Penguin
Footballguy
Stewards are not allowed to talk about the decision, they'd face fines and possibly suspensions/termination
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
***2019 Kentucky Derby Thread & More*** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter General Malaise
- Start date
Dan Lambskin
Footballguy
So looks like I was wrong about 20 not objecting, official statement from stewards was that 18 and 20 filed objections saying that 7 interfered with 1 causing issues with 1 18 and 21
still not sure what business 20 had objecting though
still not sure what business 20 had objecting though
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
Didn't know that. Then i guess they made decision not looking for their 15 minutes of fame.
In a way makes their decision more legit.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Just read the jockey of #18, Long Range Toddy, also filed a complaint. Which makes this open and shut IMO. Because that horse was flat cut off and given a choice of losing the race or risking mayhem.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Dan Lambskin
Footballguy
jonessed
Footballguy
I’m at a loss as to how the clear second that was not interfered with at all became the winner. I’m not a horse racing guy, but this seems to be one of those times where instant replay and rule minutiae is used to overrule common sense and fair play. I suspect there will be a lot of regret with this decision.
Trump Tight
Footballguy
I go the other way. With how much attention Santa Anita has brought to horse racing, the stewards had to err on the side of the safety of the horses. Any other result encourages jockeys to play looser with the rules which increases the risk of injury or death.
encaitar
Footballguy
There are 400,000,000 people watching this race. This is the only race that 380,000,000 of those people watch. Most of those that bet were on the #7. This did nothing but kill a generation of potential horse racing fans.
If it happened on the straight away, absolutely it was a foul. On the turn and affecting none of the top 5 finishers... the leader gets the benefit of the doubt. That stewards decision likely just killed horse racing as a big public thing IMO.
If it happened on the straight away, absolutely it was a foul. On the turn and affecting none of the top 5 finishers... the leader gets the benefit of the doubt. That stewards decision likely just killed horse racing as a big public thing IMO.
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
Horse racing is dying on it's own but that reversal will have no bearing on the future of it or not.
The same amount of people will be back for the Derby next year. Its the day to day grind that is more of a concern and the general public just doesn't get out for that.
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
Agreed. I'm pretty sure this is the first jockey's objection I've seen that actually resulted in anything. Pretty stunning that it happened on the biggest stage.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
It's been happening for decades, I have both lost and won in similar situations, but not on such a large stage.
Redwes25
Footballguy
Long Range Toddy was in the race and running top 3 and basically had to stop running due to 1 horse moving into him which was forced by the movement of 7 so don’t think the top 5 finisher thing really means anything. I think the impact on Long Range Toddy is the reason the call was made and the reason he was moved all the way down to 1 horse after him.
Not bad. The horses I narrowed it down to (excluding Haikal because of the scratch) were 1-3-4-5 pre-disqualification, with the correct one in 1st. Didn't come close to picking Country House though.
Mile High
Footballguy
Yeah the TV coverage didn't help with the confusion. Most people didn't even know there were two jockeys making the complaint.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
I feel like no horse has passed another horse in the Derby in at least 5 years
These have been boring races for years.
Scrap the points system and bring back the rabbits imo
These have been boring races for years.
Scrap the points system and bring back the rabbits imo
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I have watched two kentucky derbies in my life. Watched this one because we got an off track betting facility in town. Figured lets have some fun. Bet on #7,5, and 21(my wife loved the name).
That was dumb. So next year will not be participating. Dont need to be pissed off after watching a two minute race.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I will also add that any call that takes more than 90 seconds to overturn is the wrong call. All sports.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
If a horse is ruled to have interfered with another, he is placed behind that horse (8th-place War of Will, in this case) and everyone else moves up. While any rider has the right to object, it's pretty odd for the stewards to rule a foul when the jockey of the directly-impacted horse didn't file the objection. As others have said - without the "Inquiry" sign, a takedown is truly rare.
There was a jockey & an exercise rider in my mother's adoptive family who started taking me to the track since i was 4, i have played them for a living, been an owner, breeder & even a jockey's agent for a summer and there's simply a difference between championship racehorses and the maiden-claimers Billy Mott cites. Unlapped, though not totally clear, a front-runner has choice-of-path to all but the most extreme extent, especially in questionable footing. Engaging a frontrunner is rider beware, just like in driving an automobile. Terrible call, made in fear of public perception.
chet
Footballguy
Horse racing has lost a great fan. Will the sport ever recover? What are you going to do without the winnings from your $2 bet on #7?
And you're dead wrong on your 90 second assertion. Completely uninformed.
chet
Footballguy
I respect your opinion but I think they made the call in spite of public opinion. It would have been far easier to leave #7 as the winner and move on. That would have pleased far more people IMO.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Most of 380M people did not bet on this race, let alone on the 7 horse. Horse racing has been dying for decades. This won't have the slightest effect on it's popularity. Now, the 23 dead horses at Santa Anita? That might.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
If they hadn't 'covered' the steward's room, i would have maintained my belief of steward impartiality. That red light is a pretty big matzoball of Uncertainty Principle, though...
ETA: and it's not unlike what many fans are getting from electronically-monitored refereeing - that the openness may actually be precipitating results
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Not sure why this wasn't cleanly reported yesterday, but the jockey of #18 filed a complaint also.
Mile High
Footballguy
I wasn't really aware of that until this morning. The TV coverage did a disservice to the people watching. They made it seem only the 20 horse made the claim. If they cleared it up it was after I quit watching. That fact changed my opinion on their decision.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Next year's Derby to include this in the jockeys room.
https://media.makeameme.org/created/stay-in-your-5c3140.jpg
https://media.makeameme.org/created/stay-in-your-5c3140.jpg
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
It's like people don't know why you can't have horses veering 3 lanes and cutting off the field. You have to enforce against it even when it might have been accidental. Because if you let it slide, you'll start seeing it done intentionally. This isn't auto racing where it makes for an exciting crash. This is the type of stuff that gets horses put down.
