Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-04-2019, 06:27 PM
Lucas Jackson's Avatar
Lucas Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,034

Very disappointed with the Kentucky Derby finish


Not a huge fan but several friends are. They were over so we had a big watching party. Almost every other racing sport has touching. Apparently the snowflake derby riders canít abide it. And I watched all the replays, sorry I donít see how Country House was affected. Best horse lost. Ugh.
  #2  
Old 05-04-2019, 06:46 PM
Asylum is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Annapolis, Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,281
Everybody's talking about how bad they feel for Maximum Security's jockey, but why doesn't anybody feel sorry for the horse? I mean, did you see that poor thing's long face?

I'll show myself out.
  #3  
Old 05-04-2019, 06:59 PM
Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas Jackson View Post
Not a huge fan but several friends are. They were over so we had a big watching party. Almost every other racing sport has touching. Apparently the snowflake derby riders canít abide it. And I watched all the replays, sorry I donít see how Country House was affected. Best horse lost. Ugh.
Country House was not affected. But War of Will, who was making a move for the lead, was definitely affected. His jockey did a masterful job of keeping the contact to a minimum. And War of Will did not finish in the top 4, although he very well might have without the foul by Maximum Security.

FWIW, I thought the disqualification was justified.
  #4  
Old 05-04-2019, 07:04 PM
don't ask is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 18,163
That's what comes from being different to the rest of the world and not adopting the Category 1 protest/objection rules.
  #5  
Old 05-04-2019, 07:22 PM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,331
Clear this up for someone that only read the headline why was the one horse/jockey disqualified making Country House or whatever it is the winner?
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #6  
Old 05-04-2019, 07:50 PM
don't ask is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 18,163
Just as they were making the turn, the first horse over the line, Maximum Security, interfered with War Of Will and Long Range Toddy and indirectly with Country House. It then straightened up and went on to win convincingly.

In most other racing jurisdictions the objection would have been dismissed on the grounds that Country House, had the interference not occurred, would not have beaten Maximum Security anyway. Under Category 1 protest rules, it must be shown that the horse causing the interference gained an advantage and only finished in front of the affected runner as a result of the interference.

However, North American racing does not use the ďmodel ruleĒ in Article 32 of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA) rules. Of course, they have been talking about adopting it for years.
  #7  
Old 05-04-2019, 08:52 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,715
If War of Will and Long Range Today had gone down (and taken who knows how many other horses with them) and Maximum Security and Country House had still finished 1-2, everyone would be screaming if a foul hadn't been called.
  #8  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:07 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,466
A video of the problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jwy9m9oDg0
  #9  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:30 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,809
Was the jockey in any way responsible? I felt bad for him. The horse doesn’t know the difference.
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #10  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:52 PM
excavating (for a mind) is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: In a canyon, in a cavern
Posts: 1,454
Looking at it purely objectively and not with any history of horse racing, the fact that the top favorite (4.5:1) was disqualified to permit a long shot (64:1) to win just shows how much instant communications has infiltrated society.

When you realize that no winner has ever been disqualified in the Derby, the above fact has much more weight.
  #11  
Old 05-04-2019, 11:34 PM
pulykamell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 46,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by excavating (for a mind) View Post
Looking at it purely objectively and not with any history of horse racing
I'm looking at it also objectively and with no history, and it looks like a fair call to me. So what are either of our opinions worth, really? I honestly have no idea if it's seen as a bad call or a good call by the racing community. My guess is the former, because it's not a typical call, but will what I see, it seems fair to me.

Last edited by pulykamell; 05-04-2019 at 11:35 PM.
  #12  
Old 05-04-2019, 11:49 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,099
Damn, what a sloppy track. Those horses looked like they were running sideways.
  #13  
Old 05-05-2019, 12:18 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Damn, what a sloppy track. Those horses looked like they were running sideways.
That was exactly the problem: Maximum Security was.
  #14  
Old 05-05-2019, 12:42 AM
DKW is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 2,923
This? THIS is what we are up in arms and screaming bloody murder about??

