5/4 (CD): 145th Kentucky Derby Day

[hurricanefrank]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Day 1 of Steward Training 101 they teach you that if you take down the best horse in the race, you do so only because it clearly affected another's opportunity to win, Regardless of who finishes 4th, 5th, or 17th. There is absolutely no way on earth that distinction can be made at the point of call in the race the infraction occurred.

Without interference, would Country House have won, finished 2nd, 3rd, or 4th?

that's a Huge No for me.

But because these Stewards ( who, again, were asleep at the switch) decided to punish the horse, its owners, trainer, etc. rather than the jockey who failed to maintain a hold of his mount, we have an also-ran masquerading as a champion.

How some here can reconcile that, I don't get. It makes a mockery of the sport.

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,

[Kitan]

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Kitan

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.

Let's forget about the Kentucky Derby for a minute and just talk about the rules. I think you were saying that if the winner of a race fouls a horse that finished 8th, the winner should not get DQ'd because the horses that will get moved up don't deserve to get moved up because they weren't involved in the incident. But the winner still needs to be taken down. Here is why: If a jockey knows that he can badly foul a horse, he may do it on purpose if he knows that he won't get DQ'd.

For example, let's say a jockey knows that a certain horse in the race is his main competition. If he knows that he can foul that horse really badly and totally eliminate him, he may do it if he knows he won't get DQ'd. You may say that he wouldn't do it because he knows that the stewards would still give him days. But that's not necessarily true. It may be worth it to him to get days under certain situations. If the purse of the race was really big, it may be worth it to him to eliminate his main competition, if he knows that he won't get DQ'd and he will get to keep the purse. Or what if a jockey and trainer are going to make a big bet on their horse. In that case, it may be worth it to eliminate their main competition, if they know they won't get DQ'd.

Anyway, you get my point. If a horse badly fouls another horse and it might have cost that horse a better placing (in the money), the horse who committed the foul needs to get DQ'd. There is no way around it. It is a very important deterrent to prevent guys from riding intentionally recklessly.

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's forget about the Kentucky Derby for a minute and just talk about the rules. I think you were saying that if the winner of a race fouls a horse that finished 8th, the winner should not get DQ'd because the horses that will get moved up don't deserve to get moved up because they weren't involved in the incident. But the winner still needs to be taken down. Here is why: If a jockey knows that he can badly foul a horse, he may do it on purpose if he knows that he won't get DQ'd.

For example, let's say a jockey knows that a certain horse in the race is his main competition. If he knows that he can foul that horse really badly and totally eliminate him, he may do it if he knows he won't get DQ'd. You may say that he wouldn't do it because he knows that the stewards would still give him days. But that's not necessarily true. It may be worth it to him to get days under certain situations. If the purse of the race was really big, it may be worth it to him to eliminate his main competition, if he knows that he won't get DQ'd and he will get to keep the purse. Or what if a jockey and trainer are going to make a big bet on their horse. In that case, it may be worth it to eliminate their main competition, if they know they won't get DQ'd.

Anyway, you get my point. If a horse badly fouls another horse and it might have cost that horse a better placing (in the money), the horse who committed the foul needs to get DQ'd. There is no way around it. It is a very important deterrent to prevent guys from riding intentionally recklessly.

A jockey in Hong Kong just got a 10 race meeting ban (they race twice a week, so essentially a month ban) for not controlling his horse and causing fractions to be excessively fast. Winx’s rider got a 21 meeting ban for weighing in 1kg (2.2lbs) overweight in last year’s Melbourne Cup (on a different horse). If those petty things result in huge bans, you can only imagine how long the suspensions would be for doing something intentionally...there was a 25 meeting ban, causing the jockey to miss multiple G1 rides, earlier in the year for accidentally causing a fall...if that was intentional, better bet he’d need to find a new career.

Jockeys elsewhere are regularly suspended for minor fouls. I see less intentional major fouls in other jurisdictions than in North America and a fraction of the DQs. It’s not a coincidence.

[Kitan]

Similar comments from the Chief steward in Hong Kong, saying this is the incident to spark change and bring USA up to speed with the rest of the world.

In particular relevance to what I said above: “In ‘Category One’, if it can be clearly demonstrated that the horse interfered with would have beaten [the other one] home, punters can accept they should not have won the race under those circumstances. They can’t accept losing their money for interference sustained to a horse that finished 17th.”

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

[tjfla]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's forget about the Kentucky Derby for a minute and just talk about the rules. I think you were saying that if the winner of a race fouls a horse that finished 8th, the winner should not get DQ'd because the horses that will get moved up don't deserve to get moved up because they weren't involved in the incident. But the winner still needs to be taken down. Here is why: If a jockey knows that he can badly foul a horse, he may do it on purpose if he knows that he won't get DQ'd.

For example, let's say a jockey knows that a certain horse in the race is his main competition. If he knows that he can foul that horse really badly and totally eliminate him, he may do it if he knows he won't get DQ'd. You may say that he wouldn't do it because he knows that the stewards would still give him days. But that's not necessarily true. It may be worth it to him to get days under certain situations. If the purse of the race was really big, it may be worth it to him to eliminate his main competition, if he knows that he won't get DQ'd and he will get to keep the purse. Or what if a jockey and trainer are going to make a big bet on their horse. In that case, it may be worth it to eliminate their main competition, if they know they won't get DQ'd.

Anyway, you get my point. If a horse badly fouls another horse and it might have cost that horse a better placing (in the money), the horse who committed the foul needs to get DQ'd. There is no way around it. It is a very important deterrent to prevent guys from riding intentionally recklessly.

Jocks/Trainers/Owners just should start filing stuff as soon as the race is over. 2020 KY Derby #1 Post is getting get hit/impeded in the first 5 steps and if the "RULES" are followed the #2/#3 should already be DQ

[tjfla]

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...equence-233505

#17 should have been DQ in first 3 steps if "Rule for interference" were followed

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by tjfla

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...equence-233505

#17 should have been DQ in first 3 steps if "Rule for interference" were followed

The horse he came over on finished in front of him.

Do you understand how DQ’s work?

[tjfla]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

The horse he came over on finished in front of him.

Do you understand how DQ’s work?

But under their rules it does NOT matter about the finish. #17 should be DQ for Interference

All I am saying is this happens all the time in the TC/BC races and nothing is ever done

[richard burch]

I think a comment was made that 20 horses is too many.

Should it be reduced to 15?

Yay or Nay ?

[richard burch]

Anyone know if there ever was another "Objection" filed in a Kentucky Derby before?

[moses]

Originally Posted by richard burch

I think a comment was made that 20 horses is too many.

Should it be reduced to 15?

Yay or Nay ?

I’d prefer to keep it at 20 but I’m fine either way. I don’t think the size of the field was an immediate cause of this incident.

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by moses

I’d prefer to keep it at 20 but I’m fine either way. I don’t think the size of the field was an immediate cause of this incident.

I think there may be some validity for the safety issue. Young, lightly raced , fast horses, sloppy track, not the greatest scenario.

........and kudos to all the jocks for staying up in that mess. every time i see it it looks more dangerous.

The only thing worse than a DQ is a pile up. I'll take that any day.