Maximum Security DQ Question

[highnote]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Well, since there isn't any contact between them until MS bears out, coming into WoW's path (on the tire mark) it's clear that this isn't what caused MS to come out.

Fortunately, I have no stake in the outcome, but if I was on CD's side and this video came out, I would doubt that the stewards made the right decision.

They made the best decision they could with the tools they had available. And that might be all that matters.

My understanding is that the stewards ruling is final.

Who knows if this goes to court. And even if it does go to court the judge could rule that the stewards ruling is final.

Watching the race live, my first thought was that MS was going to be taken down, but I also thought he was the best horse in the race. So if I was going to choose a sire from this year's Derby he would have to be considered. However, other horses in the Derby may have better pedigrees.

Alydar didn't win the Derby but he was more desirable as a sire than Affirmed.

Winning the Derby is about pedigree and future stud value. I don't think losing the Derby on a DQ will change MS's stud value.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by highnote

"fraudulent video" is a matter of opinion. The video confirmed what I saw in my analysis. I didn't have the benefit of zooming in and watching in slow motion to see that WOW ran into MS before MS drifted out, but I could see that it was likely WOW hit MS first and that was the main cause of MS drifting out.

It's worth noting that the CD stewards have access to a key piece of evidence that you and I and the rest of this board and everyone commenting on this on the Internet lacks.

They have Saez's statement, made immediately after the race when he was trying to avoid a disqualification and before he lawyered up.

In that statement, I would bet good money he didn't mention being interfered with by War of Will in any way. Indeed, I bet he said he thought he was clear of the horse.

And if I am right that this is what Saez said, I am sorry, but the stewards are going to view any attempt by Saez's lawyers to blame the in a very negative light. Because obviously, if actually interfered with Saez, he would have said it in his post race statement to them. He would have said "someone clipped me from behind and that caused my horse to go out". But he didn't say that. He said his horse shied from the crowd.

You can look at all the slow motion videos you want, but it's an entirely reasonable conclusion for the stewards to basically say "we don't care what Saez's lawyers come up with, because we have his statement at the time of the incident and he didn't mention it, therefore the submissions from the lawyers are dishonest".

The stewards don't HAVE to make that conclusion, of course, but if they do, it's perfectly reasonable and not subject to any challenge.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It's worth noting that the CD stewards have access to a key piece of evidence that you and I and the rest of this board and everyone commenting on this on the Internet lacks.

Yes, but we have equaling intriguing and telling evidence: right after the race finished, he was interviewed while still on the horse. He just won the Kentucky Derby! What was one of the first things he said - unsolicited? "He's a young horse, and the crowd scared him" (paraphrase - reflects his meaning accurately). Hmm, why did he mention that? Out of nowhere? Odd. It's almost as if he knew he did something wrong and wanted to cover for it.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It's worth noting that the CD stewards have access to a key piece of evidence that you and I and the rest of this board and everyone commenting on this on the Internet lacks.

They have Saez's statement, made immediately after the race when he was trying to avoid a disqualification and before he lawyered up.

In that statement, I would bet good money he didn't mention being interfered with by War of Will in any way. Indeed, I bet he said he thought he was clear of the horse.

And if I am right that this is what Saez said, I am sorry, but the stewards are going to view any attempt by Saez's lawyers to blame the in a very negative light. Because obviously, if actually interfered with Saez, he would have said it in his post race statement to them. He would have said "someone clipped me from behind and that caused my horse to go out". But he didn't say that. He said his horse shied from the crowd.

You can look at all the slow motion videos you want, but it's an entirely reasonable conclusion for the stewards to basically say "we don't care what Saez's lawyers come up with, because we have his statement at the time of the incident and he didn't mention it, therefore the submissions from the lawyers are dishonest".

The stewards don't HAVE to make that conclusion, of course, but if they do, it's perfectly reasonable and not subject to any challenge.

I can see how they could come to that conclusion based on what he said.

BUT...

