Straight Up Good Looking
- Aug 15, 2011
I mean, it wasn't all bad...
IMO, biggest BS call I've seen. The hors that supposedly was bumped never changed stride at all with no effect on him, plus that horse's owner never filed a complaint, only the owner of the declared winning horse (not bumped) who would win if the real winner was DQed. There was not clear evidence, no camera angle clearly showed it. Should have been "the play stands." Churchill Downs likely banked a ton of money in bets with the DQ. Makes you wonder. You may agree or disagree but that's how I see it.
I'm not sure what the rules are in Kentucky, but in New York a rider, trainer or owner can claim foul. But none of that is necessary anyway, as the stewards can choose to adjudicate a situation without a formal claim of foul being filed, and often do after seeing something unusual occur during the running of a race.That's a good point. Actually the complaint has to come from the jockeys, per this article and two of them complained but not War of Wills jockey:
What in the world happened at the 2019 Kentucky Derby?
The complaint of Country House's jockey was obviously self-serving and his horse did not seem to be affected. The other horse whose jockey complained, Long Range Toddy, might have had a better case. he finished 16th. Did he have a chance to finish in the money? Who can say? (Bodexpress, whose jockey did not complain, finished 13th).
What if there had been no complaint? Would they have done nothing?
I'm not sure what the rules are in Kentucky, but in New York a rider, trainer or owner can claim foul. But none of that is necessary anyway, as the stewards can choose to adjudicate a situation without a formal claim of foul being filed, and often do after seeing something unusual occur during the running of a race.
In any event, when a horse has been deemed to have committed a foul that likely impacted the ultimate placing of another horse or horses, it is disqualified and placed behind those horses. In this case, Maximum Security directly fouled War of Will, causing a chain reaction affecting Long Range Toddy and Bodexpress; since Long Range Toddy finished the worst of the horses impacted, Maximum Security was placed behind him (17th).
Hypothetically, had Maximum Security fouled only one horse and that horse had finished second, he would have been disqualified and placed second. Similarly, had Maximum Security finished behind all of the horses he had fouled, there would have been no disqualification and no change in the order of finish.
All of that aside, the action taken by the stewards was appropriate, and thankfully the athleticism of the riders and horses involved prevented a potentially ugly incident in the country's most high profile race.
I have actually seen owners claim foul in NY.Well Said and I agree probably the right call. Max security just didn’t stay in his path coming around the turn.
Don’t know how war of will and gafflione stayed upright that would have been really ugly.
Very rare that an owner would claim foul usually stewards see it first then jocks and then trainers. Owners needs a new trainer if they actually have to claim foul or there just being foolish
Here's a famous disqualification from 1978. Note the head on tower shot that gave the stewards the definitive view of what happened. These camera angles have been around a while. Prior to that, they had officials observing the races from various elevated positions around the track, and they made calls based on real-time visual observations. Hell, way back when the order of close finishes was determined by visual observation. That said, stewards now have more angles available for review, and the video quality is obviously better.40 yrs ago would have been 1979.. I am not sure that they had cameras to spot that foul back then.. you go back and watch races like Secretariat and you see one camera angle sometimes for the whole race.
I think its really on the last 15-20 yrs that an angle on that part of the track would be visible.. even now at most tracks that would be picked up.. you have side and head on down the stretch and often at the back side but not so much around the corners.
and while it was the right call I dont think the jockey could have done anything to stop a horse getting spooked like that
i would also add that how many 20 horse fields were there back in the day, if they had 7-10 horse in this race probably doesnt happen either.. you had walking starts too way back so that helped spread things out
There are a lot of people out there today who watch two or three races a year but are suddenly experts on racing and how stewards are supposed to do their jobs.I don't know jack squat about horse racing but I thought they made the right call. This solidifies my opinion.
Exactly. I think they made the right call but I'm going to stay in my lane and not pretend I have some idea what I'm talking about.There are a lot of people out there today who watch two or three races a year but are suddenly experts on racing and how stewards are supposed to do their jobs.
Not well. They were made by crazy owners and quickly dismissed.
Good point about the relationships among riders. I also think riders may assume that the stewards are likely to initiate a review on their own after an incident like that occurs, which generally is what happens and probably happened here.The rider of the 1 and the rider of the 7, Tyler Gafflione and Louis Saez ride on the same circuit all winter long in Florida and much of the spring. They are in the same jocks room everyday. The 1 wasn't going to win and I am sure Tyler didn't want to be the cause or reason why Saez didn't win the derby. The winner and the other inquiry came from jocks who ride different circuits so probably not the same relationship. Now had the 1 finished 3rd or 4th probably would have seen an objection from Gafflione.
saez has a reputation for being very aggressive out there but he certainly did the best he could correct the horse going wide at the turn. Just kind of sucks to see the winner have to win like this but again truly believe that the right call was made regardless of all the outpouring and carrying on, doesn't matter if he was the best horse or not.
I am not quite sure how much the 20 the winner was actually bothered but it is what it is.
The stewards don't need a complaint to be filed right? Can't they initiate an inquiry on their own? If so they should have and frankly should have answered questions.
yep, a miracle that nobody was hurt. War of Will was a miracle worker more than anything and just flat out lucky. Gafflione and Saez are both great young jocks. As is Pratt the eventual winner. If Tacitus or War of Will run in Preakness I will be wager on them both. don't blame Pratt at all he was looking out for the trainer and owner of the horse he was riding as he should.Good point about the relationships among riders. I also think riders may assume that the stewards are likely to initiate a review on their own after an incident like that occurs, which generally is what happens and probably happened here.
I agree with you about Saez, and think he did the best he could under the circumstances. Again, it was pretty miraculous that no rider was dropped and no horse went down. Had that happened, there would be no controversy about the DQ, as the actions of Maximum Security would have clearly been the cause.