one thing if President Trump had trained or even owned thoroughbred racehorses. I don’t believe that is the case.

You may see this as “apples and oranges,” but when I was a teacher, I would, on the first day of school, establish, in written form, my rules and regulations. They were the same for each and every class. There were no exceptions. I would never treat the high-achieving student any differently than those who were working to achieve passing grades. If I were to show favoritism, where’s my credibility? A rule or regulation is only as effective as it is being enforced.

Furthermore, in this vein, there can be statutes on the books; yet if these rules are not enforced, I ask: “What good are they?” It took courage for the Kentucky state stewards at Churchill Downs to make what I believe was the correct call.

Finally, as cited, there can be no favoritism. As unpopular as it may have been for many to have seen Maximum Security’s number taken down, it would have been more of a travesty, in my opinion…not to have done so.

Yes, for “the connections” and those who wagered on Maximum Security’s nose, it was a bitter pill to swallow. Yes, it would have been easy to have kept Maximum Security’s number up. Sometimes we all have to - after serious thought - make hard, sometimes unpopular decisions. Yet, I believe the stewards acted in the best interests of thoroughbred racing.

[airford1]

Mary and Gary West need to "STAY IN YO OWN LANE"

[davew]

You make it sound like Luis Saez steered Maximum Security to veer out on the turn. He might have over corrected to get the horse back into the 2 lane. Sometimes horses just do stuff on their own.


By your logic Saez should also get a 30+ day suspension, are we going to see that?

[Afleet]

You make it sound like Luis Saez steered Maximum Security to veer out on the turn. He might have over corrected to get the horse back into the 2 lane. Sometimes horses just do stuff on their own.


By your logic Saez should also get a 30+ day suspension, are we going to see that?

I think JJ should get days for dumping Franco in the Oaks

[Teach]

It has been stated that the stewards at Churchill Downs rendered their decision to take down Maximum Security without taking any questions. Why?

If I had been a reporter, my first question would have been: "Why didn't you put up the 'Inquiry' sign up on the infield tote immediately after the race?" Since I saw my first horse race (harness race) at Foxboro Raceway (MA) in the summer of 1958 at the age of 15-years old (I soon after went to Suffolk Downs and Rockingham Park), I have seen countless thousands of horse races, either in person, or on a video monitor, or on television.

As I watched this year's Kentucky Derby field move out of the far turn and into the stretch, a "light bulb" immediately went off in my head (I would have thought the stewards interests would have been piqued, as well). Something was amiss. I'm thinking, "The stewards should take a closer look at this." Something didn't seem right. As an aside, if you're a person who has watched thousands of races, as I have, that same feeling may have come over you. Yet, again, no inquiry. If someone hadn't lodged a claim of foul... What is this? Anything Goes?

Secondly, if I could talk with trainer Mark Casse, I would ask, "Why didn't you lodge a claim of foul?" Your horse, the #1, War of Will, was, obviously, the most affected. Jockey Tyler Gaffalione had all he could do to avoid War of Will's running up the back of Maximum Security. I would have thought Casse would have been outraged. Yet, nothing. Not even a peep. I don't think the stewards even interviewed the most aggrieved party, jockey Tyler Gaffalione. This whole thing is just too bizarre.

Finally, I believe, in my opinion, jockey Luis Saez had a pretty good idea as to what was transpiring on the racetrack. I will say that jockey Saez has gotten days, in recent years, for similar incidents at both Saratoga and Belmont, i.e., "alleged interference in the stretch"; "failure to maintain straight course."

[bobphilo]

All you need to know is that Maximum Security’s jockey, Luis Saez, violated the rules and regulations of thoroughbred racing with regard to “interference”. Saez’s actions impeded another horse, War of Will (yes, I had bet the horse). Saez’s swerve to the outside could have caused serious injury to several jockeys and horses. Indeed, it was a near miracle that a jockey didn’t suffer a potential career-ending spill. In the end, War of Will would finish off the board. Saez’s actions, in my opinion, were blatant; they seriously compromised War of Will’s chances.

As far as President Trump chiming in with “political correctness”. I find that hard to fathom. It would be one thing if President Trump had trained or even owned thoroughbred racehorses. I don’t believe that is the case.

You may see this as “apples and oranges,” but when I was a teacher, I would, on the first day of school, establish, in written form, my rules and regulations. They were the same for each and every class. There were no exceptions. I would never treat the high-achieving student any differently than those who were working to achieve passing grades. If I were to show favoritism, where’s my credibility? A rule or regulation is only as effective as it is being enforced.

