The Day Horse Racing Died

[scanman]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

That's what my wife said to me when the numbers ceased flashing and 7 was no longer on the board. And I found it impossible to formulate an argument.

This week is Derby week. The eyes of the world are upon our sport. A sport that is hurting like it has never hurt before. Just months removed from the Santa Anita travesties, we have Derby 2019. It will forever be remembered for the only Derby to have a disqualification of the winner. After this chaos it will NEVER happen again, at least as long as I am alive.

Each and every interviewer this week found a way to inquire about what had occured over the winter months at Santa Anita. And each interviewee, responded "racing has been through tough times, and it will get through this". And I believed them. What occurred out west is tragic. Racing has taken measures to assure the public it was doing all it could to rectify the situation. And I did believe the public could get past it.

May 4, 2019. A horse with zero pedigree, (sure, his sire won the Breeders' Cup Juvenile, but has anyone ever seen a horse by New Year's Day in the PP's before Maximum Security? The Stallion Register page doesn't even have any of the tabs that most stallions do. Not even a photo) is favored in the Derby. He's a horse that debuted for a $16,000 tag, and he is favored in the Derby! He is undefeated heading into the Derby! He's not a Baffert or a Pletcher. He's an underdog and has the profile of a contender the public just loves to support.

Maximum Security WINS! He was the fastest horse. He set the fractions and was moving best at the end of the 10 furlongs. And we all know what happened after that.

Or do we? Tirico, Moss and Bailey seemed content with the DQ. Even our beloved Andy Serling is defending the ruling. But here is the problem. On the day where more people bet on horse racing than any other day of the year. And because Maximum Security likely had more money bet on him than any other horse. And because so many people bet on the Derby that do not normally bet on horse racing. You have the perfect storm whereas there are more people turned off to the sport today than ever before. Because instead of having a story of an underdog striving for greatness, we have a story of how the best horse in the race, won the race, yet finished 17th, And there was really no explanation given because as is normally the case, the network had to move on.

We continue to shoot ourselves in the foot in this sport. This was a joke. And it will not be forgotten any time soon. Next time you see Angel Cordero, ask him if people have forgotten this yet? Almost 40 years later.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...27&action=view

Excellent post and your wife is a very smart a lady.

Regardless of what happened in the turn (and I still contend that it was the state of the track that caused the interference), all of the horses a few strides after the contact were back in stride and had every chance, if good enough, to go by Maximum Security. The simple fact is that they couldn't. They weren't fast enough. Races are run to determine who is the fastest. That's why the DQ was such an injustice. The fastest horse was not declared the winner.

Additionally, whatever new interest in ownership and/or fan base (if any at all) was completely lost as a result of the DQ in the Derby.

It's doubtful that the sport lost any of the "hardcore" fans/gamblers (which of course are a dying generation). It probably lost quite a few casual fans and absolutely discouraged any new blood from coming into the game.

Classic case of maybe taking one step forward, then definately taking five steps backward.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by scanman

Excellent post and your wife is a very smart a lady.

Regardless of what happened in the turn (and I still contend that it was the state of the track that caused the interference), all of the horses a few strides after the contact were back in stride and had every chance, if good enough, to go by Maximum Security. The simple fact is that they couldn't. They weren't fast enough. Races are run to determine who is the fastest. That's why the DQ was such an injustice. The fastest horse was not declared the winner.

Additionally, whatever new interest in ownership and/or fan base (if any at all) was completely lost as a result of the DQ in the Derby.

It's doubtful that the sport lost any of the "hardcore" fans/gamblers (which of course are a dying generation). It probably lost quite a few casual fans and absolutely discouraged any new blood from coming into the game.

Classic case of maybe taking one step forward, then definately taking five steps backward.

What are you basing your “whatever new interest in ownership and/or fan base was completely lost” opinion on?

I also think you greatly underestimate how hard it is for horses who have already run 9 furlongs, to regain momentum after checking. It just doesn’t happen often if ever. That is unless they are trained by trainers whose horses routinely have multiple gears.

[NoLuvForPletch]

How are we all feeling now in light of the video posted on Horse Racing Nation with the descriptors? I'm not sure I am allowed to post links to other sites here, so I didn't. It's on the front page of the site.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

How are we all feeling now in light of the video posted on Horse Racing Nation with the descriptors? I'm not sure I am allowed to post links to other sites here, so I didn't. It's on the front page of the site.

Seriously?

[ElPrado]

It's from youtube. Who knows how real it is. I saw that sometime around midnight with a bunch of other doctored garbage.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Seriously?