[reads posts again]

Hmm, apparently not. Eh, just as well; the NHL playoffs are more important anyway.

My opinion? Their game, their rules. I'm not so arrogant as to pretend that I know more about the Sport of Kings than the owners, trainers, jockeys, stewards, announcers, and commentators who are in this world all 12 months of the year. If the officials said it was a foul, as far as I'm concerned, it's a foul.

I will add, though, that more than any other type of competition I've ever seen, racing...any racing...has tons of subtleties and intricacies. What maneuvers are permissible and not permissible, what's required for eligibility, track conditions, the effect of weather, positions, how hard to push, the best way to corner, and on, and on. I can't even count the number of times I said "Wait, that's illegal?" or "How did he make that pass?" That's why when the race ends, you always see "Unofficial Results". Nothing's good until the officials go through the race and make sure that it's good.

Unfair? Controversial? Ridiculous? Maybe. But that's why they play the games.

Should be a very interesting Pimlico one week from now, that's for sure.
  #15  
Old 05-05-2019, 12:46 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 14,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
Was the jockey in any way responsible? I felt bad for him. The horse doesnít know the difference.
The jockey was interviewed immediately after the race (before the protest had been lodged), and told the reporter from NBC that, as he had been making the final turn, Maximum Security appeared to get spooked when he saw the crowd, and it took him a moment to bring the horse back under control.

That timing would appear to line up with when the horse suddenly veered to the outside.
  #16  
Old 05-05-2019, 01:18 AM
Lucas Jackson's Avatar
Lucas Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,034
Hereís the problem(s) as I see it, first it was clearly unintentional. That should count for something. Second, it did not affect the outcome of the race. And finally the condition of the track should have been taken into account.

Iím certainly no expert but I did not see him drifting into the fifth lane. 3rd maybe.
  #17  
Old 05-05-2019, 03:17 AM
Spoons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 16,522
Based on the replays I saw--and I was at the local race book, and had a few wagers on the race--Number 7 clearly fouled one or two other horses in the race; to the point where one of them had a front hoof running between Number 7's legs. It was likely unintentional (I don't believe that an experienced jockey such as Saez in such a race would intentionally commit a foul), but it was obviously a foul.

It's been a while since I've read the rules of thoroughbred racing in North America, but I do remember this one: "Any horse may move to any part of the track not currently occupied by any other horse." Paraphrased, and don't ask me for a cite (my Rules of Racing are on a shelf somewhere in my house, but should be available online via Google nowadays) But under that rule, it seems to me that Number 7 occupied another horse's space. That's why another horse was running between Number 7's legs. Number 7 moved into that horse's running room, and consequently, a claim of foul occurred.

The placement of Number 7 into 17th place is something I cannot explain, but perhaps the Daily Racing Form news or results can explain.
  #18  
Old 05-05-2019, 03:44 AM
Spoons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 16,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas Jackson View Post
And finally the condition of the track should have been taken into account.
No. Conditions are what they are, just as in pro football. A contest is announced for a certain day, and it occurs on that day, no matter the conditions.

All involved in the Kentucky Derby--owners, trainers, jockeys, farriers, horseplayers--had to adjust for conditions today. The Green Bay Packers may play in winter conditions, because they have no other choice, according to the schedule. Same with the Kentucky Derby, and other important stakes races--the horses are going to run, despite local conditions. It makes handicapping a challenge, but it can provide nice payouts if a mudder that you've selected comes home.
  #19  
Old 05-05-2019, 03:46 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas Jackson View Post
Not a huge fan but several friends are. They were over so we had a big watching party. Almost every other racing sport has touching. Apparently the snowflake derby riders canít abide it.
Yes, but when touching in NASCAR gets out of hand and you wind up with a stack of cars and drivers in messed up pile the cars don't scream in agony and you don't have to shoot them for having a flat tire. I can't help but think that might have something to do with the rule.
  #20  
Old 05-05-2019, 11:13 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,099
Is aggressive contact allowed in foot races?
  #21  
Old 05-05-2019, 11:26 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas Jackson View Post
Second, it did not affect the outcome of the race.
How can you possibly know this? Country House was not significantly affected, but two other horses were. War of Will might have more to complain about than Country House:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
Country House was not affected. But War of Will, who was making a move for the lead, was definitely affected. His jockey did a masterful job of keeping the contact to a minimum. And War of Will did not finish in the top 4, although he very well might have without the foul by Maximum Security.
A horse's speed isn't the only thing that affects the race, it also includes how the jockey controls the horse, how it reacts to the crowd and other horses and other factors.

