Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > Triple Crown Topics/Archive..
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 05-06-2019, 01:51 AM
Rupert Pupkin Rupert Pupkin is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitan View Post
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 didnít benefit the connections of the horses interfered with (the reason why Gaffalione said they didnít lodge an objection). It didnít benefit those that bet the 1 or 18. It sure didnít 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 couldnít 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...Iím just angry because the DQ cost me on the exotics and the 20 was my original pick before I decided he wasnít good enough to win, which was correctóso Iím 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 wasnít his fault). Sometimes the best horses donít 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 Iím sour because itís 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 didnít. He still wasnít winning even if the 1 or 18 werenít interfered with. Same with the 13 and the 5 and the rest that finished with a cheque, they werenít finishing any higher. So, maybe ďrules are rulesĒ, but those rules need to be re-looked at, because in situations like this they donít benefit the connections or bettorsóthose 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.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 05-06-2019, 03:11 AM
Kitan Kitan is offline
Gulfstream Park
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Other side of the globe
Posts: 1,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:27 AM
Kitan Kitan is offline
Gulfstream Park
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Other side of the globe
Posts: 1,161
Default

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: ďIn ĎCategory Oneí, 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 canít accept losing their money for interference sustained to a horse that finished 17th.Ē

https://www.scmp.com/sport/racing/ar...ange-kim-kelly
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 05-06-2019, 06:17 AM
tjfla tjfla is offline
Aqueduct
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05-06-2019, 07:31 AM
Dahoss Dahoss is offline
Garden State Park
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,119
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richard burch View Post
thank you. Their legs were tangled together. I would say that WOW actually forced MS to move further out because he was "pushing" him.
Also curious as to why WOW didn't file an objection. he was the one making contact from the back. I think He knew He ****ed up and whistled pass the graveyard.

look at it....thats not an illusion...and it went on for a few strides....

the 1 is the cause and although it wouldn't help the bettors, they should REVERSE the decision before the Preakness......just my OP..
Iím trying to figure out how someone could watch the numerous head on videos of what happened and come to this conclusion. Like how is it even possible.

I get there can be a difference of opinion on the DQ...but to watch the videos and think War of Will was the one interfering with Maximum Security is mind boggling to me.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05-06-2019, 07:32 AM
tjfla tjfla is offline
Aqueduct
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 649
Default

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

#17 should have been DQ in first 3 steps if "Rule for interference" were followed
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-06-2019, 07:39 AM
Dahoss Dahoss is offline
Garden State Park
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,119
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjfla View Post
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 DQís work?
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-06-2019, 08:17 AM
jms62's Avatar
jms62 jms62 is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philcski View Post
The always great Scott Carson posted the most definitive video. If this isn't a foul... I don't know what is.

https://twitter.com/CarsoniPH/status...28240144457730



Well said.
Scott's video clearly put me in the camp of it was a valid DQ Call and a Gutsy call by the Stewards.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-06-2019, 08:46 AM
moses's Avatar
moses moses is online now
The Curragh
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philcski View Post
The always great Scott Carson posted the most definitive video. If this isn't a foul... I don't know what is.

https://twitter.com/CarsoniPH/status...28240144457730



Well said.
That video shows it pretty clearly. Itís still unfortunate it happened...but oh well.

Bill Mott owes Jason Servis, though. Not only did the foul result in Country House getting placed first but that video shows the foul pushed a whole bunch of horses wide and created a clear lane for Tacitus who was just picking up a full head of steam.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 05-06-2019, 08:51 AM
tjfla tjfla is offline
Aqueduct
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahoss View Post
The horse he came over on finished in front of him.

Do you understand how DQís 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
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 05-06-2019, 08:59 AM
Dahoss Dahoss is offline
Garden State Park
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,119
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjfla View Post
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
Youíre not making any sense. There have been DQís in Breeders Cup races. This was a special circumstance.

Iíve been around social media long enough to realize no one ever changes their mind once they have made it....but some of the stuff Iíve been reading is making my brain hurt.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-06-2019, 09:11 AM
moses's Avatar
moses moses is online now
The Curragh
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjfla View Post
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
ďAll the timeĒ is hyperbolic. Fouls happen. Some of them are minor, some are more egregious. The closer it happens to the finish, the more likely it is to result in a disqualification. I canít recall a foul of this degree happening in a Grade 1 race any time recently without the horse being brought down.

I could have lived with the horse staying up. I think it was the right call...but I also wouldnít have been shocked if they didnít disqualify him. But if they didnít disqualify him, I think the main reason would have been simply because it was the Kentucky Derby.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-06-2019, 09:26 AM
moses's Avatar
moses moses is online now
The Curragh
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philcski View Post
Nobody talking about this... it should be at least discussed.

22.1, 24.2, 25.4, 26.1, 25.1. That's not normal.
The last front-running / stalking Derby winner I can think of with a faster final quarter than the previous quarter is Big Brown but he was nowhere near a full second faster.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-06-2019, 03:45 PM
Benny's Avatar
Benny Benny is offline
Havre de Grace
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moses View Post
ďAll the timeĒ is hyperbolic. Fouls happen. Some of them are minor, some are more egregious. The closer it happens to the finish, the more likely it is to result in a disqualification. I canít recall a foul of this degree happening in a Grade 1 race any time recently without the horse being brought down.

I could have lived with the horse staying up. I think it was the right call...but I also wouldnít have been shocked if they didnít disqualify him. But if they didnít disqualify him, I think the main reason would have been simply because it was the Kentucky Derby.
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...-million-on-dq

there was another arl million tqke down i remember with an
n english rider jamie spencer
__________________
The virtue of a man ought to be measured, not by his extraordinary exertions, but by his everyday conduct.

Blaise Pascal
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-06-2019, 09:11 PM
richard burch's Avatar
richard burch richard burch is offline
Fairgrounds
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: new jersey
Posts: 1,721
Default

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

Should it be reduced to 15?

Yay or Nay ?
__________________
Support your local Re-run or horse rescue organization.
http://www.rerun.org/
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-06-2019, 09:13 PM
richard burch's Avatar
richard burch richard burch is offline
Fairgrounds
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: new jersey
Posts: 1,721
Default

Anyone know if there ever was another "Objection" filed in a Kentucky Derby before?
__________________
Support your local Re-run or horse rescue organization.
http://www.rerun.org/
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-06-2019, 09:24 PM
moses's Avatar
moses moses is online now
The Curragh
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny View Post
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...-million-on-dq

there was another arl million tqke down i remember with an
n english rider jamie spencer
Interesting. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-06-2019, 09:28 PM
moses's Avatar
moses moses is online now
The Curragh
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richard burch View Post
I think a comment was made that 20 horses is too many.

Should it be reduced to 15?

Yay or Nay ?
Iíd prefer to keep it at 20 but Iím fine either way. I donít think the size of the field was an immediate cause of this incident.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-06-2019, 09:57 PM
richard burch's Avatar
richard burch richard burch is offline
Fairgrounds
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: new jersey
Posts: 1,721
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moses View Post
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.
__________________
Support your local Re-run or horse rescue organization.
http://www.rerun.org/
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 05-07-2019, 12:04 AM
philcski's Avatar
philcski philcski is offline
Goodwood
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
Posts: 8,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjfla View Post
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
There was a DQ in the '06 Oaks. Bushfire was DQ'd and Wait a While was promoted to 3rd. It's not without precedent, and TC/BC races (for the safety of the game, if nothing else) should be adjudicated the same as any other race.


I have no idea where you are getting the opinion that the 17, of all horses, should have been DQ'd.
__________________
please use generalizations and non-truths when arguing your side, thank you
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.