The Triple Crown Races 2019

[Rackonteur]

@Where'sMyWhite

Maybe yes, Maximum Security would have always finished in front of Country House. We don’t know where War of Will would have finished because he about fell on his puss when Maximum Security crossed into War of Will’s lane right in front of him causing him to check up severely. We don’t know where Long Range Toddy would have finished because he was also impacted by Maximum Security’s 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 Security’s heels near the front of that 19 horse pack racing toward the stretch??? Then what would you have been saying about Maximum Security? Just asking…

I think we are all grateful that that didn’t happen.

As I said earlier, I had a bad hunch just before the start of this race. I’m just glad that nothing worse happened. Like a 3-horse pile-up that could have turned into an 18-horse wreck with only maybe Code of Honor getting through to win.

[Big_Tag]

@Can'tFindMyWhip

When is disqualification not a scandal? People are saying all kinds of things, and mud slinging is already happening. Horse racing doesn’t seem to get a ton of positive, mainstream attention anymore, so for the outcome of the Kentucky Derby to be so controversial, it’s a scandal.

Football had Deflategate, and now horse racing has Spookgate. We shall see what the lasting implications are.

So what is the correct answer here? Turn a blind eye to what happened - which was blatant interference - because of public perception? I’m genuinely asking. Racing gets dealt a tough card, in my opinion, because there’s a lot of uninformed public; probably moreso than most other sports (though I certainly can recall “scandalous” calls in more mainstream sports, whether a penalty missed or “bad call,” etc.). Think of all the people watching the derby today who know nothing about racing. It’s great that people tune in, but just because they don’t agree with the call, doesn’t mean it’s the wrong call.

Comparing this to Deflategate isn’t accurate, in my opinion. This isn’t some alleged cheating scandal. It’s just an unpopular ruling because the favorite - and best horse - lost a race. I don’t know how to change public perception on that (and scrolling through my Facebook, there’s quite a lot of negative public perception, it seems).

[Rackonteur]

@Where'sMyWhite

But when a horse interferes with another, how do you know the result of the race wasn’t affected?? You don’t. As I said, maybe Maximum Security would have always beaten Country House… maybe. But we don’t know how War of Will or Long Range Toddy would have finished. We can guess (I’m thinking Long Range Toddy was close to gassed anyway) but we just don’t know. Since we don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t like it but I know when I was watching the race live and saw Maximum Security’s drift and War of Will (didn’t 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 I’d get too excited :eek:

I also noticed that it took an unusually long time for the TV interviewer rider to catch up to interview Luis Saez. I wondered what was going on that she wasn’t right there right away. Again, could have been stuff the TV crew knew was going on that we the TV viewers weren’t being clued in.

[Where_sMyWhite]

@Rackonteur

Maybe TV audiences saw only the objection of CH’s jockey is because his horse was the main one affected.

I watched the same post-race coverage on NBC as everyone else. If you listened to Mott’s comments on the objection (Country House’s trainer), he never said (that I heard) that he felt that County House was really interfered with. He did state that he felt that Maximum Security’s drift almost causing War of Will to not just clip heels but fall. That was Mott’s bigger objection (that I took away from his interview) not that Country House was interfered with but that War of Will almost fell. That would have been a PR nightmare… sorry, it would have been.

The public, as with most things, is clueless and forms opinions sometimes in the matter of a few seconds. Once that opinion is formed, it can be almost impossible to derail. All the public saw was Maximum Security fight off Country House and cross the wire first. They have no clue how bad it might have been if War of Will had hit the deck and he easily could have.

Not sure that there was anything Saez could have done to predict Maximum Security’s drift. He seemed to really try hard to get the horse back drifting left once the drift to the right started. If you recall Saez’s comments to the outrider, Maximum Security was a bit green, heard the crowd, lost focus and Saez had to get him back and re-focused. Gotta wonder if Saez was reading the objection writing on the wall as he’s driving Maximum Security down the lane to the win…

[Where_sMyWhite]

@dressagetraks

Jaywalk was also DQ’d yesterday in the Oaks for moving over and forcing Positive Spirit to clip heels.

