Welcome to the Lunatic Fringe

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Want to help support PFN?

In lieu of ads you can help me to offset PFN operating costs by making any of your Amazon.com purchases through this link at no additional cost to you.

Never seen a hoss race like that one.

Can't ever remember a Kentucky Derby Race ending as today's did. Kind of sad, IMO. The refs decided it again. I was stunned by the decision. It's NASCAR for equines....



My first thread..hope it works..

Comments

  • freshmanin83freshmanin83 Posts: 706PFN Referee

    Congrats you are up. I did not watch the race what happened.

  • YogiNCYogiNC Posts: 403

    DQ'ed the original winner for interference.

  • choppack1choppack1 Posts: 575

    From what I can tell, Maximum Security definitely changed lanes and in doing so impeded the progress of at least 2 other horses. (We were lucky there wasn’t a disaster when he did it).

    It wasn’t a popular decision at Churchill Downs because MS was the favorite, but according to the letter of the law, it was the right one.

  • SamIamSamIam Posts: 175

    Too bad Security's saddle blanket wasn't baby blue with the jockey wearing the logo of you know who. The horse could've cleared the field and still beat the protest. Right call was made.

  • freshmanin83freshmanin83 Posts: 706PFN Referee
    edited May 5

    I guess it must have been blatant or is this a regular thing that occurs in horse racing?

  • YogiNCYogiNC Posts: 403

    It does occur, it's odd that this was the first time at the derby.

  • AdventurooAdventuroo Posts: 1,342
    edited May 5

    NOT a Hockey expert....much less a Hoss racin' afficienado. Sort of like Professor Harold Hill....Not a Gentleman's Trotter Race....but one where they sit down right on the Hoss' back.

    HOWEVER.....there seems to be a LOT of controversy this morning. Social Media and Sports Media want viewers and clicks...

    The "video" will NOT be available for review by ANYONE (Maximum Security has requested such) until Thursday. Say WHAT?

    There are experts on BOTH sides that say that "Movin' OVER" happens all the time. The Jockey is driving his Hoss and the Hoss has some "Controls" that the Jockey can't override. The debate, if I read correctly, will be...

    DID the Muddy Track cause Maximum Security to DRIFT to the right....and if so, did the Jockey make a quick and deliberate attempt to rein him back in and prevent the potential penalty?

    I THINK that the Islander Coach might have protested the Flip Pass Goal off the Power Play in that the Williams did NOT immediately eject the puck to the ice and had milliseconds of control....rather than the rule of "Catch and immediately release or eject the puck and gain no beneficial advantage or control it whilst in glove (hand?)..." Timing and viewpoint and OPINION are all that counts.....

    OR, was a DELIBERATE and BLATANT act to maintain position?

    Therein lies the debate. It was not ( I THINK) the runner up that complained. He benefited in that when Maximum Security was DQ'ed, he was the beneficiary....and a LONG ODDS one at that.

    This will (might, maybe, HO HUM?) be an interesting turn of events. ONE side of me says that the KD officials are circling the wagons and are preparing for an onslaught of legal and rules battles.....and that the "Owners" or the folks that sponsor and benefit from the event are now in a panic mode as in the "Stewards" done made a controversial ruling.

    Maybe they need Johnny Swofford to take things over and he will prevent such a disaster. It SURE has tainted the "upstanding" KD event. Maybe Professor Hill was right all along....it is a SHAMELESS SPORT....

  • choppack1choppack1 Posts: 575
    edited May 5

    Roo - of course there’s controversy, because the favorite was the victim.

    Listening to the discussion and looking at the replay, it’s very clear that MS moved the equivalent of two lanes, in doing so, he created a perilous situation. His own jockey said, “he’s a baby, the horse just got scared.” That’s not a legitimate excuse. It was pretty blatant. From what I can tell this is pretty rare for the front runner to do in the derby and I cannot recall an objection in the past. As soon as they went to the replay, the booth knew there would be trouble. (One of the experts immediately said, “oh he definitely moved out of his lane,” before they showed the replay.)