Furthermore, in this vein, there can be statutes on the books; yet if these rules are not enforced, I ask: “What good are they?” It took courage for the Kentucky state stewards at Churchill Downs to make what I believe was the correct call.

Finally, as cited, there can be no favoritism. As unpopular as it may have been for many to have seen Maximum Security’s number taken down, it would have been more of a travesty, in my opinion…not to have done so.

Yes, for “the connections” and those who wagered on Maximum Security’s nose, it was a bitter pill to swallow. Yes, it would have been easy to have kept Maximum Security’s number up. Sometimes we all have to - after serious thought - make hard, sometimes unpopular decisions. Yet, I believe the stewards acted in the best interests of thoroughbred racing.

Agree 100%. Very intelligent post throughout. Your students were lucky to have you. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[bobphilo]

You make it sound like Luis Saez steered Maximum Security to veer out on the turn. He might have over corrected to get the horse back into the 2 lane. Sometimes horses just do stuff on their own.


By your logic Saez should also get a 30+ day suspension, are we going to see that?

They're still responsible for the trouble they cause though I agree it might not have been Saez's intention.

[Tom]

Gary West says his horse never came withing 10 feet of CH.

Duh.
Gary West has not come with in 1,000 feet of reality.

The guy is a blithering idiot.

I was thinking what a let down this must have been for the owner and trainer and jockey last night.

Today, I am glad the horse came down just to spite the big mouth.

[Clocker]

Sometimes horses just do stuff on their own.
They don't have rack and pinion power steering? :eek:

[jeebus1083]

Gary West is now hinting at federal lawsuit. For the greater good of horse racing, he needs to put his interests aside, accept the outcome for what it is, and move on. Such a lawsuit cannot be good for the sport, especially if a judge rules in Mr. West’s favor. “Pandora’s Box” will have opened, as anyone who had tickets with Maximum Security will have no recourse. The MSM will have a field day, and the sport will lose even more fans.

[Clocker]

Gary West is now hinting at federal lawsuit.
On what grounds?

Gary West, the owner and breeder of Maximum Security, told the Daily Racing Form on Sunday that he was considering appealing the Kentucky stewards' decision to disqualify his colt from first in the Kentucky Derby. However, the state's administrative regulations explain that stewards' decisions “shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal.”https://www.paulickreport.com/news/triple-crown/gary-west-considers-federal-challenge-to-kentucky-derby-disqualification/

I would not be surprised if the owners or trainers had to agree to that before being allowed to race. Do the feds hear appeals of a called third strike that knocked a team out of the playoffs, or an NFL penalty call that cost a big game?

P.S. The above article says Maximum Security is not going to the Preakness.

[Thomas Roulston]

On what grounds?

P.S. The above article says Maximum Security is not going to the Preakness.


Which increases the amount of damages they can sue for - since rather obviously Maximum Security would have been entered in the Preakness had he not been DQ'd.

[highnote]

P.S. The above article says Maximum Security is not going to the Preakness.

Max not going to the Preakness makes things easier for CH. However, I think Max should go to the Preakness and try to win the Triple Crown.

Just because 3 stewards made a decision to DQ Max does not mean they are correct. Not everyone agrees with their decision. As far as I'm concerned Max was the winner.

If Max would win the Preakness and Belmont the connections would have a legitimate claim that Max is a Triple Crown winner. I would not argue with that claim because plenty of people think the stewards got it wrong.

Personally, I think they should make Max and CH winners. Max wins for crossing the line first. CH wins because Max was DQ'd.

And then I'd give all the other owners participation trophies for showing up. :coffee: [slurp]

[Tom]

Andy Beyer Derby recap on ATR first hour today.

[Thomas Roulston]

Gary West says his horse never came withing 10 feet of CH.

Duh.
Gary West has not come with in 1,000 feet of reality.

The guy is a blithering idiot.

I was thinking what a let down this must have been for the owner and trainer and jockey last night.

Today, I am glad the horse came down just to spite the big mouth.



Agreed. I haven't seen such classlessness in racing since Steve Coburn's tantrum after California Chrome finished in a dead heat for 4th in the Belmont in 2014.

