Sport Horse Spotlight

Vitalis_img_4461skawx LL_Fotos

Real Estate Spotlight

UMS_01

Sale Spotlight

COTH_without Subscribe
  • 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 Palm Beach View Post

    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.
    [emphasis mine]

    So if Palm Beach is correct, and it sounds like she does indeed have a pretty good analysis of how the race was playing out, why a foul at all though? If it was War of Wills moving into a nonexistent/disappearing hole on top of the drift of Maximum Security -- then that makes me question all the more why the foul and set down of Maximum Security, or as I said earlier, why deem it severe enough to set down MS? And given that the outcome of the race was unlikely to have been affected.


    As to this making the Derby more memorable -- People may remember this race, but will it make them remember racing in a way that makes them want to see more of it, or make them like it less? The whole thing has certainly made lots of negative associations for me, as one horse person and somewhat more than casual racing fan.
    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


    • Regarding unintentional vs intentional fouls, I don't believe there's a difference under the rules to the stewards. The question they consider is whether it impacted the finishing position of another horse. If they believe that, then they can DQ, intentional or not.

      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 Countrygirl18 View Post

        I didn’t realize all the horses were so lightly raced in the Derby yesterday. I did definitely have a WTFreak moment when they said bodexpress was a MAIDEN. How did that horse even get into that gate? Much less belong there.
        He managed to get the place in the Florida Derby which got him 40 points. And then Omaha Beach scratched.
        "My time here is ended. Take what I have taught you and use it well." -- Revan

        Comment


        • I think the fact that Gaffalione did not claim foul is telling...he's the one who truly got roughed up but he didn't complain because it still wouldn't have made a difference as to his horse earning a check or not. The fact that Court claimed foul wasn't communicated very well on the broadcast and I think his actions are the ones that have the skunk-like odor. Claiming foul to get moved from 17th up to 16th is simply not sporting and if this was a maiden claiming race (as Mott chose to use as a comparison) it would be dealt with in the jocks' room and not the stewards' office. One can point to this rule or that rule, but the stewards do have some discretion (which comes with its own set of problems.)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Rallycairn View Post

            [emphasis mine]

            So if Palm Beach is correct, and it sounds like she does indeed have a pretty good analysis of how the race was playing out, why a foul at all though? If it was War of Wills moving into a nonexistent/disappearing hole on top of the drift of Maximum Security -- then that makes me question all the more why the foul and set down of Maximum Security, or as I said earlier, why deem it severe enough to set down MS? And given that the outcome of the race was unlikely to have been affected.


            As to this making the Derby more memorable -- People may remember this race, but will it make them remember racing in a way that makes them want to see more of it, or make them like it less? The whole thing has certainly made lots of negative associations for me, as one horse person and somewhat more than casual racing fan.
            I disagree with Palm Beach's analysis of the horses' relative positions. There was a hole there until Maximum Security moved over into where War of Will already was. After WOW got tangled up with Maximum Security he dropped back and the hole quickly closed.

            There's a slow motion video on Twitter that shows those few seconds very clearly: https://twitter.com/jeremybalan/stat...18251010019328
            Last edited by LaurieB; May. 5, 2019, 03:00 PM.
            www.laurienberenson.com

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rallycairn View Post

              [emphasis mine]

              So if Palm Beach is correct, and it sounds like she does indeed have a pretty good analysis of how the race was playing out, why a foul at all though? If it was War of Wills moving into a nonexistent/disappearing hole on top of the drift of Maximum Security -- then that makes me question all the more why the foul and set down of Maximum Security, or as I said earlier, why deem it severe enough to set down MS? And given that the outcome of the race was unlikely to have been affected.

              As to this making the Derby more memorable -- People may remember this race, but will it make them remember racing in a way that makes them want to see more of it, or make them like it less? The whole thing has certainly made lots of negative associations for me, as one horse person and somewhat more than casual racing fan.
              Because it doesn't matter who might have won! Woulda' Coulda' Shoulda'. There's no way to tell and the effort is ever fruitless.

