Letter of the law ..... ( What a joke )

[Gold Medal]

If I watched every KY derby that has ever been run and applied the " letter of the law " to each race you could find a reason to disqualify half the field every time, based on the " letter of the law ". Its always been a roughly ran race.

Max Security was clearly the best horse in the race. Why didnt the jockey of War of Will file a objection, instead of Country House doing it for him and since when is that even possible ? If I bet a horse and he loses can I call the track and log a objection on behalf of the horse ?

For those of you that believe Saez acted like a reckless mad man and endangered other horses and riders than why not just fine and/or suspend Saez to the fullest extent instead of punishing the bettors who had it right ?

I read the connections of Max Security might file a appeal with the racing commission and/or take this to court. I hope they do because what we saw yesterday was nothing more than a bunch of activist stewards on a power trip and ignoring the tradition of the race and failing to use a shred of common sense.

[Thomas Roulston]

Originally Posted by Gold Medal

If I watched every KY derby that has ever been run and applied the " letter of the law " to each race you could find a reason to disqualify half the field every time, based on the " letter of the law ". Its always been a roughly ran race.

Max Security was clearly the best horse in the race. Why didnt the jockey of War of Will file a objection, instead of Country House doing it for him and since when is that even possible ? If I bet a horse and he loses can I call the track and log a objection on behalf of the horse ?

For those of you that believe Saez acted like a reckless mad man and endangered other horses and riders than why not just fine and/or suspend Saez to the fullest extent instead of punishing the bettors who had it right ?

I read the connections of Max Security might file a appeal with the racing commission and/or take this to court. I hope they do because what we saw yesterday was nothing more than a bunch of activist stewards on a power trip and ignoring the tradition of the race and failing to use a shred of common sense.

Do you remember the Codex/Genuine Risk fiasco in the 1980 Preakness - and/or the three-way, Chief's Crown/Proud Truth/Stephan's Odyssey mess in the 1985 "Chicken Flamingo II"?

Both the connections of Genuine Risk (Codex crossed the wire first in the '80 Preakness) and those of Chief's Crown (who crossed the wire first in the '85 Flamingo but was DQ'd and placed second, behind Proud Truth) went to court, protesting the stewards' decision (Eddie Maple, rider of Stephan's Odyssey, had also claimed foul against Proud Truth, but that foul claim was disallowed, said disallowing being sustained in the court ruling also). The court allowed the stewards' decision to stand in the Codex case, but reversed it in Chief's Crown's, restoring Chief's Crown as the winner.

Before that there was always an omerta in racing - you kept the courts out of it.

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

Do you remember the Codex/Genuine Risk fiasco in the 1980 Preakness - and/or the three-way, Chief's Crown/Proud Truth/Stephan's Odyssey mess in the 1985 "Chicken Flamingo II"?

Both the connections of Genuine Risk (Codex crossed the wire first in the '80 Preakness) and those of Chief's Crown (who crossed the wire first in the '85 Flamingo but was DQ'd and placed second, behind Proud Truth) went to court, protesting the stewards' decision (Eddie Maple, rider of Stephan's Odyssey, had also claimed foul against Proud Truth, but that foul claim was disallowed, said disallowing being sustained in the court ruling also). The court allowed the stewards' decision to stand in the Codex case, but reversed it in Chief's Crown's, restoring Chief's Crown as the winner.

Before that there was always an omerta in racing - you kept the courts out of it.

Actually I didnt know any of that. Very interesting stuff

[martini]

Originally Posted by Gold Medal

Why didnt the jockey of War of Will file a objection, instead of Country House doing it for him and since when is that even possible ?

I think yesterday opened a can of worms for races like the Derby with so many entrants. If you finish 2nd, just lodge an objection, even if your horse was not involved. You might as well contest the race every year to take down the winner, because the race is typically messy enough to find a problem, if you look hard enough.