[startngate]

Secondly, if I could talk with trainer Mark Casse, I would ask, "Why didn't you lodge a claim of foul?" Your horse, the #1, War of Will, was, obviously, the most affected. Jockey Tyler Gaffalione had all he could do to avoid War of Will's running up the back of Maximum Security. I would have thought Casse would have been outraged. Yet, nothing. Not even a peep. I don't think the stewards even interviewed the most aggrieved party, jockey Tyler Gaffalione. This whole thing is just too bizarre.Tyler actually answered that question in an interview.

“When I got off the horse I went to see Mark,” he said. “We finished eighth, so we felt it really wasn’t necessary. We thought that was the stewards’ job in a race like that, especially a race like the Derby. If they felt there was something wrong they should have put up the inquiry sign and there was no inquiry. If we finished fourth or fifth and could have been moved up and gotten more money for the horse, owner and trainer, I definitely would have claimed foul. But we had nothing to gain from it.”

[Robert Fischer]

opinion = TOUGH BEAT , GOOD CALL


However, the 'narrative' that racing makes this call in a weekday-claimer or whatever does not ring true to me.

Racing does a very poor job when it comes to off-the-board finishers who were fouled. The game lacks consistency with that call, and the definition of the rule-interpretation is due for a league statement/emphasis.

If a winner fouls the place finisher, he's often coming down.

Sometimes you see a non-stakes race like that 'Dessman vs Last Judgement'? Where they almost seem to have an agreement to let the jocks fight it out, and obvious herding is neither objected to, nor inquired.
Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they get it wrong. Flip a coin on the close calls.

But when the winner fouls a horse, and then a third horse makes a run to duel the winner near the wire, - you need 2 coin-flips - one to even look at it, another to get it right.

Rule clarity and universal rule-interpretation is good for integrity.

[delsully]

Agreed. I haven't seen such classlessness in racing since Steve Coburn's tantrum after California Chrome finished in a dead heat for 4th in the Belmont in 2014.

I have, when Mott and Prat filed an objection.

[JohnGalt1]

If I were a steward I would not have taken him down after reviewing the race.

However, when I heard Saez said the horse was spooked by the crowd--by his own words I would've taken him down.

I bet $25 to win on him. I would've really been pissed if my exacta horse finished second or in the next race would've collected the pick 3.

[Zman179]

If I were a steward I would not have taken him down after reviewing the race.

However, when I heard Saez said the horse was spooked by the crowd--by his own words I would've taken him down.

I bet $25 to win on him. I would've really been pissed if my exacta horse finished second or in the next race would've collected the pick 3.

I can only imagine how the regular guy who had a $250,000 mortgage riding on Maximum Security felt. OMG!

https://www.quickenloans.com/press-room/2019/03/18/and-theyre-off-rocket-mortgage-partners-with-churchill-downs-to-launch-the-homestretch-sweepstakes-for-the-kentucky-derby-offering-one-lucky-winner-250000/

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I don't know if everyone has seen this but, from what I understand, it's an angle the stewards didn't see. If you watch closely :1: may have contacted the :7: before the :7: moved out. In fact, watch the :7: raise his head and climb a little when :1: is right on top of him. There's a number of possibilities. One is that he moved because of the :1: trying to run up his ass. Apparently there was a photographer who snapped a picture with a flash, possibly startling him. Finally, there was the track itself. Watch as the :7: moves out, the :1:one has no place to go because apparently Gaffalione thought he could push through Maximum Security. If Gaffalione had given Maximum Security a half length he could have moved inside without stopping his run. A second tier jockey may be just as responsible as the :7:.

Since there are only two horses next to the :1:, and the :7: ran a straight line until he was inside the eighth pole, even if the :7: is disqualified it appears that he should have been placed no worse than 9th. Still not a good result for :7: but it would be more accurate.

The last 1:15 of the race.

https://www.horseracingnation.com/news/Watch_New_video_key_to_Maximum_Security_s_Kentucky _Derby_appeal_123

[Spalding No!]

I don't know if everyone has seen this but, from what I understand, it's an angle the stewards didn't see. If you watch closely :1: may have contacted the :7: before the :7: moved out. In fact, watch the :7: raise his head and climb a little when :1: is right on top of him.

https://www.horseracingnation.com/news/Watch_New_video_key_to_Maximum_Security_s_Kentucky _Derby_appeal_123

This close up of the same part of the race (link below) provided by NBC clearly shows that the 7 did not contact the 1 prior to the 1 veering out.

