Originally Posted by Bruinguybry (Post 1125907)

Dont know dont care. Im sure there a little skeptical of his 35-40% win rates that might of had some implications on their decision. Again, to the novice betting public this will be what is said and thought for years to come. I personally beleive there were some politics involved and will always believe if that was baffert the horse stays up. You cant convince me and huge chunk of people otherwise

Originally Posted by Dahoss (Post 1125904)

Where are your pre race opinions posted?

Originally Posted by Bruinguybry (Post 1125923)

Again you're not understanding me, i dont know, but I DO know how i feel, and i feel like that decision had more to do with than strictly that foul. That's how i and a the majority of people who had or were alive to MS feel.

Originally Posted by Bruinguybry (Post 1125923)

Again you're not understanding me, i dont know, but I DO know how i feel, and i feel like that decision had more to do with than strictly that foul. That's how i and a the majority of people who had or were alive to MS feel.

Originally Posted by Bruinguybry (Post 1125923)

Again you're not understanding me, i dont know, but I DO know how i feel, and i feel like that decision had more to do with than strictly that foul. That's how i and a the majority of people who had or were alive to MS feel.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 1125931)

Most of the people on here backing this dq are people who threw Max out, because they thought he'd quit (if he had to run hard up front. ) So, they want this bail out to feel better. That is what's going on, and it's a lot of people.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 1125929)

Regardless of who won, I think they should only take the winner of the Kentucky Derby down if he fouled someone that they think would of won (had the foul not taken place.)

Let them do their pc teaching in other races on a safe track with 5-12 horses.

Not with about 20 horses on rubbery jello (with standing water. )

Then, taking down the best horse in the race for fouling horses that could only run 9f. Now you want safety? 20 horses on rubbery jello isn't safety. So, the hypocrisy is rich.

Originally Posted by Dahoss (Post 1125933)

You speak for the majority of people who were impacted by the DQ?

Originally Posted by Bruinguybry (Post 1125936)

No. But that's what the majority beleive hate to break it to you.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 1125924)

Under Serling's video (on youtube.)

This all you got?

Just distracting.

Originally Posted by Bruinguybry (Post 1125932)

Let them do their pc teaching in other races on a safe track with 5-12 horses

Agree with this statement 1000% thats how their trying to spin it today with all that bs "horses could've gone down" blah blah blah. Again if these industry people are so concerned why is the government going to have to do something about santa anita? But what took place yesterday is being spewed about by these people as the worst foul ever. It's double standard bullshit. If that was baffert with all his pull no way im ****ing hell that horse comes down. Not only that, but all these big name trainers and jockeys whining today wouldn't of said **** if that was of bafferts horses. Open season on servis and saez

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 1125940)

These people spend millions to buy horses, and for stud fees. Most do it trying to win this race. So, yea, a claiming trainer moving a cheap horse with "love" is not exactly good for the breeding industry.

Originally Posted by Bruinguybry (Post 1125941)

Yup! But they'll keep towing the company line "the horse moved out five paths could've taken out half the field" it all stinks and wouldn't of happened to the bob bafferts of the world. If it did i csn guarantee to you none of the mark casses of the world would be up on their soapbox acting as if this foul was the worst one they've seen

Originally Posted by Dahoss (Post 1125939)

You’re the one fixated on Serling who to my knowledge hasn’t even posted in the thread.

Serling, Giacomo and a bunch of other nonsense all to mask your bad opinions.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 1125946)

Well, you and myself were like 2 of the 5 people on here that liked Giacomo. The rest made it seem like scum that stole candy from 7-11. Most on here complain about having Giacomo on the list of Kentucky Derby Winners. Now, they got a horse on the list that was the 1st loser in a Kentucky Derby.

Look. You got your way. This pig got moved up. You won. Be happy. Not everyone is gunna agree with you. Not everyone likes it when the best horse is put almost last. Sort of makes the money, time, and effort put into it a bit of a waste (even if the result didn't impact their wallet, personally.) It's a lack of respect for the effort put in by handicappers, and everything put in by the connections of the winner.

Originally Posted by Dahoss (Post 1125943)

Mark Casse didn’t claim foul.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 1125950)

Why claim foul when your horse came 8th (due to being out of gas?)

Look this is the issue. The horse fouled horses who couldn't get 10f.

If they'd of been close to the winner at the wire, then, o.k.

Putting the winner almost last for fouling 2 horses that didn't have the gas to get 10f .

That's the issue. It's not safety. If you're running almost 20 horses on rubbery jello with standing water, then, claiming safety is pretty rich.

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch (Post 1125953)

The point of the Bayern comparison is simply that the rules are applied subjectively. And clearly the horse racing world is okay with that. BTW says it himself that gate infractions are rarely if ever adjudicated. But why exactly is that "okay"? If Bayern wipes out 3 horses by drifting in out of the gate and Max wipes out 3 horses by drifting out with a quarter mile left to run in the Kentucky Derby, why couldn't the stews subjectively decide to leave him up in this instance in determining that the 20 couldnt win if they went around again and the 1 was partially responsible for climbing up on the 7 and bulling his way through before the 7 drifted out anyhow? My greatest surprise is simply how strongly those that feel he should have come down are expressing their thoughts while not acknowledging there do remain unanswered questions.

Originally Posted by Dahoss (Post 1125957)

They weren’t closer because they were fouled. The winner was placed behind the horse they deemed he fouled.

This isn’t hard guys. Some of you are acting like you’ve never seen a DQ before.

Your not getting 10f stuff is silly since the horse you keyed that you claim can’t get 10f was a winner at 9.5f.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 1125965)

Wrong, if he fouled horses that were gunna otherwise win then, they'd be closer to him at the wire. He fouled horses that couldn't get 10f, and that's most of the horses in that race. They took him down for fouling horses that couldn't get 10f. I wrote it twice, because you are too damn slow to get it unless it's pounded into you, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 1125886)

That is a huge lie.

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis (Post 1125731)

This was literally coming through the last turn, not in the stretch, and not affecting the outcome of the race....would you feel the same if they bumped out of the gate?

Originally Posted by hurricanefrank (Post 1125976)

there is no rule in ky of which I am aware which speaks to "not affecting the outcome of a race." Besides, who knows what War of the Will may have done if not interfered with at top of lane. Outcomes of races are absolutely impacted by fouls which occur within the race. And yes Bayern should have been DQ'd.

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi (Post 1125975)

War of Will was fouled at the 5/16 pole, just as he had made a move to get within a length of Maximum Security. He steadied and lost valuable ground when Maximum Security switched to his right lead and blew the turn. War of Will recovered and made up about 2 lengths on Maximum Security, who at this point was busy pinning Code of Honor against the rail.

When they straightened up, War of Will was no more than a neck behind Maximum Security with eventual winner Country House on the outside with a short lead.

War of Will did not wilt until the 1/16th pole (i.e., deep stretch).


Yeah, he had to make two separate moves for the lead less than a 1/16th of a mile apart.

Not sure why you wouldn't expect a horse that had its momentum taken away to tire late, especially after making a massive effort to get back into contention at the top of the stretch.

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan (Post 1125993)

A wise man once told me not to send an email or post on social media
When you’re pissed. I still don’t agree with the call but I understand
it. Am I still stinging a bit? Yes. But with that said I’m quite certain I will
Bet again prior to Spa.

The not sorry part is at the very least the thread (which is on it’s 8th page) has
Brought out some good debate. But better yet, it’s brought out some older posters including myself. I usually just check in on selection pages. So in that
Respect it kind of reminds me of the old days. That can’t be a bad thing. I think.
Lol. Thanks for everyone’s input.

Pat