Done till Spa. F horse racing

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

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.

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.

[moses]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

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/

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

[fantini33]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

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.

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?

[fantini33]

Originally Posted by moses

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.

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

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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/

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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

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.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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"?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

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.

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.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

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

[moses]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

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.

A few of them won the Belmont as well.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

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"?

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

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.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

[ADJMK]

https://www.scmp.com/sport/racing/ar...ange-kim-kelly

[jms62]

Originally Posted by ADJMK

https://www.scmp.com/sport/racing/ar...ange-kim-kelly

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.

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by jms62

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)

[Dahoss]

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.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

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.