              What IS true, is that the horse made a dangerous mistake, and rightly paid the price for it. If the connections can't take the good with the bad, they don't belong in racing. Because there will ALWAYS be both good and bad in racing, because both good and bad exists in life. C'est la vie.

              What you assert, is akin to saying "We will ONLY give traffic tickets for not securing the kid in a car safety seat if the kid dies or is injured in an accident. Otherwise, then you don't have to bother with that safety thing."

              The issue is keeping races as safe as possible, which truly, is a pretty neat trick.


              "Why deem it severe enough to set down(...)" I'm not happy with these sorts of statements. It makes me think you don't care about the lives and safety of jockeys and horses. If I can choose between a dull, forgettable race where everyone gets home safely, or a "memorable" race that had a pile-up, I'll take the dull race any day. Why is this even a discussion????
              “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by On the Farm View Post
                ...The fact that Court claimed foul wasn't communicated very well on the broadcast and I think his actions are the ones that have the skunk-like odor. Claiming foul to get moved from 17th up to 16th is simply not sporting and if this was a maiden claiming race (as Mott chose to use as a comparison) it would be dealt with in the jocks' room and not the stewards' office. One can point to this rule or that rule, but the stewards do have some discretion (which comes with its own set of problems.)
                I would guess that in Jon Court's view, if he hadn't had to check his horse hard, he wouldn't have ended up in 17th place.

                It's hard for me to understand how it's "not sporting" for a jockey to call out a horse and rider who nearly took out half the Derby field--especially since Saez was breaking the rules of racing when he did so. What would be sporting--to turn the other cheek and hope that one doesn't get walloped too? The 20 horse Derby field is already enough of a free-for-all without giving the jocks license to behave badly without fear of facing repercussions.

                Mott was quite right to say that if this had been a maiden claiming race, the winner would have come down--and the stewards would have taken seconds, not twenty minutes, not make that decision.
                www.laurienberenson.com

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Countrygirl18 View Post

                  I didn’t realize all the horses were so lightly raced in the Derby yesterday. I did definitely have a WTFreak moment when they said bodexpress was a MAIDEN. How did that horse even get into that gate? Much less belong there.
                  Maiden doesn't automatically equal lack of experience, it just means the horse hasn't won yet. Maidens may run in the Kentucky Derby provided they earn enough points to qualify like everyone else. Do I think it's silly? Most of the time... many maidens have run over the years and most of them had almost zero shot. But that's part of the larger debate of, "should you run in the Kentucky Derby when you have almost zero chance of winning?" The point is, they earn their way into the race like anyone else. In 1933, a maiden won the race and I don't doubt it could happen again if the stars align.

                  Regarding the lightly raced horses, I'm not pointing my fingers at anyone regarding yesterday. Maximum Security lost the race for himself when he broke the rules by scooting into the path of another horse causing massive interference. There's no way to say if more experience would have prevented it. More than likely, it was just bad luck (and extremely good luck that it didn't end in an accident).

                  But our entrants keep becoming greener and greener while the race maintains its circus-like atmosphere. That's a scary trend to me. A good horseman knows his/her horse and knows what they do/don't need to be successful. My concern, though, is that good horsemanship sometimes gets the tiniest bit challenged by Derby Fever. You have one shot to run in it, and for some people, a shot like that only comes around once in a lifetime. If winners of the past decade are setting a precedent that you can win it with only 3 or 4 career starts, you're going to have some people emulating that path with the hope of reducing wear and tear on the horse... but at what cost?
                  Don't fall for a girl who fell for a horse just to be number two in her world... ~EFO

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by LaurieB View Post

                    I would guess that in Jon Court's view, if he hadn't had to check his horse hard, he wouldn't have ended up in 17th place.

                    It's hard for me to understand how it's "not sporting" for a jockey to call out a horse and rider who nearly took out half the Derby field--especially since Saez was breaking the rules of racing when he did so. What would be sporting--to turn the other cheek and hope that one doesn't get walloped too? The 20 horse Derby field is already enough of a free-for-all without giving the jocks license to behave badly without fear of facing repercussions.

