Worst DQ of All Time?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

What does a decision at Hong Kong have to do with anything?

Also...weren’t you someone who thought Maximum Security should have stayed up in the Derby? How should he have stayed up but this was an obvious DQ?

Not to mention, the notion that a horse has more time to recover from an early foul somehow makes one less egregious is indefensibly moronic. If the horse “recovers” but still falls a few inches short it somehow didn’t affect him but a late one did? That’s such horrifically bad logic it’s hard to believe anyone would endorse it.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Not to mention, the notion that a horse has more time to recover from an early foul somehow makes one less egregious is indefensibly moronic. If the horse “recovers” but still falls a few inches short it somehow didn’t affect him but a late one did? That’s such horrifically bad logic it’s hard to believe anyone would endorse it.

The Hong Kong example was disingenuous if a DQ is dependent on the "severity of the contact". The stewards prefaced their decision (conveniently excised) with this:

The Stewards were of the view that this contact was of little consequence.

From the replay, arguably the horse who initiated the contact (INSAYSHABLE) took the worst of it:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1071671801896288257

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The Hong Kong example was disingenuous if a DQ is dependent on the "severity of the contact". The stewards prefaced their decision (conveniently excised) with this:

The Stewards were of the view that this contact was of little consequence.

From the replay, arguably the horse who initiated the contact (INSAYSHABLE) took the worst of it:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1071671801896288257

There is something about people that post about Hong Kong on message boards:-)

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

There is something about people that post about Hong Kong on message boards:-)

Yep, people who appreciate competitive, exciting racing presented by a genuine, non-condescending broadcast crew :-)

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Kitan

Yep, people who appreciate competitive, exciting racing presented by a genuine, non-condescending broadcast crew :-)

You never answered....how can one be against the Maximum Security DQ (where a horse took out multiple runners) but think this was obvious.

I’m genuinely curious about the thought process here.

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You never answered....how can one be against the Maximum Security DQ (where a horse took out multiple runners) but think this was obvious.

I’m genuinely curious about the thought process here.

Because I primarily follow racing that uses "Category 1" rules, whereby the only questions the stewards have to resolve are: did interference occur, and if so, would horse B have finished ahead of horse A had interference not occurred? Based on this, any preposition that War of Will and/or Long Range Toddy would have finished ahead of Maximum Security is nothing but baseless conjecture. Was the interference suffered by WoW more than what happened at Tampa? Yes. Was it enough to cause a 4.5L losing margin? No. WoW lost at most 0.5-1L in that incident. How can you DQ a horse who was much the best because of an incident which cost the horse a quarter of the losing margin? (yes I know MS was placed behind LRT, which was absurd on its own right as that horse was done and everyone knows it)

The TAM result was a headbob and there is a valid argument that without the interference the 5 would have gotten up. Based on the distance between MS and WoW and the loss of lengths suffered with the interference, I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that WoW (or LRT) would have finished ahead of MS had interference not occurred.

Yes, the rule in the States is different, but I still don't think it warranted a DQ. LRT was finishing nowhere near the top five, and WoW finished 1.25L from the 5th horse, which is more than the 0.5-1L he lost in that incident.

And yes, Category 1 rules work because jockeys actually get proper suspensions instead of slaps on the wrist.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Kitan

Because I primarily follow racing that uses "Category 1" rules, whereby the only questions the stewards have to resolve are: did interference occur, and if so, would horse B have finished ahead of horse A had interference not occurred? Based on this, any preposition that War of Will and/or Long Range Toddy would have finished ahead of Maximum Security is nothing but baseless conjecture. Was the interference suffered by WoW more than what happened at Tampa? Yes. Was it enough to cause a 4.5L losing margin? No. WoW lost at most 0.5-1L in that incident. How can you DQ a horse who was much the best because of an incident which cost the horse a quarter of the losing margin? (yes I know MS was placed behind LRT, which was absurd on its own right as that horse was done and everyone knows it)

The TAM result was a headbob and there is a valid argument that without the interference the 5 would have gotten up. Based on the distance between MS and WoW and the loss of lengths suffered with the interference, I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that WoW (or LRT) would have finished ahead of MS had interference not occurred.

