Jump to content

horse racing thread


BigOrange1

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, cafe society said:

Horrible decision.  While technically upholding the letter of the law, they violently sodomized the spirit of the rule.  The best horse - by fucking far - was Maximum Security.  War of Will and Country House weren't winning unless Maximum Security fell.  That is apparent even to a fucking child.  Bill Mott knows this and I lost a ton of respect for him today.  It's funny, the only other dq'ing of a Derby winner before today was in 1968, when Dancer's Image, a "damnable Yankee horse" won the Derby and later was determined to have used Lasix, which was banned at the time.  There was never any documentation, only anecdotal evidence provided by Kentucky horse officials.  Everyone knew, but couldn't prove, that the Churchill officials pulled a fast one.  There was no proof, and none was really provided.  

maybe the jockey of "the best horse-by fucking far"  should have just turned the corner and won instead of doing something stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, IPoopOnWhoop said:

Yeah I hope the jockey falls off his next mount and the horse steps on his balls

Why ?  what did he do but run a race. The officials are the ones who DQ'ed the sport of horse racing in front of millions of viewers .....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Why ?  what did he do but run a race. The officials are the ones who DQ'ed the sport of horse racing in front of millions of viewers .....

The jockey likely helped to instigate the initiation of the inquiry, I would not expect his career to last long particularly if he helped hasten the death of horse racing which is already in a really bad way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow boys, I may have gone just a tad overboard with the drinking after that race.

My comment on the jockey was made because his horse wasn’t even involved in the incident.  If War of Will’s connections objected then I could have understood that.  Bill Mott said something along the lines of “people bet on those horses too” to make it sound like they were just looking out for everyone.  It was and still is a bitch move that they saw as a chance to “victory”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

The jockey likely helped to instigate the initiation of the inquiry, I would not expect his career to last long particularly if he helped hasten the death of horse racing which is already in a really bad way.

How did he instigate it ?  That's a bit of jump too conclusions speculation on your part IMO.

 

Horse racing, dog fighting, and bull fighting all sports that just need to go away, and I've not missed a KD since I was a little kid in the days of Secretariat (greatest horse evah).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I saw it, there was a definite swerve but I don't think it had much of an impact on the race.  It's like an uncalled penalty mid way through the 3rd quarter, yea it happened but there was a lot of time left and the finish wasn't particularly close.  At the end MS and CH went head to head in a clear open stretch run (as did the other horses potentially affected) and MS simply ran away from all of them. 

It would probably help horse racing a lot if the stewards watched the race and "flagged" (perhaps electronically) potential infractions for review AS THEY HAPPEN....that way you at least take away or at least diminish the issue of the jockeys/trainers/owners raising things after the results are known.  

Edited by Surly Bevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

The way I saw it, there was a definite swerve but I don't think it had much of an impact on the race.  It's like an uncalled penalty mid way through the 3rd quarter, yea it happened but there was a lot of time left and the finish wasn't particularly close.  At the end MS and CH went head to head in a clear open stretch run (as did the other horses potentially affected) and MS simply ran away from all of them. 

It would probably help horse racing a lot if the stewards watched the race and "flagged" (perhaps electronically) potential infractions for review AS THEY HAPPEN....that way you at least take away or at least diminish the issue of the jockeys/trainers/owners raising things after the results are known.  

Yep, as they happen would add a bit of credibility to the whole thing. I don't think the move was DQ worthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

How did he instigate it ?  That's a bit of jump too conclusions speculation on your part IMO.

 

Horse racing, dog fighting, and bull fighting all sports that just need to go away, and I've not missed a KD since I was a little kid in the days of Secretariat (greatest horse evah).

How do I know?  I can read....I'll pick you out the salient part

 

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/maximum-security-wins-145th-kentucky-derby-in-the-slop/

 

Jockey Flavien Prat, one of two jockeys who originated the claim of foul, also won his first Derby.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe the jockey of "the best horse-by fucking far"  should have just turned the corner and won instead of doing something stupid


I guess this stuff happens all the time, but this move was not subtle or accidental. ESPN showed the rule, then the tape. It was an obvious foul that impacted the field.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably goes in unpopular opinions thread, but that DQ was absolutely the right call.  Based on the current rules.  You can argue it’s a stupid rule, but if you’re arguing there wasn’t a foul, you don’t know much about horse racing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Landomatic said:

Probably goes in unpopular opinions thread, but that DQ was absolutely the right call.  Based on the current rules.  You can argue it’s a stupid rule, but if you’re arguing there wasn’t a foul, you don’t know much about horse racing.

Yep.  Had $500 on it and was pissed but didn’t feel robbed.  Shit happens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Landomatic said:

Probably goes in unpopular opinions thread, but that DQ was absolutely the right call.  Based on the current rules.  You can argue it’s a stupid rule, but if you’re arguing there wasn’t a foul, you don’t know much about horse racing.

if this wasn't the Derby, i don't think there is a question that it was a foul. the 7 swerved from the rail to 4 wide in front of the 1. it also caused the 18 to have to pull up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably watch more horse racing than 99.9999 % of the board.   That horse comes down everyday for the same infraction at 85% of tracks across the US.   The real question is does the enormity of the race change the basic rules of the sport..(should the refs let more stuff go in the 4thquarter vs the 1st).  I see both sides and was shocked the horse came down but it was definitely a foul and did cost WOW a placing or 5.  By the rules of the sport the 7 is put behind WOW.   Billy Mott and Pratt did nothing wrong and there will be no negative repercussions long term for either of them.  Did their horse really win the derby(no).  But they sure shit  ain’t turning the $$ down nor should they or would you.   Horse racing is dirty business(hell maybe worse than poker) ..this decision (whether you agree with or not it was the most ethical decision I have seen in a longtime in horse racing) the easy route would have been to disallow the foul and move on...no one would have heard a peep...

