Mott never wanted Country House to get embarrassed in the Preakness......I bet he's glad he doesn't have to run him.
Country House was never going to run the Preakness anyway. The cough is just an excuse to make it seem real. His "win" should come with an asterisk because he didn't win. He was gifted the win. I went back several times and closely listened to the interview with the jock before the decision was made. He didn't sound to me that he felt he was going to win the race on the track. He made claims that made no sense. His horse was never altered in the race and had a straight line down the stretch after the turn, his course was never changed. During the race on the turn, I said they are going to look at this but it was more for what looked like an issue with the rail horse than the horses on the outside of MS.
There should've been an immediate Inquiry sign put up and then we wouldn't have the fiasco we have now. The stewards were fine with the way the race finished and everything during the race until the objection. Mott needed someone else besides him to file objection and why not 58 year old Court, he doesn't hang with these jocks and was likely paid to do so. His horse had no chance to win the race or place in the race. His claim of foul was just as much of bs as was Mott's. However, Mott's was the ultimate sin, he wasn't affected at all and wanted a Derby win so bad he went this route.
It's a shame both horses won't run the Preakness, I would love to see MS smoke CH and then go on and win the Belmont.
While it's a longshot to have this overturned, I am glad to see this all in motion. Perhaps it will give the horse racing industry a chance to pause and get something done as a whole. These are all greedy as hell outfits that only look out for their own bottom lines, that's why we don't have one governing body.
When stewards won't meet with you, won't answer to the public that's an issue. This wasn't some Maiden race, this was your biggest race of the year and they flubbed it in more ways than one. It is a problem that won't go away and I know people say they will boycott or won't watch blah blah, but we all know they will. They love a good train wreck, let's be real on that.
There should've been an immediate Inquiry sign put up and then we wouldn't have the fiasco we have now. The stewards were fine with the way the race finished and everything during the race until the objection. Mott needed someone else besides him to file objection and why not 58 year old Court, he doesn't hang with these jocks and was likely paid to do so. His horse had no chance to win the race or place in the race. His claim of foul was just as much of bs as was Mott's. However, Mott's was the ultimate sin, he wasn't affected at all and wanted a Derby win so bad he went this route.
It's a shame both horses won't run the Preakness, I would love to see MS smoke CH and then go on and win the Belmont.
While it's a longshot to have this overturned, I am glad to see this all in motion. Perhaps it will give the horse racing industry a chance to pause and get something done as a whole. These are all greedy as hell outfits that only look out for their own bottom lines, that's why we don't have one governing body.
When stewards won't meet with you, won't answer to the public that's an issue. This wasn't some Maiden race, this was your biggest race of the year and they flubbed it in more ways than one. It is a problem that won't go away and I know people say they will boycott or won't watch blah blah, but we all know they will. They love a good train wreck, let's be real on that.
Andy Beyer: The Kentucky Derby decision was a bad one
Luis Saez rides Maximum Security across the finish line first followed in Saturday’s Kentucky Derby. (Matt Slocum/Associated Press)
When Churchill Downs’s stewards disqualified Maximum Security after his first-place finish in the Kentucky Derby, the decision might have seemed straightforward to many. The colt committed a foul when he crossed in front of War of Will on the final turn and caused trouble for two other runners as well. NBC’s slow-motion replays clearly showed the infraction. And plenty of people said: The rules are the rules, and they should be enforced whether an infraction occurs in a lowly claiming race or the Kentucky Derby.
Racing fans know the issues involving interference and disqualifications are not nearly so simple. In a rough-and-tumble sport, horses regularly bump or veer in front of each other. In most cases, the stewards take no notice and no action. (Probably nobody would have paid attention if Maximum Security had swerved in front of War of Will on the first turn.)
Stewards disqualify horses when a foul has clearly affected the outcome of the race — or when it so egregious that it eliminates other horses from contention. Even then, racing officials are often reluctant to take action in big races, just as basketball and football referees don’t want to decide the NBA Finals or the Super Bowl with a whistle.