If Saez said something that contradicts with what actually happened it would not be the first time a witness gave a statement that was inconsistent with the facts. He may not have been aware that MS was getting hit from behind if it was just WOW's hooves scraping MS. By the time MS started drifting the strikes had already been made. So what Saez said was true. He felt the horse shied. It sounds like he was not aware at that time for the reason the horse shied. It may have been because of what happened to the horse seconds earlier.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Yes, but we have equaling intriguing and telling evidence: right after the race finished, he was interviewed while still on the horse. He just won the Kentucky Derby! What was one of the first things he said - unsolicited? "He's a young horse, and the crowd scared him" (paraphrase - reflects his meaning accurately). Hmm, why did he mention that? Out of nowhere? Odd. It's almost as if he knew he did something wrong and wanted to cover for it.

I bet that's the same thing he told the stewards.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Yes, but we have equaling intriguing and telling evidence: right after the race finished, he was interviewed while still on the horse. He just won the Kentucky Derby! What was one of the first things he said - unsolicited? "He's a young horse, and the crowd scared him" (paraphrase - reflects his meaning accurately). Hmm, why did he mention that? Out of nowhere? Odd. It's almost as if he knew he did something wrong and wanted to cover for it.

It sounds like he knew the horse drifted, but maybe he didn't know that MS's back legs were getting scraped by WOW before MS drifted out.

I think he was just describing the race, not trying to cover up anything.

Every jockey has their own version of reality. Not all versions are going to be the same. They're all subjective.

The truth is objective. But what is the truth?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by highnote

I can see how they could come to that conclusion based on what he said.

BUT...

If Saez said something that contradicts with what actually happened it would not be the first time a witness gave a statement that was inconsistent with the facts. He may not have been aware that MS was getting hit from behind if it was just WOW's hooves scraping MS. By the time MS started drifting the strikes had already been made. So what Saez said was true. He felt the horse shied. It sounds like he was not aware at that time for the reason the horse shied. It may have been because of what happened to the horse seconds earlier.

Well, the problem is the usual reason for this (and believe me, as a lawyer, I have been on the other side of this one!) is that the lawyers sit down and come up with the most plausible story afterward.

This is one of the big reasons why every criminal defense lawyer tells their client not to talk to the police. You talk to the police, you lock yourself in, and then you can't come up with a different story later without it looking dishonest. And that sort of thing is very powerful with juries.

What Saez's lawyers are likely trying to do is convince a trier of fact that an experienced jockey who has been through many inquiries and objections inadvertently or otherwise managed to not mention the actual cause of an incident in a race when tens of millions of dollars depended on the jockey's innocence. That's a VERY difficult sell.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

What Saez's lawyers are likely trying to do is convince a trier of fact that an experienced jockey who has been through many inquiries and objections inadvertently or otherwise managed to not mention the actual cause of an incident in a race when tens of millions of dollars depended on the jockey's innocence. That's a VERY difficult sell.

How could Saez mention that WOW was striking MS's back legs if he did not know WOW was striking them? All he knew is that something caused MS to drift. He surmised that it was the crowd because MS is young.

Well, it makes sense after watching the lawyer's video that what made MS drift was WOW striking MS.

Saez wasn't lying. He just didn't know the facts.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by highnote

How could Saez mention that WOW was striking MS's back legs if he did not know WOW was striking them? All he knew is that something caused MS to drift. He surmised that it was the crowd because MS is young.

Well, it makes sense after watching the lawyer's video that what made MS drift was WOW striking MS.

Saez wasn't lying. He just didn't know the facts.

I would need to talk to some riders to be sure, but my bet is your first paragraph is dead wrong. Not that Saez would specifically know WHO clipped his heels, but he would know if his heels were being clipped.

And I DO know this-- riders know a lot about what is going on behind them. They look back, but they also hear a lot too and have trained ears. Indeed, riders rely on this knowledge and experience all the time when determining whether they have room to shift out or in. Riders literally HAVE to know if a horse is right up on their heels versus being a distance behind them. This is an issue that probably comes up several times a day for a rider with a lot of mounts.

So if there was a horse running up against his heels, I have a VERY hard time believing he wouldn't know it. If some experienced rider wants to come on here and correct me, I will defer to that, but my inclination is that Saez would know and the stewards would expect him to tell them.

