Thoroughbred Racing 2019

skipaway

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,863
So, KY Oaks/Derby this weekend. Favorite in the Derby, Omaha Beach was scatched due to an entrapped epiglottis. I think it’s an even field this year with no clear favorite. I like Maximum Security, the Florida Derby winner b/c he started as a claimed. Probably won’t win, but here’s hoping.
Haikal with foot abscess, so he may scratch too.

Omaha Beach Out
 

sk8pics

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,864
Haikal was scratched. Too bad! But I’m glad these trainers are putting the health of their horses first.

I am rooting for Roadster for no particular reason. If not, then I hope we have a big upset, just for fun.
 

ilovepaydays

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,457
It’s getting close to post time! Who else is getting excited? :D :gallopin1 :cheer2:

The track looks like it’s getting messy! And it’s supposed to continue to rain!
 

ChelleC

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,016
I'm going to need someone who is a racing expert to explain to me exactly what just happened. Preferably a slow explanation and with art.
 

ilovepaydays

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,457
I'm going to need someone who is a racing expert to explain to me exactly what just happened. Preferably a slow explanation and with art.
I’m going to need this as well - plus probably an interpretive dance.

OMG. The $1 superfecta is paying out $51K! :eek:
 

sk8pics

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,864
So, I disagree with this decision. Maximum Security, for sure he came out from the rail, and in fact, during the race I thought he blew the turn. Yes, he interfered with War of Will and the other horse next to him (I forget the name right now) but no way did he interfere with Country House. And then he straightened out and ran away from the other horses. The jockey on Country House is the one who claimed foul, not the other two jockeys who both would have had a legitimate claim of foul. So the only thing I can figure is that they thought the situation was dangerous enough to warrant disqualification. For sure if War of Will went down it would have been a disaster. So they must have been punishing the jockey for letting Maximum Security drift out. The jockey said the horse got scared by the crowd and he pulled him back right away, which he did. I think this is the wrong decision. Maximum Security was the best horse, none of the others were going to beat him. There will be no triple crown winner this year, because Country House is not going to do it. I don’t know if Maximum Security would have, but if he wins the Preakness and Belmont, I wonder if there’ll be a lawsuit or appeal. Actually, if there are grounds to appeal I hope they do it right away. I hope Maximum Security’s people get more information on the decision making process. I wonder if the stewards caved in to pressure related to the image of racing these days, and were afraid to leave the results based on concern about horses going down if it had been a little worse.

I am not an expert, but I know a bit. All my friends who are horse people are outraged.
 

skipaway

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,863
Waaah...😥😥😥🏇🏇🏇 MS was my favorite.
So, in a “Hail Mary” Jockey Flavian Pratt on CH lodged a “jockey’s objection” against MS’s rider. Generally, there are inquirys by the stewards and objections made by jockeys and trainers. Steward’s inquiries usually are more serious b/c the stewards see something wrong and call it almost immediately. In this case a jockey asked for a review from the stewards on the incident in the turn. Looking over the different camera angles and speaking to the jockeys who were involved, the stewards decided MS did impede the running of several horses and he was then placed behind the ones he impeded. This placed him in last b/c both the horses that finished in 18 and 19 were up front with MS when the incident occurred. It would be interesting to know why the stewards didn’t immediately post an inquiry and why the jockey on WoW didn’t post an objection as he more than CH was impeded. Also, since CH wasn’t impeded, the stewards should have disallowed that specific objection and kept MS up. Their inquiry would have allowed them to legitimately d/q MS.
I’m saddened this happened for all the connections, both MS and CH’s. I held my breath on the slow motion showing the close quarters when MSNA came in on WoW.
 
