Derby anyone?

Bongorific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,172
Balboa Towers
It was an obvious DQ.

I took a sports law class in law school and we had a couple officials from Saratoga come in one class and show us the angles officials see, which is much different than the TV angles.

I saw this one in real time and was very surprised e announcers weren’t talking about it. It sucks for MS’s team by it was clear.
 

OilCanShotTupac

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
18,740
The 718
It's telling- I see lots of stories about it this morning. I don't see any outcry of it being a bad ruling. It seems like most people who know the sport (I don't) accept that it was the right call- only noteworthy because it's the Kentucky Derby.
 

splendid splinter

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
985
Greenville, SC
I can’t believe it’s never happened before. Huge fields every year means lots of horses crashing that turn.
It (an objection upheld) did happen once before, but not with the lead horse. In 1984 the 4th and 5th place finishers switched places when it was determined the 4th place horse (Gate Dancer) interfered with the 5th place horse (Fali Time).
 

canderson

Fomenting voting confusion and angst since 2016
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
25,427
Harrisburg, Pa.
It's telling- I see lots of stories about it this morning. I don't see any outcry of it being a bad ruling. It seems like most people who know the sport (I don't) accept that it was the right call- only noteworthy because it's the Kentucky Derby.
The president disagrees. Although I never heard of the Kentuky Derby.

@realDonaldTrump
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!
 

Greg29fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,382
NC
It's telling- I see lots of stories about it this morning. I don't see any outcry of it being a bad ruling. It seems like most people who know the sport (I don't) accept that it was the right call- only noteworthy because it's the Kentucky Derby.
I work in the industry and think it was an abomination. It's like calling pass interference on a Hail Mary in the Super Bowl. There are 20 horses, there's contact in every running of the race, sometimes egregious contact, and other than when Gate Dancer was placed from fourth to fifth in I think 83 or 84, it's been let go, and certainly never impacted the winner.

Why did they choose to do it this year? I dunno....PETA has been given a voice in the sport, which is a massive mistake, and I think "safety concerns" probably played a big role.
 

sittingstill

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
1,509
Bay State Road
I work in the industry and think it was an abomination. It's like calling pass interference on a Hail Mary in the Super Bowl. There are 20 horses, there's contact in every running of the race, sometimes egregious contact, and other than when Gate Dancer was placed from fourth to fifth in I think 83 or 84, it's been let go, and certainly never impacted the winner.
I think this is the root of it--while this would almost certainly be called in a Thursday afternoon maiden claiming race, the tendency of the biggest races has been to leave the standings alone, whether that's fair or not. For me it brings to mind Bayern taking out Shared Belief and a few others at the start of the 2014 Breeders Cup, where he was not penalized.
 

OilCanShotTupac

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
18,740
The 718
I work in the industry and think it was an abomination. It's like calling pass interference on a Hail Mary in the Super Bowl. There are 20 horses, there's contact in every running of the race, sometimes egregious contact, and other than when Gate Dancer was placed from fourth to fifth in I think 83 or 84, it's been let go, and certainly never impacted the winner.

Why did they choose to do it this year? I dunno....PETA has been given a voice in the sport, which is a massive mistake, and I think "safety concerns" probably played a big role.
Thanks.

Curious: what is your role?
 

Petey

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
81
It was an obvious DQ.

I took a sports law class in law school and we had a couple officials from Saratoga come in one class and show us the angles officials see, which is much different than the TV angles.

I saw this one in real time and was very surprised e announcers weren’t talking about it. It sucks for MS’s team by it was clear.
Agree with all the above except the sucks for MS's team part (at least with regard to Gary West).

