Stallion Spotlight

0201171029b-1

Real Estate Spotlight

158 Hundred Acer Farm Honea Path SC-3
  • 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 Rackonteur View Post
    Maybe TV audiences saw only the objection of CH's jockey is because his horse was the main one affected.
    I watched the same post-race coverage on NBC as everyone else. If you listened to Mott's comments on the objection (Country House's trainer), he never said (that I heard) that he felt that County House was really interfered with. He did state that he felt that Maximum Security's drift almost causing War of Will to not just clip heels but fall. That was Mott's bigger objection (that I took away from his interview) not that Country House was interfered with but that War of Will almost fell. That would have been a PR nightmare... sorry, it would have been.

    The public, as with most things, is clueless and forms opinions sometimes in the matter of a few seconds. Once that opinion is formed, it can be almost impossible to derail. All the public saw was Maximum Security fight off Country House and cross the wire first. They have no clue how bad it might have been if War of Will had hit the deck and he easily could have.

    Not sure that there was anything Saez could have done to predict Maximum Security's drift. He seemed to really try hard to get the horse back drifting left once the drift to the right started. If you recall Saez's comments to the outrider, Maximum Security was a bit green, heard the crowd, lost focus and Saez had to get him back and re-focused. Gotta wonder if Saez was reading the objection writing on the wall as he's driving Maximum Security down the lane to the win...
    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
      Jaywalk was also DQ'd yesterday in the Oaks for moving over and forcing Positive Spirit to clip heels.
      Forgot about this but yeah... Jaywalk was DQ'd IIRC to last because Positive Spirit basically didn't finish the race since she lost her rider when she fell. What kept this "mess" from being more of a mess is it happened about 3 jumps out of the gate and all the horses were basically still in a line ... not thundering along at 30+ mph racing in a pack... gulp
      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


      • One of many many Tweets about it:

        Still waiting for results of #KentuckyDerby2019.
        Apparently one horse won the popular vote and another horse won the Electoral College.
        Rack on!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Rackonteur View Post

          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.
          I don't think it took Donna Brothers any longer to get to Saez than any of the other post-race interviews she did. If it did take longer it probably was because Saez didn't get the horse pulled up quickly. I sure wouldn't read any big TV conspiracy into this. All the jocks need to come back and get weighed in anyway before it might be obvious that there was an objection unless a trainer filed it or it was a duh objection like seeing a horse almost clip heels and fall due to interference
          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 Where'sMyWhite View Post

            I watched the same post-race coverage on NBC as everyone else. If you listened to Mott's comments on the objection (Country House's trainer), he never said (that I heard) that he felt that County House was really interfered with. He did state that he felt that Maximum Security's drift almost causing War of Will to not just clip heels but fall. That was Mott's bigger objection (that I took away from his interview) not that Country House was interfered with but that War of Will almost fell. That would have been a PR nightmare... sorry, it would have been.

            The public, as with most things, is clueless and forms opinions sometimes in the matter of a few seconds. Once that opinion is formed, it can be almost impossible to derail. All the public saw was Maximum Security fight off Country House and cross the wire first. They have no clue how bad it might have been if War of Will had hit the deck and he easily could have.

            Not sure that there was anything Saez could have done to predict Maximum Security's drift. He seemed to really try hard to get the horse back drifting left once the drift to the right started. If you recall Saez's comments to the outrider, Maximum Security was a bit green, heard the crowd, lost focus and Saez had to get him back and re-focused. Gotta wonder if Saez was reading the objection writing on the wall as he's driving Maximum Security down the lane to the win...
            You're talking about Mott. I was talking about the jockey. Who did lodge the objection.
            Rack on!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rackonteur View Post

              You're talking about Mott. I was talking about the jockey. Who did lodge the objection.
              CH's jock... might have been playing the drama game to see what would stick Mott I really don't think he thought Country House was interfered with but he was overly not happy with how badly War of Will had to check and Mott is right, that was the potential ugly. If War of Will hadn't checked up and if there had been no impact on Long Range Toddy, I personally think Maximum Security would have been left alone as the winner.
              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


              • I can't help but think how the interference DIRECTLY WITH the second place finisher was overlooked in the 1980 Preakness when Codex clearly and obviously swung very wide and into Genuine Risk's side and visibly pushed her - visibly pushed into her, swinging her out on the turn into the home stretch -- That objection was overruled/ruled "not interference." But this objection was upheld?

                I don't really believe that every instance of blocking or illegal lane switching gets called out and penalized -- it's only supposed to be incidents that might reasonably affect the outcome anyway, right? We wouldn't have real racing, just a lot of red tape and adjudication and hours or days to determine the outcome of many, many races.

                Did this really rise to the level of setting down a Kentucky Derby winner? I worry that we're hiding behind red tape here in what happened today.

                I'm with those who think this will not reflect well on racing at all. The best horse was not allowed to keep the prize over a technicality.

                I really do "hear" the argument that the officials couldn't overlook it or it could potentially lead to less safety, the rules should be upheld, etc.