Last edited:

sk8pics

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,864
@skipaway They did not change the order of finish, they disqualified him. Not even last, but disqualified. I feel terrible for the jockey and other connections. I will be interested to see if they make any official statement on the decision. I think it was wrong. Maximum Security was the best horse. I think it was politics, but hope I am wrong.
 

skipaway

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,863
@skipaway They did not change the order of finish, they disqualified him. Not even last, but disqualified. I feel terrible for the jockey and other connections. I will be interested to see if they make any official statement on the decision. I think it was wrong. Maximum Security was the best horse. I think it was politics, but hope I am wrong.
I’m sure we won’t hear from the stewards. MS was the best horse; however, he certainly came out on WOW and Bodexpress and CoH.
Payouts on the CH mutual tickets was incredible. Wonder if Churchill Downs loses more money on a long shot like that or on a favorite where they have thousands of tickets they have to cash?
Hopefully this angle would not have influenced the steward’s decision.
 

sk8pics

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,864
The jockey on Country House said at first that he had a clear path down the stretch, and changed his story after the decision, I think. No way was Country House impeded. If the stewards disqualified Maximum Security not based on the jockey’s “Hail Mary” foul claim but on a steward’s inquiry, that is more legit.

Interesting question about the payouts. I don’t know the answer. The politics I was thinking of were more along the lines of, omg there was some interference and the #21 horse was not going to win, but there was interference and we have to do something... I see Coolmore has a connection to the horse that won by DQ.
 

skipaway

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,863
The jockey on Country House said at first that he had a clear path down the stretch, and changed his story after the decision, I think. No way was Country House impeded. If the stewards disqualified Maximum Security not based on the jockey’s “Hail Mary” foul claim but on a steward’s inquiry, that is more legit.

Interesting question about the payouts. I don’t know the answer. The politics I was thinking of were more along the lines of, omg there was some interference and the #21 horse was not going to win, but there was interference and we have to do something... I see Coolmore has a connection to the horse that won by DQ.
Agreed. Didn’t know about Coolmore’s connection. Interesting.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,002
Wonder if Churchill Downs loses more money on a long shot like that or on a favorite where they have thousands of tickets they have to cash?
It makes no difference under the parimutuel system. It would make a big difference to bookmakers, who usually lose money when favorites win and make money when longshots do.

If the stewards disqualified Maximum Security not based on the jockey’s “Hail Mary” foul claim but on a steward’s inquiry, that is more legit.
There were both an objection and a steward's inquiry, but NBC botched their coverage by making it seem like there was only an objection. The director is to blame here, but the commentators should have spoken up and clarified what was happening.

I think it's obvious that the disqualification was the result of the steward's inquiry. Even if Maximum Security's interference had deprived Country House of a first-place finish, that would only have been a basis for placing Maximum Security second.

I am not sure that the appeal by the owners of Maximum Security will be successful here, but there is no harm in trying.
 

skipaway

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,863
It makes no difference under the parimutuel system. It would make a big difference to bookmakers, who usually lose money when favorites win and make money when longshots do.


There were both an objection and a steward's inquiry, but NBC botched their coverage by making it seem like there was only an objection. The director is to blame here, but the commentators should have spoken up and clarified what was happening.

I think it's obvious that the disqualification was the result of the steward's inquiry. Even if Maximum Security's interference had deprived Country House of a first-place finish, that would only have been a basis for placing Maximum Security second.

I am not sure that the appeal by the owners of Maximum Security will be successful here, but there is no harm in trying.
I did not know there was a SI. Good to know. Thanks for the clarification.
 

sk8pics

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,864
Yes, thanks for that clarification. I am still glad Maxie’s connections will appeal. We’ll see what happens.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,002
I watched a replay. Maximum Security came out on War of Will not once but twice, and he also drifted in and bumped Code of Honor, possibly costing the latter a placing ahead of Country House. I think the steward's decision will stand. The most lenient I think the appellate panel could possibly be would be to place Maximum Security behind War of Will (which IINM would be eighth place).
 

sk8pics

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,864
We’ll see. I think there is precedent to reverse the decision. I also think if they had to debate 20 minutes, it was not so clear cut what the decision should be and they should not have taken him down. ETA, I mean precedent in terms of similar fouls being committed and the horse not taken down.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,002
We’ll see. I think there is precedent to reverse the decision. I also think if they had to debate 20 minutes, it was not so clear cut what the decision should be and they should not have taken him down. ETA, I mean precedent in terms of similar fouls being committed and the horse not taken down.
There is precedent, though the example I can most readily think of is from English classic, namely the 2015 St. Leger. But I think the length of time reflects the importance of the race more than anything else. Had this been a maiden claiming race, the inquiry might have taken much less time.