There is clear separation between the 1 and the 7 to his outside just prior to the former switching leads improperly onto his right lead at which point the 1 veers out directly into the path of the oncoming 7 horse.

https://youtu.be/-jwy9m9oDg0?t=17

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This close up of the same part of the race (link below) provided by NBC clearly shows that the 7 did not contact the 1 prior to the 1 veering out.

There is clear separation between the 1 and the 7 to his outside just prior to the former switching leads improperly onto his right lead at which point the 1 veers out directly into the path of the oncoming 7 horse.

https://youtu.be/-jwy9m9oDg0?t=17

I think you meant that the other way. The 7 interfered with the 1.

[Spalding No!]

I think you meant that the other way. The 7 interfered with the 1.
Yep. Thanks for the correction. I should have just stuck with the names.

At any rate, the improper lead change was the key and from the close up look it doesn't appear to have been initiated by War of Will being in close quarters in behind Maximum Security.

[Valuist]

However, the 'narrative' that racing makes this call in a weekday-claimer or whatever does not ring true to me.

Racing does a very poor job when it comes to off-the-board finishers who were fouled. The game lacks consistency with that call, and the definition of the rule-interpretation is due for a league statement/emphasis.

If a winner fouls the place finisher, he's often coming down.



Agree that the "Thursday afternoon DQ argument" is flawed. Stewards have limited time on weekday cards to make a decision. They can't (or shouldn't) spend 22 minutes to decide a foul outcome on the 4th race at Finger Lakes. There's already enough time between races. Most DQs involved flip-flopping the top 2 finishers. If the stewards are wrong, it's not a real big deal. A few thousand in purse money is changed. But in a Triple Crown race, you not only have huge purse money at stake, but breeding implications as well. If they are going to make a change, they'd better be damned sure it was 100% the correct call.

By the letter of the law (rules), it was the right call. By the spirit of the law, it probably wasn't.

[Steve R]

[QUOTE=By the letter of the law (rules), it was the right call. By the spirit of the law, it probably wasn't.[/QUOTE]

By the letter of the law (whatever that is) you could probably rationalize a DQ in a significantly high percentage of races. And regardless of the letter of the law, these decisions, in the absence of a blatant infraction that virtually everyone agrees about and no one could reasonably deny, are judgment calls.

From what I've seen of how racing fans (meaning people knowledgeable about the game) are reacting, this decision is hardly a straightforward one. Based on history (e.g., Bayern or Codex) neither is it consistent.

[Teach]

As I was watching the running of the Kentucky Derby last Saturday, I was literally “licking my chops”. You see, I had War of Will. And, just as I had expected, my choice was saving all the ground sitting a stalking trip right behind the front-runners, i.e., Maximum Security.

As the field reached the far turn, I kept saying, “Find a hole! Find a seam!” My thoughts at the moment were that if War of Will’s jockey, Tyler Gaffalione, can find an opening, he can win The Derby.

Moreover, Gaffalione did indeed appear to squeeze through the narrowest of openings. Yet, I candidly ask, in doing so, did Gaffalione foul the horses on either side of him? Frankly, I must admit, despite my betting interest, my first reaction was: “If he wins, will his number come down?” My main concern: did Gaffalione’s attempt to squeeze through athat opening, like “threading the eye of a needle,” create the circumstances that started the chain of events that led up to Maximum Security’s disqualification?

Yes, there’s no doubt that Maximum Security swerved to the outside, and in the process, “pinballed” horses to his right. Watch the replay. Watch Luis Saez’s hands on the reins as he appeared to ever so subtly be guiding his mount to the outside.
I ask: “Did Maximum Security overreact to Saez’s urging?” Then, the colt’s more pronounced shift back to the inside.

It is here that I ask, “Was Jockey Saez ‘hoisted by his own petard?’ when he said, “The crowd was screaming and he’s a baby, you know.” I submit: “Was that a rationalization on Saez’s part for Maximum Security’s lane-changing ‘behavior’ in The Derby?’ There’s something to be said for the right “to remain silent.” Did Saez’s comments, subtly or otherwise, influence the stewards’ decision. “Hogwash,” you say. Indeed, it shouldn’t have. But, subconsciously… Did he “put a bug in their ears?” Who knows?

In the end, the whole affair, in retrospect, was most unfortunate. Horse racing’s biggest stage is marred by a DQ. Yet, thankfully, it wasn’t worse. It only attests to the skills of the jockeys out on the racetrack that someone wasn’t unseated and a subsequent chain-reaction spill didn’t occur.

