Kentucky Derby

[MU82]

Wow!

[Cheeks]

Wow!

Those Starks saving the world at every turn, eh.....even in Kentucky

[Not A Serious Person]

So the derby winner was the winner of the electoral college, not the popular vote.

[WarriorDad]

So the derby winner was the winner of the electoral college, not the popular vote.

What does this even mean?

[wadesworld]

So the derby winner was the winner of the electoral college, not the popular vote.

I’m not sure how to even respond to that one. Try again maybe?

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Apparently the jockey who called for the review has a history of throwing a fit when he doesn’t win.

He wasn’t even the jockey of the horse that actually got clipped

[NorthernDancerColt]

Apparently the jockey who called for the review has a history of throwing a fit when he doesn’t win.

He wasn’t even the jockey of the horse that actually got clipped

Mark Casse, trainer of the horse who took the worst of the interference, WarOfWill, is good friends with Jason Servis, trainer of the horse who crossed the wire on top. I’m sure Tyler Gaffilione (WoW’s rider) wanted to claim foul, but Casse is on record saying that it just wasn’t right to claim foul since they would’ve only been potentially moved up to 5th from 6th. That it just wasn’t worth it given his respect for Servis and what his horse accomplished. However, one day later, after hearing Gary West, owner of Maximum Security throw a basic temper tantrum, Casse is saying that it was the right call. That a multiple horse pile-up involving the potential of breakdowns was narrowly averted by the skill of jockeys and the athleticism of his horse War of Will. (For the all-time horse athleticism/accident avoidance skill see Afleet Alex’s win in the 2005 Preakness.)

  Casse could not be more correct. While he probably did the right thing by not objecting, the stewards’ decision was 100% warranted and actually mandated by every single racing jurisdiction’s rules. Whether it was a “puddle” being avoided or the horse freaking out at the noise from the grandstand, Max Security veered out 3 paths. Not only was War of Will’s chances severely compromised (these aren’t race cars...you can’t argue that his lack of a subsequent rally necessitates leaving the original result stand). Not only this, but in my estimation, when Max veered back inward, he completely shut off Code of Honor, who was making a huge rail rally. Had Country House’s jock Flavien Prat not objected, John Valazquez, rider of COH, most certainly would have. As would Shug McGaughey, the horse’s trainer. Once CH’s connections objected, everyone knew the review would be thorough in a race of this magnitude. In any other race, multiple jocks would have objected, but nobody wanted to be the first bad guy here and object.

  I happened to be benefitted by the takedown, as I had a live Oaks-Derby double to 6 horses....including Country House, but not Maximum Security. I was rewarded with $2600, but there have been many times when inquiries and stewards have taken me down from big scores, and I admit when the takedowns were just and valid.

[NorthernDancerColt]

Those Starks saving the world at every turn, eh.....even in Kentucky

Im usually with you, but in this case, you (and especially President Trump) are wrong. A foul is a foul is a foul. To put it in basketball parlance, imagine Sacar (War of Will) cutting down the right side of the lane on a fast break while his defender flies over to his right and almost knocks him to the floor...and then as Sacar loses the ball, a trailing Brendan Bailey (Code of Honor) (byu honor code...see what I did there in choosing BB?) picks it up to the same defender’s inside and attacks the hoop but is shut off and bumped, losing the ball out of bounds. So, on the same play, a near flagrant foul and another foul happen, and you let em play? Ok.

I have taken heat here for finding a couple past Trumpisms refreshing...I like his calling out fake news...but his comments on the DQ make me think his critics may be on to something...I mean he knows $%@* about horse racing if he thinks that was merely a “robust”  race and that the DQ smacks of political correctness. I literally fell off my chair when I read his tweet.

Also, given the recent tragedies at Santa Anita...the sport has come under immense criticism for not enforcing medication rules and for allowing riding infractions and excessive whipping to go unchecked...now they make a correct decision in favor of honoring rules and suddenly the industry is somehow politically correct.

[mu_hilltopper]

Honestly, up until yesterday, I thought cutting off your opponents was part of all racing sports.

[Benny B]

Mott was dead on correct when the cameras first went to him after the race.  It's an easy DQ in a Thursday maiden.