                    Mott was quite right to say that if this had been a maiden claiming race, the winner would have come down--and the stewards would have taken seconds, not twenty minutes, not make that decision.
                    Tell me what he had to gain? His horse got moved from 17th to 16th. Both spots pay how much in purse money? ZERO. If his horse would have stayed to task and been involved at the finish then yes, claim foul. That didn't happen. Again, the entry who truly got mugged stayed quiet.

                    I'd rather see an alternative method employed where results, where the order of finish is obviously not affected, are left to stand but the jockey will face disciplinary action.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by On the Farm View Post
                      I think the fact that Gaffalione did not claim foul is telling...he's the one who truly got roughed up but he didn't complain because it still wouldn't have made a difference as to his horse earning a check or not. The fact that Court claimed foul wasn't communicated very well on the broadcast and I think his actions are the ones that have the skunk-like odor. Claiming foul to get moved from 17th up to 16th is simply not sporting and if this was a maiden claiming race (as Mott chose to use as a comparison) it would be dealt with in the jocks' room and not the stewards' office. One can point to this rule or that rule, but the stewards do have some discretion (which comes with its own set of problems.)
                      Tyler Gaffalione not filing an objection tells us nothing. The real question is why didn't Tyler file an objection-- because my guess is probably that Jon Court and Flavien Prat beat him to the phone so there was no need to file a third objection over the same incident. He probably knew the officials would be talking to him, too.

                      Maximum Security broke the rules. Those jocks probably saw their lives flash before their eyes as a result. Nothing skunk-like here. Yes, it's terrible for the connections of Maximum Security. Talk about heartbreak.
                      Don't fall for a girl who fell for a horse just to be number two in her world... ~EFO

                      Comment


                      • This is a good perspective, I think.


                        https://mobile.twitter.com/Danonymou...23672891260928

                        Have you ever noticed that all squirrels behave like it's their first day being a squirrel?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Pronzini View Post

                          And racing is serious about it's rules. It's not the Omak stampede out there.

                          I dipped my beak in Twitter yesterday--always a scary thing-- and a couple of points stood out--a lot of people either didn't know or didn't care that 1) the stewards don't work for the track so this was not Churchill's decision; 2) that the rules are specific to Kentucky so what ever happened at some BC race in Santa Anita or the 5th at Aqueduct is irrelevant; and 3) official racing takes bets under a paramutual system. It doesn't matter if Country House was 65 - 1 or 3-5. The house has no incentive to put one up over the other --and it doesn't have a say anyway.
                          Pari-mutuel
                          Rack on!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ridingagain View Post
                            Random, disjointed thoughts...

                            First, so glad that all horses and jocks came home safe when that could have been catastrophic!

                            The Wests have to be the classiest horse owners on the planet, well done!

                            Even though the rules state that any jock can cry foul, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth that Country Houses's connections did it when they were not interfered with in the race and stood to gain the most.

                            Maximum Security was clearly the best horse that day. we will see if he can go on to win either the Preakness or the Belmont. I don't think Country House can.

                            The stewards got the call right; there was interference, but I thought the rule is , if unintentional, ( looked like MS just spooked a bit), then a foul is given, not a DQ. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can enlighten me about this rule. What kind of penalty does an unintentional interference usually incur?

                            I get that there is 145 years of tradition involved, but how about limiting the field to a smaller number. I know that won't prevent all accidents, but it might help.

                            Why were the Derby races initially limited to 3 year olds? Wouldn't running 4 yr olds make more sense? More time to grow and get their brains a bit more mature?
                            I think because the Kentucky Derby is named for the Derby of England and it is for 3-year-olds. The Kentucky Derby, unlike the English Derby, allows geldings.
                            Rack on!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Altag View Post
                              Does anyone have a link to an aerial view of the race?
                              Probably the Russians.
                              But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all. H.C.Anderson

                              Comment


                              • I was initially annoyed based on the way it was reported in the telecast, with the emphasis on Country House. After reading the posts and links here the ruling makes total sense.
                                The Evil Chem Prof

                                Comment


                                • I didn’t see that part, but any booing was uncalled for. If you value the win and the money more than Jockey and horse safety, IMO, that makes you a pretty bad person.

