a theory: the foul was deliberate

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by MadVindication

WoW moves over to his outside cuz it looks like Max is going over to the inside. Max "Nopes" the f out of it, impeding horses, too close. Then Saez says "too wide" and guides him back.

I don't think Saez did it deliberately rather he was legit struggling with Max's actions.

I just had to buy a new fainting couch and load up on smelling salts. My wife ruined her pearl necklace by clutching it so hard.

Can you believe Saez was riding in a way that violated a strict interpatation of the riding rule book just to try to win the KY derby. I am sure Cordero, Pincay , Shoemaker etc. never even dreamed of ever doing that and War of Will having to check ????? I have watched over 30 derbys and never have I ever seen a horse have to check before.

Maybe they should have just banned Saez for life and left Max Security as the winner ....

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by boys at tosconova

lol first you want to argue there's a conspiracy and now u want to argue that nbc showed a very conclusive angle when they didn't.

I watched the telecast. At one point they showed 5 angles at once, including the one in cj's tweet.

I don't think there was a "conspiracy". I think Luis Saez deliberately attempted to impede horses to win the Kentucky Derby.

And for anyone giving him the benefit of the doubt,, here is his statement on ESPN:

"I thought I never put anybody in danger," Maximum Security's jockey, Luis Saez, said. "My horse shied away from the noise of the crowd and may have ducked out a little."

Now note, we know from the video that he ducked in, then ducked out, then ducked out sharply, then ducked in sharply, over the course of about a furlong.

So why is Saez not telling the truth and saying he "may have ducked out a little" when in fact he was all over the racetrack? This calls into question his whole statement and is further evidence that his actions were intentional.

[boys at tosconova]

best thread ever

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I watched the telecast. At one point they showed 5 angles at once, including the one in cj's tweet.

I don't think there was a "conspiracy". I think Luis Saez deliberately attempted to impede horses to win the Kentucky Derby.

And for anyone giving him the benefit of the doubt,, here is his statement on ESPN:



Now note, we know from the video that he ducked in, then ducked out, then ducked out sharply, then ducked in sharply, over the course of about a furlong.

So why is Saez not telling the truth and saying he "may have ducked out a little" when in fact he was all over the racetrack? This calls into question his whole statement and is further evidence that his actions were intentional.

Can you answer me a question ? Why didnt the jockey of either War of Will or Long Range Toddy file a objection ?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Gold Medal

Can you answer me a question ? Why didnt the jockey of either War of Will or Long Range Toddy file a objection ?

Because there was already an inquiry. Didn't need to. The stewards talked to them.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by Gold Medal

Can you answer me a question ? Why didnt the jockey of either War of Will or Long Range Toddy file a objection ?

Jon Court aboard LRT did file an objection!

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Because there was already an inquiry. Didn't need to. The stewards talked to them.

There was never s inquiry. There was a objection by Country House who was basically not even involved. It had to be clear to anybody with two functioning brain cells Country House only objected as a way to try to backdoor to a win.

The jockeys of the horses that were actually involved had to think a objection from another horse that wasnt involved had a very slim chance without their own objections to back it up ....

I am sure in the heat of the moment before they got a chance to work out their scripted media responses that both Tyler Gaffliione and Jon Court knew they didnt have the horse to win anyways so they gut instinct was to do the right thing but of course after the objection works and they have talked to the trainers its a totally different story

[MadVindication]

Originally Posted by boys at tosconova

best thread ever

It's like if Mendehlson won but was DQ'd.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Gold Medal

There was never s inquiry. There was a objection by Country House who was basically not even involved. It had to be clear to anybody with two functioning brain cells Country House only objected as a way to try to backdoor to a win.

The jockeys of the horses that were actually involved had to think a objection from another horse that wasnt involved had a very slim chance without their own objections to back it up ....

I am sure in the heat of the moment before they got a chance to work out their scripted media responses that both Tyler Gaffliione and Jon Court knew they didnt have the horse to win anyways so they gut instinct was to do the right thing but of course after the objection works and they have talked to the trainers its a totally different story

As Grits said, Court did claim foul. It is in the chart I believe. The trainer of War of Will said he didn't want to claim against a friend just to get moved up to sixth.

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by cj

As Grits said, Court did claim foul. It is in the chart I believe. The trainer of War of Will said he didn't want to claim against a friend just to get moved up to sixth.

I stand corrected . But still does not change the heart of my arguement which is if you re-watch all the past KY derbys you will find several incidents that technically violate the rules .... And even if you believe that Saez was over the top reckless than fine and suspend him instead of taking down the horse that led every step of the way and was actually pulling away at the end.

If the little bit of trouble Long Range Toddy had caused him to go from winning to 17th than it really does not say much for how much heart the horse has ...

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Gold Medal

I stand corrected . But still does not change the heart of my arguement which is if you re-watch all the past KY derbys you will find several incidents that technically violate the rules .... And even if you believe that Saez was over the top reckless than fine and suspend him instead of taking down the horse that led every step of the way and was actually pulling away at the end.

If the little bit of trouble Long Range Toddy had caused him to go from winning to 17th than it really does not say much for how much heart the horse has ...

There isn't a special rule that you can't DQ in the Derby.

It was a foul, caused by deliberate interference, and a proper DQ. Saez should also get some days but that is separate.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Grits

Jon Court aboard LRT did file an objection!

Took him to '"court", huh?

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

There isn't a special rule that you can't DQ in the Derby.

It was a foul, caused by deliberate interference, and a proper DQ. Saez should also get some days but that is separate.

No there is not a "special rule" you cant DQ but there is such a thing as common sense

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by Tom

Took him to '"court", huh?

Ok that was funny lol

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

There isn't a special rule that you can't DQ in the Derby.

It was a foul, caused by deliberate interference, and a proper DQ. Saez should also get some days but that is separate.

There is also not a special rule that bumping out of the gate cant be a basis for a DQ. So maybe we should start DQing any of the 20 horses that make contact with each other right after the gate opens.

Looking for Lucky got absolutely destroyed twice before he even hit the first turn when he ran. I guess there were probably 4 or 5 horses that should have been DQ for that. The assault against him caused him to lose all chance.