Originally Posted by 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.
|