LOL.... New Angle? ****ing cherry picked pan shot. Horse Racing Nation is like a ****ing tabloid for even suggesting that this is a "New Angle". Anyone still arguing this after looking at Scott Carson's video from Twitter is simply defending their ticket and will never change..

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by jms62

Anyone still arguing this after looking at Scott Carson's video from Twitter is simply defending their ticket and will never change..

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

It is a better visual but the 1 horse is not blameless in this equation.

At 2:05 #7 is in the 2 Path and #1 horse has his front legs inside of #7 horse back legs. This contributed to #7 veering out before returning back inside. In other words, #7 veers out AFTER #1 sticks his nose up his ass. So I'm giving #7 a only 50% blame. Thats my final decision.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=j68rqh8UuQo

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by jms62

LOL.... New Angle? ****ing cherry picked pan shot. Horse Racing Nation is like a ****ing tabloid for even suggesting that this is a "New Angle". Anyone still arguing this after looking at Scott Carson's video from Twitter is simply defending their ticket and will never change..

That's a pretty broad stroke. You have no idea who I bet, or anyone else that is commenting for that matter. I can 100% guarantee I did not bet Maximum Security.

[casp0555]

Originally Posted by jms62

LOL.... New Angle? ****ing cherry picked pan shot. Horse Racing Nation is like a ****ing tabloid for even suggesting that this is a "New Angle". Anyone still arguing this after looking at Scott Carson's video from Twitter is simply defending their ticket and will never change..

End of story....lets start talking about how rundown and crappy Pimlico is and how the Preakness needs to move to Laurel Park

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by casp0555

End of story....lets start talking about how rundown and crappy Pimlico is and how the Preakness needs to move to Laurel Park

I hope they don't move.

I would miss not seeing the entire run down the backstretch because of tents, drunks and carnival rides on the infield which are way more important to see than the actual race.

[ElPrado]

CH and Improbable are going. Improbable will be ridden by...

Who else?

Mike Smith

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

What are you basing your “whatever new interest in ownership and/or fan base was completely lost” opinion on?

I also think you greatly underestimate how hard it is for horses who have already run 9 furlongs, to regain momentum after checking. It just doesn’t happen often if ever. That is unless they are trained by trainers whose horses routinely have multiple gears.

Fair question. For my part, after having full and part ownership a few years ago in four horses (one was a stakes winner), I have no intertest in owning considering the current state of racing. For the most part, current ownership at the medium to top level is by "old" racing money. I haven't done a statistical review of the ownership of the past 5 years of graded race winners, (nor do I have a lot time to do so) but if you do, I think you will find my statement will bare that out.

Here is a link from the Jockey Club showing the foal crop stats for the past 18 years: http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=2 . In the US it's down 51%, down 57% in Canada and down 67% in Puerto Rico. I'm sure if you were to check other countries, you would find similar numbers. I think that is an indication that new ownership is sparse and there is less and less interest in breeding and subsequently racing ownership, except by "old" money. I think you would also find that it is the 50+ yrs olds and older who are responsible for the majority each track's handle.

Additionally, I talk to a lot of people in and out of racing (though have some interest) here in the US, Australia, and New Zealand and the sentiment from my conversations support what I stated about new fans coming into the game (Ownership or punting).

Concerning fan base, I'm sure you could go to any track in the US and see that attendence figures are way down. Perhaps the exception here is the small fair meets that run for a couple of weekends a year. People have a day out to enjoy the excitment, so perhaps there is hope there.

Of course overseas attendence is still good as many countries still see horse racing as a sport with entertainment value verses a mechanism for gambling.

Every year we get this great platform in the Derby/TC and the BC where we get the spotlight and cannot build on it. Then we have the outcome in the Derby that many of the casual observers will see as unjust, will walk away thinking, what kind of a "clown show" is racing when the winner (fastest horse) in not declared the winner. Subsequently, they don't return or go to their local track (if there is one) to allow whatever interest they may have had in racing grow.

As far as horses regaining their momentum, maybe/maybe not. I've seen 2 and 3 mile hurdle/steeplecase races (horses who have expended way more effort) and see horses regain/re-rally to win. Concerning the Derby, they still had 2 furlongs left to race and from my perspective, once they all straighten up at the top of the stretch, none of them had an excuse for not going by MS. Also, keep in mind that MS also lost momentum by not getting a hold of the track/the bump with the #1, but once all straighten up, it was "game on" and MS was easily the best.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by scanman

Fair question. For my part, after having full and part ownership a few years ago in four horses (one was a stakes winner), I have no intertest in owning considering the current state of racing. For the most part, current ownership at the medium to top level is by "old" racing money. I haven't done a statistical review of the ownership of the past 5 years of graded race winners, (nor do I have a lot time to do so) but if you do, I think you will find my statement will bare that out.