    The other reason that there’s a controversy is that MS definitely appeared to be the best horse. But rules is rules.

  • TexpackTexpack Posts: 1,254

    Why didn’t they just say the original result was a typo. Nobody argues with that.

  • AdventurooAdventuroo Posts: 1,342

    My comments, from a novice, still stand. What I think is more of an issue is “SHOULD the race been called and postponed?”

    if the hoss was scared.....so....that is the first hoss in KD history to be scared and not under total control of the Jockey? Seems like I have seen a lot of hosses so skittish that they had to be held in the starting gate and actually bucked off their riders.

    if you read the following, hoss racin’ took a hit bigger than the DQ’ed hoss. The moratorium on viewing the footage is only making it worse. The KD folks need to get the UNC PR firm quick...

    https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/horses/kentucky-derby/2019/05/05/kentucky-derby-experts-react-maximum-securitys-disqualification/1112216001/

  • wolfanaticwolfanatic Posts: 272

    would a "Country House" triple crown be a tainted triple crown?

  • choppack1choppack1 Posts: 575

    Roo - so the Racing Forum guy says good decision, because a foul is a foul. Trump and the NYT say bad decision. I will go with the Racing Forum versus those other 2 entities with very little morals and standards. (This is not meant to start a political discussion, since these 2 entities have very different beliefs.)

  • YogiNCYogiNC Posts: 403

    Have to disagree chop, referencing those two entities is political no matter how you look at it.

  • AdventurooAdventuroo Posts: 1,342
    edited May 6

    Careful, the STEWARDS are watching.....

    Back on point, the call, if it was blatantly obvious, should have been made at the end of,the race by the Stewards. It was not. It was a whining and bellyaching complaint (2) that I started the review. Then, it all went downhill.

    On a perfect track, the horse would not have moved to the outside to avoid a large puddle and probably not been spooked. After the jockey reacted, then the horse’s reflexes and the track conditions exacerbated the situation and the recovery took longer.

    One can argue either side. I personally don’t put much credence into the tweets or the editorials.... what do they know bout hoss racin’.

    My take is, like the more level headed and consistent NASCAR drivers say....hey, that’s RACIN’

    The only good that could come out of this is to be more cognizant of track conditions and not the media screamin’ for “run it...”

  • ryebreadryebread Posts: 738

    I watched the Triple Crown most of my my life with my Grandmother. She loved the horses. She passed a few years ago, and I didn't see the Derby on Saturday.

    I see both sides of this. If this were cars, "that's rubbing and rubbing's racing." Those with money on the favorite probably naturally see it that way.

    There's absolutely nothing worse for horse racing than the animals getting hurt. It opens up a bunch of legitimate discussions about animal safety, humane society, etc.. So in my opinion, IF there's a violation that might have caused another animal injury, it has to be called to prevent things from happening in the future.

    I would also cite examples in other sports that work similarly. In track and field, the lanes are often hard, but sometimes it's like horse racing where the lanes start hard and fold in. Violate the lanes in either scenario too much and DQs can (and are) called. Speed skating is another sport where path interference is routinely called, including in medal rounds. In swimming if one comes out of the lane, one's out.

  • 13OT13OT Posts: 49

    The so-called “race stewards” could have made their own review immediately afterward if they saw fit to do so. They did not. Two of the losers complained and a 22-minute review was made. So now the beleaguered sport of horse racing finally has the widespread attention it has craved, but not in this manner.

    My opinion is that when you consider there were over a dozen bunched-up race horses making a turn on a sloppy track, there will be close encounters. But unlike humans on a race track, horses don’t understand the “rules” , and horse racing tracks don’t have lined lanes. Plus, the declared winner wasn’t even involved in this “foul”, which did not appear to have any malice or physical contact.

    Sports are moving into uncharted PC waters. We are clearly into a day and age where almost any utterances or deeds deeply offend others. The PC police must now investigate every instance in sports in which someone might have been somehow victimized on the field, court, pitch, ice or track.