After watching films of the 145th Derby over and over, I believe that the Churchill Downs stewards made a bad decision when they took down Maximum Security’s number and made Country House the official winner. Yes, there was a foul. No, it didn’t merit a historic disqualification.
[Maximum Security’s owner, angry over decision, says he will skip Preakness]
On the final turn at Churchill Downs, with Maximum Security on the lead and War of Will behind him, Maximum Security veered into his rival’s path and caused jockey Tyler Gaffalione to steady his horse. NBC commentator Randy Moss, an astute observer of the game, said after watching the two horses’ legs get tangled, “It could have been carnage.” (Moss accordingly thought the disqualification was deserved.)
When I watch races and make notes on them, I always try to estimate how much an incident of trouble cost a horse. In this case I estimated one length. The consequences of Maximum Security’s misdeed could have been catastrophic, but they weren’t. War of Will recovered quickly and resumed his chase of the leader. He had a virtually clear path ahead of him and a quarter mile in which to catch the favorite. He accelerated and got within a length of Maximum Security, but the leader repulsed his bid, and in the final sixteenth of a mile War of Will ran out of gas. He faded to finish eighth. Without the trouble, he might have finished fifth. He would not have won.
The other two colts who were involved in the chain reaction after Maximum Security’s infraction, 54-to-1 Long Range Toddy and 71-to-1 Bodexpress, were going nowhere when the incident occurred. The trouble they encountered surely cost them a higher placing, but as they finished 14th and 17th, they weren’t going to be contenders under any circumstances.
If Maximum Security had veered into the path of Country House, and then defeated him by less than two lengths, there would have been no debate about what the stewards should do. The foul would have cost Country House a legitimate chance to win the Derby, and the resultant disqualification would have been prompt and uncontroversial.
But because Maximum Security’s infraction did not affect the outcome on Saturday, disqualifying the winner was a bit like deciding the NBA Finals on the base of a foul call away from the ball.
What purpose was served by disqualifying the winner? If it was to make a statement about the importance of safety in race-riding, the stewards could slap jockey Luis Saez with a significant suspension. But Maximum Security was the best horse in the field and he deserved to have his name inscribed in the record books. Gary and Mary West, who bred and own him, deserved the glory of a Derby victory after 30 years in the business. The bettors who thought Maximum Security was the best horse deserved to cash their wagers.
Certainly, no justice was served by elevating Country House from second place. He had a relatively easy trip in the Derby, sitting outside the leaders and avoiding most of the trouble on the turn. If he couldn’t win the Derby on his own merits, he doesn’t deserve to have the stewards declare him the winner.
https://newsvire.com/andy-beyer-the-kentucky-derby-decision-was-a-bad-one/
Luis Saez rides Maximum Security across the finish line first followed in Saturday’s Kentucky Derby. (Matt Slocum/Associated Press)
When Churchill Downs’s stewards disqualified Maximum Security after his first-place finish in the Kentucky Derby, the decision might have seemed straightforward to many. The colt committed a foul when he crossed in front of War of Will on the final turn and caused trouble for two other runners as well. NBC’s slow-motion replays clearly showed the infraction. And plenty of people said: The rules are the rules, and they should be enforced whether an infraction occurs in a lowly claiming race or the Kentucky Derby.
Racing fans know the issues involving interference and disqualifications are not nearly so simple. In a rough-and-tumble sport, horses regularly bump or veer in front of each other. In most cases, the stewards take no notice and no action. (Probably nobody would have paid attention if Maximum Security had swerved in front of War of Will on the first turn.)
Stewards disqualify horses when a foul has clearly affected the outcome of the race — or when it so egregious that it eliminates other horses from contention. Even then, racing officials are often reluctant to take action in big races, just as basketball and football referees don’t want to decide the NBA Finals or the Super Bowl with a whistle.
After watching films of the 145th Derby over and over, I believe that the Churchill Downs stewards made a bad decision when they took down Maximum Security’s number and made Country House the official winner. Yes, there was a foul. No, it didn’t merit a historic disqualification.
