Done till Spa. F horse racing

[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"?

[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)