I feel like others, an afternoon/evening wasted. I usually have a Belmont party. I am not feeling it right now. I am so hoping for a Preakness where the best horse wins, not the cry baby bumble bee boy and drama trainer.
Yep. Maximum Security was clearly the best horse out there today. Cheap win for second place horse who wasnât even affected by the bobble.
3 Likes
I still donât understand on what basis a law suit would be brought. Against whom? For what? The stewards overseeing the race investigated an objection that was raised, under the rules that govern. Unfortunately, the media is failing to give a factual basis on the matter of why the ruling was made and what the rules are. There is just a lot of emotional sensationalism --but then sadly that is the state of a lot of media these days. I would like to understand the rules governing objections-- and what the stewards must see to make a DQ ruling.
Just because the DQâd horse could have had more money for its connections had it not bee DQâd is not on its own any kind of reason for a law suit. There has to be a legal basis for the claim. Even in litigation happy America, claims have to have a legal basis- there must be a legal cause of action.
And I have to say COTH dissapoints in part-- usually there are level headed and informative discussions here, but this whole thread seems to be degenerating into playground name calling against Country House and its connections, without much insight into what ruling was made and why.
14 Likes
Thank you for posting this. I get that WOW was cut off but also didnât know this is illegal. I can see why just didnât know there was a rule.
4 Likes
Agree Sunflower, I honestly am surprised how many people here wonât even consider that it was the right call, or at least not the totally wrong call, by the stewards. I find it interesting because I wouldnât have expected it to be a mostly one sided discussion in this, of all places, where people care so much about the animals themselves.
13 Likes
There is a literal festival on the infield at Preakness, and itâs a shit show and a half on a good day. But Iâve never seen a horse spook at all of the hoopla.
At worst, the jockey deserves discipline, but Maximum Security was almost overtaken a few seconds later, but still pulled ahead again. So that spook/bobble/illegal lane change did not determine the outcome of the race. He was the best horse out there today.
What a shame. Racing does not need a scandal like this right now.
11 Likes
You missed my point entirely. The evidence to which I was referring was that CHâs people were quite obviously NOT tickled to get anything but a win.
Oh, and BTW, everyone who is so concerned about WOW, at least get his name right. It is War of Will, not War of Wills. A name which makes about as much sense as Deputed Testamony.
:sigh:
3 Likes
How is it a scandal? Are people now saying the stewards are corrupt, were bribed, or something like that?
No one here has posted anything to explain the basis upon which they disagree with the DQ, other than to say that they just disagree with the eventual outcome of the race. Which is not very insightful. It is possible for the stewards to make a call someone disagrees with, without that making the stewards corrupt.
I would still like a better understanding of the rules that govern, but not because I disagree (or agree) with what the ruling was-- I really cannot myself tell from a few seconds of slo mo, and I am not trained to look for racing infractions anyway. You have to know what the rules are to know what to look for.
You have to know what the rules are, before you can decide whether they were rightly or wrongly applied.
6 Likes
Press conference at Churchill Downs. Itâs on the Kentucky Derby Facebook page. Statement from the three stewards. They didnât take questions (and I donât blame them, given the tone of some comments seen here and elsewhere), but this is direct from them.
There WERE multiple jockey objections.
The ruling was unanimous.
12 Likes
Geeze people, did we all watch the same race and replays (all 20 minutes of them)?
Am I happy that Maximum Security was DQd? Not really.
I donât know Kentuckyâs rules on when stewards will DQ or not but in watching the replies many times over, yes, Maxiumum Security did move out of the one lane and floated to maybe the 4 or 5 lane before Saez got him back under control and moving back to the inside (and almost again impeded the horse (Code of Honor maybe?) that was moving up the rail to take advantage of the opening Maximum Security left when he drifted out.)
War of Will really had to check up to avoid going down. I suspect that helped in the stewardâs decision.
When Maximum Security floated out, he crowded War of Will and also Long Range Toddy. The stewards said that both the 18 and 20 horses lodged objections against the 7 (Maximum Security).
From the article on Paulick ReportâŠ
The riders of the 18 and 20 horses in the Kentucky Derby lodged objections against the 7 horse, the winner, due to interference turning for home, leaving the quarter pole,â said Kentucky chief steward Barbara Borden in a prepared statement. âWe had a lengthy review of the race, we interviewed affected riders. We determined that the 7 horse drifted out and impacted the progress of the number 1, in turn interfering with the 18 and 21. Those horses were all affected, we thought, by the interference, therefore we unanimously determined to disqualify number 7 and place him behind the 18, the 18 being the lowest-placed horse that he bothered, which is our typical procedure
I believe the stewards did the right thing although I donât like it. I donât think Mott was a sore looser with Country House. This is not the first time Iâve seen a horse set down who impacted another enough that the impacted horse almost fell. If War of Will had fallen, it would have been both visually ugly on a national stage as well as potentially ugly as it would have happened close to the front of a 19 horse field. Iâve seen jocks taken off their mounts for a number of days when a horse they were riding caused a bad stumble or fall of another horse.