I'll be curious if the "best 2 minutes in sports" becomes "the best 2 minutes plus the 20 minute stewards' review afterward" show.

Btw, after watching repeatedly, there was an infraction, but imo it was minor. Maybe give Saez a fine, but that is all.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by martini

I think yesterday opened a can of worms for races like the Derby with so many entrants. If you finish 2nd, just lodge an objection, even if your horse was not involved. You might as well contest the race every year to take down the winner, because the race is typically messy enough to find a problem, if you look hard enough.

I'll be curious if the "best 2 minutes in sports" becomes "the best 2 minutes plus the 20 minute stewards' review afterward" show.

Btw, after watching repeatedly, there was an infraction, but imo it was minor. Maybe give Saez a fine, but that is all.

That's silly.

1. Even without the objection, I suspect the stewards would have eventually looked at it and called and inquiry.

2. Long Range Toddy claimed foul too.

3. The claim involved a real incident that Prat saw. Had there not been a real incident Prat wouldn't have been able to say anything to the stewards.

4. The stewards can set down jockeys for lying to them. So BS foul claims carry a cost.

[martini]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

That's silly.

Fair enough, but my last words on this:

1a: No, they would not have looked at it without an objection.

2a: Long Range Toddy had no chance and might have lost a spot or two with the infraction, but was never going to hit the board (hypothetical, I know).

3a: Prat should not have been able to claim interference in a matter in which he was not involved.

4a: I can't recall the last time the jockey/connections were fined/suspended for "BS foul claims." I've never heard of such a thing being enforced, even if it is in the books.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by martini

Fair enough, but my last words on this:

1a: No, they would not have looked at it without an objection.

2a: Long Range Toddy had no chance and might have lost a spot or two with the infraction, but was never going to hit the board (hypothetical, I know).

3a: Prat should not have been able to claim interference in a matter in which he was not involved.

4a: I can't recall the last time the jockey/connections were fined/suspended for "BS foul claims." I've never heard of such a thing being enforced, even if it is in the books.

On 4, no less than Manny Ycaza, a Hall of Famer, took a suspension once for a frivolous claim of foul.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Bl...f foul&f=false

I assure you that stewards, just like all forms of judges and arbitrators, hate being lied to. If it became common as you suggest, the Churchill stewards would act.

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by martini

I think yesterday opened a can of worms for races like the Derby with so many entrants. If you finish 2nd, just lodge an objection, even if your horse was not involved. You might as well contest the race every year to take down the winner, because the race is typically messy enough to find a problem, if you look hard enough.

I'll be curious if the "best 2 minutes in sports" becomes "the best 2 minutes plus the 20 minute stewards' review afterward" show.

Btw, after watching repeatedly, there was an infraction, but imo it was minor. Maybe give Saez a fine, but that is all.

This is the post of the day. I couldnt have said it better myself. You are 100% correct

[AMPHAR]

Originally Posted by martini

I think yesterday opened a can of worms for races like the Derby with so many entrants. If you finish 2nd, just lodge an objection, even if your horse was not involved. You might as well contest the race every year to take down the winner, because the race is typically messy enough to find a problem, if you look hard enough.

I'll be curious if the "best 2 minutes in sports" becomes "the best 2 minutes plus the 20 minute stewards' review afterward" show.

Btw, after watching repeatedly, there was an infraction, but imo it was minor. Maybe give Saez a fine, but that is all.

Exactly. Johnny V tried this against Monarchos when he was on Invisible Ink in the 2001 derby.

Similar situation as 145. Common sense prevailed that day. Not yesterday.

Just claim an objection and if you look at it long enough you’ll find something that fits the “letter of the law”

This type of lane change happens all the time early in races especially when speed is drawn outside trying to tuck in.

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by martini

Fair enough, but my last words on this:

1a: No, they would not have looked at it without an objection.

2a: Long Range Toddy had no chance and might have lost a spot or two with the infraction, but was never going to hit the board (hypothetical, I know).

