Stallion Spotlight

Total Hope-11-18-09-3662

Real Estate Spotlight

Backyard3
  • 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

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.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.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:

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.

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.

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.

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

6. Respect other members.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.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