Years ago Gary West (billionaire "philanthropist), threatened to sue the Breeders' Cup unless the Lasix ban was reversed. West hired Sutherland Asbill and Brennan, an Atlanta law firm, which sent a six-page letter to Fravel, copying every Breeders' Cup board member. Saying the board members have a “fiduciary duty to advance the interests of the U.S. racing industry,” the letter said the decision to ban Lasix “puts the life of the horse and jockey at risk”. Horses in other countries seem to fare just fine without drugging horses on race day.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
I work in the industry and think it was an abomination. It's like calling pass interference on a Hail Mary in the Super Bowl. There are 20 horses, there's contact in every running of the race, sometimes egregious contact, and other than when Gate Dancer was placed from fourth to fifth in I think 83 or 84, it's been let go, and certainly never impacted the winner.

Why did they choose to do it this year? I dunno....PETA has been given a voice in the sport, which is a massive mistake, and I think "safety concerns" probably played a big role.
Kinda surprised to read this as it seems like for the most part the people who are closest to the game have been supportive of the DQ.

Hope I post this correctly. This I think is the conclusive look at the interference.
Game Winner in the Preakness. He ran unbelievable yesterday.
 

Petey

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
81
[QUOTE="This I think is the conclusive look at the interference.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for posting this. I saw the Jerry Bailey and Randy Moss break down, they didn't call out the jockey, but they were definitely not absolving him either. Wondered if there might be more than a scared horse possibility after their break down.

If you watch his legs, Saez allowed him to change leads on the corner which played a huge part in his drifting out, that's where I believe it went all wrong.

10:18 AM - 5 May 2019

1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes


    1. New conversation
 

Greg29fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,382
NC
I think much of the "industry" is supporting it because they don't like his trainer. Jason Servis is a high-percentage win guy a lot of people think is a rule-breaker and steps up a lot of horses off people.
 

Petey

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
81
I think much of the "industry" is supporting it because they don't like his trainer. Jason Servis is a high-percentage win guy a lot of people think is a rule-breaker and steps up a lot of horses off people.
Interesting. So people in the industry are suspicious with regard to the trainer. The owner has a reputation for bullying / litigating (excuse me, horses need to be drugged day of the race in this country or jockeys will die). The jockeys will be fine in other countries. The jockey swings the horse wide, coming frighteningly close to causing a pile-up, then swings the horse hard back to the rail and makes contact with the horse making a move on the rail. Then blames the horse and crowd noise. Sounds like a wonderful cast of characters.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
I think Saez’s version of the story has a lot of credibility. It’s not uncommon for riders to talk - in a positive way - about turning for home in a Triple Crown race and hitting a wall of noise. It’s a unique thing. When the horses are on the backside it’s remarkably quiet (I watched the 2016 Derby on the backside; quiet enough to hear the hooves on the track and the jockeys calling to each other). Then within 30 seconds you’re hit with more noise than you’ve ever heard in your life.

As a young horse, a baby in Saez’s description, it’s not that surprising that he would react to the noise. MS’s four previous starts were all at Gulfstream. You can get maybe 15k in there on their biggest day. In 3 of MS’s 4 prior starts he probably raced in front of fewer than 3k people. Derby horses used to come to the race with far more racing experience, much of it in front of bigger live crowds than are typical today. What we saw yesterday was in some ways a consequence of horses coming to the Derby off less and less experience.
 

Greg29fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,382
NC
Yeah that was in no way Saez's fault or a deliberate act. Multi-time Derby winner Gary Stevens surmised on Twitter that the horse shied away from light reflecting off a puddle of water on the inside of the track, which is as plausible as anything...it was definitely some sort of action by the horse that the jockey had no control of.
 

