Sport Horse Spotlight

IMG_6002

Real Estate Spotlight

IMG_0213

Sale Spotlight

index
  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You�re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it�details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums� policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it�s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users� profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses � Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it�s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who�s selling it, it doesn�t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions � Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services � Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products � While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements � Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be �bumped� excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues � Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators� discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you�d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user�s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

The Triple Crown Races 2019

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Laurierace View Post

    It’s always illegal to spook. Always. You have to stay on your lane and only move in or out if you have a clear path.
    Thank you for posting this. I get that WOW was cut off but also didn’t know this is illegal. I can see why just didn’t know there was a rule.



    Comment


    • Agree Sunflower, I honestly am surprised how many people here won't even consider that it was the right call, or at least not the totally wrong call, by the stewards. I find it interesting because I wouldn't have expected it to be a mostly one sided discussion in this, of all places, where people care so much about the animals themselves.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Event Horse View Post

        Well, if Country House's connections can whine about an incident that did not impede their horse... then Maximum Security's connections should object to a loud, obnoxious crowd (many of whom were likely inebriated) being allowed in the infield. Everyone knows young (and old) horses can spook. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the potential existed for the crowd to spook a horse. Therefore, it is a safety issue. Tracks claim they want safe racing. But greed drives them to sell tickets to the infield (along with beer sales, betting, etc.).
        There is a literal festival on the infield at Preakness, and it's a shit show and a half on a good day. But I've never seen a horse spook at all of the hoopla.

        At worst, the jockey deserves discipline, but Maximum Security was almost overtaken a few seconds later, but still pulled ahead again. So that spook/bobble/illegal lane change did not determine the outcome of the race. He was the best horse out there today.

        What a shame. Racing does not need a scandal like this right now.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Big_Tag View Post

          If a steward's inquiry hadn't been called on what Maximum Security did to the #1 and #18, it would have been a disservice to racing rules. I do agree the objection filed by #20 was pretty cheap. But again, if the objection had stood, as opposed to the steward's inquiry, he would have only been placed 2nd, I believe?
          You missed my point entirely. The evidence to which I was referring was that CH's people were quite obviously NOT tickled to get anything but a win.

          Oh, and BTW, everyone who is so concerned about WOW, at least get his name right. It is War of Will, not War of Wills. A name which makes about as much sense as Deputed Testamony.



          Rack on!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Can'tFindMyWhip View Post

            There is a literal festival on the infield at Preakness, and it's a shit show and a half on a good day. But I've never seen a horse spook at all of the hoopla.

            At worst, the jockey deserves discipline, but Maximum Security was almost overtaken a few seconds later, but still pulled ahead again. So that spook/bobble/illegal lane change did not determine the outcome of the race. He was the best horse out there today.

            What a shame. Racing does not need a scandal like this right now.
            How is it a scandal? Are people now saying the stewards are corrupt, were bribed, or something like that?

            No one here has posted anything to explain the basis upon which they disagree with the DQ, other than to say that they just disagree with the eventual outcome of the race. Which is not very insightful. It is possible for the stewards to make a call someone disagrees with, without that making the stewards corrupt.

            I would still like a better understanding of the rules that govern, but not because I disagree (or agree) with what the ruling was-- I really cannot myself tell from a few seconds of slo mo, and I am not trained to look for racing infractions anyway. You have to know what the rules are to know what to look for.

            You have to know what the rules are, before you can decide whether they were rightly or wrongly applied.
            A canter is a cure for every evil. ~Benjamin Disraeli

            Comment


            • Press conference at Churchill Downs. It's on the Kentucky Derby Facebook page. Statement from the three stewards. They didn't take questions (and I don't blame them, given the tone of some comments seen here and elsewhere), but this is direct from them.

              There WERE multiple jockey objections.

              The ruling was unanimous.
              Now available in Kindle as well as print: C-Sharp Minor: My Mother's Seventeen-Year Journey through Dementia. 10% of my proceeds will be donated to the Alzheimer's Association.

              Comment


              • Geeze people, did we all watch the same race and replays (all 20 minutes of them)?

                Am I happy that Maximum Security was DQd? Not really.

                I don't know Kentucky's rules on when stewards will DQ or not but in watching the replies many times over, yes, Maxiumum Security did move out of the one lane and floated to maybe the 4 or 5 lane before Saez got him back under control and moving back to the inside (and almost again impeded the horse (Code of Honor maybe?) that was moving up the rail to take advantage of the opening Maximum Security left when he drifted out.)

                War of Will really had to check up to avoid going down. I suspect that helped in the steward's decision.

                When Maximum Security floated out, he crowded War of Will and also Long Range Toddy. The stewards said that both the 18 and 20 horses lodged objections against the 7 (Maximum Security).

                From the article on Paulick Report...

