LUIS SAEZ SUSPENDED FOR 15 DAYS!!!!

[bobphilo]

I just realized why the stewards might have suspended Saez for failing to control his horse. I know from experience that when rounding a turn, especially a tight turn like at Churchill, A good rider must keep a tight hold on the left rein. If Saez did I doubt his horse would have swerved out 4 or 5 lanes. Even if spooked and there is no photo that shows his hindquarters knocked inside. None. His butt never goes closer to the rail. He was likely letting him veer out a bit in an attempt at "race riding" and that got out of control. And that's giving him the benefit of the doubt about it being intentional.
I also think the extra days were justified because when he saw his spooked excuse didn't fly he decided to make false charges against other riders thus compounding his felony.

[Blenheim]

That 15 days was a slap on the wrist.

Saez should be disqualified from riding in the Kentucky Derby for the next two years. That disqualification will send a clear and convincing message that you ride reckless in the Derby, you can stay home.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

That 15 days was a slap on the wrist.

Saez should be disqualified from riding in the Kentucky Derby for the next two years. That disqualification will send a clear and convincing message that you ride reckless in the Derby, you can stay home.

I don't know about that with respect to this case, but in general, I think horse racing needs to drastically fix its suspension system.

Appeals should take a couple of days. And there should be no "designated race rule". You get suspended, you serve the suspension, and you do it immediately, not during the winter when you might like some time off anyway.

Baseball doesn't allow players to serve their suspensions during spring training or to have a "designated at bat rule" where they can come in and pitch hit in the bottom of the 9th inning despite being suspended.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

That would be so counterproductive.

Lord knows I think the Wests have very little chance in their court challenge, but if you are going to do it, you have to stay completely out of politics. You shut up and go to court and let your lawyers speak for you.

If a court thinks this is a politically charged case and that the Wests might show up the court and any ruling it may make, the chances of victory will swiftly go from 1 or 2 percent or whatever it is to zero.

A lot of Kentucky voted for trump. That could be in wests favor

[Niko]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I don't know about that with respect to this case, but in general, I think horse racing needs to drastically fix its suspension system.

Appeals should take a couple of days. And there should be no "designated race rule". You get suspended, you serve the suspension, and you do it immediately, not during the winter when you might like some time off anyway.

Baseball doesn't allow players to serve their suspensions during spring training or to have a "designated at bat rule" where they can come in and pitch hit in the bottom of the 9th inning despite being suspended.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I just realized why the stewards might have suspended Saez for failing to control his horse. I know from experience that when rounding a turn, especially a tight turn like at Churchill, A good rider must keep a tight hold on the left rein. If Saez did I doubt his horse would have swerved out 4 or 5 lanes. Even if spooked and there is no photo that shows his hindquarters knocked inside. None. His butt never goes closer to the rail. He was likely letting him veer out a bit in an attempt at "race riding" and that got out of control. And that's giving him the benefit of the doubt about it being intentional.
I also think the extra days were justified because when he saw his spooked excuse didn't fly he decided to make false charges against other riders thus compounding his felony.

All this only makes sense if MS was NOT struck by WOW before drifting out.

Those who believe what they see on the lawyer's video believe Saez. Those who do not believe what they see on the lawyer's video do not believe Saez.

Human beings and animals are all motivated by the same two forces -- the need to avoid pain and the need to gain pleasure. Humans and animals will react to the stronger of the two forces.

If MS was feeling more pain from being struck by WOW's hooves than he was feeling by the pain caused by Saez pulling on the bit then he is going to try to avoid the greater pain of being struck. The greater pain of being struck is likely what caused him to drift out -- if the lawyer's video is true.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by highnote

All this only makes sense if MS was NOT struck by WOW before drifting out.

Those who believe what they see on the lawyer's video believe Saez. Those who do not believe what they see on the lawyer's video do not believe Saez.

Human beings and animals are all motivated by the same two forces -- the need to avoid pain and the need to gain pleasure. Humans and animals will react to the stronger of the two forces.

If MS was feeling more pain from being struck by WOW's hooves than he was feeling by the pain caused by Saez pulling on the bit then he is going to try to avoid the greater pain of being struck. The greater pain of being struck is likely what caused him to drift out -- if the lawyer's video is true.

Oh, I believe what I see on the lawyer's video. It's just that it's not what the lawyers say I'm seeing.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Oh, I believe what I see on the lawyer's video. It's just that it's not what the lawyers say I'm seeing.

I can see that.

I'm not saying you're wrong. It's just strikes me as funny how people can watch the same video and see things that are not there, or not see things that are there!

[dilanesp]

I think it is quite misleading to say people "don't believe what they are seeing".

