The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[Parkview_Pirate]

If SRU was still on the board (he started this thread), you know he'd say "Pay The Winners!"

Because it's IMPOSSIBLE for humans to be consistent in judgmental calls, that element should be removed from the betting results. That way you'd only have to sweat the photos, and not have to worry about being robbed after the race.

Let the stewards monitor the drug tests and rule on interference later on, and have the purse money redistributed as necessary. Let the jockeys govern themselves - there would be an incentive to give days or ban to the crazy jocks, and keep it safe. I'm not sure what dilanesp is smoking, but to suggest Saez intentionally guided Maximum Security into other horses' paths is ridiculous. Racing is dangerous enough with risking a 40 MPH faceplant in the path of a half dozen horses with very sharp metal shoes. Any jockey making a habit of that would have a very short career.

Whether the track condition caused problems, horses getting tired caused problems, whether a chain reaction was started, whether the would have finished better - it's ALL qualitative speculation. What we do know from the quantitative point of view is the finished first, did it rather easily, and it was no mystery why many in the crowd were booing after the DQ was posted. That'll happen when you take down the chalk.

So another black eye for racing that could have been avoided with a simple rule change - pay the winners, or at least leave them up most of the time like they do overseas....

[iceknight]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

He actually almost put two horses into the dirt...my mistake.

After reviewing slow mo closeup of the legs hitting, and seeing that Tyler had to check with no recourse at all....I withdraw my earlier comments made in the heat of the moment after the race. Sucks 😢

[Hambletonian]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

If SRU was still on the board (he started this thread), you know he'd say "Pay The Winners!"

Because it's IMPOSSIBLE for humans to be consistent in judgmental calls, that element should be removed from the betting results. That way you'd only have to sweat the photos, and not have to worry about being robbed after the race.

Let the stewards monitor the drug tests and rule on interference later on, and have the purse money redistributed as necessary. Let the jockeys govern themselves - there would be an incentive to give days or ban to the crazy jocks, and keep it safe. I'm not sure what dilanesp is smoking, but to suggest Saez intentionally guided Maximum Security into other horses' paths is ridiculous. Racing is dangerous enough with risking a 40 MPH faceplant in the path of a half dozen horses with very sharp metal shoes. Any jockey making a habit of that would have a very short career.

Whether the track condition caused problems, horses getting tired caused problems, whether a chain reaction was started, whether the would have finished better - it's ALL qualitative speculation. What we do know from the quantitative point of view is the finished first, did it rather easily, and it was no mystery why many in the crowd were booing after the DQ was posted. That'll happen when you take down the chalk.

So another black eye for racing that could have been avoided with a simple rule change - pay the winners, or at least leave them up most of the time like they do overseas....

With all due respect, you honestly are putting forth that jockeys never attempt to interfere with other horses to enhance their chance of winning?

Floating closing horses wide turning for home is commonplace (see Codex vs Genuine Risk for a nice example). Anything to break their momentum at a point in the race where recovery is nearly impossible. Saez mucked this up in that the horses involved were right behind him, and he is dead lucky that everyone stayed on their feet. One horse goes down, we are going to have a bunch of riderless horses to track down post race at best; at worst, ambulances all around for riders and horses. A jockey in Martinique was killed last month after another jockey clipped heels. In that case, the jockey on the horse that clipped heels was at fault, it was a small field and he still managed to run his horse right up on the heels of the horse in front of him. He broke some bones, the guy on the horse right behind him got slammed chest first into the turf and died.

If we had no disqualifications in the US, the body count would be substantial.

[bob60566]

The question did alter the Finish of the race. Y/N

If in the opinion of the stewards a foul alters the finish of a race, an offending horse may be disqualified by the stewards."

[alhattab]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

That's nothing. NY fans threw beer bottles at Marylou Whitney after Smarty Jones got beat in the Belmont Stakes.

No way Pace. They were no doubt Phila fans throwing stuff. We know how those guys can be, and NY sports fans would never go to that level!

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

didn't anyone see the 20 come over on the 2. the jockey on #2 had to hold up.
the finished should have been 13 and 8

correction. it was #21 BODEXPRESS, NOT #2

"BODEXPRESS angled inward after breaking alertly, was forwardly placed three wide for six
furlongs, was forced to take up sharply between LONG RANGE TODDY and COUNTRY HOUSE near the five-sixteenths, and dropped back"

WORTH ANOTHER LOOK.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

That's nothing. NY fans threw beer bottles at Marylou Whitney after Smarty Jones got beat in the Belmont Stakes.

I always hated that. She was a wonderful old lady who had done everything for racing. Like she was supposed to keep her horse in the barn so Smarty Jones could win the TC.

The only saving grace is the NY fans showed her lots of love when Birdstone came back to win the Travers.

[BlueChip@DRF]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

correction. it was #21 BODEXPRESS, NOT #2

"BODEXPRESS angled inward after breaking alertly, was forwardly placed three wide for six
furlongs, was forced to take up sharply between LONG RANGE TODDY and COUNTRY HOUSE near the five-sixteenths, and dropped back"

WORTH ANOTHER LOOK.