                The riders of the 18 and 20 horses in the Kentucky Derby lodged objections against the 7 horse, the winner, due to interference turning for home, leaving the quarter pole,” said Kentucky chief steward Barbara Borden in a prepared statement. “We had a lengthy review of the race, we interviewed affected riders. We determined that the 7 horse drifted out and impacted the progress of the number 1, in turn interfering with the 18 and 21. Those horses were all affected, we thought, by the interference, therefore we unanimously determined to disqualify number 7 and place him behind the 18, the 18 being the lowest-placed horse that he bothered, which is our typical procedure
                I believe the stewards did the right thing although I don't like it. I don't think Mott was a sore looser with Country House. This is not the first time I've seen a horse set down who impacted another enough that the impacted horse almost fell. If War of Will had fallen, it would have been both visually ugly on a national stage as well as potentially ugly as it would have happened close to the front of a 19 horse field. I've seen jocks taken off their mounts for a number of days when a horse they were riding caused a bad stumble or fall of another horse.

                I believe that objections are what are initiated by the jock/trainer while inquiries are initiated by the stewards.

                I really think that Maximum Security was the best horse but we'll never know how well War of Will or Long Range Toddy might have done. It's SOP to put the horse set down behind the horse(s) they impacted. The stewards are there to protect all the betting public, not just the fans of the horse that crossed the wire first.

                The best of the favorites other than Maximum Security was Improbable who finished 5th.

                Maybe the reason I love animals so much is because the only time they have broken my heart is when they've crossed that rainbow bridge

                Comment


                • Since I'm not sure Paulick Report links will get the reply send to unapproved h*ll I'll post the link for above here

                  https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...-disqualified/
                  Maybe the reason I love animals so much is because the only time they have broken my heart is when they've crossed that rainbow bridge

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sunflower View Post

                    How is it a scandal? Are people now saying the stewards are corrupt, were bribed, or something like that?

                    No one here has posted anything to explain the basis upon which they disagree with the DQ, other than to say that they just disagree with the eventual outcome of the race. Which is not very insightful. It is possible for the stewards to make a call someone disagrees with, without that making the stewards corrupt.

                    I would still like a better understanding of the rules that govern, but not because I disagree (or agree) with what the ruling was-- I really cannot myself tell from a few seconds of slo mo, and I am not trained to look for racing infractions anyway. You have to know what the rules are to know what to look for.

                    You have to know what the rules are, before you can decide whether they were rightly or wrongly applied.
                    When is disqualification not a scandal? People are saying all kinds of things, and mud slinging is already happening. Horse racing doesn't seem to get a ton of positive, mainstream attention anymore, so for the outcome of the Kentucky Derby to be so controversial, it's a scandal.

                    Football had Deflategate, and now horse racing has Spookgate. We shall see what the lasting implications are.

                    Comment


                    • Maximum Security FOUGHT for that win. No way Country House could have caught him no matter what. Anytime Country House got close he sped up. I understand the why, but it didn't affect the outcome in my opinion,.

                      Comment


                      • I think we came within two strides of closing down the sport.

                        The stewards had to rule the way they did.

                        Comment


                        • I need some clarification on the rules.

                          If a horse interferes with another, the horse doing the interfering can be DQ even if the result of the race isn't effected, correct?
                          Objections can be raised by any jockey not just the jockey of the horse interfered with, correct?

                          If both of the above are true then I don't see what the problem is with the ruling that was made. Yes, it's probably in bad taste for the jockey of the second place horse to object against the winner but if it's not against the rules what can be done?

                          From what I've read there were objections raised by more than one person.

                          Do I like the outcome? Not really. But if the rules were followed then that's just how it goes.

                          I'm also so glad that there wasn't a wreck!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Saidapal View Post
                            Maximum Security FOUGHT for that win. No way Country House could have caught him no matter what. Anytime Country House got close he sped up. I understand the why, but it didn't affect the outcome in my opinion,.
                            Maybe yes, Maximum Security would have always finished in front of Country House. We don't know where War of Will would have finished because he about fell on his puss when Maximum Security crossed into War of Will's lane right in front of him causing him to check up severely. We don't know where Long Range Toddy would have finished because he was also impacted by Maximum Security's drift to the outside.

                            What would all of you been screaming if Maximum Security drifted out (as he did) and War of Will fell over Maximum Security's heels near the front of that 19 horse pack racing toward the stretch??? Then what would you have been saying about Maximum Security? Just asking....
                            Maybe the reason I love animals so much is because the only time they have broken my heart is when they've crossed that rainbow bridge

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by dressagetraks View Post
                              Press conference at Churchill Downs. It's on the Kentucky Derby Facebook page. Statement from the three stewards. They didn't take questions (and I don't blame them, given the tone of some comments seen here and elsewhere), but this is direct from them.

                              There WERE multiple jockey objections.

                              The ruling was unanimous.
                              That makes sense. Maybe TV audiences saw only the objection of CH's jockey is because his horse was the main one affected. The TV commentators asked about WOW's jockey more than once, but nothing was said about him. Because it's a TV production and TV viewers get only an encapsulated version of all that goes on off-camera and behind the scenes.
                              Rack on!

                              Comment


                              • Different jurisdictions have different rules (and different stewards). California gets criticized because one of the focusses isn't the foul but whether the foul cost a placing. Someone posted the Kentucky rule and it looks like the focus is the foul and then the horse is placed behind the worst finishing horse that was fouled.

