The Triple Crown Races 2019

[accidental_buckaroo]

@Laurie B

Posting at same time.thank you. And forgot to include you earlier in notable voices of knowledge.my apologies.

[Texarkana]

Big Brown and Justify were even more rapid in their ascents. This is why we call some horses “freaks.”

[accidental_buckaroo]

@Texarkana

Big Brown and Justify were even more rapid in their ascents. This is why we call some horses “freaks.”

Or one he’ll,of an eye for potential. I was not aware of those two. Max sec had a 16k price tag in claimer. Unreal.

I know just enough about horse racing to participate in a elementary conversation about it. That’s it. Always looking to up my game. Thanks all.

[Palm_Beach]

@LaurieB

I disagree with Palm Beach’s analysis of the horses’ relative positions. There was a hole there until Maximum Security moved over into where War of Will already was. After WOW got tangled up with Maximum Security he dropped back and the hole quickly closed.

There’s a slow motion video on Twitter that shows those few seconds very clearly: https://twitter.com/jeremybalan/stat…18251010019328

War of Will was not “there” yet. He was behind the leader, trying to swing around the leader into a gap that got closed by the leader moving out and the outside horse staying the same. It happens all the time, race after race, day after day. Just because a gap it there one moment does not grant you the right to have it held open. It’s a risk. All the riders know horses drift out on the turns, and a gap on the turn is no guarantee. Trying to make a gap on the turn is risky. Had Tyler stayed on the rail, he would have had clear sailing in up the rail. Max did move over too much and interfered with Tyler’s horse, but the horse was not even with Max yet. It’s a risky move, always has been, always will be.

Have we heard from Tyler on the horse that almost went down? Not much. Mark Casse? Nope. He maybe thinks he could have won it had the horse stayed on the rail. But the horse was rank on the rail the whole way round, and Tyler had to let him loose somehow. It’s easy to race ride from the couch after watching the replay 18 times. But what would Calvin Borel do?

[Palm_Beach]

@On the Farm

I think the fact that Gaffalione did not claim foul is telling…he’s the one who truly got roughed up but he didn’t complain because it still wouldn’t have made a difference as to his horse earning a check or not. The fact that Court claimed foul wasn’t communicated very well on the broadcast and I think his actions are the ones that have the skunk-like odor. Claiming foul to get moved from 17th up to 16th is simply not sporting and if this was a maiden claiming race (as Mott chose to use as a comparison) it would be dealt with in the jocks’ room and not the stewards’ office. One can point to this rule or that rule, but the stewards do have some discretion (which comes with its own set of problems.)

Look at the chart. Long Range Toddy was 2nd the entire trip - call after call - and got checked so hard at the 5/16th between the War of Will and Country House that he immediately dropped to 10th and never regained his momentum. That is what solidified the correctness of the call in my mind - we kept saying, “Max got DQ’d, but where did they put him?” and where they put him was behind the horse he bothered the most. We don’t think about him because he dropped back so fast he dropped out of the video. We are all looking at War of Will, when Long Range Toddy was the horse who got compromised the worst. So behind Long Range Toddy was placed Max.

The stewards place the interfering horse beneath the horse that finished in the worst place, which was Long Range Toddy.

Let’s all raise a glass (it’s Cinco de Mayo) to Barb Borden who kept a level head and did the right thing.

[Texarkana]

@Palm Beach

Let’s all raise a glass (it’s Cinco de Mayo) to Barb Borden who kept a level head and did the right thing.

I can’t even imagine what it was like to have to make that call when you know it’s unprecedented, you are going to tick off the entire world, and you are going to completely shatter a whole team’s dream. But it was the right call.

[DoubleClick]

Tyler Gaffalione’s take on the situation:

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com…w1ZWEnezODHL1g

[charismaryllis]

Something further upthread said that the three stewards’ decision was unanimous, which is good… if it had been a split decision, I can’t even imagine the mud slinging that would be going on.

[dressagetraks]

Speaking of DQ’s you don’t want to be known for, I remember reading somewhere years ago a steward at Belmont 1998 saying that he was SO glad that Real Quiet lost by a nose to Victory Gallop, because he said if Real Quiet had held on, there definitely would have been an inquiry, and probably they would have had to DQ the horse for interference with Victory Gallop.

Can you imagine? Public has been waiting for a Triple Crown for 20 years at that point. The call rings out. “And Real Quiet is finally the one!” Grandstand going crazy. Then inquiry and/or objection. Then DQ. No TC winner after all, racing fans. The stewards probably would have been the most unpopular folks at the track, even if a justified foul.