                                  I think, in my own small mind, that the booing was from the ignoramuses that have been drawn to the Derby, by all the pageantry, the hats, all the BS BESIDES the actual race. As was mentioned upthread, all this hoorah, I have been watching since Kaui King won in 65. It USED to be, they had some pre-race excitement, ran the race, and bam it was done. I do like the addition of the stake races on Friday and Saturday, but it is better left done to TVG where they can keep the focus on the RACE and not all the other goings-on. Someone else mentioned this and it is a real sore spot with me. The 20 horse field. Is there any other race in the country with a 20 horse field? NO. They do it in Europe, but most of their tracks are not a mile oval. They are just asking for trouble. And I agree about them not being seasoned enough. Good grief, back in the 40s, didn't two-year-olds run 10-20 times? And finish sound?





                                  Another killer of threads

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by JanM View Post
                                    I was very confused with the disqualification, and since I don't know that much about racing, except as a spectator. The entire dust up was mind boggling. However, after seeing the slow motion of the interference, and an explanation of what could have happened if the horses went down, I think it was absolutely the right call by the stewards.

                                    Honestly, if the horses had gone down in a mass fall yesterday, with jockeys flying I think it would have led to a huge outcry against any type of horse racing. The MS crew is quoted as saying they're appealing, and if that's not upheld, then they're going to court. That is classless, and the sore loser action.
                                    So, the stewards made their decision.

                                    So how is that going to impact future races? I can see the logic in the DQ if it will cause a new rule to be made about safety in racing. But it can't keep another baby horse from spooking in another race on another day.

                                    The good thing is that Maximum Security hasn't lost anything. He is not reading Tweets or newspapers and he doesn't give two hoots whether or not he wins the Triple Crown. He doesn't know what the Triple Crown. Hopefully he will continue racing if he enjoys it and wants to win as much as he seemed to want to in the Derby. If not, hopefully he will be turned out to graze and service mares. Or, like Swaps, taken for rides around the farm.

                                    His millionaire connections lost some money but they did not lose a place in the history books. Country House's connections pocketed some money and got a place in the history books. Country House got a nice stall and maybe some more treats than usual, and he may or may not go on to win some races fairly and squarely.

                                    Bottom line is, the horses couldn't care less. Sun is warm, grass is blue. Happy happy all around.
                                    Rack on!

                                    Comment


                                    • I was really disgusted by the decision yesterday, but am backpedaling after some videos.
                                      Athough I also see in some videos Country House bearing in around the turn, which left less than a gap for 3 horses to enter just as they were gaining ground.
                                      Yes, Maximum Security made the most egregious move, but I would have liked to have heard some consideration for Country House's move as well.

                                      And am sure all would rather a win be earned without the controversty.

                                      But rather than feeling it was ruining things, as I did last night, today is another day, and am hoping the two (actually, the three! Including Omaha Beach!) will meet later this year. That will be some show.

                                      Thank you so much for sharing this. It's perfect. Also think so much of Mark Casse.
                                      So worth listening to.

                                      Originally posted by accidental buckaroo View Post
                                      This is a good perspective, I think.


                                      https://mobile.twitter.com/Danonymou...23672891260928
                                      But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all. H.C.Anderson

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by On the Farm View Post

                                        Tell me what he had to gain? His horse got moved from 17th to 16th. Both spots pay how much in purse money? ZERO. If his horse would have stayed to task and been involved at the finish then yes, claim foul. That didn't happen. Again, the entry who truly got mugged stayed quiet.
                                        Here's what Jon Court had to gain. When the horse's owners said to him after the race, "How bad a jockey are you if all you can do is ride my horse to a 17th place finish?" he could answer, "I was riding your horse to a 3rd place finish when I got mugged by the winner. And look, the stewards agree with me because he got taken down."
                                        www.laurienberenson.com

                                        Comment


                                        • Anyone who thinks it didn’t impact the race needs to watch in slow-motion to see exactly how dangerous that move was, and what happened to the three horses that were cut off. Intentional or not, the horse absolutely should be DQ’d.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X