Here is a link from the Jockey Club showing the foal crop stats for the past 18 years: http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=2 . In the US it's down 51%, down 57% in Canada and down 67% in Puerto Rico. I'm sure if you were to check other countries, you would find similar numbers. I think that is an indication that new ownership is sparse and there is less and less interest in breeding and subsequently racing ownership, except by "old" money. I think you would also find that it is the 50+ yrs olds and older who are responsible for the majority each track's handle.

Additionally, I talk to a lot of people in and out of racing (though have some interest) here in the US, Australia, and New Zealand and the sentiment from my conversations support what I stated about new fans coming into the game (Ownership or punting).

Concerning fan base, I'm sure you could go to any track in the US and see that attendence figures are way down. Perhaps the exception here is the small fair meets that run for a couple of weekends a year. People have a day out to enjoy the excitment, so perhaps there is hope there.

Of course overseas attendence is still good as many countries still see horse racing as a sport with entertainment value verses a mechanism for gambling.

Every year we get this great platform in the Derby/TC and the BC where we get the spotlight and cannot build on it. Then we have the outcome in the Derby that many of the casual observers will see as unjust, will walk away thinking, what kind of a "clown show" is racing when the winner (fastest horse) in not declared the winner. Subsequently, they don't return or go to their local track (if there is one) to allow whatever interest they may have had in racing grow.

As far as horses regaining their momentum, maybe/maybe not. I've seen 2 and 3 mile hurdle/steeplecase races (horses who have expended way more effort) and see horses regain/re-rally to win. Concerning the Derby, they still had 2 furlongs left to race and from my perspective, once they all straighten up at the top of the stretch, none of them had an excuse for not going by MS. Also, keep in mind that MS also lost momentum by not getting a hold of the track/the bump with the #1, but once all straighten up, it was "game on" and MS was easily the best.

No offense but you didn’t answer the question. At the end of the day I think far more people find the result just and fair than a clown show.

Comparing a steeplechase race to the Derby is a pretty far reach. Long Range Toddy was totally eliminated when he took up. You expected him to re rally and make up the 10 lengths or so he lost? War of Will was in the midst of his move when he almost clipped heels. You thought he should have been able to regain his momentum and gain an additional 5 lengths on a horse who miraculously was running his final 1/4 faster than his prior two?

Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way.

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

No offense but you didn’t answer the question. At the end of the day I think far more people find the result just and fair than a clown show.

Comparing a steeplechase race to the Derby is a pretty far reach. Long Range Toddy was totally eliminated when he took up. You expected him to re rally and make up the 10 lengths or so he lost? War of Will was in the midst of his move when he almost clipped heels. You thought he should have been able to regain his momentum and gain an additional 5 lengths on a horse who miraculously was running his final 1/4 faster than his prior two?

Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way.

No offense taken. Respect to your for asking. It was difficult to quantify, but I did my best to try and answer it for you based on my experience.

The jump racing examples were that which I have seen in the last couple hundred yards of a race. I'm sure it has happened on the flat, maybe not often, but it does happen.

Concerning Long Range Toddy, I'm sure the "tap" that War of Will gave him at the 3/8th pole didn't help and may have started his demise. Also keep in mind, if Long Range Toddy was fast enough, he would have never lost his position off of Maximum Security's right flank, by allowing War of Will to squeeze by. Long Range Toddy had already started to weaken out of the race. The contact at the 5/16th pole just hastened his retreat. He was never going to contest the finish of the race.

By the time they hit the quarter pole Maximum Security, Code of Honor, War of Will, and Country House were all in full stride. It looked to me that Code of Honor had Maximum Security by about a head, with Country House a neck behind Maximum Security and War of Will about 3/4 length behind Maximum Security. War of Will was never 5 lengths back after the contact, maybe 1 1/4 length at best. He lost maybe a 1/2 length in the contact and was beaten 4 1/2 lengths at the finish.

So at the 1/4 pole, we have 4 horses across the track within a length of each other. Each horse had a fair opportunity to win. Only Maximum Security and War of Will were affected by the contact. Country House may have had to go one more path wide but never lost momentum and was continuously ridden. Also while approaching the 1/4 pole it looked like Country House came in a bit and gave War of Will a "tap". Though the video angle is not the best (no head on available).