                But to me there has to be some judgment as to when interference or blocking is truly likely to have affected the outcome of a race. I don't think it did here. And as I opened my comments with -- I've seen what appeared to be much worse fouls that likely did directly affect the second-place finisher -- overlooked.

                A dismal Derby Day. Very sad, whether you agree with the setting down of Maximum Security or not.
                If thou hast a sorrow, tell it not to the arrow, tell it to thy saddlebow, and ride on, singing. -- King Alfred the Great

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tbchick84 View Post

                  Sorry but you missed the trees completely here. Bill Mott saw an opportunity to win a Kentucky Derby and he used his jockey to do it. He admitted his horse was not at all affected. He knew all he had to do was bring up the bogus objection the stewards would take a look at the other horses, and his horse would benefit greatly from the DQ. War of Will's trainer/jockey were going to let the outcome stand as evidenced by the fact they did not put up an objection. This was some seriously sleazy crap on the part of Mott. I cringed as I listen to him speaking while they were waiting for the results. He was as subtle as a tornado. His horse stood no chance, but he manipulated the rules to get it done.

                  If the race had been won by a nose, and the affected horse (WOW's) jockey had asked for the inquiry, I can see today's outcome being fair. Instead, a horse who had them all beat long after they all had recovered from the bobble was taken down for no good reason.
                  No, I didn't miss anything. Every semester I see individuals who don't legitimately earn a passing grade (i.e., "win") try any manipulation they can by appealing the grade (i.e., file an objection to the stewards). These students are the snowflakes who cannot deal with any outcome other than what they feel they deserve. This parallels what Flavien Prat did. Mott very likely prodded him to it. So, think of Mott as the snowflake's parent. These parents are not helicopter parents anymore - they are "snowplows" who get involved and clear the path for their snowflakes. Seriously, I have been contacted by parents of 20+ year olds regarding grades.

                  Bill Mott needed to shut the *#%& up - he greatly exaggerated the incident as if everyone out there nearly took a tumble. Yes, it could have been nasty if War of Will had clipped heels with Maximum Security. But Mott made it sound like several horses and jockeys almost fell, and that is not what happened.

                  Maximum Security had that race stolen from him. He was clearly the best horse. At one point, there was a horse coming up on his inside that seemed to bump him and push him out, but no inquiry there.

                  Comment


                  • I think that to the viewers, the whole race looks like a rough and tumble battle. The horses in the pack are so close and it looks like they jostle each other, edge each other out, and cut each other off all the time. I don't think that Maximum Security bearing out looked any different or more serious than what they had been seeing throughout the race or in previous races.

                    I feel bad for everyone involved. It's a rotten situation all around. Thank heaven that there were no wrecks and no one, horse or human, got hurt.

                    I will admit, however, that I do think ill of Country House's rider for lodging an objection when his horse was not impacted and it just seems wrong that he benefited greatly from his objection while the horses who were truly impacted didn't. However, since the rider of Long Range Toddy also lodged an objection, the outcome would have been the same even if Prat hadn't complained, so, logically speaking, I have nothing to hold against Prat. But still...
                    Last edited by NoSuchPerson; May. 4, 2019, 11:19 PM.
                    "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
                    that's even remotely true."

                    Homer Simpson

                    Comment


                    • Well I have minimal knowledge about racing - and enough sense to recognize that. At the end of the day War of Will is the horse I would want to be on. He pulled out of a cluster and really didn’t have any drama. I know this question may frustrate those with knowledge, but how do officials determine the placings? Really, they were still running and anything could have happened.
                      Sayeth Traum:
                      I hate it when I injury myself trying to do something unspecified

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NoSuchPerson View Post
                        I think that to the viewers, the whole race looks like a rough and tumble battle. The horses in the pack are so close and it looks like they jostle each other, edge each other out, and cut each other off all the time. I don't think that Maximum Security bearing out looked any different or more serious than what they had been seeing throughout the race or in previous races.

                        I feel bad for everyone involved. It's a rotten situation all around. Thank heaven that there were no wrecks and no one, horse or human, got hurt.

                        I will admit, however, that I do think ill of Country Horse's rider for lodging an objection when his horse was not impacted and it just seems wrong that he benefited greatly from his objection while the horses who were truly impacted didn't. However, since the rider of Long Range Toddy also lodged an objection, the outcome would have been the same even if Prat hadn't complained, so, logically speaking, I have nothing to hold against Prat. But still...
                        I think CH's jockey would've been best served to keep his mouth shut because I think the outcome, had he not filed an objection, would quite likely have been the same.

                        Comment


                        • The derby was a shocker and disappointing in some ways but I am again reminded by the last few pages of this thread how horse people (and people in general) only like the rules when it suits them in some capacity. Be it the horse they wanted to win, skirting drug rules, etc.

