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 can’t abide it. And I watched all the replays, sorry I don’t see how Country House was affected. Best horse lost. Ugh.
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.
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.
That’s what comes from being different to the rest of the world and not adopting the Category 1 protest/objection rules.
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?
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 “model rule” in Article 32 of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA) rules. Of course, they have been talking about adopting it for years.
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.
A video of the problem:
Was the jockey in any way responsible? I felt bad for him. The horse doesn’t know the difference.
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.
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.
Damn, what a sloppy track. Those horses looked like they were running sideways.
That was exactly the problem: Maximum Security was.
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. 
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.
Here’s 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.
I’m certainly no expert but I did not see him drifting into the fifth lane. 3rd maybe.
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.
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.
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.
Is aggressive contact allowed in foot races?