I can't find anybody except West who is calling the decision a bad one.  "Controversial," sure... but controversy doesn't mean it's incorrect.  Technically, it was the right call, and therefore the stewards made the correct call.

[jsglow]

I, too, think it was a correct call and I don't even know horse racing.

I did not see the race live but watched a replay knowing what had happened.  Earlier in the corner the lead horse came off the rail modestly and there was a little bumping.  I thought 'That's it? That's BS.'  Then he did it again 10 times worse.  Frankly they were lucky half the field didn't go down in a heap and a jockey didn't get killed.  Easy call in my mind.  The only question was whether it was intentional.  This isn't 'blocking' at Talledega.

[tower912]

It was a foul.  A testament to the jockeys that it didn't end up in a pile up.  Pretty straightforward.

[NorthernDancerColt]

I, too, think it was a correct call and I don't even know horse racing.

I did not see the race live but watched a replay knowing what had happened.  Earlier in the corner the lead horse came off the rail modestly and there was a little bumping.  I thought 'That's it? That's BS.'  Then he did it again 10 times worse.  Frankly they were lucky half the field didn't go down in a heap and a jockey didn't get killed.  Easy call in my mind.  The only question was whether it was intentional.  This isn't 'blocking' at Talledega.

This and Tower’s post just below yours are an excellent take. However, there is no question it was unintentional. Saez knew that the actions of his horse were going to be looked at, otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned how the crowd noise throughout the turn seemed to spook Maximum Security. Others seem to think the horse was avoiding a puddle. The best explanation was offered by commentators Jerry Bailey and Randy Moss....the incident happened when something caused the horse to change leads. Horses are trained to remain on their left lead throughout the turns, as centripetal force allows them to maximize stride efficiency and better save ground. Once they have exited the turn, the jockeys give some sort of physical or verbal cue to get them to switch to their right lead. When Max went off his correct lead, his velocity and momentum exacerbated his drift to the right.

[MUfan12]

It was a foul.

Block or charge?

[NorthernDancerColt]

Block or charge?

lol, but sometimes rank horses and even some that are absolutely loaded with run end up running up on the heels of horses in front of them. So, I guess that could technically be construed as a “charge” if it causes a horse or rider to go down.

However, in this case...War of Will maintained his path while running up on the outside of the race leader, who veered directly into his path. If Country House had not been immediately to WOW’s right, WOW would have simply been pushed out a couple paths and no action would’ve likely been taken by the stewards. But Tyler Gaffilione aboard WOW had to “take up” or forcefully steady his mount...and it as a miracle that no horses or riders ended up down in the mud.

[jsglow]

This and Tower’s post just below yours are an excellent take. However, there is no question it was unintentional. Saez knew that the actions of his horse were going to be looked at, otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned how the crowd noise throughout the turn seemed to spook Maximum Security. Others seem to think the horse was avoiding a puddle. The best explanation was offered by commentators Jerry Bailey and Randy Moss....the incident happened when something caused the horse to change leads. Horses are trained to remain on their left lead throughout the turns, as centripetal force allows them to maximize stride efficiency and better save ground. Once they have exited the turn, the jockeys give some sort of physical or verbal cue to get them to switch to their right lead. When Max went off his correct lead, his velocity and momentum exacerbated his drift to the right.

Thanks for the education.  I didn't even know that they changed their stride.  Is it possible that the horse made this decision on his own (owing to whatever he thought made him more comfortable) and that his 'drift' was the result?

[NorthernDancerColt]

Thanks for the education.  I didn't even know that they changed their stride.  Is it possible that the horse made this decision on his own (owing to whatever he thought made him more comfortable) and that his 'drift' was the result?

Not only is it possible, I think it's probable that something spooked MS, whether crowd noise or standing water (on top of the already sloppy surface) onto the wrong lead. When a horse is on his correct left lead throughout a left hand turn, he will "hug" the turn, no matter what path he started in. It is rare that a jock would ask for a lead change when still in the turn, unless the horse is not responding to the rider's request for him to tip out and make a clear wide run in that turn. Some people think Saez is an over-aggressive rider. I don't think there's any way he would've sought to cut off horses to gain an advantage. It's too dangerous. 

Whatever caused the lead change, that it happened just as the horses were "spinning out of the turn" (as race~caller Phil Georgeff used to say) meant that there's no way any horse wouldn't drift significantly once he went onto his right lead.

