Andy Beyer chimes in on the Derby DQ

[FenceBored]

Is a fine or suspension a deterrent in the Derby?


How many jocks would be willing to trade a $5,000 fine and a 30 day suspension (where you still get to ride graded stakes so you won't miss the Preakness or Belmont) for getting a Derby win?

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Since you follow Hong Kong so closely when riders/trainers are fined and they find it excessive do they run to the courts and get an injunction? That is what we have to deal with here and it would blow up the whole Category 1 model.

No, they don’t run to the courts because I assume that they have more respect for any judgement calls that are made because there is TOTAL transparency in what the HK Jockey Club does. It benefits not only the horsemen and their connections, but the betting patrons as well.
Funny how well the Category 1 model seems to work so well in every other part of the world.

[airford1]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

So...shouldn't we be a little more understanding of the emotional turmoil which the horse's connections are experiencing right about now...instead of labeling them as "classless and whining sore losers"?

First you breed the horse, raise the horse, train the horse, enter him for 16K and win with the horse. Manage to keep the horse and have a bug boy tell you that the horse is better than the connections think and suddenly you have a Kentucky Derby contender overnight. Yap I would be mad. I wonder if the West were in the picture for the Stakes win.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Nitro

No, they don’t run to the courts because I assume that they have more respect for any judgement calls that are made because there is TOTAL transparency in what the HK Jockey Club does. It benefits not only the horsemen and their connections, but the betting patrons as well.
Funny how well the Category 1 model seems to work so well in every other part of the world.

This is silly. You run a big enough race in HKG and people will litigate a DQ.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

So...shouldn't we be a little more understanding of the emotional turmoil which the horse's connections are experiencing right about now...instead of labeling them as "classless and whining sore losers"?

You won't see me saying that. I respect the Wests.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is silly. You run a big enough race in HKG and people will litigate a DQ.

idle conjecture

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

idle conjecture

Human nature.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I thought it was odd that Saez said almost immediately after the race, "my horse was spooked by the crowd (paraphrase)." He said that prior to the objection announcement, correct? A legal term comes to mind: consciousness of guilt, meaning he knew he did something wrong and he was covering. Possible? I understand your frustration, but you can't prove that Saez did nothing wrong, and I can't prove the opposite.

I remember hearing that too and finding it odd that is the first thing he'd say. He also kept repeating, "The horse is a baby, the horse is a baby", like he knew there would be an objection coming and he was already preparing to tell it to the stewards. I think he probably realized right then in the race how seriously he was fouling and overcorrected back in, brushing with Honor Code. Or maybe it was all intentional in his over eagerness though he didn't want to go that far. Doesn't matter, for the DQ. All we know is the HORSE clearly fouled and created a dangerous situation - rider intent or not.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

You're not a mind reader. You don't know what the jock's intentions were. You can't assume the horse spooked. Do you really accept what the rider says - unless it's Pat Day. This could have been reckless race riding. The only thing we can know for sure is the horse fouled and interfered and that's what the DQ was based on. That's why the DQ rules say nothing about rider intentions - only relevant for jockey suspension, which is not the issue here. This is just what Serling and Aragona discuss in their excellent race analysis on their podcast.

https://www.nyra.com/belmont/racing/...-board-podcast

I’m not a mind reader. But I research much of what I say. Unlike many and the Stewards that took 22 minutes. There’s a witness, Tyler was on WOW and said he saw that horse spook , changing leads. Don’t believe me. Look it up. That’s my problem with all of this. The closest witness, verified the Saez statement. He further says Saez did nothing wrong. It would of took 5 minutes to verify. Tyler says no One asked him. What? You think I’m making this up? The was an unavoidable act of horse racing. You can penalize till the cows come home. It’s part of the Derby and the nature of the race. That thread that says he intended to do it....... is slander

[f2tornado]

Here's what Haskin had to say.

If this was a clear-cut infraction worthy of a disqualification, did the stewards need to look at it for what seemed an interminable amount of time? Sure you want to get it right, but after watching it 15 or 20 times shouldn’t you know by then if it was egregious enough to take the winner down? Did they see anything the next 15 or 20 times they didn’t see before? That would suggest this was a borderline decision. It certainly was not something they saw in the live running. They initially needed a jockey who was not even involved to alert them that something might have happened.

[thaskalos]

In my personal experience...the longer the delay, the more likely the DQ.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by burnsy

I’m not a mind reader. But I research much of what I say. Unlike many and the Stewards that took 22 minutes. There’s a witness, Tyler was on WOW and said he saw that horse spook , changing leads. Don’t believe me. Look it up. That’s my problem with all of this. The closest witness, verified the Saez statement. He further says Saez did nothing wrong. It would of took 5 minutes to verify. Tyler says no One asked him. What? You think I’m making this up? The was an unavoidable act of horse racing. You can penalize till the cows come home. It’s part of the Derby and the nature of the race. That thread that says he intended to do it....... is slander

I don't think you should assume that jockeys, who have to ride with each other in future races, are likely to have the incentives to accuse each other of a mugging. Also, Tyler probably didn't see what Saez did to Code of Honor after mugging Tyler's horse.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

Here's what Haskin had to say.

If this was a clear-cut infraction worthy of a disqualification, did the stewards need to look at it for what seemed an interminable amount of time? Sure you want to get it right, but after watching it 15 or 20 times shouldn’t you know by then if it was egregious enough to take the winner down? Did they see anything the next 15 or 20 times they didn’t see before? That would suggest this was a borderline decision. It certainly was not something they saw in the live running. They initially needed a jockey who was not even involved to alert them that something might have happened.

This is something where I can be completely definitive.

You see all this talk of lawyers going around. The CD Stewards KNOW that a lawsuit is a possibility after a Derby DQ. So they are going to look at it for as long as possible before making the decision. Dot all their i's and cross all their t's.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is something where I can be completely definitive.

You see all this talk of lawyers going around. The CD Stewards KNOW that a lawsuit is a possibility after a Derby DQ. So they are going to look at it for as long as possible before making the decision. Dot all their i's and cross all their t's.

Spoken like a true attorney! We're not talking about rocket science. If the stewards can't definitively determine a foul worthy of a DQ in 5 minutes or less then they should leave it alone.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Spoken like a true attorney! We're not talking about rocket science. If the stewards can't definitively determine a foul worthy of a DQ in 5 minutes or less then they should leave it alone.

You can argue that, but you aren't going to win that argument. The Bayern inquiry (which did not result in a DQ) took forever at Santa Anita too. The stewards are simply going to always take their time on a big race DQ. They have nothing to lose by going slow and they can use that time to come up with the best possible wording for their decision.

Maybe a normal race inquiry should only take 5 minutes- I am open to that. But if you are going to DQ the Derby winner, they will take their time.