Kentucky Derby Disqualification, Post-Mortem

[Thomas Roulston]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Teach

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]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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-r...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 may have contacted the before the moved out. In fact, watch the raise his head and climb a little when is right on top of him. There's a number of possibilities. One is that he moved because of the 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 moves out, the 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 .

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

The last 1:15 of the race.

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...rby_appeal_123

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by 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 may have contacted the before the moved out. In fact, watch the raise his head and climb a little when is right on top of him.

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...rby_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.

YouTube (Short URL)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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!]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

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]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

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]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

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]

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.

All good points.