[accidental_buckaroo]

There’s a series of interesting columns in the post today.whether you agree or not with conclusions, some thougtful questions are raised.

[Larksmom]

does anyone remember, and I know some of you do what happened with Afleet Alex? I do not remember the year, but it was a TC race, and he nearly went down. There was a furor, but the interfering horse was a longshot and didn’t win.

[Rackonteur]

@charismaryllis

Something further upthread said that the three stewards’ decision was unanimous, which is good… if it had been a split decision, I can’t even imagine the mud slinging that would be going on.

Which may have been why they said it was unanimous – they may have taken so long to agree, or agreed to say that it was unanimous, to present a united front.

I am grateful to everyone who has participated in this thread. Earlier today a non-horsey neighbor of mine asked me what exactly happened in the race (which he did not see). Later a horsey friend who did not watch the race asked me the same thing. So, one wanting a brief clear answer, the other wanting more technicality.

I told them both that the decision was being discussed “at length” online and then gave them my synopsis both of what I saw in the race and from what I have read here.

So, thanks, everyone.

And this link is from another link on the same website as the article about Saez’s 2016 suspension:
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac…-wrong-process

[dressagetraks]

@Larksmom

does anyone remember, and I know some of you do what happened with Afleet Alex? I do not remember the year, but it was a TC race, and he nearly went down. There was a furor, but the interfering horse was a longshot and didn’t win.

Scrappy T veered out sharply head of the stretch in the Preakness and hit Afleet Alex. Afleet Alex managed somehow to pick himself up and go on to win, so no DQ or inquiry needed since he beat Scrappy T. In my opinion, if Scrappy T had finished ahead of Afleet Alex in that race, he would have been DQ’d even before any jockey could have made it back to pick up the phone and object. Very blatant foul.

[charismaryllis]

But couldn’t the stewards have done something on their own if they saw dangerous riding, no matter the outcome? (Afleet Alex sitch.)

[Where_sMyWhite]

@Texarkana

I can’t even imagine what it was like to have to make that call when you know it’s unprecedented, you are going to tick off the entire world, and you are going to completely shatter a whole team’s dream. But it was the right call.

Yup. I suspect a fair amount of that 22 minutes was hashing over again and again and again if the decision they were making was the correct decision given everything that was figuratively ‘riding’ on it. I wouldn’t be surprised if all 3 stewards had a gut feel fairly quickly but did not want to rush to judgement. Hard to wait that time but glad the stewards were deliberate and comfortable with the decision they made.

[dressagetraks]

Scrappy T and Afleet Alex. Anybody want to debate whether this was really a foul? Amazing agility for Alex.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:“none”,“data-size”:“large”,“data-attachmentid”:10388027}[/ATTACH]

The stewards do have discretion to hand out discipline to the rider even if no DQ situation applies, but I don’t believe they did in this Preakness. It obviously wasn’t intentional. He had just switched whip hands, I think, to left, and the horse reacted to the whip and ducked out. He had started out to the inside of Alex. Cut straight across him.

For the champion of blatant intentional fouls, I remember a story about Eddie Arcaro where the stewards called him in and asked him to explain what he had been doing in the race just run. Eddie replied, “I was trying to kill the SOB (the other jockey).” They suspended him for a full year. It might have been indefinitely, but if it was, they let him come back in a year.

[charismaryllis]

Yikes. :eek:

[Laurierace]

@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.

So one bad decision means that every subsequent decision of that type should also be bad out of some sort of karmic equanimity? Why bother to look at the objection at all if they are all judge by one bad call?

[Laurierace]

[QUOTE=dressagetraks;n10388026]
Scrappy T and Afleet Alex. Anybody want to debate whether this was really a foul? Amazing agility for Alex.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:“none”,“data-size”:“large”,“data-attachmentid”:10388027}[/ATTACH]

The stewards do have discretion to hand out discipline to the rider even if no DQ situation applies, but I don’t believe they did in this Preakness. It obviously wasn’t intentional. He had just switched whip hands, I think, to left, and the horse reacted to the whip and ducked out. He had started out to the inside of Alex. Cut straight across him.

This photo illustrates perfectly how this rule works and how it was applied that day and how it was applied yesterday, which for the record was exactly the same. Afleet Alex finished in front of Scrappy T therefore there was no change necessary. Had it been the other way around or God forbid Alex had gone down in the stretch, Scrappy would have been DQed and Giacomo would have been on to Belmont with a chance at a TC.

[Larksmom]

Thank you DT I knew someone would remember!