Andy Serling had an incredible post on his Twitter feed regarding this : I believe Mike Smith just said if @jose93_ortiz got impeded on Elate it was "his own fault." A great deal of discussion has been generated comparing the two stakes races this weekend with Lady Eli and Abel Tasman.

popscopy
 

Probably there is a simple explanation , watching replay of CCA oaks and what does Smith take from his waist and give to Barnes?

I wouldn't have done the dq either, but I would suspend smith.

thats just not how NYRA stewards operate with herding...they promote it if anything.

and Smith knew just that and took advantage. He knew he'd practically have to put them over the rail for the stews to take him down so he did everything short of that to win the race. The fault sure as HELL doesn't lie with him.

What happened didn't affect the outcome of the race, but it's his actions that have set a dangerous precedent. Jockey in Australia won a Group 1 recently and got suspended a month (no DQ) for drifting out and causing another horse to check late.

Race riding to me is something like keeping a horse in a pocket instead of drifting out 10 wide and giving space to run, the latter of which is seen constantly.

I disagree. I think if Mike stays straight and does not come in at least 3 paths Elate wins.

Pretty definite for something you can't be even close to sure about.

Here's a question for you.....if it didn't affect the outcome of the race, then why did Mike Smith even put himself in a possible position to come down?

Clearly, Mike Smith 100% disagrees with you. But, hey, what does he know.

Sick beat you just took. I could never come up with that 3. Hope that makes it easier to take.

Let me rephrase that better based on my first post: there's not enough evidence to definitively say that the runner-up would have won if both horses kept a straight line, hence no DQ and outcome unchanged. I've seen no inquiries for worse, I guess in those instances it was fine because they weren't at risk of coming down? If you can provide clear evidence that the runner-up was cost a placing by the winner's actions, please, be my guest and show it to me. Maybe some momentum or inertia calculations. I'm not condoning his actions (I said he should get a suspension) but I don't think the runner-up was impeded enough to definitively lose a placing. Mike Smith also thinks the jockey of the runner-up would have been at fault, I guess we should take his word for that because of what he knows?