Edited by Teddyballgame
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion means nothing on this issue, even though I like watching the Triple Crown races.

On the other hand, I trust Bob Baffert’s opinion, which is that the Derby is typically a rough and tumble race because there are so many horses entered.  He basically said this is part of the race and that there should not have been a DQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AustinMT said:

My opinion means nothing on this issue, even though I like watching the Triple Crown races.

On the other hand, I trust Bob Baffert’s opinion, which is that the Derby is typically a rough and tumble race because there are so many horses entered.  He basically said this is part of the race and that there should not have been a DQ.

Basically my issue, if this was your normal 8 maybe 10 horse field, ok maybe fine...it is not anything remotely close to that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t watch racing other than the odd TC race. Didn’t watch this live, only saw replays. But the lead horse absolutely veered outside, pushing two horses and causing them both to pull up, if not others behind them. Then that horse veers hard back inside to body the horse coming up the 1 position. 

Country house happened to be the right place right time beneficiary, but max security definitely slowed the horses that were coming up on him and it’s not like those horses can just gain back that lost momentum instantaneously. It created the separation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how anyone who watches horse racing could come to any other conclusion then that was a foul. They did the right thing.

Did the best horse win? Likely not. But as other's have said if the jockey keeps that horse in the lane (or even close to it) it might not have been an issue. We really don't know how much momentum was lost by the effected horses. 

Edited by hornbri
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of Derbies where the best horse doesn't win (see most of them in the late 90s-early 2000s).

Had the jockeys in the pack not been paying attention, there could have easily been an ugly multi-horse pileup behind Maximum Security's antics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how anyone who watches horse racing could come to any other conclusion then that was a foul. They did the right thing.
Did the best horse win? Likely not. But as other's have said if the jockey keeps that horse in the lane (or even close to it) it might not have been an issue. We really don't know how much momentum was lost by the effected horses. 


I get it. I watch tons of basketball. You see Lebron James travel 2-3 times a game. You get used to it. What if he made the game-winning shot, but they finally called him for traveling. Lot of outrage, but not so much if it was a blatant travel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eskimohorn said:

 


I get it. I watch tons of basketball. You see Lebron James travel 2-3 times a game. You get used to it. What if he made the game-winning shot, but they finally called him for traveling. Lot of outrage, but not so much if it was a blatant travel.

 

In this case it was blatant. As others have said this would have been the outcome in minutes in any other race, they were just being extra careful since it was the derby. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 was not the only objection either---Long Range Toddy(Who was severely comprised as well as the 1)---all the blame went on Mott because he was interviewed-(and it was his jock that made the obj not Mott-once the jock claims obj-he notifies the outrider before ever speaking to trainer) there is no way to take it back)-The #1 should have objected but did not since he would have gained nothing(I would argue they were wrong as they should protect the integrity of the field-kind of like golfers..  Regardless, if I had money on either outcome I might have a different opinion(unfortunately  I did not have the 20 anywhere in top 2)...At  the end of the day  ---Mott has been a world class trainer for many years with a pretty clean record and is know as one of the most "ethical" trainers out there..Jason Servis on the other hand is not known that way and I will leave it at that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-kentucky-derby-decision-was-a-bad-one-country-house-never-had-a-chance-of-winning/2019/05/06/59a584b4-701c-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html?utm_term=.04df83ef2594

 

Andrew Beyer column in the WaPo.  "But because Maximum Security’s infraction did not affect the outcome, disqualifying the winner was a bit like deciding the NBA Finals on a foul away from the ball."

Edited by cafe society
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MAROON said:

https://thespun.com/more/top-stories/bob-baffert-has-strong-response-to-kentucky-derby-controversy

 

Baffert with strong response to those who filed claims - says "take the loss you pussies"

I get that it is a rougher race because it has twenty horses. But this infraction had nothing to do with that. It was the horse in the lead with only horses behind it and swerving in front of a couple horses as they came up on him. This had nothing to do with there being a large field.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Baffert isn’t the most impartial person in this, considering the owner of Maximum Security (Gary west). Is also one of Bafferts big owners as well..West also owns Game Winner, Bob knows  where his bread is buttered ..

Shug McGaughey, the long-time Phipps trainer and winner of the 2013 Derby with Orb, told the Washington Post,  “”When I saw the pictures last night, I have to agree the stewards made the right call.” Mark Casse, whose mount War of Will narrowly avoided a catastrophic collision with Maximum Security, also told the Washington Post, “That controversy yesterday was nothing next to the controversy that would have happened had our horse fallen.”  And Todd Pletcher, who has won two Derbys and seven Eclipse Awards, told Newsday, “It was a call you have to make. I think it sends a great message for the integrity of the sport at a time when we've been under fire.”

 

Edited by Teddyballgame
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Quote

In a statement released on Friday, West issued a $20 million challenge to four Kentucky Derby rivals: if Country House, War of Will, Long Range Toddy, or Bodexpress can beat Maximum Security in any race before January 1, 2020, he’ll pay the owner of that horse $5 million of his own money. There’s a catch, though. If one of the other owners takes West up on his challenge, they’ll have to wager $5 million of their own money to pay West if Maximum Security beats their horse.

http:// https://www.yahoo.com/sports/maximum-securitys-owner-issues-20-million-challenge-to-kentucky-derby-contenders-194658357.html

West is approaching Hall of Fame type butthurtness. He knows nobody would do that. Even though they should. They should put a second horse in the field, a rabbit, that would burn MS out on the lead and cause MS to collapse. Easy money.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...