                                I like the Kentucky rule better because no crystal ball is needed and it prevents any thoughts of there's an open season out there. Horses need to stay in their lanes period.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by PintoPony View Post
                                  If a horse interferes with another, the horse doing the interfering can be DQ even if the result of the race isn't effected, correct?
                                  But when a horse interferes with another, how do you know the result of the race wasn't affected?? You don't. As I said, maybe Maximum Security would have always beaten Country House... maybe. But we don't know how War of Will or Long Range Toddy would have finished. We can guess (I'm thinking Long Range Toddy was close to gassed anyway) but we just don't know. Since we don't know, horse doing the interfering (Maximum Security) gets set down behind the worst placing horse interfered with (Long Range Toddy).

                                  Often when a horse has to check up, that completely shuts down their drive and they often don't get their rhythm and drive back near fast enough (even they do get it back) to being able to catch up to where they were.

                                  I still don't like it but I know when I was watching the race live and saw Maximum Security's drift and War of Will (didn't know his name at the time ) have to noticeably check, I had a bad feeling. When the outrider caught up with Saez and was talking to him and they were both acting like Maximum Security had won (he had) I was thinking they needed to wait until all the jocks got back for the weigh in and the race was actually official before I'd get too excited
                                  Maybe the reason I love animals so much is because the only time they have broken my heart is when they've crossed that rainbow bridge

                                  Comment


                                  • Jaywalk was also DQ'd yesterday in the Oaks for moving over and forcing Positive Spirit to clip heels. Not nearly the media protests as this one, and Jaywalk didn't come near winning the Oaks even before DQ, but it was a similar violation with just a different outcome of the interference (interfered horse falling). Thank God it was a different outcome of the interference. This was a much worse spot than that was with all the traffic behind them.
                                    Now available in Kindle as well as print: C-Sharp Minor: My Mother's Seventeen-Year Journey through Dementia. 10% of my proceeds will be donated to the Alzheimer's Association.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Where'sMyWhite View Post

                                      Maybe yes, Maximum Security would have always finished in front of Country House. We don't know where War of Will would have finished because he about fell on his puss when Maximum Security crossed into War of Will's lane right in front of him causing him to check up severely. We don't know where Long Range Toddy would have finished because he was also impacted by Maximum Security's drift to the outside.

                                      What would all of you been screaming if Maximum Security drifted out (as he did) and War of Will fell over Maximum Security's heels near the front of that 19 horse pack racing toward the stretch??? Then what would you have been saying about Maximum Security? Just asking....
                                      I think we are all grateful that that didn't happen.

                                      As I said earlier, I had a bad hunch just before the start of this race. I'm just glad that nothing worse happened. Like a 3-horse pile-up that could have turned into an 18-horse wreck with only maybe Code of Honor getting through to win.
                                      Rack on!

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Can'tFindMyWhip View Post

                                        When is disqualification not a scandal? People are saying all kinds of things, and mud slinging is already happening. Horse racing doesn't seem to get a ton of positive, mainstream attention anymore, so for the outcome of the Kentucky Derby to be so controversial, it's a scandal.

                                        Football had Deflategate, and now horse racing has Spookgate. We shall see what the lasting implications are.
                                        So what is the correct answer here? Turn a blind eye to what happened - which was blatant interference - because of public perception? I'm genuinely asking. Racing gets dealt a tough card, in my opinion, because there's a lot of uninformed public; probably moreso than most other sports (though I certainly can recall "scandalous" calls in more mainstream sports, whether a penalty missed or "bad call," etc.). Think of all the people watching the derby today who know nothing about racing. It's great that people tune in, but just because they don't agree with the call, doesn't mean it's the wrong call.

                                        Comparing this to Deflategate isn't accurate, in my opinion. This isn't some alleged cheating scandal. It's just an unpopular ruling because the favorite - and best horse - lost a race. I don't know how to change public perception on that (and scrolling through my Facebook, there's quite a lot of negative public perception, it seems).

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Where'sMyWhite View Post

                                          But when a horse interferes with another, how do you know the result of the race wasn't affected?? You don't. As I said, maybe Maximum Security would have always beaten Country House... maybe. But we don't know how War of Will or Long Range Toddy would have finished. We can guess (I'm thinking Long Range Toddy was close to gassed anyway) but we just don't know. Since we don't know, horse doing the interfering (Maximum Security) gets set down behind the worst placing horse interfered with (Long Range Toddy).

                                          Often when a horse has to check up, that completely shuts down their drive and they often don't get their rhythm and drive back near fast enough (even they do get it back) to being able to catch up to where they were.

                                          I still don't like it but I know when I was watching the race live and saw Maximum Security's drift and War of Will (didn't know his name at the time ) have to noticeably check, I had a bad feeling. When the outrider caught up with Saez and was talking to him and they were both acting like Maximum Security had won (he had) I was thinking they needed to wait until all the jocks got back for the weigh in and the race was actually official before I'd get too excited
                                          I also noticed that it took an unusually long time for the TV interviewer rider to catch up to interview Luis Saez. I wondered what was going on that she wasn't right there right away. Again, could have been stuff the TV crew knew was going on that we the TV viewers weren't being clued in.
                                          Rack on!

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X