Forgot about this but yeah… Jaywalk was DQ’d IIRC to last because Positive Spirit basically didn’t finish the race since she lost her rider when she fell. What kept this “mess” from being more of a mess is it happened about 3 jumps out of the gate and all the horses were basically still in a line … not thundering along at 30+ mph racing in a pack… gulp

[Rackonteur]

One of ![](any many Tweets about it:

Still waiting for results of #KentuckyDerby2019.
Apparently one horse won the popular vote and another horse won the Electoral College. [IMG]https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/72x72/1f40e.png)

[Where_sMyWhite]

@Rackonteur

I also noticed that it took an unusually long time for the TV interviewer rider to catch up to interview Luis Saez. I wondered what was going on that she wasn’t right there right away. Again, could have been stuff the TV crew knew was going on that we the TV viewers weren’t being clued in.

I don’t think it took Donna Brothers any longer to get to Saez than any of the other post-race interviews she did. If it did take longer it probably was because Saez didn’t get the horse pulled up quickly. I sure wouldn’t read any big TV conspiracy into this. All the jocks need to come back and get weighed in anyway before it might be obvious that there was an objection unless a trainer filed it or it was a duh objection like seeing a horse almost clip heels and fall due to interference

[Rackonteur]

@Where'sMyWhite

I watched the same post-race coverage on NBC as everyone else. If you listened to Mott’s comments on the objection (Country House’s trainer), he never said (that I heard) that he felt that County House was really interfered with. He did state that he felt that Maximum Security’s drift almost causing War of Will to not just clip heels but fall. That was Mott’s bigger objection (that I took away from his interview) not that Country House was interfered with but that War of Will almost fell. That would have been a PR nightmare… sorry, it would have been.

The public, as with most things, is clueless and forms opinions sometimes in the matter of a few seconds. Once that opinion is formed, it can be almost impossible to derail. All the public saw was Maximum Security fight off Country House and cross the wire first. They have no clue how bad it might have been if War of Will had hit the deck and he easily could have.

Not sure that there was anything Saez could have done to predict Maximum Security’s drift. He seemed to really try hard to get the horse back drifting left once the drift to the right started. If you recall Saez’s comments to the outrider, Maximum Security was a bit green, heard the crowd, lost focus and Saez had to get him back and re-focused. Gotta wonder if Saez was reading the objection writing on the wall as he’s driving Maximum Security down the lane to the win…

You’re talking about Mott. I was talking about the jockey. Who did lodge the objection.

[Where_sMyWhite]

@Rackonteur

You’re talking about Mott. I was talking about the jockey. Who did lodge the objection.

CH’s jock… might have been playing the drama game to see what would stick Mott I really don’t think he thought Country House was interfered with but he was overly not happy with how badly War of Will had to check and Mott is right, that was the potential ugly. If War of Will hadn’t checked up and if there had been no impact on Long Range Toddy, I personally think Maximum Security would have been left alone as the winner.

[Rallycairn]

I can’t help but think how the interference DIRECTLY WITH the second place finisher was overlooked in the 1980 Preakness when Codex clearly and obviously swung very wide and into Genuine Risk’s side and visibly pushed her - visibly pushed into her, swinging her out on the turn into the home stretch – That objection was overruled/ruled “not interference.” But this objection was upheld?

I don’t really believe that every instance of blocking or illegal lane switching gets called out and penalized – it’s only supposed to be incidents that might reasonably affect the outcome anyway, right? We wouldn’t have real racing, just a lot of red tape and adjudication and hours or days to determine the outcome of many, many races.

Did this really rise to the level of setting down a Kentucky Derby winner? I worry that we’re hiding behind red tape here in what happened today.

I’m with those who think this will not reflect well on racing at all. The best horse was not allowed to keep the prize over a technicality.

I really do “hear” the argument that the officials couldn’t overlook it or it could potentially lead to less safety, the rules should be upheld, etc.

But to me there has to be some judgment as to when interference or blocking is truly likely to have affected the outcome of a race. I don’t think it did here. And as I opened my comments with – I’ve seen what appeared to be much worse fouls that likely did directly affect the second-place finisher – overlooked.

