NEW NBC VIDEO SHOWS WAR OF WILL TOO CLOSE BEHIND MAX SEC

[delsully]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

It's not smart ass...it's my way of trying to get you to snap out of your fantasy world and join the real world...

"OH, OH, but look what happened here...they didn't call this foul!"


"Oh, oh, look what happened last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, every derby since it was invented...LOOK LOOK LOOK...no call!"

Fantasy world. Nobody cares. It doesn't matter.

All that matters is what happened this year.

You got to be joking, right?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by AMPHAR

Derby was stolen.

Call the cops.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by delsully

You got to be joking, right?

I'm dead serious.

[delsully]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

It's not smart ass...it's my way of trying to get you to snap out of your fantasy world and join the real world...

"OH, OH, but look what happened here...they didn't call this foul!"


"Oh, oh, look what happened last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, every derby since it was invented...LOOK LOOK LOOK...no call!"

Fantasy world. Nobody cares. It doesn't matter.

All that matters is what happened this year.

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I'm dead serious.

Still mad because I said Mott and Prat are crybaby whiners for claiming a foul on them that never occurred? Bingo.

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Yes, there is at least one...you

Funny!!!!

[Robert Fischer]

ok, then DQ M.S. for herding Code of Honor

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by delsully

Still mad because I said Mott and Prat are crybaby whiners for claiming a foul on them that never occurred? Bingo.

The only people mad around here are those who can't accept the ruling by the stewards on Derby Day was sound.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by Bill Cullen

WELL, WE ARE BOTH LOOKING AT THE SAME VIDEO AND I'D SAY THERE IS A DEFINITE POSSIBILITY THAT #1 WAS THE CAUSE OF HIS OWN DEMISE. KEEP IN MIND I SAY POSSIBILITY, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

I agree with you although I'd say it's more than a possibility. The text from the article clearly states:

"In the video below, played at 8% of original speed, notice a consistent line in the racing surface and Maximum Security’s position in relation to it. Behind him, War of Will (pink silks) and Long Range Toddy (black cap) nudge toward the rail as Maximum Security holds his path.

Just past the minute mark, Maximum Security hasn’t moved out, but War of Will is now positioned inside the line, nearly clipping heels with the leader. There were three strides in which they could have made contact, with War of Will’s left front appearing to land between Maximum Security’s rear legs on one of them.

After a third stride in close quarters, Maximum Security then veered."

That's what I saw in the video which tells me there is enough doubt to reverse the decision. Also, in two separate polls of active racing fans I've seen, there is virtually a 50-50 split, another indication that the correct interpretation is not so straightforward. But what is clear is that the crossing of the front legs of the #1 with the hind legs of the #7 occurred prior to the #7 moving out. Which horse initiated the incident is a valid question.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Steve R

I agree with you although I'd say it's more than a possibility. The text from the article clearly states:

"In the video below, played at 8% of original speed, notice a consistent line in the racing surface and Maximum Security’s position in relation to it. Behind him, War of Will (pink silks) and Long Range Toddy (black cap) nudge toward the rail as Maximum Security holds his path.

Just past the minute mark, Maximum Security hasn’t moved out, but War of Will is now positioned inside the line, nearly clipping heels with the leader. There were three strides in which they could have made contact, with War of Will’s left front appearing to land between Maximum Security’s rear legs on one of them.

After a third stride in close quarters, Maximum Security then veered."

That's what I saw in the video which tells me there is enough doubt to reverse the decision. Also, in two separate polls of active racing fans I've seen, there is virtually a 50-50 split, another indication that the correct interpretation is not so straightforward. But what is clear is that the crossing of the front legs of the #1 with the hind legs of the #7 occurred prior to the #7 moving out. Which horse initiated the incident is a valid question.

What do you mean "enough doubt to reverse the decision"? This isn't a criminal jury. There's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A vote of the stewards is a final decision under Kentucky law. It doesn't matter one bit that you think there might be "doubt".

[Bill Cullen]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

What do you mean "enough doubt to reverse the decision"? This isn't a criminal jury. There's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A vote of the stewards is a final decision under Kentucky law. It doesn't matter one bit that you think there might be "doubt".

I agree broadly with what you said above but there is still room for a law suit if you get clever enough interpretation of the events that have transpired:

1) The easiest one to establish prima facie is past videos of the Derby where there is bumping, interfering and a devil may care attitude that seems to exude from the gestalts of those races. Equal treatment under the law, even if KY law says it's final, looms big in judges' minds.

2) The NBC video.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Bill Cullen

I agree broadly with what you said above but there is still room for a law suit if you get clever enough interpretation of the events that have transpired:

1) The easiest one to establish prima facie is past videos of the Derby where there is bumping, interfering and a devil may care attitude that seems to exude from the gestalts of those races. Equal treatment under the law, even if KY law says it's final, looms big in judges' minds.

2) The NBC video.

The equal protection clause does not apply to claims of selective enforcement, absent strong evidence of intent to discriminate against a member of a protected class. See Wayte v. United States.

Try something else.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Long time reader, first time poster (and I hate that it's on this subject) - but this dq has brought out the crazy. He did enough to warrant the dq, end of story imo whether it was intentional or not

[delsully]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The only people mad around here are those who can't accept the ruling by the stewards on Derby Day was sound.

I feel sorry for you if you don’t think there is some legitimacy in the counter belief.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The equal protection clause does not apply to claims of selective enforcement, absent strong evidence of intent to discriminate against a member of a protected class. See Wayte v. United States.

Try something else.

Me thinks you protest too much.

Constitutional law is not going to determine this issue but many judges approach law with a jurisprudence psychology partially determined by tradition
and the Constitution in the one of those unsaid templates framing those POV's.

I might not have been articulate enough to embed in what I said before the notion that I assent to being, having a record of egregious interference across many past Derbies, how does the current court of stewards get away with their new precedent.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Bill Cullen

Me thinks you protest too much.

Constitutional law is not going to determine this issue but many judges approach law with a jurisprudence psychology partially determined by tradition
and the Constitution in the one of those unsaid templates framing those POV's.

I might not have been articulate enough to embed in what I said before the notion that I assent to being, having a record of egregious interference across many past Derbies, how does the current court of stewards get away with their new precedent.

I have been practicing law for 24 years, and that is one of the weirdest descriptions of an alleged legal doctrine i have ever seen.