[Maximum Security’s owner, angry over decision, says he will skip Preakness]
On the final turn at Churchill Downs, with Maximum Security on the lead and War of Will behind him, Maximum Security veered into his rival’s path and caused jockey Tyler Gaffalione to steady his horse. NBC commentator Randy Moss, an astute observer of the game, said after watching the two horses’ legs get tangled, “It could have been carnage.” (Moss accordingly thought the disqualification was deserved.)
When I watch races and make notes on them, I always try to estimate how much an incident of trouble cost a horse. In this case I estimated one length. The consequences of Maximum Security’s misdeed could have been catastrophic, but they weren’t. War of Will recovered quickly and resumed his chase of the leader. He had a virtually clear path ahead of him and a quarter mile in which to catch the favorite. He accelerated and got within a length of Maximum Security, but the leader repulsed his bid, and in the final sixteenth of a mile War of Will ran out of gas. He faded to finish eighth. Without the trouble, he might have finished fifth. He would not have won.
The other two colts who were involved in the chain reaction after Maximum Security’s infraction, 54-to-1 Long Range Toddy and 71-to-1 Bodexpress, were going nowhere when the incident occurred. The trouble they encountered surely cost them a higher placing, but as they finished 14th and 17th, they weren’t going to be contenders under any circumstances.
If Maximum Security had veered into the path of Country House, and then defeated him by less than two lengths, there would have been no debate about what the stewards should do. The foul would have cost Country House a legitimate chance to win the Derby, and the resultant disqualification would have been prompt and uncontroversial.
But because Maximum Security’s infraction did not affect the outcome on Saturday, disqualifying the winner was a bit like deciding the NBA Finals on the base of a foul call away from the ball.
What purpose was served by disqualifying the winner? If it was to make a statement about the importance of safety in race-riding, the stewards could slap jockey Luis Saez with a significant suspension. But Maximum Security was the best horse in the field and he deserved to have his name inscribed in the record books. Gary and Mary West, who bred and own him, deserved the glory of a Derby victory after 30 years in the business. The bettors who thought Maximum Security was the best horse deserved to cash their wagers.
Certainly, no justice was served by elevating Country House from second place. He had a relatively easy trip in the Derby, sitting outside the leaders and avoiding most of the trouble on the turn. If he couldn’t win the Derby on his own merits, he doesn’t deserve to have the stewards declare him the winner.
https://newsvire.com/andy-beyer-the-kentucky-derby-decision-was-a-bad-one/
appreciate the kind words
in Harness racing if a horse bares out but Doesn't gain ground or breaks stride and doesn't gain ground, gets back pacing/trotting, finishes, they won't take him down.
I don't know the rules of Thoroughbred racing.
The above really has nothing to do with this race, just wanted to throw that out there as far as the horse going wide.
The Key in this race is what happened to the #1
it Looked to me that the horse was looking for room, he was on the bit and couldn't get out.
Not saying Max didn't come off the rail and make the others go wide.
The point I tried to make at that time in another post is, Max also took himself out of the race as he gave up the lead to the horse that came through the rail ( #17 ? )
and he fought back to draw away.
So he loss ground with the others, and he came back
For THOSE reasons I don't think the horse should have been taken down.
I agree that it could have been bad. i Never want to see a Horse get hurt. Ever.
and I'm fine with anyone disagreeing with me.
no half of the people don't see it my way. i only brought up the point that BAS and another poster in this thread brought up about War of Will not having the room to move up along side of the leader. He had plenty of room to move up along the side of the leader and establish his path. That is the only point i am making is that they are wrong to think War of Will pushed his way to an opening. These two are the only ones making this claim. They are wrong.
BAS.To compare the derby to a harness race. it is like a harness horse on the front end turning for home and the horse in the two hole coming out because the first over horse has not kept up. as the horse in the two hole starts to come up on the leader the leader starts drifting out and sticks a wheel under the horse on the outside of him and causes that driver to take up. Do you think the leader who goes on to win the race should come down?