Finally, I ask, once again: “Why didn’t the stewards immediately put up the “Inquiry” sign. That, quite obviously, would not have meant that Maximum Security’s number was coming down. Yet there was too much “bumping” going on in tight quarters on the far turn not, in the interest of racing, to have at least taken a look.

Further, I’m still mystified why trainer Mark Casse didn’t lodge an objection. Casse’s horse, it would appear (War of Will was climbing up the back of Maximum Security) was most affected by Maximum Security’s path-changing actions.

Yes, War of Will faded completely out of the money (that totally surprised me). If I recall, Casse talked about the fact that if his horse were to move up one place, his “connections” wouldn’t have benefitted, financially.

Still, everyone could see that his trainee, War of Will, was the one that was most adversely affected by Maximum Security’s actions. I still can’t fathom Casse’s decision, his motivation, or lack thereof, to lodge an objection. Oh, I heard his answer, but personally, I’m still shaking my head.

In closing, the decision has been made, and it won’t change. I believe racing fans will talk about the stewards’ decision for years to come. Yet, in all fairness, this was not “cut and dried”. If anything, in my opinion, there is a need for consistency.

[clicknow]

Which increases the amount of damages they can sue for - since rather obviously Maximum Security would have been entered in the Preakness had he not been DQ'd.


What I thought was strange, was that basically if a TC was on the line, they were going to run him back in the Preakness?

Yet as of late, they said something like they didn't want to run Max back in two weeks without a TC on the line because they "wanted to do right by the horse."

So which is it? Don't run him back in 2 weeks out of consideration for the horse, but if a TC is on the line that consideration goes out the window?

Maybe I misunderstood their comment.

To me, if the horse is fit and well should determine if you run a horse back, not because there's a TC on the line.


I realize this is all a moot point since they seem to be boycotting the rest of the TC races, but I still thought this was strange.

[highnote]

As I was watching the running of the Kentucky Derby last Saturday, I was literally “licking my chops”. You see, I had War of Will. And, just as I had expected, my choice was saving all the ground sitting a stalking trip right behind the front-runners, i.e., Maximum Security.

As the field reached the far turn, I kept saying, “Find a hole! Find a seam!” My thoughts at the moment were that if War of Will’s jockey, Tyler Gaffalione, can find an opening, he can win The Derby.

Moreover, Gaffalione did indeed appear to squeeze through the narrowest of openings. Yet, I candidly ask, in doing so, did Gaffalione foul the horses on either side of him? Frankly, I must admit, despite my betting interest, my first reaction was: “If he wins, will his number come down?” My main concern: did Gaffalione’s attempt to squeeze through athat opening, like “threading the eye of a needle,” create the circumstances that started the chain of events that led up to Maximum Security’s disqualification?

Yes, there’s no doubt that Maximum Security swerved to the outside, and in the process, “pinballed” horses to his right. Watch the replay. Watch Luis Saez’s hands on the reins as he appeared to ever so subtly be guiding his mount to the outside.
I ask: “Did Maximum Security overreact to Saez’s urging?” Then, the colt’s more pronounced shift back to the inside.

It is here that I ask, “Was Jockey Saez ‘hoisted by his own petard?’ when he said, “The crowd was screaming and he’s a baby, you know.” I submit: “Was that a rationalization on Saez’s part for Maximum Security’s lane-changing ‘behavior’ in The Derby?’ There’s something to be said for the right “to remain silent.” Did Saez’s comments, subtly or otherwise, influence the stewards’ decision. “Hogwash,” you say. Indeed, it shouldn’t have. But, subconsciously… Did he “put a bug in their ears?” Who knows?

In the end, the whole affair, in retrospect, was most unfortunate. Horse racing’s biggest stage is marred by a DQ. Yet, thankfully, it wasn’t worse. It only attests to the skills of the jockeys out on the racetrack that someone wasn’t unseated and a subsequent chain-reaction spill didn’t occur.

Finally, I ask, once again: “Why didn’t the stewards immediately put up the “Inquiry” sign. That, quite obviously, would not have meant that Maximum Security’s number was coming down. Yet there was too much “bumping” going on in tight quarters on the far turn not, in the interest of racing, to have at least taken a look.

