Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricanefrank
I could not disagree more. A mockery of the sport occurs when rules aren't followed. Country House was mere a benefactor of the decision. How do you know War of the Will would not have won or placed or showed? Give Mark Casse a listen. Or Tyler G. A foul occurred. Whether its the Derby or 12.5 claimer on Thursday afternoon should make no difference. A rule is a rule and should be applied even handedly. Now if you want to take on the Ky stewards for how they handled the situation, that's a different kettle of fish,
|
Maybe the question should be why is that the rule in the first place? North American rules in this respect are dissimilar to those of other racing jurisdictions, which have their own individual quirks but are pretty consistent for DQs. Hell, what is a foul in one state is not in another, and vice versa. This DQ is a perfect example of why the rules need changing. What we had was a young horse drifting on the turn for whatever reason (noise, glare, uneven surface, etc), possibly compromising the chances of the 1 (came up empty; 18 and 21 were done). But, in the end who did the DQ benefit? It didn’t benefit the connections of the horses interfered with (the reason why Gaffalione said they didn’t lodge an objection). It didn’t benefit those that bet the 1 or 18. It sure didn’t benefit the horse who was best on the day nor those that bet him (in North America). It only benefitted the bettors and connections of horses that had fair chances to but couldn’t beat the winner.
One of the reasons the rules in other jurisdictions are set as such is to protect the bettors. In this case, why should someone who handicapped and bet the race perfectly be punished? Why should those who had fair chances to win be rewarded? Neither are beneficial to those that bet on the affected runners. Full disclosure, at the start of the card I bet the 7 overseas because I got 9-1 odds...I’m just angry because the DQ cost me on the exotics and the 20 was my original pick before I decided he wasn’t good enough to win, which was correct—so I’m right but I still lose. My bet still got paid as if it was a winner, because 1) what I just mentioned above, and 2) that horse would never have come down in their (or any other major) jurisdiction (rather, jockey likely suspended even if it maybe wasn’t his fault). Sometimes the best horses don’t win for whatever reason, whether it be a bad trip or fair and square. The 20 had every chance to be the deserved winner. Maybe I’m sour because it’s the same scenario for me in the Oaks...9 ranged up on the outside for a huge score but got turned back by the winner who was best on the day. My horse had her chance but was second best. Same scenario happened in the Derby. The 20 had his chance to win and didn’t. He still wasn’t winning even if the 1 or 18 weren’t interfered with. Same with the 13 and the 5 and the rest that finished with a cheque, they weren’t finishing any higher. So, maybe “rules are rules”, but those rules need to be re-looked at, because in situations like this they don’t benefit the connections or bettors—those who are the heart and soul of the game.