I found this to be a thought provoking article:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport…on/1141792001/
What do you all think of these ideas, particularly the first one, which proposes that the Derby field be reduced to 14, and that the next 14 in the Derby points standings be entered into another race on the Derby undercard with the same conditions, a $1 million purse and automatic berths to the Preakness for the top finishers?
IMO 
Not sure that I like their alternative of capping the field at 14 (perhaps interesting) but adding a second race on the undercard with the top 3 in each race getting into the Preakness as an “automatic” qualifier. Not sure how the public would react to a horse winning the undercard qualifier and then winning the Preakness. Today, there the KD winner and “everyone else”.
I agree on the transparency. Having Barbara Borden making a statement and then taking no questions did bother me. If the stewards where that solid in their decision, they should have been able to respond to every single question.
TC bonus… meehh… ambivalent on this one. There are, I suspect, trainers that will train for the Preakness, perhaps in the hopes of unseating the KD winner. Granted the Preakness is a significant component of the TC, but the TC isn’t the only reason the Preakness exists either.
Maybe racing needs to decide, among themselves, if they want to continue the ‘purity’ of many of the long-standing races throughout the season in favor of restructuring long standing racings to achieve a more favorable as well as interesting sport for the general public.
I am a NASCAR fan and have been for many years. I was one who struggled when NASCAR restructured how their crown their top series champion from best performance, based on points, throughout the year to a “playoff” system. Part of me likes the new format, part of me misses the old format. :ambivalence:
There was a TC bonus, but it did not fulfill its purpose (to get more horses to go into all 3 races.)
Having 2 similar races with different point levels qualifying for each level is (IMO) a stupid idea.
This year was a travesty. All of us who have followed racing have seen jockeys stand up in their stirrups to make a big deal out of nothing. And, of course, a jockey is going to say that he was cut off/almost had a tragedy.
It seems that the stewards should be the ones to see the details of every horse at every minute. And, here, the “Inquiry” light never went on. It only became a big deal when one jockey objected… And, even that jockey admitted that he did not expect his objection to change anything. If the violation was so bad, then why didn’t the stewards make a “stewards Inquiry”?
Wasn’t it two jockeys that protested though? Jon Court too?
Anyway, there was a TC prize sponsored by an auto maker…Chrysler maybe? Think it started after Affirmed’s year and ran quite awhile but nobody won it during that time.
I don’t think size of the field had anything to do with the Derby incident or even the Oaks fall, it was the leader running alone who did veer out of his path and did or didn’t interfere and it was just one or two horses veering in out of the gate that knocked that filly down, not every horse outside of her.
If there were statistics indicating the Derby field size directly contributed to catastrophic accidents and DQs, I’d look at them but right now, it’s not a factor IMO. 14 seems an odd arbitrary cut off too, maybe just stop when the main starting gate is full, no auxiliary gate. What is that 16 or 17?
And I hate win and your in formats to get lesser talents in marquee races. They do that with the Breeders Cup now and, IMO, somewhat watered down the prestige of qualifying to get in, Have any win and ins hit the board in those BC races or been a factor at all?
It probably is time to take a look at many things instead of relying on how it’s alwags been and tradition of good old days that in reality were not so good at all. But it needs to be a careful look with actual research and statsics, not just a longing for days gone by and refusal to contemplate change in a sport that’s rapidly falling out of favor.
Yes, two jockeys:
—“Two jockeys – Jon Court of Long Range Toddy and Flavien Prat of Country House – filed an objection after the race. After a 22-minute review, Maximum Security was disqualified.”—
War of Will jockey would have also, if he wanted to and with more reason than anyone.
The fault here lays with the stewards that didn’t put a hold on the results and studied the replay until they made a ruling.
Then all this talk would not be happening.
It is always so easy to judge in hindsight…
I think that’s a good article that makes some very good points.
