Done till Spa. F horse racing

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by rocknrowl

I see they placed MS 17th. I agree with the DQ, but behind WOW not Long Range Toddy. I think the interference was undeniable and did impact WOW. Maybe LRT, but that's questionable.

If they deemed it enough to warrant a DQ, he had to go behind Long Range Toddy.

[Left Bank]

We just simply need to move the Derby to New York. Or, have the NY Stewards officiate the Derby day card.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I'd think you'd have to agree this is an oddly curious place to enforce such an arbitrary, subjective decision. Ms came out - IN THE TURN - 2 paths over a sloppy track..I've literally seen this movie 3 times a day at Aqueduct without even a blink of an eye.

It's the Kentucky Derby, Dude. There's 20 frigging horses. C'mon, you've got better than this.

It was unexpected because of the magnitude of the situation but I honestly felt like it was the right call. Using the argument that we’ve seen worse allowed to stand is, in my opinion, the wrong argument.

[ninetoone]

I bet the 5, so no agenda. I'll just say that I would have swapped my win ticket for a win ticket on War of Will prior to the incident. He was looking like a winner to me. Totally killed his momentum.

[scanman]

Here is a link to the stewards statement concerning the Derby DQ: https://www.pscp.tv/w/1MnGnvbXmNMGO

Just as I thought, their statement didn't not take into consideration the state of the track. This is a gross oversight as far as I am concerned. Perhaps, the written report will address it, but I wouldn't count on it. It appears that they neglected to take all of the conditions that led to the interference into consideration. Racing could do well to free itself of such short-sighted officiating.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

It was unexpected because of the magnitude of the situation but I honestly felt like it was the right call. Using the argument that we’ve seen worse allowed to stand is, in my opinion, the wrong argument.

Fair enough. My point, though it appears to have been missed, is that you are making the case to enforce an arbitrary penalty on a horse that did something literally every single horse does in its position over a sloppy track on the one day the world is watching. In stunned silence. This is no admission of " we've seen worse allowed to stand". WoW was admittedly stopping. MS slid, not "drifted" in front of a stopping horse - thus The winning horse gets placed 17th. That doesn't help anyone. Right or Wrong.

[knickslions2]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

It was unexpected because of the magnitude of the situation but I honestly felt like it was the right call. Using the argument that we’ve seen worse allowed to stand is, in my opinion, the wrong argument.

Sorry my friend but this was a bad call

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Fair enough. My point, though it appears to have been missed, is that you are making the case to enforce an arbitrary penalty on a horse that did something literally every single horse does in its position over a sloppy track on the one day the world is watching. In stunned silence. This is no admission of " we've seen worse allowed to stand". WoW was admittedly stopping. MS slid, not "drifted" in front of a stopping horse - thus The winning horse gets placed 17th. That doesn't help anyone. Right or Wrong.

I don’t think it was arbitrary at all. It was a judgement call and one thing I have not seen is anyone dispute the fact that the winner interfered with those two horses. I think that in a situation like this, you have to break it down to one or two questions:

1. Did he interfere with the other horse? If you answer no, end of story. If you answer yes, you move on to question two.

2. Did he cost the horse he interfered with a placing? If you answer no, end of story. If you answer yes, you have no choice but to place him behind that horse.

I also don’t think you can say every other horse would do that. He was the only one that I saw do it today. Those other horses weren’t sliding out. Also, his jockey didn’t say anything about the horse losing his footing. He talked about the horse reacting to the noise of the crowd and that being the cause of him getting out. For me, track condition isn’t a reasonable excuse.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

If the 1 got second I’d be more convinced. Bad call. I saw mike smith do worse multiple timee including travers day

I really think they should of tried to get some of that standing water off the track. That being said, if you you want to run the biggest 3 year old race of the year on that surface, then, I think they should only take the winner down if they think he wasn't best. Horses aren't gunna be able to stay that straight running on that surface.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Actually, before MS did his dance, WOW bumped LRT, who bumped Bode, who bumped Improbable, as he was trying to create seam to run through.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I don’t agree it didn’t affect War of Will. I don’t care what Gaffilione says.

Not sure if the Gaffilione quote is out of context. Why would he say he was out of horse if the War of Will was still contending for the win in deep stretch?

