Maximum Security DQ Question

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

What's the matter? You don't like the result so far? Surprised to see YES in the lead?

The local (Lexington) stations have a similar poll. The last time I looked it was 52% against the decision.

[boys at tosconova]

Originally Posted by Redboard

I counted:
As of 5/6/2019 9:31 PM
55 NO REGISTERED USERS
Augenj, azeri98, Big K, BlueChip@DRF, brocco, burnsy, classhandicapper, Copyroomjim, deathandgravity, delsully, DeltaLover, depalma113, elprince007, f2tornado, Fightingirish51195, garyscpa, gazeb, Gerard02, HandyKapper, Holybull1, horses4courses, Hypnotist1, JBmadera, JG102, king kong, Krudler, lagavulin62, lamboguy, MadVindication, martini, mezmac, MNslappy, mostpost, Mulerider, Nitro, olddaddy, Pace Cap'n, pandy, paulbenny, picojim, PowerUpPaynter, rastajenk, Rex Phinney, sammy the sage, SandyW, Show Me the Wire, slodog, Smitty1234, Steve R, swiss cheese, tennoel, thaskalos, The Arbiter, tjfla, Tribettor, vince

[Burls]

Here's a few related questions.

1) Do you think if no trainer/jockey called a foul that the stewards would have let the race stand?

2) Do you think the stewards, after reviewing the tapes, could have plausibly made the recommendation that no foul occurred?

3) Do you think it was dirty pool for Mott/Flavien to have called the foul, given that there was next to no case for claiming that CH's trip was hampered by it?


My guess is that, if no foul had been called, the stewards would not have launched an inquiry.
But when Mott/Flaven called a foul, what choice did the stewards have?
They had to look at it.
And when they did, I don't think it took very long for them to see that a foul had been committed.
So they spent an uncomfortable half hour trying to decide whether or not to drop the horse.
If they hadn't have done this, the video that CJ posted - clearly showing the foul - would have been all over the internet.

In the end, the stewards were in a no-win situation.
And CH won the KD by playing dirty pool.

[46zilzal]

I was fortunate to have worked many years with stewards who were open to answering what I refereed to my "rookie questions."

When a inquiry was adjudicated that I did not quite understand (both T-bred and standardbred) I asked why this or that happened as their verdict and was met with effective and complete explanations the majority of the time.

OFTEN, when there was contact, drifting, blocking and the results stood, the common thread was based upon a simple though realistic assertion: DID that alter the result of the race?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

DID that alter the result of the race?

It certainly did for the horse in the Derby. That's just for starters. He had to check completely out of the race 1 second after being right there in the middle of a contentious turn for home.

[Gerard02]

I thought I was a member of this site?

[Gerard02]

I’ve been following the posts on this subject. I have not gotten involved because of the intense hostility I have seen from both sides. My own opinion is I don’t think the DQ was warranted. Now, before anyone for the DQ attacks me, let me say, everyone has an opinion. I’ve read the arguments for both sides. I was a wild maniac when MS came down. I had Country House as a saver win bet and only lost $35, but I stood to win over $1200 with the exacta and win wager on MS. To some, that’s peanuts, but to me, it would have paid a few bills and give me a couple of months breathing room. After a couple of days, I came to understand that the stewards ruling is always final. Time to move on. In fact, I did. I played several races at Belmont on Sunday, and entered a few tournaments on Derby Wars. This DQ mess has turned the Preakness into a glorified Allowance race, but, many of us will wager on the Preakness, anyway. I know, I will. This will be my only post. I hope some of you will ease up on each other with the nasty comments, but that just a hope. Good luck to al of you in the rest of the Triple Crown.

[Roaring Good Time]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Not sure why he didn’t, his horse was fouled grievously.

Allan

Casse stated after the race he didn't want Gaffalione to lodge an objection because Servis is his friend and it wasn't going to do them any good to move up a place anyway.


Now, Gary West is running around saying War of Will and Gaffalione caused the problem and Casse is pissed. Maybe next time he'll let his jock object when it's appropriate.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by delsully

The difference is, HK uses common sense. They understand that despite the contact, WoW still had every chance to get by MS and couldn’t and never would have. The other two, please.

You're forgetting how checking cost him loss of momentum which takes a lot of energy to rebuild beyond the ground loss. The loss of momentum that a half ton thoroughbred has generated at racing speed is very hard for a horse to replace in the later stages of a race when his energy reserves are lowest, especially on a tiring track. Simple kinesiology.

[BlueChip@DRF]

Yes, Maximum Security lost momentum when he switched to the right lead on the left turn.

Horses don't wear protective goggles, so if mud or water hits their eyes, they will be blinded for a second or two.

[delsully]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

It certainly did for the horse in the Derby. That's just for starters. He had to check completely out of the race 1 second after being right there in the middle of a contentious turn for home.

It sure did, he may have finished 14th.

WoW and CH were in the process of blowing by him, and to a lesser extent CoH, before the foul occurred.

LRT would of had to sprout wings to finish ITM.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by delsully

It sure did, he may have finished 14th.

WoW and CH were in the process of blowing by him, and to a lesser extent CoH, before the foul occurred.

LRT would of had to sprout wings to finish ITM.

Court had been sitting chilly on LRT until right before the incident. He had only just begun to ask. Maybe (as Court says) he had a ton left in the tank, maybe he didn't. You don't know. I don't know. The stewards don't know. Any pronouncement is a guess. What is fact is that (as Kent Desormeaux put it) Court had to apply the airbrakes when Maximum Security came out and that took away any chance LRT might possibly have had to collect even the $90k 5th place purse money.

[FenceBored]

Between the first time they go under the wire and when Maximum Security crosses the finish line only 4 horses other than MS are running between the fence and the 4 path within a 1.25 lengths of the lead. Between the 5/16th pole and the 8th pole he bumps, herds, or indirectly fouls all four.

[delsully]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Court had been sitting chilly on LRT until right before the incident. He had only just begun to ask. Maybe (as Court says) he had a ton left in the tank, maybe he didn't. You don't know. I don't know. The stewards don't know. Any pronouncement is a guess. What is fact is that (as Kent Desormeaux put it) Court had to apply the airbrakes when Maximum Security came out and that took away any chance LRT might possibly have had to collect even the $90k 5th place purse money.

Obviously, nobody knows for certain what would’ve happened.

What I saw was three horses in the process of running by him before the foul.

[delsully]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Between the first time they go under the wire and when Maximum Security crosses the finish line only 4 horses other than MS are running between the fence and the 4 path within a 1.25 lengths of the lead. Between the 5/16th pole and the 8th pole he bumps, herds, or indirectly fouls all four.

Did the contact on WoW cost him an ITM finish? He was right back even to MS, CH and CoH by the 8th pole, only to have 7 horses pass him before the wire. My contention is no.

Any alleged foul against CH and CoH would not even be mentioned without the foul against WoW and LRT.

Obviously, it could of went either way.