I totally agree with Dan Wolken’s first two suggestions. 20 horses is too many to run in the Derby. The track at Churchill Downs isn’t wide enough for that big a field and the use of the second gate means that the horse who breaks from the #1 post has no chance of getting a clean trip. (This year, because “only” 19 horses ran, the decision was made not to use the inside stall. So the #1 horse War of Will broke from the #2 post–so clearly CD realizes that is a problem.) The field should be limited to, at most, the number of horses that can break from the main gate.
Yup, there was a whole lot more the Kentucky stewards should have said about the disqualification. More transparency on their part might have saved the sport much of the grief it’s going through now. Barbara Borden should have fully explained why Maximum Security was DQ’d and what the rule was the stewards had followed in making the ruling. She should have supported her announcement with video. And then she should have answered questions from the media.
The Powers That Be in racing should no longer be able to get away with saying “Because we said so” and leaving it at that.
As for his third point, I disagree. We don’t need a bonus to make horses participate in the Triple Crown. Wolken notes that there once was such a bonus and that it was discontinued because Visa dropped their sponsorship in 2005. What he fails to mention is that one of the reasons Visa dropped their sponsorship because one year the horse who would have won the bonus was pulled up in the Belmont after taking a bad step. Had his jockey pushed the horse to cross the finish line, regardless of his injury, he would have won the million dollars. Instead the jockey did the right thing–and was excoriated for it in some quarters. The bonus gives owners, trainers, and jockeys an incentive to choose money over a horse’s welfare and I think that’s the wrong way to go.
I am pulling a blank here–who was pulled up in the Belmont after taking a bad step?
I thoroughly agree with making the KD field smaller. If I had a race horse that was good enough to do the KD I would not bother with the race. I call the KD a cavalry charge now, and at most what it proves about a horse is if the horse has “racing luck” because, if the horse is not equivalent to Secretariat, that is what is needed to win in such a crowded race. If “racing luck” was a genetic component of a horse it would not matter, but for anything else besides racing luck I do not see how the modern KD proves anything about a colt being suitable for breeding. And how can one make a rational bet if nothing but “racing luck” counts in the race?
I was against the stewards’ decision at first until I saw the video from up high and behind. A clear violation of traffic rules, and you know something, if there had been a catastrophic crash with multiple horses it would have greatly increased public pressure to outlaw horse racing as a formal sport.
War of Will is a truly amazing horse. If I owned a decent TB racing mare I would be saving up my money for his stud fee, not every horse would keep on his feet in such a situation.
I know this is off topic, but I agree with Jackie Cochran, that the disqualification was appropriate.
I also agree with LaurieB that someone should have given a better, clearer, more concise explanation to the public, and it should have been done immediately after the decision. Many people misunderstood the ruling and thought that Maximum Security was disqualified for interfering with Country House directly. They completely missed the pileup that Maximum Security caused well before the stretch and which almost caused a serious crash (and which caused Long Range Toddy to brush Country House).
Cavonnier, who had been 2nd in the Derby, and 4th in the Preakness and went off as the favorite in the Belmont.
Thank you!
I am in disagreement with all of it. A great horse overcomes adversity, and it takes a great horse to win the Triple Crown. The 20 horse field is only an issue at the break. Right now, as I type, there is a jockey claim of foul in the 5th race at Penn National and it’s only a 6 horse field. Limiting the field to 14 will accomplish nothing. Horses coming out on the turn happens every day at every track. Remember Spicer Cub!!!
It’s a hard race to win, which is fine. The best things in life don’t come easy. And going back 145 years, it’s been a relatively safe race.
Have any stewards ever done a press conference? It’s not like they are coaches or celebrity trainers. I was astonished they went on camera. We all saw the videos of the race x1,000.
The bonus thing has been done. Owners want to win stake races, especially with 3 yo colts that are possible stallion prospects. It’s the trainer’s job to pick the race the horse can win, and if it’s the Derby, go for it. If they’d rather win the Preakness, fine. Sit them both out for the Belmont, bring it on.
If you can’t hang, stay on the couch. SNOWFLAKES.
I like the idea of limiting the field to 14. I don’t think any other major flat race in the U.S. has more than 14 entries.