    Game stoppage reviews and even reviews conducted after the contest is supposedly over are ruining sports. These reviews, many which still don’t get it correct, are disrupting not only the flow of the game but fans’ enjoyment as well. College football games are being stopped for every little thing, it seems, and the games get longer and longer. Why pick and choose certain plays to review and not others? Let’s just stop football games after EVERY play. Better yet, let’s just let a computer, not a referee, make the calls, and let a review panel and not the participants determine the outcome.

    The Washington Post’s Sunday sports banner headline was ‘History in the taking’. For once, I actually agree with the Post!

  • AdventurooAdventuroo Posts: 1,342

    I started to write a similar response....but since I sometimes get a little fanatical, I figured.....”no sense flogging a metaphorical, deceased, equine...”

    Well stated.... pass out the PARTICIPATION (usually 554 roses) Garlands to all that enter, regardless of whether they scratch or finish. Don’t know what the flowers should be, though....

    Thanks....

  • HighstickHighstick Posts: 242PFN Referee

    I'm consulting with my young lady friend who is a regular at the Derby and works for Todd Pletcher. She's finishing her second year in a vet program.

  • choppack1choppack1 Posts: 575

    13OT - Go figure I see differently.

    This wasn’t USA vs USSR 1972. This was done by the book. I am a simple man. I say you when you complain about the enforcement of a rule after a rule was broken, you are arguing from very unstable moral ground. I am also confident, that if the NYT and WaPo are upset, justice is more than likely being distributed fairly and righteously.

    It’s funny to me that no one is saying, “yeah, he didn’t move lanes or impede anyone.” Clearly, MS did. It stinks because he was the best horse. However, he messed up. It cost him the Derby.

    I think the “snowflake” position is to get upset when a rule is being forced according to the letter of the law. Else, there’s always the NBA with their different rules for different players.

  • 13OT13OT Posts: 49

    I’m no snowflake; nevertheless. chop, you make good points,

    But to me, a definitive rule should not take experts 22 minutes to figure out, especially in a Triple Crown race. Does the rule specify exactly how far a horse has to veer? 8 inches? 25 inches? I contended that a video replay cannot show exactly how far, just in someone’s opinion. And don’t other horses have any responsibility not to crowd a horse which is ahead of them?

    To me, it’s similar to excessive celebration. How many cheers or how many players need to be cheering, and how loud, before you throw the flag?

    And why was Maximum Security demoted to 17th? Why not a DQ altogether? Or why not 19th? Or why not 9th?

    My real complaint here is the increasing scrutinization of anything that’s remotely close in just about every sport we have. I’m tired of watching contests that drag on forever when officials want to make sure it’s “right”, and often they can’t get it right with replay, holding up games at critical times.

    Why should officials on the field even try anymore? If it’s remotely close, odds are they’ll be overruled by someone who’s not on the field. What the reviews are doing more than anything is taking the sheer fun and joy out of sports. I’m sick of it!

  • choppack1choppack1 Posts: 575

    13OT - like you, I yearn for the days when they let a robot call it. But boy, will hear some bellyaching then! (Probably from the talking heads that complain the most.)


    As for the delay, I think the last thing they wanted to do was overturn the initial results and they were hoping they would get a buzz with someone saying, “wait a second, you can’t overturn it.” I think they did what they had to do, and they didn’t make the easy or popular decision.

  • AdventurooAdventuroo Posts: 1,342

    Ok....here is what I read and understand. KY Hoss Racin’ Commission denied appeal. End of discussion. However, they did not review the video or make any calls or comments on whether it was legitimate not.

    There was no “Film at Eleven” as the video that the Stewards Used will NOT be released until Thursday. So, TECHNICALLY, there was no “evidence” that the KHRC could review....and since there was no evidence, they could not overturn the decision.

    Sounds fair to me.....RIGHT....

    https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/derby-maximum-security-horse-racing-kentucky-derby/2019/05/06/id/914817/

  • HighstickHighstick Posts: 242PFN Referee

    No answer yet, but think she's in the midst of final exams after returning to UC-Davis.

  • choppack1choppack1 Posts: 575

    Probably getting her done.

Sign In or Register to comment.