Further, I’m still mystified why trainer Mark Casse didn’t lodge an objection. Casse’s horse, it would appear (War of Will was climbing up the back of Maximum Security) was most affected by Maximum Security’s path-changing actions.

Yes, War of Will faded completely out of the money (that totally surprised me). If I recall, Casse talked about the fact that if his horse were to move up one place, his “connections” wouldn’t have benefitted, financially.

Still, everyone could see that his trainee, War of Will, was the one that was most adversely affected by Maximum Security’s actions. I still can’t fathom Casse’s decision, his motivation, or lack thereof, to lodge an objection. Oh, I heard his answer, but personally, I’m still shaking my head.

In closing, the decision has been made, and it won’t change. I believe racing fans will talk about the stewards’ decision for years to come. Yet, in all fairness, this was not “cut and dried”. If anything, in my opinion, there is a need for consistency.

All good points.

[highnote]

What I thought was strange, was that basically if a TC was on the line, they were going to run him back in the Preakness?

Yet as of late, they said something like they didn't want to run Max back in two weeks without a TC on the line because they "wanted to do right by the horse."

So which is it? Don't run him back in 2 weeks out of consideration for the horse, but if a TC is on the line that consideration goes out the window?

Maybe I misunderstood their comment.

To me, if the horse is fit and well should determine if you run a horse back, not because there's a TC on the line.


I realize this is all a moot point since they seem to be boycotting the rest of the TC races, but I still thought this was strange.

Good points.

Personally, I would run Max back in the Preakness if he seemed like he was sturdy enough to handle it. If he wins the Preakness and then the Belmont he would be a legitimate TC winner in my opinion. He could demand a higher stud fee as a sire. I'd send my mares to him before I would to CH.

On the other hand if Max lost the Preakness, that could also negatively affect his stud fee. So there is not much downside if he doesn't run again. One thing that can never be taken away from him is that he crossed the finish line first in the KY Derby.

[LemonSoupKid]

Good points.

Personally, I would run Max back in the Preakness if he seemed like he was sturdy enough to handle it. If he wins the Preakness and then the Belmont he would be a legitimate TC winner in my opinion. He could demand a higher stud fee as a sire. I'd send my mares to him before I would to CH.

On the other hand if Max lost the Preakness, that could also negatively affect his stud fee. So there is not much downside if he doesn't run again. One thing that can never be taken away from him is that he crossed the finish line first in the KY Derby.

I instantly said this.

Give it a try. Sit out the Belmont if he doesn't win (he only has 7 classic points, no solid or professional). If you take the Preakness, the asterisk Triple Crown is there for you --- that would make racing another story and much more exciting with great vindication interests for bettors.

[biggestal99]

On the other hand if Max lost the Preakness, that could also negatively affect his stud fee.


Only the initial fee, once the foals start coming and hit the track the fee is adjusted up or down as the market bears.


Allan

[bobphilo]

They don't have rack and pinion power steering? :eek:

They're still responsible for what they do. Saez kept saying "he's a baby, he's a baby". So he's green and was unable to run a straight path on a turn. That's on him. That's the chance one takes when one runs an inexperienced horse in this race. That's why the rules don't say anything about a jockey's intent. That's a matter for suspensions. They're only concerned with what a horse does.

[bobphilo]

I can only imagine how the regular guy who had a $250,000 mortgage riding on Maximum Security felt. OMG!

https://www.quickenloans.com/press-room/2019/03/18/and-theyre-off-rocket-mortgage-partners-with-churchill-downs-to-launch-the-homestretch-sweepstakes-for-the-kentucky-derby-offering-one-lucky-winner-250000/

Anybody who is depending on a horse race for a $250,000 mortgage is a fool.

[thaskalos]

Anybody who is depending on a horse race for a $250,000 mortgage is a fool.

Does this include the trainers?

[highnote]

I instantly said this.

Give it a try. Sit out the Belmont if he doesn't win (he only has 7 classic points, no solid or professional). If you take the Preakness, the asterisk Triple Crown is there for you --- that would make racing another story and much more exciting with great vindication interests for bettors.

Yours is a better idea.

[Valuist]

15 day unpaid vacation for Saez.

[Tom]

Let Round 2 of the outrage begin.....

[davew]

You make it sound like Luis Saez steered Maximum Security to veer out on the turn. He might have over corrected to get the horse back into the 2 lane. Sometimes horses just do stuff on their own.


By your logic Saez should also get a 30+ day suspension, are we going to see that?