Actually we are not wrong. I know tons of people in this industry including a lot of jockeys. Pretty much every jockey I spoke with expressed the same sentiment about War Of Will being the cause. I'd trust their opinion more considering they ride for a living versus many commenting on the race.
West Plans Lawsuit: War Of Will ‘Actually Caused The Infraction, Not Our Horse’
A frame-by-frame video of the Kentucky Derby is expected to be used as “evidence” for owner/breeder Gary West to challenge the stewards' disqualification of his colt, Maximum Security, in a court of law. According to foxnews.com, West plans to “file a lawsuit in the appropriate jurisdiction” after the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission denied his appeal on Monday.
On Thursday, West's racing manager Ben Glass has scheduled a meeting with the KHRC to watch the NBC video footage, reports Horse Racing Nation.
“We're saying that because that rider (Tyler Gaffalione aboard War of Will) didn't claim a foul, and we see the same thing that you see, that the other incidents are a moot issue for us, because it wasn't us,” Glass said. “That horse, War of Will, is on the rail and the next thing you know, he's off the rail behind us. We're looking at that very hard.”
“I think when it's all said and done and all the evidence is put on display, frame by frame in slow motion, you will find that the 1 horse [War of Will] actually caused the infraction, not our horse,” West added. “And … I believe it will eventually show that if the 1 horse would have finished ahead of our horse, we would have had every right in the world to claim an objection against the 1 horse.”
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/...actually-caused-the-infraction-not-our-horse/
A frame-by-frame video of the Kentucky Derby is expected to be used as “evidence” for owner/breeder Gary West to challenge the stewards' disqualification of his colt, Maximum Security, in a court of law. According to foxnews.com, West plans to “file a lawsuit in the appropriate jurisdiction” after the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission denied his appeal on Monday.
On Thursday, West's racing manager Ben Glass has scheduled a meeting with the KHRC to watch the NBC video footage, reports Horse Racing Nation.
“We're saying that because that rider (Tyler Gaffalione aboard War of Will) didn't claim a foul, and we see the same thing that you see, that the other incidents are a moot issue for us, because it wasn't us,” Glass said. “That horse, War of Will, is on the rail and the next thing you know, he's off the rail behind us. We're looking at that very hard.”
“I think when it's all said and done and all the evidence is put on display, frame by frame in slow motion, you will find that the 1 horse [War of Will] actually caused the infraction, not our horse,” West added. “And … I believe it will eventually show that if the 1 horse would have finished ahead of our horse, we would have had every right in the world to claim an objection against the 1 horse.”
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/...actually-caused-the-infraction-not-our-horse/
1) I think Maximum Security's case will be bolstered by precedent, like hundreds or thousands of situations when penalties were NOT applied, including the same stewards in some of them.
2) lots of talk about safety, great. Stop running 20 horse fields and stop racing in deplorable conditions, that'll increase the safety for all the participants
2) lots of talk about safety, great. Stop running 20 horse fields and stop racing in deplorable conditions, that'll increase the safety for all the participants
Bafferts first two derby winners were Silver Charm & Real Quiet.......Silver Charm ran in a 10 horse field & Gary Stevens was whipping on his horse & the whip was hitting the horse right next to him Captain Bodgit right in the head & no inquiry & no objection & Charm won by a head.
Real Quiet won in a 15 horse derby field......there's no reason to have anything over 14 horses in the derby except for greediness by Churchill.
Every year you can disqualify at least 4 to 5 horses for infractions stating the rules, yet nothing happens.....Baffert was right in saying take it like a man & move on, no reason to object.
I never thought I would see the day where horse racings biggest race would be used for political correctness.
Looks like a case can be made against "1", how can the stewards miss that? He was the first horse that drifted and made contact, they would also have to scratch him at a minimum
Guess Country Barn couldn't make their job easy and complain about the "1" too