I like 14 to go, and it seems like the point system is doing OK to pick those. I can’t think of any horses who have been “left out” by the system (although others here may.)
See no need for the special bonus undercard race.
However, Palm Beach, I do like your comment about the stewards. I don’t think they are used to doing press conferences, but I do think they are used to being the “final word”. I think that is why they did what they did. I certainly don’t think they were trying to be obtuse.
Isn’t that what did happen? Stewards spent 21:57 (IIRC) studying the replays (5 different views) before making the race official. I’m confused.
I’m good with limiting the field of any race to the main gate only… no auxiliary gate.
My reactions:
Completely agree that 20 horses is too many for the Kentucky Derby. It’s not only stupid, it’s a fairly recent phenomenon given the history of the race. It wasn’t until the 1970s that we started having these ridiculously big fields. There is no reason for it. Nothing would be lost by reducing the field size-- you could double the start fee and people would still enter. Bettors will still bet. Everyone will still watch. The general public probably won’t even notice.
I don’t know when the racing industry as a whole is going to get it through their dense heads that transparency is the only way to survive in the 21st century. So yes, I totally think the stewards should have explained themselves better for cripes sake. I should not be having to explain their gosh darned ruling to the general public. Get with the times and stop this tight-lipped, “shrouded in mystery” act that racetrackers love.
There should absolutely NOT be any monetary incentive to run in all three TC races. Is Dan Wolken out of his ever-loving mind? Offering life-changing sums of money brings out the worst in people. An incentive wasn’t a big deal when horses were trained and conditioned to run every 2-3 weeks. Now you have a bunch of horses who have made maybe 3-5 lifetime starts going into the TC series … you want to bribe them to run in the 3 most grueling races they will ever face over the course of 6 weeks?
Here’s an incentive I would like: take that money and offer it as an incentive for horses involved in the TC series who come back to race as older horses at the graded levels.
The winner was posted, then the inquiries by jockeys put a hold on things.
The stewards debated for long time.
Probably had to consult with the powers that be about their decision before making it official.
Normally with such a clear interference stewards hold the results until a decision is announced.
At least that is the way it looked just watching it on TV.
No, no no. The order of finish went up, but it is NOT official until the stewards make the race official. The first thing they did after the conclusion of the race was to pick horses to get drug tested - they go to a detention barn, so that has to be relayed to the groom asap. Then they look at the video. The riders can tell the outrider that they will claim foul while they are still out on the track, and that is what they did. The outriders are able to communicate with the stewards from the track, and when they called up to let the stewards know that two riders were claiming fouls, the stewards lit the inquiry light. But the winner had NOT been made official at that time. No winner is ever official until the stewards light the Official sign.
What ‘powers that be’ would the stewards be consulting? They are the powers that be. The decision is in the hands of the stewards which are part of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. They are not employees of Churchill Downs.
As PB said, until the Official sign is lit, any postings on the board are unofficial and subject to change. This is pretty standard procedure. I’ve seen many races where a finishing order is posted at the finish of the race without the Official. I’ve seen the posted order change if a horse is set down. It happens. The race is “over” when the Official sign is lit.
What it looked like to me from watching NBC was many cuts into the stewards’ room watching them watching the 5 replay camera views, pointing, discussing (no audio). Lather, rinse, repeat for 21:57 minutes. Then the stewards announced their unanimous decision.
The powers that be, those the stewards may have felt they needed to let them know first?
I seemed to have heard several that were interviewed to assume the results had been made official right before the controversy started, one of them the trainer of the winning horse that was set down.
Maybe I misheard something, but that seemed to be part of why he was so upset right then at the reversal.
Thanks for explaining how it was.
The horse that you are thinking of was Charismatic with Chris Antley up - they finished third and Antley pulled him up very quickly due to a foreleg fracture, thus saving his life. Cavonnier won neither the Derby nor the Preakness but was favourite for the Belmont.
And yes, the jockey did the right thing as Charismatic went on to have a stud career and died in 2017.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