I believe that objections are what are initiated by the jock/trainer while inquiries are initiated by the stewards.
I really think that Maximum Security was the best horse but weâll never know how well War of Will or Long Range Toddy might have done. Itâs SOP to put the horse set down behind the horse(s) they impacted. The stewards are there to protect all the betting public, not just the fans of the horse that crossed the wire first.
The best of the favorites other than Maximum Security was Improbable who finished 5th.
10 Likes
Since Iâm not sure Paulick Report links will get the reply send to unapproved h*ll Iâll post the link for above here 
When is disqualification not a scandal? People are saying all kinds of things, and mud slinging is already happening. Horse racing doesnât seem to get a ton of positive, mainstream attention anymore, so for the outcome of the Kentucky Derby to be so controversial, itâs a scandal.
Football had Deflategate, and now horse racing has Spookgate. We shall see what the lasting implications are.
3 Likes
Maximum Security FOUGHT for that win. No way Country House could have caught him no matter what. Anytime Country House got close he sped up. I understand the why, but it didnât affect the outcome in my opinion,.
1 Like
I think we came within two strides of closing down the sport.
The stewards had to rule the way they did.
26 Likes
I need some clarification on the rules.
If a horse interferes with another, the horse doing the interfering can be DQ even if the result of the race isnât effected, correct?
Objections can be raised by any jockey not just the jockey of the horse interfered with, correct?
If both of the above are true then I donât see what the problem is with the ruling that was made. Yes, itâs probably in bad taste for the jockey of the second place horse to object against the winner but if itâs not against the rules what can be done?
From what Iâve read there were objections raised by more than one person.
Do I like the outcome? Not really. But if the rules were followed then thatâs just how it goes.
Iâm also so glad that there wasnât a wreck!
6 Likes
Maybe yes, Maximum Security would have always finished in front of Country House. We donât know where War of Will would have finished because he about fell on his puss when Maximum Security crossed into War of Willâs lane right in front of him causing him to check up severely. We donât know where Long Range Toddy would have finished because he was also impacted by Maximum Securityâs drift to the outside.
What would all of you been screaming if Maximum Security drifted out (as he did) and War of Will fell over Maximum Securityâs heels near the front of that 19 horse pack racing toward the stretch??? Then what would you have been saying about Maximum Security? Just askingâŠ
10 Likes
That makes sense. Maybe TV audiences saw only the objection of CHâs jockey is because his horse was the main one affected. The TV commentators asked about WOWâs jockey more than once, but nothing was said about him. Because itâs a TV production and TV viewers get only an encapsulated version of all that goes on off-camera and behind the scenes.
3 Likes
Different jurisdictions have different rules (and different stewards). California gets criticized because one of the focusses isnât the foul but whether the foul cost a placing. Someone posted the Kentucky rule and it looks like the focus is the foul and then the horse is placed behind the worst finishing horse that was fouled.
I like the Kentucky rule better because no crystal ball is needed and it prevents any thoughts of thereâs an open season out there. Horses need to stay in their lanes period.
12 Likes
But when a horse interferes with another, how do you know the result of the race wasnât affected?? You donât. As I said, maybe Maximum Security would have always beaten Country House⊠maybe. But we donât know how War of Will or Long Range Toddy would have finished. We can guess (Iâm thinking Long Range Toddy was close to gassed anyway) but we just donât know. Since we donât know, horse doing the interfering (Maximum Security) gets set down behind the worst placing horse interfered with (Long Range Toddy).
Often when a horse has to check up, that completely shuts down their drive and they often donât get their rhythm and drive back near fast enough (even they do get it back) to being able to catch up to where they were.
I still donât like it but I know when I was watching the race live and saw Maximum Securityâs drift and War of Will (didnât know his name at the time ) have to noticeably check, I had a bad feeling. When the outrider caught up with Saez and was talking to him and they were both acting like Maximum Security had won (he had) I was thinking they needed to wait until all the jocks got back for the weigh in and the race was actually official before Iâd get too excited :eek:
5 Likes
Jaywalk was also DQâd yesterday in the Oaks for moving over and forcing Positive Spirit to clip heels. Not nearly the media protests as this one, and Jaywalk didnât come near winning the Oaks even before DQ, but it was a similar violation with just a different outcome of the interference (interfered horse falling). Thank God it was a different outcome of the interference. This was a much worse spot than that was with all the traffic behind them.
5 Likes