If the horse had tripped and fallen, it would have lost even it it was unintentional and an accident. It's unfortunate that the jockey wasn't able to control it, but if it violated the rules in effect at the time then it seems to me the outcome is fair.
  #22  
Old 05-05-2019, 11:35 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
No. Conditions are what they are, just as in pro football. A contest is announced for a certain day, and it occurs on that day, no matter the conditions.

All involved in the Kentucky Derby--owners, trainers, jockeys, farriers, horseplayers--had to adjust for conditions today. The Green Bay Packers may play in winter conditions, because they have no other choice, according to the schedule. Same with the Kentucky Derby, and other important stakes races--the horses are going to run, despite local conditions. It makes handicapping a challenge, but it can provide nice payouts if a mudder that you've selected comes home.
Horses are pulled if trainers don't like the conditions, even at the Derby level. Everyone involved knew what the footing was going to be like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
The jockey was interviewed immediately after the race (before the protest had been lodged), and told the reporter from NBC that, as he had been making the final turn, Maximum Security appeared to get spooked when he saw the crowd, and it took him a moment to bring the horse back under control.

That timing would appear to line up with when the horse suddenly veered to the outside.
The jockey knew exactly what the problem was going to be and was trying to get in front of it.
  #23  
Old 05-05-2019, 12:12 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
...

The placement of Number 7 into 17th place is something I cannot explain, but perhaps the Daily Racing Form news or results can explain.
I heard that the standard is to move the 'offending' horse to just below the level of the last 'offended' horse'. So if that 'offended' horse finishes last, now the offender is places there.
  #24  
Old 05-05-2019, 12:45 PM
zoog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Yes, but when touching in NASCAR gets out of hand and you wind up with a stack of cars and drivers in messed up pile the cars don't scream in agony and you don't have to shoot them for having a flat tire. I can't help but think that might have something to do with the rule.
Yes, this. I don't play the ponies anymore but I did a bit and was a little more in tune with the sport 15-20 years ago (I had to cut it out of my budget). But back when I was going to the races more, I saw a handful of incidents where horses got tangled up resulting in gruesome injuries to jockeys and the death of the horses. That's why, intentional or not, a horse isn't allowed to drift into a spot where another horse is running. I was stunned that they made the call they did under the circumstances, but I think it was the right call. I heard one of the trainers (might have been Country House's trainer) say that if that had been a claiming race without a lot a stake that it would have been a no-brainer DQ. Same rules apply here. It took a lot of guts for the stewards to make that call, but they did it unanimously after a long and careful look.
  #25  
Old 05-05-2019, 01:04 PM
suranyi is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKW View Post
This? THIS is what we are up in arms and screaming bloody murder about??

[reads posts again]

Hmm, apparently not. Eh, just as well; the NHL playoffs are more important anyway.

My opinion? Their game, their rules. I'm not so arrogant as to pretend that I know more about the Sport of Kings than the owners, trainers, jockeys, stewards, announcers, and commentators who are in this world all 12 months of the year. If the officials said it was a foul, as far as I'm concerned, it's a foul.