ETA: I have now seen another replay currently available here: https://www.nbcsports.com/video/sport/horse-racing .
Maximum Security changed leads prematurely, drifting out in front of War of Will, who had one leg in between Maximum Security's at one point. I think the DQ was correct.

Further ETA: Maximum Security was placed seventeenth (of nineteen), behind Long Range Toddy, one one of the horses with whom he interfered.
 
Last edited:

skipaway

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,863
Statement by Head Steward
"The riders of the 18 (Long Range Toddy) and 20 (Country House) horses in the Kentucky Derby lodged objections against the 7 (Maximum Security) horse, the winner, due to interference turning for home, leaving the 1/4 pole.
We had a lengthy review of the race. We interviewed affected riders. We determined that the 7 horse drifted out and impacted the progress of Number 1 (War of Will), in turn, interfering with the 18 and 21 (Bodexpress). Those horses were all affected, we thought, by the interference.
Therefore, we unanimously determined to disqualify Number 7 and place him behind the 18, the 18 being the lowest-placed horse that he bothered, which is our typical procedure."


She didn’t mention that they also issued their own Inquiry.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,002
Thank you, @skipaway. That clarifies things. (And I guess that the reports of a steward's inquiry weren't accurate, but perhaps the stewards didn't pursue their own inquiry because they didn't need to.) I still think NBC could have done a better job of reporting.
 

Karen-W

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,129
Thank you, @skipaway. That clarifies things. (And I guess that the reports of a steward's inquiry weren't accurate, but perhaps the stewards didn't pursue their own inquiry because they didn't need to.) I still think NBC could have done a better job of reporting.
Yes - NBC's coverage made it seem like there was only an objection from CH's jockey but the steward's explanation says there were two objections and the other was from one of the impacted horses, which explains the final placement.
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,410
@skipaway They did not change the order of finish, they disqualified him. Not even last, but disqualified. I feel terrible for the jockey and other connections. I will be interested to see if they make any official statement on the decision. I think it was wrong. Maximum Security was the best horse. I think it was politics, but hope I am wrong.
The stewards made a huge mistake had a difficult decision to make (edited because I certainly do not know enough about horse racing to be judge and jury ;)). I'm basing my comments upon what I saw and upon what little I do know. I didn't see the race live, but checking it out awhile ago even without knowing anything about any of the horses and the backstory, I don't think the impeding by Saez on Maximum Security would have changed the race's winning outcome. Maximum Security led for most of the race and (after doing some reading I see that) he's the best horse as well as the favorite. Maximum Security had at least a chance to compete for the Triple Crown and win the whole shebang, while Country House likely won't win another major race this season.

Furthermore, the jockeys on some of the horses who were impeded did not lodge any complaints, and they had more right to do so. If anything, those jockeys and horses who were impeded by Maximum Security may have had a chance to beat Country House. But no one was going to beat Maximum Security, regardless of the slight bobbing and weaving interference (granted that it was dangerous). Why wasn't Saez fined, and simply allow MS to keep the credible win? I suppose that's not how it's done. (Plus, okay if there was a steward's inquiry, they realized there was a problem in the race; still if anything Country House was never going to win -- maybe one of the other horses might have gotten closer to MS at the finish line). The sport just made a controversial decision that cost a lot of bettors money, which has resulted in anger and alienation.

Country House was never bothered down the stretch, so it makes the win not only controversial but inaccurate. Had the impeding not occurred, one or both of the horses who actually were impeded may have beaten Country House. Therefore, the interference actually helped Country House come in second! There's no chance Country House was going to win against Maximum Security with or without the interference against the other horses, IMO.
 
Last edited:

sk8pics

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,864
@Vagabond If there is interference, isn’t a consideration of whether the finish would have been different supposed to be part of the decision-making process? And if it’s not clear, then the results should stand? I agree MS interfered, but I don’t think it means MS would not still have won.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top