15 days on a tiring horse that switched leads on the turn.

[highnote]

Anybody who is depending on a horse race for a $250,000 mortgage is a fool.

Does this include the trainers?

:D:ThmbUp:

[pam916]

Thank you.

[Elliott Sidewater]

And now the West's are suing to have the dq overturned. Good luck with that.
Let's keep escalating this to the point of absurdity. Next thing you know, Saez will get 30 days.

[Scanman]

And now the West's are suing to have the dq overturned. Good luck with that.
Let's keep escalating this to the point of absurdity. Next thing you know, Saez will get 30 days.I took the time to read the complaint - pretty compelling stuff. It presents a case that shows that the CD stewards and KHRC did not properly apply the correct administrative procedures. Thereinlies the case for them to reverse the placings and reinstate MS as the winner.

At this point, I'm finding the whole affair to be somewhat entertaining. Perhaps, there is a future movie in this.

[highnote]

I took the time to read the complaint - pretty compelling stuff. It presents a case that shows that the CD stewards and KHRC did not properly apply:popcorn: the correct administrative procedures. Thereinlies the case for them to reverse the placings and reinstate MS as the winner.

At this point, I'm finding the whole affair to be somewhat entertaining. Perhaps, there is a future movie in this.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :coffee::popcorn::popcorn:

[DGroundhog]

I didn't agree with taking MS down because it is the Derby. I also had MS, Tacitus and Roadster alive in the Oaks/Derby double so I suppose I'm a little biased, but it was only a couple hundred bucks so I don't think it is clouding my judgment too much. None of my strictly Derby bets would have won no matter the decision.

Watching the race live I was wondering 'WTF is Tyler doing?'. His horse was rank, ran up on MS's rear and appeared to me to force his way into a hole that wasn't there. Tyler tweeted he was 'anticipating a spot' but then deleted that tweet.

I also see the other side. Some angles make it look like MS almost caused a disaster. Other angles suggest WoW may have been at fault. Either way, a decision was made and that is pretty much that.

There were a lot of ticked off people at the track after that decision. I heard arguments that I thought might turn into fisticuffs.

The bigger issue is that almost every Objection/Inquiry is a coin flip on what the decision will be. I'm wrong as often as not on what decision the stewards are going to make.

Track regulars have learned to accept this - but the casual fan is pretty much clueless as to what is happening.

In the NFL if there is a call that is being reviewed the announcers watch the replay and give their opinions. 95% of the time you know what decision the refs are going to make. We don't have that in racing.

You might see the replay a few times, but the track announcer isn't giving any insight. Everybody pretty much bites their tongue and holds their breath waiting for a decision.

That's not good for the sport and in this instance there were probably 15 pissed off bettors for every bettor that was giddy their 65-1 bomb won.

DRF's Matt Bernier tweeted during the inquiry that he didn't think they would take the horse down. Then he makes a video saying only people with money on MS think the wrong decision was made. What? He tweeted in real time one opinion, then claims only MS bettors were objecting?

I was really hoping for Mott to win a Derby this year - but I thought Tacitus would be the horse to do it. I couldn't be happy for him winning it like this.

[PaceAdvantage]

DRF's Matt Bernier tweeted during the inquiry that he didn't think they would take the horse down. Then he makes a video saying only people with money on MS think the wrong decision was made. What? He tweeted in real time one opinion, then claims only MS bettors were objecting?Nobody had all the info, all the views of the infraction, during the time the objection was actually being reviewed (ie. REAL TIME).

Now you're just going way out of your way to find ANYTHING to post about this now VERY dead horse.

I didn't think they would DQ him either in REAL TIME. a) because they never DQ horses in big races unless they commit virtual murder & b) because the camera views they were showing on NBC that *I* saw didn't make it look as bad as it actually was, when later, other views became available that weren't shown a zillion times on NBC in REAL TIME.

After I saw all the available evidence, then I became absolutely convinced the DQ was the correct call.

[highnote]

After I saw all the available evidence, then I became absolutely convinced the DQ was the correct call.

It's interesting how people can see the same things and come to different conclusions.

When I saw the race live and the replays during the live broadcast I thought MS should be DQ'd. But when I saw more evidence over the next day or so and did my own analysis it seemed obvious that WOW's jock was at fault for moving too aggressively into a hole that had not fully opened up which caused WOW to run into MS which then caused caused MS to veer out.