A dismal Derby Day. Very sad, whether you agree with the setting down of Maximum Security or not.

[Event_Horse]

@tbchick84

Sorry but you missed the trees completely here. Bill Mott saw an opportunity to win a Kentucky Derby and he used his jockey to do it. He admitted his horse was not at all affected. He knew all he had to do was bring up the bogus objection the stewards would take a look at the other horses, and his horse would benefit greatly from the DQ. War of Will’s trainer/jockey were going to let the outcome stand as evidenced by the fact they did not put up an objection. This was some seriously sleazy crap on the part of Mott. I cringed as I listen to him speaking while they were waiting for the results. He was as subtle as a tornado. His horse stood no chance, but he manipulated the rules to get it done.

If the race had been won by a nose, and the affected horse (WOW’s) jockey had asked for the inquiry, I can see today’s outcome being fair. Instead, a horse who had them all beat long after they all had recovered from the bobble was taken down for no good reason.

No, I didn’t miss anything. Every semester I see individuals who don’t legitimately earn a passing grade (i.e., “win”) try any manipulation they can by appealing the grade (i.e., file an objection to the stewards). These students are the snowflakes who cannot deal with any outcome other than what they feel they deserve. This parallels what Flavien Prat did. Mott very likely prodded him to it. So, think of Mott as the snowflake’s parent. These parents are not helicopter parents anymore - they are “snowplows” who get involved and clear the path for their snowflakes. Seriously, I have been contacted by parents of 20+ year olds regarding grades.

Bill Mott needed to shut the *#%& up - he greatly exaggerated the incident as if everyone out there nearly took a tumble. Yes, it could have been nasty if War of Will had clipped heels with Maximum Security. But Mott made it sound like several horses and jockeys almost fell, and that is not what happened.

Maximum Security had that race stolen from him. He was clearly the best horse. At one point, there was a horse coming up on his inside that seemed to bump him and push him out, but no inquiry there.

[NoSuchPerson]

I think that to the viewers, the whole race looks like a rough and tumble battle. The horses in the pack are so close and it looks like they jostle each other, edge each other out, and cut each other off all the time. I don’t think that Maximum Security bearing out looked any different or more serious than what they had been seeing throughout the race or in previous races.

I feel bad for everyone involved. It’s a rotten situation all around. Thank heaven that there were no wrecks and no one, horse or human, got hurt.

I will admit, however, that I do think ill of Country House’s rider for lodging an objection when his horse was not impacted and it just seems wrong that he benefited greatly from his objection while the horses who were truly impacted didn’t. However, since the rider of Long Range Toddy also lodged an objection, the outcome would have been the same even if Prat hadn’t complained, so, logically speaking, I have nothing to hold against Prat. But still… :lol:

[MorganJunkie]

Well I have minimal knowledge about racing - and enough sense to recognize that. At the end of the day War of Will is the horse I would want to be on. He pulled out of a cluster and really didn’t have any drama. I know this question may frustrate those with knowledge, but how do officials determine the placings? Really, they were still running and anything could have happened.

[Big_Tag]

@NoSuchPerson

I think that to the viewers, the whole race looks like a rough and tumble battle. The horses in the pack are so close and it looks like they jostle each other, edge each other out, and cut each other off all the time. I don’t think that Maximum Security bearing out looked any different or more serious than what they had been seeing throughout the race or in previous races.

I feel bad for everyone involved. It’s a rotten situation all around. Thank heaven that there were no wrecks and no one, horse or human, got hurt.

I will admit, however, that I do think ill of Country Horse’s rider for lodging an objection when his horse was not impacted and it just seems wrong that he benefited greatly from his objection while the horses who were truly impacted didn’t. However, since the rider of Long Range Toddy also lodged an objection, the outcome would have been the same even if Prat hadn’t complained, so, logically speaking, I have nothing to hold against Prat. But still… :lol:

I think CH’s jockey would’ve been best served to keep his mouth shut because I think the outcome, had he not filed an objection, would quite likely have been the same.