I will add, though, that more than any other type of competition I've ever seen, racing...any racing...has tons of subtleties and intricacies. What maneuvers are permissible and not permissible, what's required for eligibility, track conditions, the effect of weather, positions, how hard to push, the best way to corner, and on, and on. I can't even count the number of times I said "Wait, that's illegal?" or "How did he make that pass?" That's why when the race ends, you always see "Unofficial Results". Nothing's good until the officials go through the race and make sure that it's good.

Unfair? Controversial? Ridiculous? Maybe. But that's why they play the games.

Should be a very interesting Pimlico one week from now, that's for sure.
You make some good points here, and Iíd just like to add that this is why I donít agree with those who want to separate so-called judged sports, such as gymnastics and figure skating, from other sports. Every sport has aspects of judgement, even ones seemingly as objective as racing.
__________________
Right now, itís Girlsí Generation. Tomorrow, itís Girlsí Generation. Forever, itís Girlsí Generation!
  #26  
Old 05-05-2019, 02:16 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,323
Judging rules violations is not in the same category as the judging being the sole measure of performance.
  #27  
Old 05-05-2019, 03:27 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,179
And of course, Il Douche weighs in on the decision.
Quote:
The Kentuky Derby decision was not a good one. It was a rough and tumble race on a wet and sloppy track, actually, a beautiful thing to watch. Only in these days of political correctness could such an overturn occur. The best horse did NOT win the Kentucky Derby - not even close!
The decision of the stewards was unanimous. That's good enough for me.
  #28  
Old 05-05-2019, 04:11 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,099
Well, he is the expert on the best being deprived of victory.
  #29  
Old 05-05-2019, 04:58 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by don't ask View Post
Just as they were making the turn, the first horse over the line, Maximum Security, interfered with War Of Will and Long Range Toddy and indirectly with Country House. It then straightened up and went on to win convincingly.

In most other racing jurisdictions the objection would have been dismissed on the grounds that Country House, had the interference not occurred, would not have beaten Maximum Security anyway. Under Category 1 protest rules, it must be shown that the horse causing the interference gained an advantage and only finished in front of the affected runner as a result of the interference.

However, North American racing does not use the ďmodel ruleĒ in Article 32 of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA) rules. Of course, they have been talking about adopting it for years.
Whether it is law or any sport, I've never been the fan of projecting "what ifs had it not occurred" types of thinking. First, from watching the race several times, I'm not sure that if not for the foul, Country House was not cost about a half of a step. After the horse behind him pulled up, he drifted to the outside causing a near bumping with Country House a few seconds later. We cannot really say definitively what would have happened but for the foul.

Second, the idea of disqualification in any sport, IIRC, is not to attempt to reconstruct what would have happened had the foul not occurred, but as a punishment and inducement for competitors not to commit fouls to begin with.

To me, that's like saying if Lance Armstrong is disqualified from winning the Tour de France because he is found later having used banned substances during the race that we not disqualify him because after studying races where he wasn't using banned substances, he would have won anyways without the banned substance. Or if a pitcher was found throwing a spitball, he is not ejected, because he would have struck out the batter anyways.

I am not knowledgeable in the ins and outs of horse racing rules, and it seems that this was an unfortunate accident with no ill intent, but if you make that the rule then unscrupulous jockeys will start having "unfortunate accidents" and feign innocence in the next race when they cut off a passing horse.
  #30  
Old 05-05-2019, 06:37 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Second, the idea of disqualification in any sport, IIRC, is not to attempt to reconstruct what would have happened had the foul not occurred, but as a punishment and inducement for competitors not to commit fouls to begin with.
I agree that preventing undesirable behavior is why we have rules.