                          Comment


                          • I was bummed to see Maximum Security taken down... but my winning ticket on Country House eases the pain.
                            Don't fall for a girl who fell for a horse just to be number two in her world... ~EFO

                            Comment


                            • Does anyone have a link to an aerial view of the race?
                              Proofreading is your friend.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Big_Tag View Post

                                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).
                                I don't know what the correct answer is. It is very possible that only God and the horse know what happened today. I have heard Saez isn't the nicest guy, but I also don't think that he is dumb enough to try and pull something sneaky in one of the highest profile races in the world.

                                Saez probably should be disciplined for unsafe riding and losing control of his horse. Something dangerous did almost happen here, and it does need to be addressed. But ultimately, Maximum Security had several opportunities to blow his lead (even after the spook) but Saez successfully piloted him to a win and I think they deserve to keep it.

                                Also, I am more concerned that people who are clueless about racing are going to think that jockeys regularly try to block other horses and risking catastrophic injuries, the same way the NASCAR drivers sometimes play bumper cars. That's the dangerous misconception that some people will take away from this. I don't actually care about the drama that is being caused by a "bad call."

                                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.
                                  Perhaps we have different understandings of the meaning of the word "scandal." The Deflategate football incident was about cheating, if I recall, about whether footballs had the air let out in violation of the rules. On the other hand, the Kentucky Derby call is not about whether there was deliberate cheating. I am not seeing the parallels. Nor how the Kentucky Derby call is a "scandal." How? Are there claims of bribery, or corruption? Or the like?
                                  A canter is a cure for every evil. ~Benjamin Disraeli

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Event Horse View Post

                                    No, I didn't miss anything. Every semester I see individuals who don't legitimately earn a passing grade (i.e., "win") try any manipulation they can by appealing the grade (i.e., file an objection to the stewards). These students are the snowflakes who cannot deal with any outcome other than what they feel they deserve. This parallels what Flavien Prat did. Mott very likely prodded him to it. So, think of Mott as the snowflake's parent. These parents are not helicopter parents anymore - they are "snowplows" who get involved and clear the path for their snowflakes. Seriously, I have been contacted by parents of 20+ year olds regarding grades.

                                    Bill Mott needed to shut the *#%& up - he greatly exaggerated the incident as if everyone out there nearly took a tumble. Yes, it could have been nasty if War of Will had clipped heels with Maximum Security. But Mott made it sound like several horses and jockeys almost fell, and that is not what happened.

                                    Maximum Security had that race stolen from him. He was clearly the best horse. At one point, there was a horse coming up on his inside that seemed to bump him and push him out, but no inquiry there.
                                    Actually, if you listen to the clip on Facebook of the decision by the racing stewards, they felt that several horses were interfered with.

                                    And the complaints lodged with the stewards came from more than one jockey.

                                    And the way this was investigated was not only by looking at the tapes but by interviewing the jockeys.

                                    I don't get the comparison to what students and overly protective parents do in the classroom...
                                    A canter is a cure for every evil. ~Benjamin Disraeli

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Rackonteur View Post

                                      You're talking about Mott. I was talking about the jockey. Who did lodge the objection.
                                      The stewards had the Inquiry up before anyone claimed foul.
                                      "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in a confederacy against him."

                                      Comment


                                      • Picture I saw online that really shows it. Very impressed with War of Will's athleticism to stay up.

                                        Click image for larger version

Name:	Maximum Security and War of Will.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	6.2 KB
ID:	10387518
                                        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 MorganJunkie View Post
                                          Well I have minimal knowledge about racing - and enough sense to recognize that. At the end of the day War of Will is the horse I would want to be on. He pulled out of a cluster and really didn’t have any drama. I know this question may frustrate those with knowledge, but how do officials determine the placings? Really, they were still running and anything could have happened.
                                          When you are involved in racing and watch it all day long, you get a feel for whether or not a horse has forward momentum or is done.

                                          War of Will was trying to get through a hole that was not really there. Tyler originally was trying to come up the rail, but Saez had the rail shut down, so he then tried to go around the outside, along with about 5 other horses. Had he sat still for about 3 more seconds he could have come up the rail. It's common for horses to drift wide on the far turn - you have to expect it as a rider. So if you are trying to come around the leader into a hole, you better shoot through there like a bullet because it's not going to stay there.

                                          The stewards allow some drift and some contact because it's inevitable, and they have the authority to decide when normal routine bumping rises to the level of a foul.

                                          Did a foul occur? Yes. That was pretty obvious. Did it affect the outcome of the race? That's what took 20 minutes to decide. The stewards decided that the foul cost Long Range Toddy any chance of placing, and put Max behind LRT.

                                          Max was much the best horse. Bill Mott and Flavian did their jobs, and did them well.

                                          Country House was not on my ticket at all. I watched him gallop a couple days ago and he was switching leads all over the place and gawking at the grandstand and everything else. Kind of ironic as he went straight down the middle of the track like a machine yesterday.
                                          Last edited by Palm Beach; May. 5, 2019, 07:37 AM.
                                          "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in a confederacy against him."

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X