Making excuses for horses that fade in the stretch of the Kentucky Derby is Fool's Gold. He couldn't get 10f. Period. He was right there, and faded because he isn't able to get 10f, and the winner can. Go kiss on Casse.

You may be right. We’ll never know for certain because another horse impeded War of Will and was eventually disqualified. Though I see WOW is potentially going to run in the Preakness so we’ll see how he does.

Here is what Baffert had to say about the decision to disqualify Maximum Security:

While many horsemen have come out in support of the controversial stewards' ruling in Saturday's Kentucky Derby, five-time Derby winner Bob Baffert isn't one of them.

“No one ever calls an objection in the Derby,” Baffert said by text. “It's always a roughly run race. Twenty-horse field. I have been wiped out numerous times, but that is the Derby. I can see by the book why they did it. But sometimes you've got to take your ass-kickings with dignity.”

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...derby-outcome/

That is why I like B.B.

Their ability to fairly try to navigate 10 furlongs was severely impacted because they were fouled by Maximum Security.

If a wide receiver with no arms goes down field to catch a pass, one that an armless man couldn't possibly haul in, then gets tackled by a defender before the ball gets anywhere near our limbless example, is that supposed to be NOT pass interference?

Sorry for my repeat analysis...Oh, and I have lost plenty of bets because horses that couldn't get a distance......did!

Crazy, it's almost like he also trains for the Wests and has a business incentive to publicly be on their side.

He's usually a pretty straight shooter when it comes to giving his opinion. I highly doubt he'd be saying the opposite if the horse was owned by someone else.

Hypothetically if he really thought this was a good call, he may temper his comments because of his relationship with the Wests. He may say it was a close call or something like that. But I don't think he would say he disagreed with the call if he thought it was a good call. That's just not him. Not to mention that he has something to lose by criticizing the stewards. He runs plenty of horses in Kentucky. The most important race to him is the Derby. I highly doubt he's going to go out of his way to disagree with the stewards' call publicly just to kiss up to Gary West. In fact, I would say there is zero percent chance of him doing that. Baffert does not kiss up to owners. He could have kept Kaleem Shah (who was one of his best owners) if he would have kissed up to him. But that's not Baffert. That's not his personality.

Verbose conjecture, as always.

And who cares, anyway? He's not even disagreeing with the call, he's saying they shouldn't have even looked at it. What kind of argument is "there should never be an objection in the Derby"?

Actually:

Hansel (1991)
Pine Bluff (1992)
Tabasco Cat (1994)
Louis Quatorze (1996)
Point Given (2001)
Afleet Alex (2005)
Curlin (2007)
Lookin At Lucky (2010)
Shackleford (2011)
Oxbow (2013)

All lost ground in the stretch in their respective Kentucky Derbies yet came back to win the Preakness.

Go Servis yourself.

Show off

A few of them won the Belmont as well.

It’s literally what someone who trains for the West’s that has also been the beneficiary of some of the most notorious non calls (Bayern and Game on Dude) in the game would say.

There was certainly plenty of justification for the stewards' call. But there are plenty of smart people who don't think the horse should have come down. Andy Beyer was on Steve's show. He didn't think the horse should have come down. Dave Grening was on Steve's show. He didn't think the horse should have come down and neither did Steve.

Richard Migliore disagreed with the DQ and so did Chuck Simon. On the other hand, there are plenty of smart people on the other side of the argument.

Anyway, the point is that it is silly to assume that anyone who disagreed with the call is either an idiot or has an ulterior motive. That is obviously not the case.

I don’t care who agrees or disagrees.

The only real reason I’ve seen so far is it was the Derby and it’s a roughly run race. Sorry, but in my opinion that is BS. We’ve never had a front runner take out multiple horses when he comes out 3-4 paths at the 1/4 pole. Kind of amazing we haven’t, but we haven’t. If you don’t DQ there you set a Gallop Racer precedent for every other Derby.

So here is the thing. I am hearing folks talk about doing something like they do in Hong Kong. Give the jockey days and a fine. This works in Hong Kong because there are very few tracks and they run a limited schedule and it is a single jurisdiction. Easy to see why that giving the jockey days or a fine doesn't work here. DQ'ing the horse sends a message that this won't be tolerated and I think that message was sent regarding the Kentucky Derby going forward. My original thought on this was it shouldn't be a DQ at that point in the race based upon the replay I saw. Once I saw Scott Carson's twitter posting showing a different angle it became a no brainer for me. The horse had to be DQ'd.

I don't agree. The same thing happens in Australia, where they run at infinite tracks a week.

I mentioned this (why the rule needs to be re-looked at and its implementation elsewhere) in another thread:
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/sho...6138&page=5#82 (also posts 80 and 83)

I got a chance to listen to Pletcher on Outside the Lines tonight. I recommend people listen to it for an unbiased opinion. Unlike Baffert, he doesn’t train for the West’s.

He was great.

I saw your posting the other thread and still disagree. Please tell me how this would work in this scenario given that we have no central authority. Let’s use Saez as an example. He is banned 10 days , 20 days from Churchill Downs? Even if he rode at Churchill regularly it is the Kentucky Derby a once in a lifetime win for most. How many would gladly trade a 30 day vacation for that. In your scenario it works because of the structure in place in those countries.

It's pretty hard to guess where Long Range Toddy would have finished, but Jon Court thought he had plenty of horse left and plenty of momentum:

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...m_jockeys_123#

If you don't trust Court's opinion, then look at this video--there's no sign (to me at least) that Long Range Toddy is fading. He's right up there with those chasing Maximum Security until the incident. And after the incident he's 5-6 lengths behind. There's no question he lost all chance because of the incident.

https://twitter.com/CarsoniPH/status...28240144457730

Why can't there be a reform and build a central authority? All the counterpoints I've read are basically showing the flaws in the North American system compared to the organization in other major jurisdictions. Sure, they have their own flaws, but much fewer and less major. And, this would then make things uniform globally!

I rarely hear about jockey suspensions in USA, and I'm not up to speed with the latest ones. But, the 25 day ban of the Australian jockey that I mentioned in the other thread prevented him from riding an odds-on fav in an international G1 in Hong Kong, let alone G1s in his own country. If Saez was banned from CD, would he be allowed to ride elsewhere?

It's hard to convince me that LRT had plenty left. Watch his Arkansas Derby and see how he finished that race when it looked like he was in prime position..............

LRT definitely checked pretty hard and was much further back after the incident. But it looked like he was already being passed on both sides. Don't get me wrong. I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that he couldn't have run 5th if he hadn't checked hard. But I would say it is very unlikely.

I asked how it would work given the current state and you countered by offering a solution that would require a complete overhaul that isn’t happening anytime soon if ever. That is the unfortunate reality and the reasons why would completely derail this thread. It would be a question you should ask of someone much smarter than myself like Steve. My simple take is Horse Racing has been operating in survival mode for years now with some jurisdictions stronger than
others. I don’t see them willing to cede power or dollars for the overall betterment of the sport. Those in power still operate like it is 1965 and they are the only game in town. Hopefully when they pass the torch to the younger generation new ideas are infused to overhaul it but that probably will be at a point where many of us are gone or betting on a much tighter budget.