Stallion Spotlight

Fasino-12-16-07-175

Real Estate Spotlight

Main-Barn-Bench-to-end2
  • 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 Texarkana View Post
    Big Brown and Justify were even more rapid in their ascents. This is why we call some horses "freaks."
    Or one he'll,of an eye for potential. I was not aware of those two. Max sec had a 16k price tag in claimer. Unreal.

    I know just enough about horse racing to participate in a elementary conversation about it. That's it. Always looking to up my game. Thanks all.
    I see he got a dog. A Shar Pei.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by LaurieB View Post

      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
      War of Will was not "there" yet. He was behind the leader, trying to swing around the leader into a gap that got closed by the leader moving out and the outside horse staying the same. It happens all the time, race after race, day after day. Just because a gap it there one moment does not grant you the right to have it held open. It's a risk. All the riders know horses drift out on the turns, and a gap on the turn is no guarantee. Trying to make a gap on the turn is risky. Had Tyler stayed on the rail, he would have had clear sailing in up the rail. Max did move over too much and interfered with Tyler's horse, but the horse was not even with Max yet. It's a risky move, always has been, always will be.

      Have we heard from Tyler on the horse that almost went down? Not much. Mark Casse? Nope. He maybe thinks he could have won it had the horse stayed on the rail. But the horse was rank on the rail the whole way round, and Tyler had to let him loose somehow. It's easy to race ride from the couch after watching the replay 18 times. But what would Calvin Borel do?
      Last edited by Palm Beach; May. 5, 2019, 08:02 PM.
      "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


      • 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.)
        Look at the chart. Long Range Toddy was 2nd the entire trip - call after call - and got checked so hard at the 5/16th between the War of Will and Country House that he immediately dropped to 10th and never regained his momentum. That is what solidified the correctness of the call in my mind - we kept saying, "Max got DQ'd, but where did they put him?" and where they put him was behind the horse he bothered the most. We don't think about him because he dropped back so fast he dropped out of the video. We are all looking at War of Will, when Long Range Toddy was the horse who got compromised the worst. So behind Long Range Toddy was placed Max.

        The stewards place the interfering horse beneath the horse that finished in the worst place, which was Long Range Toddy.

        Let's all raise a glass (it's Cinco de Mayo) to Barb Borden who kept a level head and did the right thing.
        "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


        • Originally posted by Palm Beach View Post

          Let's all raise a glass (it's Cinco de Mayo) to Barb Borden who kept a level head and did the right thing.
          I can't even imagine what it was like to have to make that call when you know it's unprecedented, you are going to tick off the entire world, and you are going to completely shatter a whole team's dream. But it was the right call.
          Don't fall for a girl who fell for a horse just to be number two in her world... ~EFO

          Comment


          • Tyler Gaffalione's take on the situation:

            http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...w1ZWEnezODHL1g

            Comment


            • Something further upthread said that the three stewards' decision was unanimous, which is good... if it had been a split decision, I can't even imagine the mud slinging that would be going on.
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              Today I will be happier than a bird with a french fry.

              Comment


              • Speaking of DQ's you don't want to be known for, I remember reading somewhere years ago a steward at Belmont 1998 saying that he was SO glad that Real Quiet lost by a nose to Victory Gallop, because he said if Real Quiet had held on, there definitely would have been an inquiry, and probably they would have had to DQ the horse for interference with Victory Gallop.

                Can you imagine? Public has been waiting for a Triple Crown for 20 years at that point. The call rings out. "And Real Quiet is finally the one!" Grandstand going crazy. Then inquiry and/or objection. Then DQ. No TC winner after all, racing fans. The stewards probably would have been the most unpopular folks at the track, even if a justified foul.
                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


                • There's a series of interesting columns in the post today.whether you agree or not with conclusions, some thougtful questions are raised.
                  I see he got a dog. A Shar Pei.

                  Comment


                  • does anyone remember, and I know some of you do what happened with Afleet Alex? I do not remember the year, but it was a TC race, and he nearly went down. There was a furor, but the interfering horse was a longshot and didn't win.
                    Another killer of threads

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by charismaryllis View Post
                      Something further upthread said that the three stewards' decision was unanimous, which is good... if it had been a split decision, I can't even imagine the mud slinging that would be going on.
                      Which may have been why they said it was unanimous -- they may have taken so long to agree, or agreed to say that it was unanimous, to present a united front.

                      I am grateful to everyone who has participated in this thread. Earlier today a non-horsey neighbor of mine asked me what exactly happened in the race (which he did not see). Later a horsey friend who did not watch the race asked me the same thing. So, one wanting a brief clear answer, the other wanting more technicality.

                      I told them both that the decision was being discussed "at length" online and then gave them my synopsis both of what I saw in the race and from what I have read here.

                      So, thanks, everyone.