[jsglow]

Not only is it possible, I think it's probable that something spooked MS, whether crowd noise or standing water (on top of the already sloppy surface) onto the wrong lead. When a horse is on his correct left lead throughout a left hand turn, he will "hug" the turn, no matter what path he started in. It is rare that a jock would ask for a lead change when still in the turn, unless the horse is not responding to the rider's request for him to tip out and make a clear wide run in that turn. Some people think Saez is an over-aggressive rider. I don't think there's any way he would've sought to cut off horses to gain an advantage. It's too dangerous. 

Whatever caused the lead change, that it happened just as the horses were "spinning out of the turn" (as race~caller Phil Georgeff used to say) meant that there's no way any horse wouldn't drift significantly once he went onto his right lead.

Got it.  Well, the bottom line is that it happened for whatever reason, the correct call was necessarily made, and all souls survived.  And Gary West seems like a little b*tch if he's cryin' about it.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

and it as a miracle that no horses or riders ended up down in the mud.

No doubt.  That track was so wet, some of these little f%ckers would have probably drown.

[GooooMarquette]

Thanks Northern for the horse racing mini-education. I agree that it was a clear violation after seeing the replay and reading the rule. And it sounds like a very sound rule, especially given the safety issue.

And today I see the owner of Max Security is pulling his horse from the Preakness. Talk about a whiny little b!tch....

[StillAWarrior]

This and Tower’s post just below yours are an excellent take. However, there is no question it was unintentional. Saez knew that the actions of his horse were going to be looked at, otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned how the crowd noise throughout the turn seemed to spook Maximum Security. Others seem to think the horse was avoiding a puddle. The best explanation was offered by commentators Jerry Bailey and Randy Moss....the incident happened when something caused the horse to change leads. Horses are trained to remain on their left lead throughout the turns, as centripetal force allows them to maximize stride efficiency and better save ground. Once they have exited the turn, the jockeys give some sort of physical or verbal cue to get them to switch to their right lead. When Max went off his correct lead, his velocity and momentum exacerbated his drift to the right.

I saw that too.  I found that very interesting, and had no idea that race horses changed their lead foot.  I just assumed that they always ran with the same lead foot.

You can see it really well in this video.  At 0:22 you can see Maximum Security switch to the inside lead foot.  From 1:05 to 1:30 they are discussing the issue.

[GooooMarquette]

I saw that too.  I found that very interesting, and had no idea that race horses changed their lead foot.  I just assumed that they always ran with the same lead foot.

You can see it really well in this video.  At 0:22 you can see Maximum Security switch to the inside lead foot.  From 1:05 to 1:30 they are discussing the issue.

Thanks for posting. The replay makes it perfectly clear what happened, and why the officials had to call it.

[NorthernDancerColt]

Thanks Northern for the horse racing mini-education. I agree that it was a clear violation after seeing the replay and reading the rule. And it sounds like a very sound rule, especially given the safety issue.

And today I see the owner of Max Security is pulling his horse from the Preakness. Talk about a whiny little b!tch....

I got an update on my phone a couple hours ago that West claims he has new video evidence that a photographer crouching on the infield grass caused the whole thing when his camera flashed. They are using it as the basis for an appeal to the KY Horse Racing Commission. I don’t see how this would be material, as he still interfered with multiple horses...causes be damned.

Owners and trainers are striving to win this race their entire careers in racing. So I can see Mr. West’s frustrations. But, you are right....he sure comes off as a whiny bee-otch.

[NorthernDancerColt]

I saw that too.  I found that very interesting, and had no idea that race horses changed their lead foot.  I just assumed that they always ran with the same lead foot.

You can see it really well in this video.  At 0:22 you can see Maximum Security switch to the inside lead foot.  From 1:05 to 1:30 they are discussing the issue.

Thank you for posting and linking this.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Thanks Northern for the horse racing mini-education. I agree that it was a clear violation after seeing the replay and reading the rule. And it sounds like a very sound rule, especially given the safety issue.

And today I see the owner of Max Security is pulling his horse from the Preakness. Talk about a whiny little b!tch....

Pulling a good horse with breeding potential out of the Preakness is smart.