The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by TJC

didn't anyone see the 20 come over on the 2. the jockey on #2 had to hold up.
the finished should have been 13 and 8

Yes and I wondered why the stewards didn't see it

They were busy concentrating on the important stuff.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

They were busy concentrating on the important stuff.

that observation is laughable. "you can't be serious"

[Scanman]

Originally Posted by snappit

As I understand USA rules (and maybe wrong) they made correct decision under those rules. However, here in the UK the rules are different and Maximum Security would have almost certainly kept the race.

From a betting point of view here bettors are generally protected in cases like this as most bookmakers operate a first past the post double result rule which means they will pay out on the official result after the stewards enquiry and on the horse that was first past the post before the enquiry.

You are absolutely correct. I've been racing in 16 other countries and the likelihood of the being disqualified is next to nil.

The reason for that is very simple, many of those jurisdictions have racing on tracks that undulating and uneven, which is exactly what CD was today - uneven. With the amount of rain it took, it was impossible for the track to be even throughout. In the far turn, it was apparant that the was not getting a hold of the track and did bare out at the apex, slightly impediing the The was not impacted by the contract at all. Saez has his stick in his right hand and it is very likely that due to the uneven nature of the track and that the centripital force of the turn caused him to bare out.

Both the and the had slightly over a quarter of a mile to run down the in the stretch. Each were give a fair opportunity to win the race, but they could not. The was clearly the fastest horse, even drawing away in the last 100 yards or so. I would be curious to know how much consideration the stewards gave to the state of the track in making their decision. If CD issues steward reports, I would be interested in reading this one.

Sadly, their decision makes racing in the US look like a "clown show" and it's not as if we haven't had/have enough problems as it is. It's no wonder that no one new wants to get involved in the sport when they see the travesty that was perpetrated today.

Simply put, horses run in races to determine who is the fastest. Normally, the fastest horse is the winner. Unfortunately, that didn't happen today.

[Greyfox]

Sharp post Scanman.

[JayTris07]

I bet the #1 WOW. My horse was right there and had a legitimate chance to win if not for the #7. I'm upset as hell, cause I had a weeks pay on the #1.
People might not like the call but it was the right decision by the book.

[holdalltix]

Hey TJC, had to watch the replay a couple of times because I kept watching the 2 and saw nothing. Finally was able to see what you saw and you are correct in that the 20 came over and impeded not the 2 but the 21 causing the rider to check toward the end of the far turn.

[holdalltix]

So clearly the best horse in the race is DQ'd and placed 17th and the 20 declared the winner even though he clearly impeded the 21 toward the end of the far turn. How is this good for racing? Racing needs direction, a national commissioner and national rules and standards if it ever expects to survive no less experience growth. So sad.

[Fightingirish51195]

Originally Posted by Scanman

You are absolutely correct. I've been racing in 16 other countries and the likelihood of the being disqualified is next to nil.

The reason for that is very simple, many of those jurisdictions have racing on tracks that undulating and uneven, which is exactly what CD was today - uneven. With the amount of rain it took, it was impossible for the track to be even throughout. In the far turn, it was apparant that the was not getting a hold of the track and did bare out at the apex, slightly impediing the The was not impacted by the contract at all. Saez has his stick in his right hand and it is very likely that due to the uneven nature of the track and that the centripital force of the turn caused him to bare out.

Both the and the had slightly over a quarter of a mile to run down the in the stretch. Each were give a fair opportunity to win the race, but they could not. The was clearly the fastest horse, even drawing away in the last 100 yards or so. I would be curious to know how much consideration the stewards gave to the state of the track in making their decision. If CD issues steward reports, I would be interested in reading this one.

Sadly, their decision makes racing in the US look like a "clown show" and it's not as if we haven't had/have enough problems as it is. It's no wonder that no one new wants to get involved in the sport when they see the travesty that was perpetrated today.

Simply put, horses run in races to determine who is the fastest. Normally, the fastest horse is the winner. Unfortunately, that didn't happen today.

Awesome post

[Fightingirish51195]

Saw Jose Ortiz almost kill a guy while riding money multiplier and stay up. It was far worse than what maximum security did today. So much consistency is needed

[Vinnie]

Superb and succinct post Scanman.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Scanman

You are absolutely correct. I've been racing in 16 other countries and the likelihood of the being disqualified is next to nil.

The reason for that is very simple, many of those jurisdictions have racing on tracks that undulating and uneven, which is exactly what CD was today - uneven. With the amount of rain it took, it was impossible for the track to be even throughout. In the far turn, it was apparant that the was not getting a hold of the track and did bare out at the apex, slightly impediing the The was not impacted by the contract at all. Saez has his stick in his right hand and it is very likely that due to the uneven nature of the track and that the centripital force of the turn caused him to bare out.