[Denali6298]

The derby was a shocker and disappointing in some ways but I am again reminded by the last few pages of this thread how horse people (and people in general) only like the rules when it suits them in some capacity. Be it the horse they wanted to win, skirting drug rules, etc.

[Texarkana]

I was bummed to see Maximum Security taken down… but my winning ticket on Country House eases the pain. :lol:

[Altag]

Does anyone have a link to an aerial view of the race?

[Can_tFindMyWhip]

@Big_Tag

So what is the correct answer here? Turn a blind eye to what happened - which was blatant interference - because of public perception? I’m genuinely asking. Racing gets dealt a tough card, in my opinion, because there’s a lot of uninformed public; probably moreso than most other sports (though I certainly can recall “scandalous” calls in more mainstream sports, whether a penalty missed or “bad call,” etc.). Think of all the people watching the derby today who know nothing about racing. It’s great that people tune in, but just because they don’t agree with the call, doesn’t mean it’s the wrong call.

Comparing this to Deflategate isn’t accurate, in my opinion. This isn’t some alleged cheating scandal. It’s just an unpopular ruling because the favorite - and best horse - lost a race. I don’t know how to change public perception on that (and scrolling through my Facebook, there’s quite a lot of negative public perception, it seems).

I don’t know what the correct answer is. It is very possible that only God and the horse know what happened today. I have heard Saez isn’t the nicest guy, but I also don’t think that he is dumb enough to try and pull something sneaky in one of the highest profile races in the world.

Saez probably should be disciplined for unsafe riding and losing control of his horse. Something dangerous did almost happen here, and it does need to be addressed. But ultimately, Maximum Security had several opportunities to blow his lead (even after the spook) but Saez successfully piloted him to a win and I think they deserve to keep it.

Also, I am more concerned that people who are clueless about racing are going to think that jockeys regularly try to block other horses and risking catastrophic injuries, the same way the NASCAR drivers sometimes play bumper cars. That’s the dangerous misconception that some people will take away from this. I don’t actually care about the drama that is being caused by a “bad call.”

[Sunflower]

@Can'tFindMyWhip

When is disqualification not a scandal? People are saying all kinds of things, and mud slinging is already happening. Horse racing doesn’t seem to get a ton of positive, mainstream attention anymore, so for the outcome of the Kentucky Derby to be so controversial, it’s a scandal.

Football had Deflategate, and now horse racing has Spookgate. We shall see what the lasting implications are.

Perhaps we have different understandings of the meaning of the word “scandal.” The Deflategate football incident was about cheating, if I recall, about whether footballs had the air let out in violation of the rules. On the other hand, the Kentucky Derby call is not about whether there was deliberate cheating. I am not seeing the parallels. Nor how the Kentucky Derby call is a “scandal.” How? Are there claims of bribery, or corruption? Or the like?

[Sunflower]

@Event Horse

No, I didn’t miss anything. Every semester I see individuals who don’t legitimately earn a passing grade (i.e., “win”) try any manipulation they can by appealing the grade (i.e., file an objection to the stewards). These students are the snowflakes who cannot deal with any outcome other than what they feel they deserve. This parallels what Flavien Prat did. Mott very likely prodded him to it. So, think of Mott as the snowflake’s parent. These parents are not helicopter parents anymore - they are “snowplows” who get involved and clear the path for their snowflakes. Seriously, I have been contacted by parents of 20+ year olds regarding grades.

Bill Mott needed to shut the *#%& up - he greatly exaggerated the incident as if everyone out there nearly took a tumble. Yes, it could have been nasty if War of Will had clipped heels with Maximum Security. But Mott made it sound like several horses and jockeys almost fell, and that is not what happened.

Maximum Security had that race stolen from him. He was clearly the best horse. At one point, there was a horse coming up on his inside that seemed to bump him and push him out, but no inquiry there.

Actually, if you listen to the clip on Facebook of the decision by the racing stewards, they felt that several horses were interfered with.

And the complaints lodged with the stewards came from more than one jockey.

And the way this was investigated was not only by looking at the tapes but by interviewing the jockeys.

I don’t get the comparison to what students and overly protective parents do in the classroom…