Quote:
I am not knowledgeable in the ins and outs of horse racing rules, and it seems that this was an unfortunate accident with no ill intent, but if you make that the rule then unscrupulous jockeys will start having "unfortunate accidents" and feign innocence in the next race when they cut off a passing horse.
It's the jockey's job to control the horse. Intentionality does not and should not matter in this case. An uncontrolled horse is a danger to itself and everyone around it.
  #31  
Old 05-05-2019, 06:40 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,099
And anyway, intent can be a hard thing to gauge just by observation. Some times it is obvious, but often it is well-disguised.
  #32  
Old 05-05-2019, 07:17 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Whether it is law or any sport, I've never been the fan of projecting "what ifs had it not occurred" types of thinking. First, from watching the race several times, I'm not sure that if not for the foul, Country House was not cost about a half of a step. After the horse behind him pulled up, he drifted to the outside causing a near bumping with Country House a few seconds later. We cannot really say definitively what would have happened but for the foul.
[Bolding mine]

Dude... could you untangle that triple-negative for me? I read it several times but I don't quite get what you're saying.
  #33  
Old 05-05-2019, 07:53 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
And of course, Il Douche weighs in on the decision.


The decision of the stewards was unanimous. That's good enough for me.
Eh, looking at the comments sections in a number of news media pages about the race I could already last night see a whole lot of people having the same kind of reaction -- it's a more generalized attitude of "how dare technicalities bring down a WINNER"... "the best horse did not win" ... because of course, if someone is better or superior, then it is right that he win, even if he does it wrong.

And really, accusing Churchill Downs of "political correctness"?? Hilarious.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 05-05-2019 at 07:57 PM.
  #34  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:01 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Eh, looking at the comments sections in a number of news media pages about the race I could already last night see a whole lot of people having the same kind of reaction -- it's a more generalized attitude of "how dare technicalities bring down a WINNER"... "the best horse did not win" ... because of course, if someone is better or superior, then it is right that he win, even if he does it wrong.

And really, accusing Churchill Downs of "political correctness"?? Hilarious.
He was clearly the best horse. I donít see the point of having a race at all.
  #35  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:52 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald J. Trump
The best horse did NOT win the Kentucky Derby - not even close!
Tell that to Donerail, who won the 1913 Kentucky Derby as a 91-1 bet.

That was on a fast track and no one challenged it.

Anyway, the situation is unprecedented, and thoroughbred racing is already facing so many problems that you can bet there will be an investigation of the stewards, jockeys, betting patterns before the race, etc., so thorough that it will literally be a rubber-glove probe.

Last edited by Kent Clark; 05-05-2019 at 08:54 PM.
  #36  
Old 05-05-2019, 11:54 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
Tell that to Donerail, who won the 1913 Kentucky Derby as a 91-1 bet.

That was on a fast track and no one challenged it.

Anyway, the situation is unprecedented, and thoroughbred racing is already facing so many problems that you can bet there will be an investigation of the stewards, jockeys, betting patterns before the race, etc., so thorough that it will literally be a rubber-glove probe.
There was clearly a foul. What are they going to probe? It was CGI? It came down to a judgement call of three people. It happened in such a random manner that there is no way that it was because of a fix. If it was fixed for Maximum Security not to win there are much easier ways to run the race to make sure that doesnít happen.
  #37  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:05 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoog View Post
I heard one of the trainers (might have been Country House's trainer) say that if that had been a claiming race without a lot a stake that it would have been a no-brainer DQ. Same rules apply here. It took a lot of guts for the stewards to make that call, but they did it unanimously after a long and careful look.
He was pretty diplomatic about it but he was right. I donít claim to be an expert but Iíve been to a track a time or two and Iíve seen disqualifications for less. Heís right that the rules are supposed to be the same whether itís a claims race or the Derby. It was clearly the right call but it was the tough call. If they let it go the story would be dead by the Preakness. As it is itís now history.
  #38  
Old 05-06-2019, 07:04 AM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,041
As I understand it TWO jockeys filed objections. Not just Country House's but also (I believe) War of Will's, which clearly WAS impeded, and seemed to be mounting a charge.

Many forms of track racing have "stay in your lane" rules. In short track speedskating, you are not allowed to drift out to make it harder for someone to pass on the outside. In track, you can't try to make the outside runner run even further around the turn. So the idea of such a rule in horseracing neither surprises nor offends me.