Both the and the had slightly over a quarter of a mile to run down the in the stretch. Each were give a fair opportunity to win the race, but they could not. The was clearly the fastest horse, even drawing away in the last 100 yards or so. I would be curious to know how much consideration the stewards gave to the state of the track in making their decision. If CD issues steward reports, I would be interested in reading this one.

Sadly, their decision makes racing in the US look like a "clown show" and it's not as if we haven't had/have enough problems as it is. It's no wonder that no one new wants to get involved in the sport when they see the travesty that was perpetrated today.

Simply put, horses run in races to determine who is the fastest. Normally, the fastest horse is the winner. Unfortunately, that didn't happen today.

When my money is on them they can do what ever it takes to get the win and then not ride next week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TurfRuler]

The fans who wagered on Maximum Security were robbed in front of the whole wide world watching the Kentucky Derby. I watched the replay and not the live race and I saw a horse with heart and class, the stuff I've read about in books and have seen on film about champion thoroughbreds. Not only was Servis and Saez picked pocketed by the Stewards but racing for new fans hit an all time low because the new fan will believe that horse racing is fixed in favor of the elite class and not for the every man/woman who places a $2 or $20 win bet.

[Scanman]

Originally Posted by TurfRuler

The fans who wagered on Maximum Security were robbed in front of the whole wide world watching the Kentucky Derby. I watched the replay and not the live race and I saw a horse with heart and class, the stuff I've read about in books and have seen on film about champion thoroughbreds. Not only was Servis and Saez picked pocketed by the Stewards but racing for new fans hit an all time low because the new fan will believe that horse racing is fixed in favor of the elite class and not for the every man/woman who places a $2 or $20 win bet.

There is a great deal of truth to that.

[spiketoo]

Scanman you make very valid and succinct points but IMHO he came down because we do not have uneven and undulating surfaces here (which I believe you're primarily referencing grass surfaces). I do agree that the muddy surface contributed to the DQ but I also believe the stews generally do not take that into account. For 'consistency' (in quotes as I use the term loosely), if an impediment appears to have cost a horse a placing, they come down - at least that's the def in SoCal. The subjective part depends on whether the impediment caused a horse to lose action and\or placement.

Over the 20 minutes I saw numerous replays and listened to the talking heads say, 'no, no and no'. Only after the call did I see one freeze frame of the front (I believe left) foot of the 1 appear to actually strike the back of Maximum as Max came over. I'd like to find a still of that. It's a testament to Tyler that he didn't go down. Prat deserves much credit for the ride. It will get lost in all the noise, but it really was a strategic ride. And I guess the horse also got better at the right time too. Or, the field just really sucked.

Full red-board disclosure - I had Country ACB so I was in line at least for P&S. With the loss of OB who I had in a future at 60-1, I found this to be a lackluster Derby. I even said during the post that it would probably be a forgettable one. On that I was wrong.

On paper, Country made no sense - didn't run at all in the slop and last comment was 'no late bid'. Honestly I had to go back to fig out how he even got 30 points or so to get in. But I respect Mott and hoped it wasn't just a vanity entry for the owner (tho if there was any race begging for a vanity entry...). It came down to Prat - he is a vastly underrated (prolly due to be based on the LeftCoast), masterful jockey and to me in the same class with the Ortiz bros. I could not let a jock of his stature go off at 60-1, just like most would not let an Ortiz. I know - not a very successful capping angle but honestly the field was not very impressive to me. Since I'm guessing I was prolly one of the few isolating on him, go back and watch his race. Prat appeared to keep him w/o anyone in front. As we've seen in previous Derbys, everyone watches for traffic wondering who's gonna stop in front of them. Prat anticipated such and always left himself an opening in front - at least for the last 6f or so. He wasn't going to win but he outran his odds by daylight. Which is why I bet Prat - a good jock cant make a bad horse win but a bad jock can make a good horse lose. Today you had the area in-between. It will get lost in all the noise but it relly was a well executed, strategic ride. Oh and the horse also got better by leaps and bounds at just the right time. Or, the field just really sucked.

As always, YMMV.

[Scanman]

Here is a link to the stewards statement concerning the Derby DQ: https://www.pscp.tv/w/1MnGnvbXmNMGO

Just as I thought, their statement didn't not take into consideration the state of the track. This is a gross oversight as far as I am concerned. Perhaps, the written report will address it, but I wouldn't count on it. It appears that they neglected to take all of the conditions that lead to the interference into consideration. Racing could do well to free itself of such short-sighted officiating.