                      And this link is from another link on the same website as the article about Saez's 2016 suspension:
                      https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...-wrong-process
                      Rack on!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Larksmom View Post
                        does anyone remember, and I know some of you do what happened with Afleet Alex? I do not remember the year, but it was a TC race, and he nearly went down. There was a furor, but the interfering horse was a longshot and didn't win.
                        Scrappy T veered out sharply head of the stretch in the Preakness and hit Afleet Alex. Afleet Alex managed somehow to pick himself up and go on to win, so no DQ or inquiry needed since he beat Scrappy T. In my opinion, if Scrappy T had finished ahead of Afleet Alex in that race, he would have been DQ'd even before any jockey could have made it back to pick up the phone and object. Very blatant foul.
                        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


                        • But couldn’t the stewards have done something on their own if they saw dangerous riding, no matter the outcome? (Afleet Alex sitch.)
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          Today I will be happier than a bird with a french fry.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Texarkana View Post

                            I can't even imagine what it was like to have to make that call when you know it's unprecedented, you are going to tick off the entire world, and you are going to completely shatter a whole team's dream. But it was the right call.
                            Yup. I suspect a fair amount of that 22 minutes was hashing over again and again and again if the decision they were making was the correct decision given everything that was figuratively 'riding' on it. I wouldn't be surprised if all 3 stewards had a gut feel fairly quickly but did not want to rush to judgement. Hard to wait that time but glad the stewards were deliberate and comfortable with the decision they made.
                            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


                            • Scrappy T and Afleet Alex. Anybody want to debate whether this was really a foul? Amazing agility for Alex.

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	AfleetAlexPreaknessStumbleBH.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	23.7 KB
ID:	10388027


                              The stewards do have discretion to hand out discipline to the rider even if no DQ situation applies, but I don't believe they did in this Preakness. It obviously wasn't intentional. He had just switched whip hands, I think, to left, and the horse reacted to the whip and ducked out. He had started out to the inside of Alex. Cut straight across him.

                              For the champion of blatant intentional fouls, I remember a story about Eddie Arcaro where the stewards called him in and asked him to explain what he had been doing in the race just run. Eddie replied, "I was trying to kill the SOB (the other jockey)." They suspended him for a full year. It might have been indefinitely, but if it was, they let him come back in a year.
                              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


                              • Yikes.
                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                Today I will be happier than a bird with a french fry.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Rallycairn View Post
                                  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.
                                  So one bad decision means that every subsequent decision of that type should also be bad out of some sort of karmic equanimity? Why bother to look at the objection at all if they are all judge by one bad call?
                                  McDowell Racing Stables

                                  Home Away From Home

                                  Comment


                                  • [QUOTE=dressagetraks;n10388026]Scrappy T and Afleet Alex. Anybody want to debate whether this was really a foul? Amazing agility for Alex.

                                    Click image for larger version

Name:	AfleetAlexPreaknessStumbleBH.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	23.7 KB
ID:	10388027


                                    The stewards do have discretion to hand out discipline to the rider even if no DQ situation applies, but I don't believe they did in this Preakness. It obviously wasn't intentional. He had just switched whip hands, I think, to left, and the horse reacted to the whip and ducked out. He had started out to the inside of Alex. Cut straight across him.



                                    This photo illustrates perfectly how this rule works and how it was applied that day and how it was applied yesterday, which for the record was exactly the same. Afleet Alex finished in front of Scrappy T therefore there was no change necessary. Had it been the other way around or God forbid Alex had gone down in the stretch, Scrappy would have been DQed and Giacomo would have been on to Belmont with a chance at a TC.
                                    McDowell Racing Stables

                                    Home Away From Home

                                    Comment


                                    • Thank you DT I knew someone would remember!
                                      Another killer of threads

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Larksmom View Post
                                        does anyone remember, and I know some of you do what happened with Afleet Alex? I do not remember the year, but it was a TC race, and he nearly went down. There was a furor, but the interfering horse was a longshot and didn't win.
                                        If Scrappy T had interfered with anyone other than Afleet Alex in that incident, he would’ve been set down. And if AA hadn’t picked himself up and summarily thumped Scrappy T, he would’ve been set down also.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by dressagetraks View Post
                                          Speaking of DQ's you don't want to be known for, I remember reading somewhere years ago a steward at Belmont 1998 saying that he was SO glad that Real Quiet lost by a nose to Victory Gallop, because he said if Real Quiet had held on, there definitely would have been an inquiry, and probably they would have had to DQ the horse for interference with Victory Gallop.

                                          Can you imagine? Public has been waiting for a Triple Crown for 20 years at that point. The call rings out. "And Real Quiet is finally the one!" Grandstand going crazy. Then inquiry and/or objection. Then DQ. No TC winner after all, racing fans. The stewards probably would have been the most unpopular folks at the track, even if a justified foul.
                                          That Belmont:

                                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpP3qWmvTHs
                                          Rack on!

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X