genoasalami

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2006
1,986
Yeah that was in no way Saez's fault or a deliberate act. Multi-time Derby winner Gary Stevens surmised on Twitter that the horse shied away from light reflecting off a puddle of water on the inside of the track, which is as plausible as anything...it was definitely some sort of action by the horse that the jockey had no control of.
It doesn't matter...you can't ask the horse.You can't assume it was a puddle, or the sound of the crowd. Whatever. It doesn't matter. If was the 4th race at old Suffolk Downs on a Tuesday, the horse would have been DQ'd in about 2 minutes....you HAVE to maintain your path. Maximum Security moved out about 5 paths causing multiple horses to check and the number one horse was lucky he did not clip heels and fall. It was the right call, and if anything, gives the sport some credibility that regardless of the race, a foul is a foul....
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,970
Yeah that was in no way Saez's fault or a deliberate act. Multi-time Derby winner Gary Stevens surmised on Twitter that the horse shied away from light reflecting off a puddle of water on the inside of the track, which is as plausible as anything...it was definitely some sort of action by the horse that the jockey had no control of.
Color me surprised at this view given what Petey noted above:

then swings the horse hard back to the rail and makes contact with the horse making a move on the rail.
I am not sure if there was contact near the rail, but it sure looked like the MS/Saez combo veered way off line to the right to blunt those threats and then went way back left toward the rail when a threat appeared over there. Baseball folks used to talk about Mitch WIlliams pitching with a convenient wildness. MS/Saez looked to have a convenient skittishness.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
28,289
Southwestern CT
Color me surprised at this view given what Petey noted above:



I am not sure if there was contact near the rail, but it sure looked like the MS/Saez combo veered way off line to the right to blunt those threats and then went way back left toward the rail when a threat appeared over there. Baseball folks used to talk about Mitch WIlliams pitching with a convenient wildness. MS/Saez looked to have a convenient skittishness.
Yeah, but this is why the intent is really kind of irrelevant.

For whatever reason, MS veered right and then left, cutting off horses and causing at least two to check up hard. Whether caused by circumstances or design, that's a foul.
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
29,872
South Boston
Color me surprised at this view given what Petey noted above:

I am not sure if there was contact near the rail, but it sure looked like the MS/Saez combo veered way off line to the right to blunt those threats and then went way back left toward the rail when a threat appeared over there. Baseball folks used to talk about Mitch WIlliams pitching with a convenient wildness. MS/Saez looked to have a convenient skittishness.
Could the swing back to the left have been an over correction? I know nothing, but that seems intuitively plausible to me.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
18,754
I think much of the "industry" is supporting it because they don't like his trainer. Jason Servis is a high-percentage win guy a lot of people think is a rule-breaker and steps up a lot of horses off people.
The two breeders and owner who I'm friends with support it because it was an obvious infraction that shouldn't be ignored simply due to the fact that it was a massive stakes race. I appreciate your angle but between those personal relationships and virtually everyone of note saying similar it is interesting to hear this from another source even though I vehemently disagree.

Yeah, but this is why the intent is really kind of irrelevant.

For whatever reason, MS veered right and then left, cutting off horses and causing at least two to check up hard. Whether caused by circumstances or design, that's a foul.
You are correct in that intent isn't any part of the rule and to Trump's point neither is the condition of the track. It was a clear foul and the magnitude of the race shouldn't change that.
 

LoweTek

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2005
1,675
Central Florida
I don't watch a helluva lot of horse racing but I'm coming down on the this was the right call side. I thought it was obvious and clearly negatively impacted the two adjacent horses. In fact I was wondering why it was taking the stewards so long to announce the DQ.

The argument "it was a big stakes race, let them run" has no resonance for me. It's like saying we should ignore obvious replay overturns in the World Series because it's game 7.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,970
Saez suspended by Kentucky Horse Racing Commission:

The commission cited Saez's "failure to controI his mount and make the proper effort to maintain a straight course, thereby causing interference with several rivals that resulted in the disqualification of his mount."
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
As soon as the horse dumped his rider he became a Did Not Finish. It’s rare that you see what happened today but it does happen. I once saw a horse dump the rider and then lead wire-to-wire because, guess what, they run a little easier when they don’t have 126 pounds sitting on their back.

Good race, good ride, deserving winner. Not bad for a no-buzz Preakness. Game Winner in the Belmont.