Yes, the rule in the States is different, but I still don't think it warranted a DQ. LRT was finishing nowhere near the top five, and WoW finished 1.25L from the 5th horse, which is more than the 0.5-1L he lost in that incident.

And yes, Category 1 rules work because jockeys actually get proper suspensions instead of slaps on the wrist.

Yeah that sounds real dumb.

There is no way you can say both WOW and LRT were not cost a better placing because of the interference. They weren’t beating MS, but they were absolutely cost a placing.

You’re essentially saying foul whoever you want, at any point of the race as long as the horses you are fouling weren’t going to beat you anyway.

I guess exacta, trifecta and superficial bettors be damned.

I also strongly disagree the 5 was going by the 4. I’m not big on gallop outs, but the 5 never went by the 4 in the gallop out. If there was interference, why did the horse, nor the jockey react?

Originally Posted by Kitan

Because I primarily follow racing that uses "Category 1" rules, whereby the only questions the stewards have to resolve are: did interference occur, and if so, would horse B have finished ahead of horse A had interference not occurred? Based on this, any preposition that War of Will and/or Long Range Toddy would have finished ahead of Maximum Security is nothing but baseless conjecture. Was the interference suffered by WoW more than what happened at Tampa? Yes. Was it enough to cause a 4.5L losing margin? No. WoW lost at most 0.5-1L in that incident. How can you DQ a horse who was much the best because of an incident which cost the horse a quarter of the losing margin? (yes I know MS was placed behind LRT, which was absurd on its own right as that horse was done and everyone knows it)

The TAM result was a headbob and there is a valid argument that without the interference the 5 would have gotten up. Based on the distance between MS and WoW and the loss of lengths suffered with the interference, I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that WoW (or LRT) would have finished ahead of MS had interference not occurred.

Yes, the rule in the States is different, but I still don't think it warranted a DQ. LRT was finishing nowhere near the top five, and WoW finished 1.25L from the 5th horse, which is more than the 0.5-1L he lost in that incident.

And yes, Category 1 rules work because jockeys actually get proper suspensions instead of slaps on the wrist.

The rule reads cost an opportunity of a "better" placing. Not would the horse have finished in front of the one who fouled him. Without the incident could WAR OF WILL have finished in front COUNTRY HOUSE, CODE OF HONOR, TACITUS, IMPROBABLE, GAME WINNER and/or MASTER FENCER? Of course. He was knocked sideways. And of course showed his true unobstructed talent by winning the Preakness. BTW the purse for finishing 5th in the Derby is $90,000.

How can you begin to quantify the amount of damage when getting cross body blocked at the quarter pole of his first ever mile and a quarter race. Just the breath knocked out of him could have cost multiple lengths.

Yours could very well be the most ridiculous, incorrect post I've ever read on any forum.

Complete nonsense!

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

...
...Yours could very well be the most ridiculous, incorrect post I've ever read on any forum.
...

Really? That statement may be the most extreme exaggeration since someone wrote "Worst DQ of All Time?"

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Really? That statement may be the most extreme exaggeration since someone wrote "Worst DQ of All Time?"

LMAO...still salty, huh?

Good

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

The rule reads cost an opportunity of a "better" placing. Not would the horse have finished in front of the one who fouled him. Without the incident could WAR OF WILL have finished in front COUNTRY HOUSE, CODE OF HONOR, TACITUS, IMPROBABLE, GAME WINNER and/or MASTER FENCER? Of course. He was knocked sideways. And of course showed his true unobstructed talent by winning the Preakness. BTW the purse for finishing 5th in the Derby is $90,000.