My objection is a lot more basic than that. I don't think selectively edited and altered videos produced by lawyers even count as evidence in a disqualification for interference. I really don't care if lawyers produce a video of WOW knocking MS to the ground and getting back up. As far as I am concerned those videos do not even exist.

We have a set of camera angles, played at regular speed, which are recorded by Churchill and constitute the official record of the race. Those videos, reviewed immediately after the race by the stewards, along with the statements of the jockeys immediately after the race, before they can be coached by lawyers, constitute the only legitimate evidence that may be considered in this proceeding. Literally nothing else counts.

I take this position because the decisions of racing officials not only ARE final, but SHOULD BE final. The stewards are the most knowledgeable people on this subject, and once you open the can of worms of examining stuff produced by lawyers from video from outside sources, you introduce a ton of inaccuracy, dishonesty, and manipulation into the process.

Everyone who enters a horse in Kentucky agrees to the rules, which include no review other than an informal review by the Horse Racing Commission. If you don't agree with tbat rule, you can skip the Derby. Nothing requires you to enter.

I happen to believe the stewards were clearly right here..But even if I believed in this mystical "lawyers' video", I would still say MS should lose. It would set a terrible precedent to allow anyone who lost an inquiry or objection to make this sort of a challenge.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think it is quite misleading to say people "don't believe what they are seeing".

My objection is a lot more basic than that. I don't think selectively edited and altered videos produced by lawyers even count as evidence in a disqualification for interference. I really don't care if lawyers produce a video of WOW knocking MS to the ground and getting back up. As far as I am concerned those videos do not even exist.

We have a set of camera angles, played at regular speed, which are recorded by Churchill and constitute the official record of the race. Those videos, reviewed immediately after the race by the stewards, along with the statements of the jockeys immediately after the race, before they can be coached by lawyers, constitute the only legitimate evidence that may be considered in this proceeding. Literally nothing else counts.

I take this position because the decisions of racing officials not only ARE final, but SHOULD BE final. The stewards are the most knowledgeable people on this subject, and once you open the can of worms of examining stuff produced by lawyers from video from outside sources, you introduce a ton of inaccuracy, dishonesty, and manipulation into the process.

Everyone who enters a horse in Kentucky agrees to the rules, which include no review other than an informal review by the Horse Racing Commission. If you don't agree with tbat rule, you can skip the Derby. Nothing requires you to enter.

I happen to believe the stewards were clearly right here..But even if I believed in this mystical "lawyers' video", I would still say MS should lose. It would set a terrible precedent to allow anyone who lost an inquiry or objection to make this sort of a challenge.

From what little I know of the KY rules, if you are correct, then I would agree that the stewards ruling is final.

However, that doesn't mean the stewards were correct. It just means they made a binding decision. Innocent people have died on death row because people on the jury thought they knew the truth. Some people on death row have been spared the death penalty and have been exonerated when new evidence arose.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by highnote

From what little I know of the KY rules, if you are correct, then I would agree that the stewards ruling is final.

However, that doesn't mean the stewards were correct. It just means they made a binding decision. Innocent people have died on death row because people on the jury thought they knew the truth. Some people on death row have been spared the death penalty and have been exonerated when new evidence arose.

This isn't death row. It's a horse race. A sports event.

Many sports events get decided on "bad" calls. We don't let lawyers come in and selectively edit videos to relitigate things. We live with the "bad" calls, because what the lawyers would give us is worse, not better.

[Niko]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This isn't death row. It's a horse race. A sports event.

Many sports events get decided on "bad" calls. We don't let lawyers come in and selectively edit videos to relitigate things. We live with the "bad" calls, because what the lawyers would give us is worse, not better.

True. Still think results should stand for the bettors. Take care of DQ's etc after the race. Let the stakeholders deal with their own problems.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This isn't death row. It's a horse race. A sports event.

Many sports events get decided on "bad" calls. We don't let lawyes come in and selectively edit videos to relitigate things. We live with the "bad" calls, because what the lawyers would give us is worse,not better.

On the one hand I agree, but on the other, the West's are free to try to change the stewards decision. It may get tossed, but if they want to try to litigate this in court that is up to them.

Everyone thought OJ was guilty, except the jurors. Who knows? Maybe the Wests have a shot?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by highnote

On the one hand I agree, but on the other, the West's are free to try to change the stewards decision. It may get tossed, but if they want to try to litigate this in court that is up to them.

Everyone thought OJ was guilty, except the jurors. Who knows? Maybe the Wests have a shot?

I don't condemn the Wests for litigating. The stakes are high, so you take a shot.

But the odds are very low, and I really hope they don't win.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by tjfla

Joke #2


They are just doing it to try to prove there were RIGHT

YUP