It doesn't matter if we saw it, the stewards were cherry-picking what they wanted to see. If they are going to call out one, the proper and fair thing to do is call out all.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

If SRU was still on the board (he started this thread), you know he'd say "Pay The Winners!"
....

I can just see SRU out there, marching in front of CD holding a sign, PTW!

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

If SRU was still on the board (he started this thread), you know he'd say "Pay The Winners!"

Because it's IMPOSSIBLE for humans to be consistent in judgmental calls, that element should be removed from the betting results. That way you'd only have to sweat the photos, and not have to worry about being robbed after the race.

Then you'd have the bettors who lost say they were robbed because the horse who fouled their horse stays up. The rules are there to protect the bettors too

[NY BRED]

Having difficulty reading all of these posts, somehow was just able to secure
a connection to the net.

My issues/points are as follows:

The KY Derby Stewards, have apparently never disqualified a horse in a derby
race for rough riding or claims of foul by a jockey and/or jockey(s).

In my career of watching races for the past 45 years, I have never
a DQ resulting from a jockey claim who finished third in a race, without the same objection from the jockey who finished second when all three horses
were close to each other at the point of the claim.


I would hope MR. West is reading these posts including Jason Servis.

This is one horrible error made by Churchill Downs that should be brought
into court;

An even better solution would be to review previous Derby races and how
such situations were handled on situations at all points of call, regardless
of the race classification.

I can't even begin to imagine the amount of dollars lost throughout the world
on this race in the vast array of pools; That said, stud values lost due not having the title of a Triple crown are significant losses to the breeder and
owner.

In a sport which gains new owners and breeders via the excitement
of owners and the public during a Triple Crown event, yesterday's debacle
may have lost potentially new investors for years to come.

[Jeff P]

Was a foul committed?

After watching slow motion close up video of the rear legs of #7 and the front legs of #1 occupying the same 15-18 inches of space for a half second or so I'd have to say yes. (And I have a hard time blaming the stewards for the action they took given the current rules.)

Was #7 the best horse?

After watching him separate from the others in the stretch I'd have to say yes (without question.)

Because of similar incidents in their major races (the 2011 Japan Cup for example) the other major racing jurisdictions in the world have moved on (Imo) to a more enlightened way of dealing with the problem.

Kentucky Derby disqualification can be catalyst for change: Kim Kelly:
https://www.scmp.com/sport/racing/ar...ange-kim-kelly

The USA is an outlier – the only major jurisdiction that still uses the ‘Category Two’ rules.

Imo, food for thought.


-jp

.

[SG4]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

correction. it was #21 BODEXPRESS, NOT #2

"BODEXPRESS angled inward after breaking alertly, was forwardly placed three wide for six
furlongs, was forced to take up sharply between LONG RANGE TODDY and COUNTRY HOUSE near the five-sixteenths, and dropped back"

WORTH ANOTHER LOOK.

I gave this another look as you suggested, you've got to be kidding right? The #21 gets squeezed because Long Range Toddy came out due to the chain reaction caused by Maximum Security's foul. I honestly cannot see how this isn't 100% obvious and zero fault of Country House.

[SG4]

In my eyes Maximum Security was actually guilty of 3 separate instances of interference. The main one which did him in was obvious, but about 60 yards before that he actually came out a little which led to a smaller chain of bumping which is where Country House actually took the slight bump which I think Prat was initially referring to in his objection. Then in an over-correction to his major foul, he comes in several paths into an onrushing Code of Honor, clearly bumping him. Maximum Security was all over the place and certainly committed a foul, and as we saw in the fall meeting Churchill stewards seem to have taken a clear foul = DQ stance, and today is the first time they applied this to the Derby.


Now that being said, Maximum Security was the best horse & I hate to see the best horse not get paid. People are generally exonerating Saez for the trouble, but after the horse got out the first time I think he should've had a tighter rein on the inside to make sure that didn't happen again, and the way he came over on Code of Honor was super dangerous as well. I would've let the result stand & issued a suspension of several weeks to Saez, although that's probably a trade-off most jockeys would take.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Was a foul committed?

After watching slow motion close up video of the rear legs of #7 and the front legs of #1 occupying the same 15-18 inches of space for a half second or so I'd have to say yes. (And I have a hard time blaming the stewards for the action they took given the current rules.)

Was #7 the best horse?

After watching him separate from the others in the stretch I'd have to say yes (without question.)

Because of similar incidents in their major races (the 2011 Japan Cup for example) the other major racing jurisdictions in the world have moved on (Imo) to a more enlightened way of dealing with the problem.

Kentucky Derby disqualification can be catalyst for change: Kim Kelly:
https://www.scmp.com/sport/racing/ar...ange-kim-kelly



Imo, food for thought.


-jp

.

with suspensions that last a few days or they get appealed in civil court I find there to be no deterrent for anyone to not commit fouls under that type of system in this country. The ends justify the means.

They just tried to use a suspension to curtail some rider in Florida, he threatened to sue so they cut it in half.