Apparently you decided to skip over the part where I mentioned IMO neither of these horses were finishing in the top five (i.e., purse money slots). If the rule is written so as to DQ MS because LRT finished 17th instead of 16th, that is the most nonsensical rule I've ever heard of.

MS would not have come down anywhere other than in North America. You can find other jurisdiction's opinions of the matter if you look for it.

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Really? That statement may be the most extreme exaggeration since someone wrote "Worst DQ of All Time?"

The current state of petulance on this forum is absurd. Apparently someone having a different opinion is not acceptable, never mind that also being the opinion of every other major jurisdiction in the world.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Kitan

The current state of petulance on this forum is absurd. Apparently someone having a different opinion is not acceptable, never mind that also being the opinion of every other major jurisdiction in the world.

Your lack of self awareness is charming

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Your lack of self awareness is charming

I was always taught to treat others how they treat you :-)

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Your lack of self awareness is charming

You were right about those that post about Hong Kong on boards. It’s pretty funny actually.

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You were right about those that post about Hong Kong on boards. It’s pretty funny actually.

As I've said repeatedly, MS does not get taken down in any other major jurisdiction. No one has to agree with me---that's what an opinion is---but it's not just me you disagree with, it's also some of the most powerful and important people in world racing. But hey, whatever makes you all feel better... I guess if that's not how it's done in the USA then it must be wrong

[moses]

Originally Posted by Kitan

As I've said repeatedly, MS does not get taken down in any other major jurisdiction. No one has to agree with me---that's what an opinion is---but it's not just me you disagree with, it's also some of the most powerful and important people in world racing. But hey, whatever makes you all feel better... I guess if that's not how it's done in the USA then it must be wrong

I can understand if you don't like the rule but the race was run in the US and the rules were applied properly for the Maximum Security disqualification. While technically irrelevant to DQ, the fact that his trainer was indicted in relation to doping his horses less than a year after the fact should really have put a nail in the coffin for complaints about the DQ.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Kitan

As I've said repeatedly, MS does not get taken down in any other major jurisdiction. No one has to agree with me---that's what an opinion is---but it's not just me you disagree with, it's also some of the most powerful and important people in world racing. But hey, whatever makes you all feel better... I guess if that's not how it's done in the USA then it must be wrong

It keeps getting better.

I’m still trying to figure out the logic behind being able to foul whoever, whenever as long as the horse you fouled (and cost a better placing) was never goin to beat you.

I don’t care who around the world thinks that makes sense...because it doesn’t.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by moses

I can understand if you don't like the rule but the race was run in the US and the rules were applied properly for the Maximum Security disqualification. While technically irrelevant to DQ, the fact that his trainer was indicted in relation to doping his horses less than a year after the fact should really have put a nail in the coffin for complaints about the DQ.

This too....his re rallying in the final furlong of this and his other races with Servis was mysteriously gone once he went to Baffert.

Coincidence I’m sure.

[theguarantee]

Originally Posted by Kitan

Based on this, any preposition that War of Will and/or Long Range Toddy would have finished ahead of Maximum Security is nothing but baseless conjecture.

First off full disclosure I would’ve made a pretty big score of War of Will won the Derby. I also would’ve made a significantly less (4 figure instead of 5) score had Max Security not been taken down. Much as I was not a fan of his I felt you had to use defensively given the trainer.

Point I want to make though...and I realize this thread has been somewhat heated, I swear I’m not trying to be an ass...how exactly is it “baseless conjecture” that WoW could not have finished ahead of Max Security in the derby when sawed off turning for home making what sure seemed like a potential winning move...he then came back to win the Preakness two weeks later and while maybe that wasn’t the best field ever he did beat improbable...

At any rate, my point is, the baseless conjecture seems to be on your part...the conjecture from that Derby is that War of Will wouldn’t have won based on what we will never be able to find out. You sir, in my opinion, are the one making a baseless conjecture...