I don't know how viewers can say it was clearly inadvertent. I presume the jockey has SOME control over the horse, which includes the direction in which it is traveling. And experienced jockey or not, I can imagine the thought of squeezing off a possible passing lane...

What surprised me most about the TV coverage, however, was the actions of the interviewers an the participants while the protest was being decided. As a lawyer, I wanted to scream at all of the jockeys and trainers, "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" Whether the one jockey saying his horse veered because of the crowd, or the other saying his horse "kind of" turned sideways, the lawyer in me wanted them to clam up.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #39  
Old 05-06-2019, 08:50 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by don't ask View Post
In most other racing jurisdictions the objection would have been dismissed on the grounds that Country House, had the interference not occurred, would not have beaten Maximum Security anyway.
Then, in my opinion, "most other racing jurisdictions" are wrong because that methodology is far too subjective. You're basically ignoring a KNOWN FOUL because you ASSUME that it wasn't the determining factor.

Last edited by Jasmine; 05-06-2019 at 08:50 AM.
  #40  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:02 AM
RealityChuck's Avatar
RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 42,368
The rule is that a horse that interferes is disqualified. It is not "the horse is disqualified unless he would have won the race, anyway."

Given the football example, if a kick returner steps out of bounds when returning the ball for a touchdown, the touchdown is called back. No one says, "well that was accidental and he would have scored anyway so the touchdown should count."

The rule is there in the interests of fairness (if other horses hadn't had to slow down to avoid a collision, they might have challenged or even won the race) and safety (if any of the horses had fallen due to the drifting out, it would have been a disaster). This may have been a hard case, but it's clear that Maximum Security interfered. The stewards all agreed on this. So, if you're objecting to the decision, you're ultimately saying that, even though it was the right call, they shouldn't have done their job and had let it slide.

Would you allow officials in any other sport to let an obvious infraction of the rules to let slide?
__________________
"If a person saying he was something was all there was to it, this country'd be full of rich men and good-looking women. Too bad it isn't that easy.... In short, when someone else says you're a writer, that's when you're a writer... not before."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
  #41  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:16 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants 2010ē2012ē2014!
Posts: 25,214
Bob Baffert Has Strong Response To Kentucky Derby Controversy:
Quote:
ďNo one calls an objection in the DerbyÖ Itís always a roughly run race. Twenty-horse field. I have been wiped out numerous times, but that is the Derby. I can see by the book why they did it. Sometimes youíve got to take your ass-kickings with dignity.íĒ
Sorry Bob, but I respectfully disagree with you. Yes,
ó Maximum Security ran a strong race and was clearly, up to the quarter pole, the horse to beat, and yes,
ó Country House did not have the closing speed to beat Maximum Security...

But, Maximum Securityís drift to the outside affected two horses, War of Will and Long Range Toddy, and impacted their chances of finishing better than they did. After the clear foul, War of Will faded and finished 8th behind Maximum Security, and Long Range Toddy finished 17th behind Maximum Security.*

Both War of Will and Long Range Toddy could have, and likely would have, finished higher. But Maximum Security cost them that opportunity.

Foul. Clearly.

The track stewards made the right call. At first I didnít think they did, because I was focusing on Country House who did not have the speed and stamina to win on Saturday. But we must look at what happened to War of Will and Long Range Toddy, and they were clearly fouled.

* ó originally, Maximum Security finished 1st, War of Will 8th, and Long Range Toddy 17th. But with the DQ, everybody moves up a place: Country House gets 1st, War of Will gets 7th, and and Long Range Toddy gets Long Range Toddy gets 16th. And Maximum Security gets 17th, one plce behing the last horse he directly impacted.

