Kentucky Derby Disqualification, Post-Mortem

[Teach]

First, I believe the stewards made the right decision. Let me state: I have no axe to grind. I wagered $10 on a handful of supers, but I didn’t have either Maximum Security or County House on top.

As Bill Mott stated, “If this were a maiden claimer…” and not the Kentucky Derby... Yes, I too believe Maximum Security’s number would have come down, in a heartbeat (I ask: "Why didn't the stewards immediately post the 'Inquiry' sign"?). With a jaundiced view, did they hope that the 'incident' on the far turn would go away, quietly?

Frankly, I had bet #1 War of Will. Gaffalione was “sitting chilly” on the rail just behind the front-runners. I thought he had a stranglehold on his horse. On the far turn, Gaffalione found a seam and began to challenge Maximum Security. Just then, Luis Seaz moved Maximum Security outside to the 3 or 4 path. Saez created what I call a “Carom Effect” as he pushed the horses to his outside further toward the center of the racetrack.

Further, the horse that suffered the most (Gaffalione did a great job from preventing his colt from starting a chain-reaction pile-up) was War of Will. This 3-year old was literally “climbing up the back” of Maximum Security. As an aside: Talk about the distaste some had when Maximum Security’s number disappeared from the tote-board. I ask: What would the betting people and “newbies,” in particular, have thought if there had been a multi-horse pile-up on the far turn?

Finally, Luis Saez then swerved back to the inside and bumped Johnny Velazquez’s horse, Honor Code, coming up the rail. In the end, I believe the stewards were justified in taking Maximum Security’s number down.

In conclusion, the ones I feel most sorry for are the owners: Gary and Mary West, and trainer Jason Servis. Sadly for them, they went from exhilaration to disappointment, in literally: “the blink of an eye”.

[Teach]

All you need to know is that Maximum Security’s jockey, Luis Saez, violated the rules and regulations of thoroughbred racing with regard to “interference”. Saez’s actions impeded another horse, War of Will (yes, I had bet the horse). Saez’s swerve to the outside could have caused serious injury to several jockeys and horses. Indeed, it was a near miracle that a jockey didn’t suffer a potential career-ending spill. In the end, War of Will would finish off the board. Saez’s actions, in my opinion, were blatant; they seriously compromised War of Will’s chances.

As far as President Trump chiming in with “political correctness”. I find that hard to fathom. It would be one thing if President Trump had trained or even owned thoroughbred racehorses. I don’t believe that is the case.

You may see this as “apples and oranges,” but when I was a teacher, I would, on the first day of school, establish, in written form, my rules and regulations. They were the same for each and every class. There were no exceptions. I would never treat the high-achieving student any differently than those who were working to achieve passing grades. If I were to show favoritism, where’s my credibility? A rule or regulation is only as effective as it is being enforced.

Furthermore, in this vein, there can be statutes on the books; yet if these rules are not enforced, I ask: “What good are they?” It took courage for the Kentucky state stewards at Churchill Downs to make what I believe was the correct call.

Finally, as cited, there can be no favoritism. As unpopular as it may have been for many to have seen Maximum Security’s number taken down, it would have been more of a travesty, in my opinion…not to have done so.

Yes, for “the connections” and those who wagered on Maximum Security’s nose, it was a bitter pill to swallow. Yes, it would have been easy to have kept Maximum Security’s number up. Sometimes we all have to - after serious thought - make hard, sometimes unpopular decisions. Yet, I believe the stewards acted in the best interests of thoroughbred racing.

[airford1]

Mary and Gary West need to "STAY IN YO OWN LANE"

[davew]

You make it sound like Luis Saez steered Maximum Security to veer out on the turn. He might have over corrected to get the horse back into the 2 lane. Sometimes horses just do stuff on their own.


By your logic Saez should also get a 30+ day suspension, are we going to see that?

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by davew

You make it sound like Luis Saez steered Maximum Security to veer out on the turn. He might have over corrected to get the horse back into the 2 lane. Sometimes horses just do stuff on their own.


By your logic Saez should also get a 30+ day suspension, are we going to see that?

I think JJ should get days for dumping Franco in the Oaks

[Teach]

It has been stated that the stewards at Churchill Downs rendered their decision to take down Maximum Security without taking any questions. Why?

If I had been a reporter, my first question would have been: "Why didn't you put up the 'Inquiry' sign up on the infield tote immediately after the race?" Since I saw my first horse race (harness race) at Foxboro Raceway (MA) in the summer of 1958 at the age of 15-years old (I soon after went to Suffolk Downs and Rockingham Park), I have seen countless thousands of horse races, either in person, or on a video monitor, or on television.

As I watched this year's Kentucky Derby field move out of the far turn and into the stretch, a "light bulb" immediately went off in my head (I would have thought the stewards interests would have been piqued, as well). Something was amiss. I'm thinking, "The stewards should take a closer look at this." Something didn't seem right. As an aside, if you're a person who has watched thousands of races, as I have, that same feeling may have come over you. Yet, again, no inquiry. If someone hadn't lodged a claim of foul... What is this? Anything Goes?