From the 1/4 pole on, the afore mentioned 4 horses all, if good enough, could win.

At the 1/8 pole, Maximum Security had gone clear of Country House by a length, with War of Will and Code of Honor 1 1/4 behind. At this point, Gafflione stated that War of Will was done. He could not match the pace of Maximum Security and was never going to beat him. He discussed as much with Casse, that's why no objection from them.

At the 1/16 pole, Maximum Security has extended his lead over Country House to what looks like 1 1/2 length with Code of Honor passing War of Will about 2 lengths back.

At the Finish, Maximum Security is still extending his lead to win by 1 3/4 length over Country House with Code of Honor beaten in third by 2 1/2 lengths.

Just out of curiousity, I just read the Equibase chart. What a piece of fiction, expecially concerning BodeExpress. Again, he felt the knock on effect when War of Will came out and tapped Long Range Toddy, who in turn tapped BodeExpress at the 3/8 pole. BodeExpress took up slightly during the subsequent contact, but he was already done by that point and was never going to figure in the finish.

If I missed something, let me know.

[Dahoss]

I’ve watched the race probably 30 times and I’m pretty confident in race watching abilities, so with all due respect I disagree on your take on how easy it’d be to re rally after having your momentum taken away at the most crucial part of the race.

Obviously we don’t agree which is cool. It’d be boring if everyone agreed, but I appreciate you explaining your side.

I maintain that a foul on a Monday is a foul in the Derby. Even if War of Will and Long Range Toddy were not going to win, they had legitimate shots at the exacta, tri or super and that was taken away when they were fouled by the winner. That has always been justification for a DQ. It maintains the integrity of the betting.

I hate to play the what if game but if War of Will goes down do people still not agree a DQ was warranted?

I understand the gripes of consistency and I’m sure I’ll be complaining about a DQ soon enough.

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I’ve watched the race probably 30 times and I’m pretty confident in race watching abilities, so with all due respect I disagree on your take on how easy it’d be to re rally after having your momentum taken away at the most crucial part of the race.

Obviously we don’t agree which is cool. It’d be boring if everyone agreed, but I appreciate you explaining your side.

I maintain that a foul on a Monday is a foul in the Derby. Even if War of Will and Long Range Toddy were not going to win, they had legitimate shots at the exacta, tri or super and that was taken away when they were fouled by the winner. That has always been justification for a DQ. It maintains the integrity of the betting.

I hate to play the what if game but if War of Will goes down do people still not agree a DQ was warranted?

I understand the gripes of consistency and I’m sure I’ll be complaining about a DQ soon enough.

So true. I enjoyed the conversation and certainly respect you and others who see the race differently. I've been a soccer referee for about 20 years (over 3000 matches) and you can imagine the senarios that we discuss. 100 referees watching the same incident and 50 going one way and 50 going the other. That's why I always respect someone else's view. Sometimes they win me over, sometimes they don't; and vice-versa.

I'm sure you are just as passionate about racing as I am. Wishful thinking to hope we could have 100% clean races, but like you said, that would make racing a bit boring. Cheers.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I’ve watched the race probably 30 times and I’m pretty confident in race watching abilities, so with all due respect I disagree on your take on how easy it’d be to re rally after having your momentum taken away at the most crucial part of the race.

Obviously we don’t agree which is cool. It’d be boring if everyone agreed, but I appreciate you explaining your side.

I maintain that a foul on a Monday is a foul in the Derby. Even if War of Will and Long Range Toddy were not going to win, they had legitimate shots at the exacta, tri or super and that was taken away when they were fouled by the winner. That has always been justification for a DQ. It maintains the integrity of the betting.

I hate to play the what if game but if War of Will goes down do people still not agree a DQ was warranted?

I understand the gripes of consistency and I’m sure I’ll be complaining about a DQ soon enough.

What if War of Will didn't try to bull his way through in the first place? Why do the people who are adamant about the DQ being the correct call refuse to even acknowledge that War of Will was unsettled and rank from the time they went into the clubhouse turn until he bulled his way out from behind Maximum Security and into the 18, 21 and 20 midway on the turn to begin with? Country House's "momentum" was actually impacted more by those bumps than anything Maximum Security did. Why is there no outrage that Tyler G's inability to settle War of Will for half a mile "could have" resulted in "carnage" in the same way they are outraged about Maximum Security's actions?

[richard burch]

Well what do you know? It seems like there have been other objections in the derby! Including this gem called the "Fighting Finish".




A history for the interested.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...=.e0143ebf927b