It was the right call. The esteemed Bob Baffert is not right.
  #42  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:21 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants 2010ē2012ē2014!
Posts: 25,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Is aggressive contact allowed in foot races?
Just ask Zola Budd and Mary Decker-Slaney in the 1984 Olympic Womenís 3000 meter race!
  #43  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:22 AM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 14,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas Jackson View Post
Hereís the problem(s) as I see it, first it was clearly unintentional. That should count for something. Second, it did not affect the outcome of the race. And finally the condition of the track should have been taken into account.

Iím certainly no expert but I did not see him drifting into the fifth lane. 3rd maybe.

I'm going with this. And putting it down as one of many reasons why I never got into horse races at all despite being a big pulling contest fan.
  #44  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:32 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants 2010ē2012ē2014!
Posts: 25,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopek View Post
I'm going with this. And putting it down as one of many reasons why I never got into horse races at all despite being a big pulling contest fan.
But it most certainly did affect the outcome of the race, for War of Will and Long Range Toddy.

What about them? If you owned one of those horses, you wouldn’t be happy.
  #45  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:55 AM
Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,514
I don't follow horse racing so this is something I have nearly zero knowledge of. However, and I bring this up sincerely, when people say 'but Country House was affected', isn't that like saying 'the other team would have one even if they didn't cheat, so we're going to let them have it anyway'?

In the end, I assume the biggest problem is with the people who lost money gambling on it and I would hope that they won't or can't influence the rules and/or how they're applied.
  #46  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:11 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,041
I think Long Range Toddy was the other horse whose jockey protested.

I like the reference to the football player stepping out of bounds.

I wonder what - if any - implications will be for the rider of the DQed horse?
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #47  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:25 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants 2010ē2012ē2014!
Posts: 25,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
I don't follow horse racing so this is something I have nearly zero knowledge of. However, and I bring this up sincerely, when people say 'but Country House was affected', isn't that like saying 'the other team would have one even if they didn't cheat, so we're going to let them have it anyway'?
To my untrained eye, Country House was not affected. And I have the race taped and watched and rewatched the incident several times. IMHO.

Most everybody, including me, says Country House would not have won it anyway.

Quote:
In the end, I assume the biggest problem is with the people who lost money gambling on it and I would hope that they won't or can't influence the rules and/or how they're applied.
Thatís why there are track stewards who watch video replays.

In many ways, horse track video replays greatly predated replays in other sports. And I say that as an SF Giants fan, who benefitted from the first successful challenge by a manager in the World Series ó 2014 World Series, Game 7, bottom of the 2nd.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014..._Series#Game_7

YouTube, Eric Hosmer was out!
  #48  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:31 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants 2010ē2012ē2014!
Posts: 25,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I wonder what - if any - implications will be for the rider of the DQed horse?
Not much, is my guess. There wasnít much that jockey Luis Saez could do at that split second moment ó youíve got a huge horse of solid muscle under you, and you weigh, what?, some 125 or so pounds. If a thoroughbred wants to drift out, heíll drift out. Saez got him under control pretty quickly, to my untrained eye*.

Luis Saez said it was the loud sound of the huge crowd that momentarily startled his horse.

* ó Iím a casual fan of the sport, tuning in for the Triple Crown each year since Secretariat in 1973. While that may sound like a lot of years, some 46 years, I donít follow the sport other than the TC.
  #49  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:31 PM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,353
Watching it live I said "uh oh, he's come way out wide for no reason." I was not surprised foul was called and after seeing the replay, not surprised Maximum Security was DQ'd. All that said, I wish he wouldn't have been. I didn't think it was egregious or intentional, but, unfortunately, by the book it was the right call.
  #50  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:34 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,466
A relevant article:
Kentucky Derby Opinion: Right Call, Wrong Process
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...-wrong-process

It notes:
Quote:
The public assumption seems to be that the Churchill stewards weren't reviewing the Derby incident before the objection was claimed. Kentucky Horse Racing Commission executive director Marc Guilfoil said Sunday that they already were reviewing it, but didn't post an inquiry.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017