Secondly, if I could talk with trainer Mark Casse, I would ask, "Why didn't you lodge a claim of foul?" Your horse, the #1, War of Will, was, obviously, the most affected. Jockey Tyler Gaffalione had all he could do to avoid War of Will's running up the back of Maximum Security. I would have thought Casse would have been outraged. Yet, nothing. Not even a peep. I don't think the stewards even interviewed the most aggrieved party, jockey Tyler Gaffalione. This whole thing is just too bizarre.

Finally, I believe, in my opinion, jockey Luis Saez had a pretty good idea as to what was transpiring on the racetrack. I will say that jockey Saez has gotten days, in recent years, for similar incidents at both Saratoga and Belmont, i.e., "alleged interference in the stretch"; "failure to maintain straight course."

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Teach

All you need to know is that Maximum Security’s jockey, Luis Saez, violated the rules and regulations of thoroughbred racing with regard to “interference”. Saez’s actions impeded another horse, War of Will (yes, I had bet the horse). Saez’s swerve to the outside could have caused serious injury to several jockeys and horses. Indeed, it was a near miracle that a jockey didn’t suffer a potential career-ending spill. In the end, War of Will would finish off the board. Saez’s actions, in my opinion, were blatant; they seriously compromised War of Will’s chances.

As far as President Trump chiming in with “political correctness”. I find that hard to fathom. It would be one thing if President Trump had trained or even owned thoroughbred racehorses. I don’t believe that is the case.

You may see this as “apples and oranges,” but when I was a teacher, I would, on the first day of school, establish, in written form, my rules and regulations. They were the same for each and every class. There were no exceptions. I would never treat the high-achieving student any differently than those who were working to achieve passing grades. If I were to show favoritism, where’s my credibility? A rule or regulation is only as effective as it is being enforced.

Furthermore, in this vein, there can be statutes on the books; yet if these rules are not enforced, I ask: “What good are they?” It took courage for the Kentucky state stewards at Churchill Downs to make what I believe was the correct call.

Finally, as cited, there can be no favoritism. As unpopular as it may have been for many to have seen Maximum Security’s number taken down, it would have been more of a travesty, in my opinion…not to have done so.

Yes, for “the connections” and those who wagered on Maximum Security’s nose, it was a bitter pill to swallow. Yes, it would have been easy to have kept Maximum Security’s number up. Sometimes we all have to - after serious thought - make hard, sometimes unpopular decisions. Yet, I believe the stewards acted in the best interests of thoroughbred racing.

Agree 100%. Very intelligent post throughout. Your students were lucky to have you.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by davew

You make it sound like Luis Saez steered Maximum Security to veer out on the turn. He might have over corrected to get the horse back into the 2 lane. Sometimes horses just do stuff on their own.


By your logic Saez should also get a 30+ day suspension, are we going to see that?

They're still responsible for the trouble they cause though I agree it might not have been Saez's intention.

[Tom]

Gary West says his horse never came withing 10 feet of CH.

Duh.
Gary West has not come with in 1,000 feet of reality.

The guy is a blithering idiot.

I was thinking what a let down this must have been for the owner and trainer and jockey last night.

Today, I am glad the horse came down just to spite the big mouth.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by davew

Sometimes horses just do stuff on their own.

They don't have rack and pinion power steering?

[jeebus1083]

Gary West is now hinting at federal lawsuit. For the greater good of horse racing, he needs to put his interests aside, accept the outcome for what it is, and move on. Such a lawsuit cannot be good for the sport, especially if a judge rules in Mr. West’s favor. “Pandora’s Box” will have opened, as anyone who had tickets with Maximum Security will have no recourse. The MSM will have a field day, and the sport will lose even more fans.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by jeebus1083

Gary West is now hinting at federal lawsuit.

On what grounds?

Gary West, the owner and breeder of Maximum Security, told the Daily Racing Form on Sunday that he was considering appealing the Kentucky stewards' decision to disqualify his colt from first in the Kentucky Derby. However, the state's administrative regulations explain that stewards' decisions “shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal.”

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...qualification/

I would not be surprised if the owners or trainers had to agree to that before being allowed to race. Do the feds hear appeals of a called third strike that knocked a team out of the playoffs, or an NFL penalty call that cost a big game?

P.S. The above article says Maximum Security is not going to the Preakness.

[Thomas Roulston]

Originally Posted by Clocker

On what grounds?

P.S. The above article says Maximum Security is not going to the Preakness.

Which increases the amount of damages they can sue for - since rather obviously Maximum Security would have been entered in the Preakness had he not been DQ'd.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Clocker

P.S. The above article says Maximum Security is not going to the Preakness.

Max not going to the Preakness makes things easier for CH. However, I think Max should go to the Preakness and try to win the Triple Crown.

Just because 3 stewards made a decision to DQ Max does not mean they are correct. Not everyone agrees with their decision. As far as I'm concerned Max was the winner.

If Max would win the Preakness and Belmont the connections would have a legitimate claim that Max is a Triple Crown winner. I would not argue with that claim because plenty of people think the stewards got it wrong.

Personally, I think they should make Max and CH winners. Max wins for crossing the line first. CH wins because Max was DQ'd.

And then I'd give all the other owners participation trophies for showing up. [slurp]

[Tom]

Andy Beyer Derby recap on ATR first hour today.