3a: Prat should not have been able to claim interference in a matter in which he was not involved.

4a: I can't recall the last time the jockey/connections were fined/suspended for "BS foul claims." I've never heard of such a thing being enforced, even if it is in the books.

Another good post ... Just to reinforce what your saying ..

1. If a jockey files a objection and the stewards also decide to look at it than there is actually a inquiry/objection. Thats why at some tracks its confusing because some tote boards cant flash both if both are in play. The stewards never called a inquiry even with the objection and no way they do it without a objection.

2. Long Range Toddy was on fumes when he got a little love tap by the other horse. He was ready to start fading either way. He finished 17th with the little bump . Without a bump he still probably finishes 17th or maybe 15th at best. The objection by Court was actually the most ridiclous part of this whole thing. I am guessing he lost alot of respect with the other jockeys over that classless bush league sore loser move.

3. Prat files a objection they should only look at how Max Security affected Prats mount . Court files a objection and they should only look at how Long Range Toddy was affected. Country House not affected at all. Long Range Today was already done and not severly hampered even if he wasnt already gassed.

4.Stewards cant prove a jockey is lying if they claim foul and suspend the jockey. I dont know where you heard that from lol. All they can do at most is fine a jockey a few hundred bucks if they think the claim is frivilous and for most the jockeys riding in the ky derby thats pocket change.

[Run Nicholas Run]

two letters to the stewards of Churchill downs
EFFF UUUUUUU.

That was the equivalent to having a MLB game
and the HP umpire being Angel Hernandez or CB Bucknor.

And Manny Machado is considered a villan.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Gold Medal

Another good post ... Just to reinforce what your saying ..

1. If a jockey files a objection and the stewards also decide to look at it than there is actually a inquiry/objection. Thats why at some tracks its confusing because some tote boards cant flash both if both are in play. The stewards never called a inquiry even with the objection and no way they do it without a objection.

2. Long Range Toddy was on fumes when he got a little love tap by the other horse. He was ready to start fading either way. He finished 17th with the little bump . Without a bump he still probably finishes 17th or maybe 15th at best. The objection by Court was actually the most ridiclous part of this whole thing. I am guessing he lost alot of respect with the other jockeys over that classless bush league sore loser move.

3. Prat files a objection they should only look at how Max Security affected Prats mount . Court files a objection and they should only look at how Long Range Toddy was affected. Country House not affected at all. Long Range Today was already done and not severly hampered even if he wasnt already gassed.

4.Stewards cant prove a jockey is lying if they claim foul and suspend the jockey. I dont know where you heard that from lol. All they can do at most is fine a jockey a few hundred bucks if they think the claim is frivilous and for most the jockeys riding in the ky derby thats pocket change.

Re (4), few things in life are more infuriating than the refrain of non-lawyers, "they can't PROVE I am lying", as if the only thing that can refute a lie is, for instance, a videotape showing you doing something you denied doing.

Adjudicators, including stewards, have the power to make credibility determinations. And just like everyone, they have BS detectors.

The idea that the stewards are idiots who either can't figure out tbat a jockey is lying or have no power to do anything absent 100 percent proof of the lie is just flat wrong. Stewards are entitled to decide a jockey is lying, and to punish him or her. And they will if jockeys start making frivolous claims.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Run Nicholas Run

two letters to the stewards of Churchill downs
EFFF UUUUUUU.

That was the equivalent to having a MLB game
and the HP umpire being Angel Hernandez or CB Bucknor.

And Manny Machado is considered a villan.

Just keep going, and you'll be banned. You're probably one of the snowflakes leaving the sport over a VALID DQ, so it doesn't matter anyway.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by Gold Medal

nothing more than a bunch of activist stewards on a power trip and ignoring the tradition of the race and failing to use a shred of common sense.

So common sense is to allow a horse to drift out 5 lanes, impeding other horses. And practically tangle their legs in another horse's legs by doing so.

Okay.