I know how they work, technicially; but it’s sometimes hard to envision exactly how that manifests in certain picture. The distortions to bicycle spokes are extreme and unmissable. The horses in the Derby photo look almost completely normal.
I’d suppose that’s mostly because bicycle spokes are supposed to be straight and evenly spaced, so it’s very noticeable when they aren’t. Whereas horse legs look kinda wonky even normally.
I was thinking it’s the long stride length. On a bicycle, the spokes that are near the bottom show the most distortion. I suppose it makes sense that the distortion would happen when part of the bicycle was stationary (the very bottom of the tire) as the rest of it was moving.
If a horse just happened to plant its hoof right on the finish line (or very close to it) as it was galloping past, I’m pretty sure it would look stretched out horizontally. Their strides are so long that the chance of them stepping right on the line are slim.
That was my initial thought too, and was going to make a joke about horses with short Corgi legs zipping at high speed. But I don’t think it’s exactly right, because the leg speed is the same in both cases. Just like a bicycle spoke, the ground speed is zero when it’s contacting the ground, and some higher speed (about 2x the horse speed on average) when it’s elevated. So the distortion should look similar in all cases.
You are onto something, but I’d suggest the better description is that horses only have 4 legs, while bicycles have many spokes. So there’s a good chance that the horse’s legs are in a position where there’s not much distortion–pointed roughly parallel to the ground. Whereas there are always some spokes that are perpendicular to the ground and so look curved.
A millipede horse would always have some legs in a position where you see distortion, and that would catch your eye more. Well, maybe not more than the existence of a millipede horse, admittedly.
As a longtime horse racing fan, I’ve seen hundreds of photo finishes. What you describe does indeed happen, and the hoof looks unusually long. That doesn’t really matter though; what matters is where the horse’s nose is.
Nice bit of money. 
So, did you? 
I know that; was just trying to figure out why the artifacts of fixed-slit photography are different between horses and bicycles.
The forward hoof on Horse #2 in the picture does look a bit big.
Not with the amount those guys put away when we’re at the track/race book!
Upthread, the question was asked about the favourite, Number 17, Fierceness; and why he didn’t do better. “Did the jockey intentionally save him once he saw he had no chance to win” was the question.
It doesn’t sound like it. An item in the Daily Racing Form helps a bit:
Most pertinent to Fierceness’ lack of performance is this:
Note that “keen” in this context means that the horse isn’t responding to the jockey. Well, it is, in the sense that it is not out of control, but generally speaking, a “keen” horse is going faster than the jockey wants it to, and wasting energy better saved for the stretch drive. That sounds like what happened here. You’ll sometimes hear horseplayers say something like, “He ran out of gas at the three-eighths,” which means that early in the race, the horse used up his energy that would have been better saved for the stretch drive.
Thanks, Spoons. What is your take on the contact between the place and show horses?
I’ll admit that those of us watching saw the contact, and immediately, someone said, “Are we going to see a stewards’ inquiry or a jockey objection?” Most of us agreed that we would not. Not for something that slight, and in fact, not out of the ordinary.
And we didn’t. The contact didn’t rise to the level where the stewards (think of them as referees or umpires) would have to get involved. It’s normal in a race for a horse to come into contact with the horse next to it occasionally. But just a touch. What a jockey may not do is to deliberately run his horse into the horse next to it, in what we refer to as a “hip check.” That would violate one of the rules of racing (“A horse may move to any part of the track that is not currently occupied by any other horse”). Accidents can happen, of course, and sometimes, it’s not the jockey’s fault; it’s the horse’s. Doesn’t matter, either way a hip check would cause a steward’s inquiry.
That’s what we did not see: any kind of hip check. What we did see was the #2 horse on the outside trying to save as much ground as possible (get as close to the rail as possible) while knowing it can only go so far because of horse #11.
Did that answer your question?
Did they make it much longer than in years past? It’s usually 30 minutes between races. I don’t remember them padding it that much.
The one and only time I was at Churchill Dows was in 1998 for the Breeder’s Cup. It was kind of a dump. Looks like they improved it a lot.
They do that for major stakes races. A major stakes (Derby, Preakness, etc.) will typically run 60 to 70 minutes after the previous race. I don’t know why, except it could be to allow as many wagers as possible to be placed—remember, the track takes an 18% to 25% percentage off the top. This is how the track makes its money.
On a related note, it could also be because the lines to place wagers on major stakes can get unusually long, and the track wants to allow as many people as possible the opportunity to wager. A lot of people only wager on one or two races a year, typically major stakes, and some of those don’t know how to call a bet to the mutuel teller, which bogs down the line speeds. Experienced horseplayers will use what we call an Autotote, which is a machine that can book your bet, but these are incomprehensible to folks who only bet once or twice a year, so if the Autototes have lines, they’re pretty short and move quickly.
Or it could be because NBC wants more time to include fluff and commercials.
I was out of town and got home today, and I watched the broadcast. I knew the results, and I FF’d thru the fluff and crap about who wore what. What was interesting was that there was virtually no coverage of Mystik Dan at all. Only a tiny little bit just before Riders Up (which Martha Stewart botched; was she drunk/tipsy? What a bozo; instead of saying Kentucky she almost said Connecticut.).
Anyway, nothing about the winner. In fact, knowing the results already I actually enjoyed watching it after the fact. I was able to focus on the 3, 2, 11, and 4 horses — the superfecta.
And thanks for the bumping explanation, @Spoons . Before reading that I was wondering if the #11 horse might get penalized, but your explanation cleared it all up.
And I must’ve watched the race 7-8 times over, to watch the runs of specific horses. That was fun. And Brian Hernandez piloted Mystik Dan expertly.
I just saw a meme that says [lack of proper punctuation original]:
Kentucky Derby winning jockey Brian Hernandez Jr. just turned down an invitation to the White house saying "If I wanted to stare at a horse’s ass, I would have finished second.
- Was Hernandez invited to the White House?
- Did he turn it down? (i.e., is the meme correct?)
Please, no political discussion. I’m looking for factual answers only.
Considering that this quote was also attributed to Sonny Leon, the 2022 Derby winner, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this is not true.
Did Kentucky Derby Winner Turn Down White House Invite? | Snopes.com
And, in this case, he would have had to come in at best fourth to see any horse’s asses. At second, he’s seeing a horse’s nose, just slightly ahead of his own horse’s nose.
Thank you, Railer13.
I was initially doubtful that Brian Hernandez jr would be invited to the White House so soon after his win. It’s not like the old Super Bowl winning QBs running off the field saying “I’m going to Disneyland!”
And then I searched and also did not find anything on it.