And my inclination as a lawyer who DOES have experience on working with clients to craft the most persuasive version of their story is that we should be VERY skeptical of ANY person in ANY situation who fails to mention important facts before they obtain a lawyer and then suddenly remembers them after the lawyers get involved and they become central to the lawyers' argument.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I would need to talk to some riders to be sure, but my bet is your first paragraph is dead wrong. Not that Saez would specifically know WHO clipped his heels, but he would know if his heels were being clipped.

And I DO know this-- riders know a lot about what is going on behind them. They look back, but they also hear a lot too and have trained ears. Indeed, riders rely on this knowledge and experience all the time when determining whether they have room to shift out or in. Riders literally HAVE to know if a horse is right up on their heels versus being a distance behind them. This is an issue that probably comes up several times a day for a rider with a lot of mounts.

So if there was a horse running up against his heels, I have a VERY hard time believing he wouldn't know it. If some experienced rider wants to come on here and correct me, I will defer to that, but my inclination is that Saez would know and the stewards would expect him to tell them.

And my inclination as a lawyer who DOES have experience on working with clients to craft the most persuasive version of their story is that we should be VERY skeptical of ANY person in ANY situation who fails to mention important facts before they obtain a lawyer and then suddenly remembers them after the lawyers get involved and they become central to the lawyers' argument.

I am sure the lawyers will figure it out. :

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by highnote

It sounds like he knew the horse drifted, but maybe he didn't know that MS's back legs were getting scraped by WOW before MS drifted out.

I think he was just describing the race, not trying to cover up anything.

Every jockey has their own version of reality. Not all versions are going to be the same. They're all subjective.

The truth is objective. But what is the truth?

Possible, but I just thought it was an odd comment, especially before the objection.

[Niko]

Originally Posted by cj

He was put in that spot because the winner was slowing the race so much it was creating a dangerous situation, at least in my opinion when I was watching the race live. He was going to run right up the leader's heels if he didn't come out. Again watching live, I thought War of Will was absolutely loaded at that point in the race. Whether he could have finished that way to the wire we'll never know.

I may be reading this wrong but I see lead horses slowing the pace all the time if they can to gain an advantage. Some of the slow second fractions leave you scratching your head as to what the other jockeys were thinking. I don't think you can DQ or fault a jockey for doing that in any way unless you think Saez purposely put the breaks on so to speak.

It wouldn't have put Tyler in a bad spot had Tyler been more patient with WOW (split second decision and if he was able to) before creating a racing lane for himself. Stewards have ruled that Tyler's was an acceptable move and Saez's was not. (I'm also not stating Saez was totally innocent as MS came out after he looked over his shoulder) but there was a lot that happened in a short period of time among a wall of horses. True intent may never be known. I wish horses could talk so I could hear their version..haha

After this cluster, I'm a bigger fan of letting the betting results stand and taking care of the DQ's etc later.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Possible, but I just thought it was an odd comment, especially before the objection.

Many reasons for the all the objections were odd. Why did Mott object when he knew his horse was not a winner. In fact, CH looks like he veered to his left in the stretch and caused a chain reaction to the two horses inside of him. A closer review might have gotten his horse DQ'd. Instead, it got him the win!

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Niko

I may be reading this wrong but I see lead horses slowing the pace all the time if they can to gain an advantage.

Buck's Boy, Breeders' Cup Classic. Lone Speed in a Turf Marathon. Great angle.

He slowed the pace down and won. It happens.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by highnote

Many reasons for the all the objections were odd. Why did Mott object when he knew his horse was not a winner. In fact, CH looks like he veered to his left in the stretch and caused a chain reaction to the two horses inside of him. A closer review might have gotten his horse DQ'd. Instead, it got him the win!

Mott's objection was not the reason MS was taken down. If it was the only one accepted MS would have been placed 2nd. However Long Range Toddy's objection was legitimite and was upheld. While viewing the replays the stewards saw how MS fouled WoW out and could not ignore it. CH came in slightly but did not do anything as dramatic or dangerous as MS's 5 lane swerve. If there was any contact between MS the only contact that caused the incident was when MS swerved in front of WoW. There was NO evidence of MS's hindquarters being driven in towards the rail. Only his front going out which Saez failed to control until too late, Hence the basis for the DQ and suspension.