What really skewed initial opinion was Tirico and another analyst firing off their quick take that since Maximum Security was the best horse, they should let it go. What kind of cockamanie logic is that? We didn't get to see the other 3-4 strong horses make their final push so how do we know who was the strongest over the full length yesterday? After a good 5-10 minutes of feeding the viewer that logic, someone finally stepped up and said if this was a random race on a Wednesday, it would be a DQ each and every time. You have to be consistent which thankfully is what they did in the end.
What really skewed initial opinion was Tirico and another analyst firing off their quick take that since Maximum Security was the best horse, they should let it go. What kind of cockamanie logic is that? We didn't get to see the other 3-4 strong horses make their final push so how do we know who was the strongest over the full length yesterday? After a good 5-10 minutes of feeding the viewer that logic, someone finally stepped up and said if this was a random race on a Wednesday, it would be a DQ each and every time. You have to be consistent which thankfully is what they did in the end.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redwes25
Footballguy
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
no contact. in addition, Toddy had already been passed by the #1, so traditionally has no standing, which makes his placement behind Toddy instead of the #1 really weird
Last edited by a moderator:
Nipsey
Footballguy
The coverage after the race was abysmal. Obviously a tough spot for NBC having to fill a 20+ minute delay where the result could have been announced any second. Have to think that made NBC skittish to go to their analysts for long breakdowns of the what occurred. That being said maybe next year don't have 80 hosts covering what kind of hat some reality star is wearing and get some solid experts in there to better explain the actual racing stuff.
The public's reaction to this reminds me of The Masters 10 years ago or so. Tiger takes that illegal drop on 15 and should have been DQ'd or at the very least he should have withdrawn after the round. Casual golf fans complained that rules like that are what turns people off to the sport (
). Different situations of course but the uproar over the Derby result made me immediately think of that.
I'm torn over the decision. Still stunned they actually decided to take the 7 down. What I'm wondering is if there was no jock's objection would there have been an inquiry? Is it just a question of who gets in first as to whether or not it's an objection vs. an inquiry? Can there be both an objection and an inquiry? Don't believe I've never seen that happen before. Maybe an objection just becomes an inquiry? I'm asking because i wonder if the stewards had put up the inquiry sign as opposed to it being an objection, if that would have changed anyone's perception of what happened? @wikkidpissah I'm curious, if the horses would have clipped heels if that would have changed your opinion on the decision? Just pure luck they didn't. If the 1 horse stumbled and went down and another horse or two behind him went down, would that have changed everyone's opinion? Would everyone have just assumed at that point that the 7 would be taken down?
The public's reaction to this reminds me of The Masters 10 years ago or so. Tiger takes that illegal drop on 15 and should have been DQ'd or at the very least he should have withdrawn after the round. Casual golf fans complained that rules like that are what turns people off to the sport (
). Different situations of course but the uproar over the Derby result made me immediately think of that.I'm torn over the decision. Still stunned they actually decided to take the 7 down. What I'm wondering is if there was no jock's objection would there have been an inquiry? Is it just a question of who gets in first as to whether or not it's an objection vs. an inquiry? Can there be both an objection and an inquiry? Don't believe I've never seen that happen before. Maybe an objection just becomes an inquiry? I'm asking because i wonder if the stewards had put up the inquiry sign as opposed to it being an objection, if that would have changed anyone's perception of what happened? @wikkidpissah I'm curious, if the horses would have clipped heels if that would have changed your opinion on the decision? Just pure luck they didn't. If the 1 horse stumbled and went down and another horse or two behind him went down, would that have changed everyone's opinion? Would everyone have just assumed at that point that the 7 would be taken down?
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
No. Not only are these 1000 pound animals with 100 pound riders going 40 miles an hour but, unlike auto racing, there are rapidly de-celerating entries by the quarter pole. It is encumbent upon the jocks of 'accelerating' horses to consider the racing condition of opposing horses as he picks up those he passes. #1 had rail-passed #18 and was in the process of then going outside the #7. Since the #7 was leading, virtually clear, turning and there was standing water, he has latitude to take the turn as he wants, within reason. He did not change paths, he took a wide one. Had they straightened or had the passer been on his haunch, then the responsibility goes to the leader to keep his path and a lane-and-a-half path change is foulworthy.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Agreed. I finally saw the replay. He did impede however in the turn on those conditions, should not have been a DQ. On the straightawy? that's a different story.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Overturning a call should come with a great deal of certainty. Sorry you believe differently.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Any objecting jockey and any jockey that was accused of wrong doing talk on the phone to the stewards I believe
Nipsey
Footballguy
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
And no, they are not ordering pizza.
RUSF18
Footballguy
The jockey said so to NBC right after the race. Said the horse got spooked by the crowd noise coming around the turn and he did the best he could to bring him back quickly.
Nipsey
Footballguy
Never heard of track conditions or location on track where interference occurred factoring into stewards decision. From what i remember if they determine that the horse who was interfered with was at least partially at fault for the interference (which i believe is what wikkid is saying) then that would factor into the stewards opinion of whether or not the offending horse should be taken down. The stewards in this case did not believe the 1 horse was in any way responsible for the interference.
Chemical X
Footballguy
The 7 didn’t just veer wide, he almost wiped out 3 horses, made at least 2 of them hard check and moved so much that he enabled 2 horses to come on the inside rail. i don’t doubt the 7 wins the race even without the move, but he altered the final outcome of at least 6 horses by getting spooked. not a reckless ride by the jock, really no way he can see that coming. remember, this was only the 7s second 2 turn race in his life and 5th overall. still a baby.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Similar threads