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I thought it was the right call. The winner absolutely fouled War of Will. I’m not sure how that is even debatable.

I feel for anyone that bet Maximum Security but a foul is a foul. I’d expect the same result on a Monday at Parx as I do in the Derby.

Integrity is taking the horse down that fouled a horse and cost him a placing. Not taking him down because it’s the Derby would be the opposite of that.

^^^ I'm on this page.

I had no financial interest here, I bet Game Winner. The reality is he fouled War of Will AND started a chain reaction with the 18 AND sent Code of Honor into the rail all within the same 100 yards. He HAD to come down. There was no gray area with regard to the rule. War of Will finished 8th and I'm 100% certain he would have finished better than that if he was not fouled- the rule is if you foul someone and the horse that's fouled has been compromised on potential for finishing higher you get taken down. End of story. If this was the 1st on a Monday at Parx like you said, it would not even be debatable and we would be turning the page. The stewards did the right thing not just for the result but for the safety of the game.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

If the 1 got second I’d be more convinced. Bad call. I saw mike smith do worse multiple timee including travers day

That's the point though. We don't know if he would have gotten 2nd or 3rd or even 4th or 5th, because he was fouled and affected the outcome.

Once the DQ is decided on, it doesn't matter whether the "winner" ends up being a horse that was probably not going to win- the horse taken down gets placed behind the one it affected (which the stewards correctly determined was Long Range Toddy.)

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Kitan

There was no stewards inquiry. Objection was 20 vs 7. The interference from 7 onto 20 did not affect the result.

Was there an objection from other riders? No. Was there an official inquiry looking at other events? No.

Given that, anything other than the 7 staying up is farcical.

The 18 also claimed foul.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don’t think it was arbitrary at all. It was a judgement call and one thing I have not seen is anyone dispute the fact that the winner interfered with those two horses. I think that in a situation like this, you have to break it down to one or two questions:

1. Did he interfere with the other horse? If you answer no, end of story. If you answer yes, you move on to question two.

2. Did he cost the horse he interfered with a placing? If you answer no, end of story. If you answer yes, you have no choice but to place him behind that horse.

I also don’t think you can say every other horse would do that. He was the only one that I saw do it today. Those other horses weren’t sliding out. Also, his jockey didn’t say anything about the horse losing his footing. He talked about the horse reacting to the noise of the crowd and that being the cause of him getting out. For me, track condition isn’t a reasonable excuse.

This is the only two questions that matter, and the answer is unequivocally yes to both. Forget about the winner. That is not the question at hand, even if you think he was bulletproof to win after that (I don't, but doesn't matter.) It's the interference that caused the other two to finish in lower positions than they would have had this not happened. Easy DQ.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I hadn't seen this video in slow motion. After seeing this, I can see why they took him down. I still need to watch some more video. But after seeing this one, I think the decision is understandable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jwy9m9oDg0

[ADJMK]

Didn't see the inquiry sign when the 3 horse on Friday almost ran Pletcher's horse off the course right out of the gate.
If Pratt doesn't claim foul ,when he even states on TV that he really wasn't bothered, I bet the stewards wouldn't have even looked at the race.

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by philcski

The 18 also claimed foul.

Which was publically acknowledged only about 4 hours after the race? Why not immediately?

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

Actually, before MS did his dance, WOW bumped LRT, who bumped Bode, who bumped Improbable, as he was trying to create seam to run through.

Glad I wasn’t the only one to notice this. Not downplaying the sequence of events, but if the 1 doesn’t try and force his way into space, the chain reaction doesn’t occur.

[ADJMK]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I hadn't seen this video in slow motion. After seeing this, I can see why they took him down. I still need to watch some more video. But after seeing this one, I think the decision is understandable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jwy9m9oDg0

All three of these yahoos were emphatic that there should be no disqualification while they were waiting for the decision and reviewing the replays. The horse gets taken down and suddenly they change their tune ?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ADJMK

All three of these yahoos were emphatic that there should be no disqualification while they were waiting for the decision and reviewing the replays. The horse gets taken down and suddenly they change their tune ?

I thought the same thing. At first I thought it was a terrible call. But I hadn't seen this angle in slow motion. When you see this angle in slow-mo, it makes it much tougher to fault the stewards' decision. I think once Bailey and crew saw this video, they realized the stewards' decision was defensible.