Kentucky Derby : Do you agree with the stewards decision?

[peeptoad]

To me, that's like saying "some people break the speed limit when they drive so we should just do away with speed limits."

Hopefully this means that there will be more consistency going forward.

In many areas (and esp where I live, ugh) the speed limit is routinely and informally disregarded. One can routinely drive around 25 mph over the limit on the highway without getting a ticket. If that informal understanding between the cops and the drivers were to change and tickets given out more to the law/limit, then that's a pretty big and sudden slap in the face.

Do you happen to live in NY... specifically Long Island? Because I HATED driving out there for that reason. In the midwest, it's a bit better monitored. That's not to say that people don't speed, because they do (I mean, i go routinely 5-10 mph over the limit, but almost never more than that), but it gets enforced enough that it's not a friggin free-for-all like Long Island seems to be.

We still shouldn't do away with speed limits, though.

Southern NE. Boston-Prov primarily, but that whole 195 stretch outside Prov going east towards the cape people get going pell mell at times. I long for a calmer, slower environment.

[pointgivenfan]

To me, that's like saying "some people break the speed limit when they drive so we should just do away with speed limits."

Hopefully this means that there will be more consistency going forward.

In many areas (and esp where I live, ugh) the speed limit is routinely and informally disregarded. One can routinely drive around 25 mph over the limit on the highway without getting a ticket. If that informal understanding between the cops and the drivers were to change and tickets given out more to the law/limit, then that's a pretty big and sudden slap in the face.

Do you happen to live in NY... specifically Long Island? Because I HATED driving out there for that reason. In the midwest, it's a bit better monitored. That's not to say that people don't speed, because they do (I mean, i go routinely 5-10 mph over the limit, but almost never more than that), but it gets enforced enough that it's not a friggin free-for-all like Long Island seems to be.

We still shouldn't do away with speed limits, though.

Clearly you've never been on the Chicago tollways where the actual speed limit is 10~20 mph above the posted speed limit.

[stark]

Q. What is your opinion about the DQ in the 2019 Derby? Should this lead to talk about standardized rules in racing and maybe a commissioner?

A. I am glad you asked this question because I feel strongly about the issue: Maximum Security should not have been disqualified.


Many sets of racing rules will say something like those in Kentucky, which declare that a horse may not “swerve in so as to interfere with…or impede any other horse.” If you go by the book, Maximum Security committed a punishable foul. But as every racing fan knows, no racing jurisdiction goes by the book, because the result would be total chaos in the sport.


Horses bump and jostle and jockey for position in almost every race — particularly at the starting gate and in the early running on the backstretch. Stewards overlook almost all of it. Most of the time their tacit standard is that a horse will be disqualified if his foul clearly cost a rival the chance to win or get a high placing.


NBC’s slow-motion coverage clearly showed Maximum Security moving in front of War of Will, forcing jockey Tyler Gaffalione to steady his mount. This was a foul — no doubt about it. The incident could have resulted in a bad accident — but it didn’t. It probably cost War of Will a length, but he recovered quickly. He had a clear path ahead of him and a quarter of a mile in which to catch Maximum Security, and he drew within a length of the leader, but he faded badly at the end and finished eighth. He was never going to win the Derby, or even finish in the money. Nor were the two longshots who were behind War of Will on the turn and were also hampered by the incident.


So I don’t see how justice was served in any way by disqualifying the best horse. And it certainly was not served by elevating Country House, who had a relatively easy trip, and had every chance to catch Maximum Security in the stretch, but couldn’t do it.

--Andrew Beyer

https://www.drf.com/news/beyer-q-maximu ... s/all-news

[starrydreamer]

In many areas (and esp where I live, ugh) the speed limit is routinely and informally disregarded. One can routinely drive around 25 mph over the limit on the highway without getting a ticket. If that informal understanding between the cops and the drivers were to change and tickets given out more to the law/limit, then that's a pretty big and sudden slap in the face.

Do you happen to live in NY... specifically Long Island? Because I HATED driving out there for that reason. In the midwest, it's a bit better monitored. That's not to say that people don't speed, because they do (I mean, i go routinely 5-10 mph over the limit, but almost never more than that), but it gets enforced enough that it's not a friggin free-for-all like Long Island seems to be.

We still shouldn't do away with speed limits, though.

Clearly you've never been on the Chicago tollways where the actual speed limit is 10~20 mph above the posted speed limit.

Au contraire. I'm down there quite often and yeah, the Chicago tollways are very different than the rest of the midwest. The highway speed limits where I am are usually 70mph, so maybe that's why I don't feel the need to go 20 mph above.

But we still shouldn't abolish speed limits. Imagine what those idiot Chicago drivers would do then! The Kennedy was not built to be the Audobahn.

[pointgivenfan]

Do you happen to live in NY... specifically Long Island? Because I HATED driving out there for that reason. In the midwest, it's a bit better monitored. That's not to say that people don't speed, because they do (I mean, i go routinely 5-10 mph over the limit, but almost never more than that), but it gets enforced enough that it's not a friggin free-for-all like Long Island seems to be.

We still shouldn't do away with speed limits, though.

Clearly you've never been on the Chicago tollways where the actual speed limit is 10~20 mph above the posted speed limit.

Au contraire. I'm down there quite often and yeah, the Chicago tollways are very different than the rest of the midwest. The highway speed limits where I am are usually 70mph, so maybe that's why I don't feel the need to go 20 mph above.

But we still shouldn't abolish speed limits. Imagine what those idiot Chicago drivers would do then! The Kennedy was not built to be the Audobahn.

Apparently a lot of people down here disagree.
It's a miracle there aren't more accidents than there are.

[Treve]

I can tell you that is the case in Quebec.

Official speed limit is 100km/h on highways. On some high ways the cops will USUALLY tolerate 20-40km/h above that. Typically people will roll about 125-135km/h

This winter I got a ticket for going 123km/h in the passing lane. Yes it was a slap to the face. And yes it was frustrating because I couldn’t have safely gone slower especially not while passing. But no I couldn’t contest since indeed I was over the legal limit.

So it’s a poor example. It SUCKS. And because there was an unspoken understanding, as well as a social norm it stung a whole lot but it didn’t make it legal or okay.

[ElPrado2]

I'm in Tampa.
Try going 70 mph at 10 AM on any of the several highways in and out of town... you will be plowed out of the way by 7 fuel tankers, 9 tractor trailers and the sheriff's car... and he wasn't chasing them. And on one bridge, 5 double length combos hauling upright concrete pieces for the on stilts roadwork in St Pete, well over 100 ft long. They just drove past my bedroom window.
And people ask why I no longer drive.

[Katewerk]

Now, there's an interesting concept -- horse racing with posted speed limits. (There was probably a better driving analogy to draw upon in this case )

[Apollo]

Q. What is your opinion about the DQ in the 2019 Derby? Should this lead to talk about standardized rules in racing and maybe a commissioner?

A. I am glad you asked this question because I feel strongly about the issue: Maximum Security should not have been disqualified.


Many sets of racing rules will say something like those in Kentucky, which declare that a horse may not “swerve in so as to interfere with…or impede any other horse.” If you go by the book, Maximum Security committed a punishable foul. But as every racing fan knows, no racing jurisdiction goes by the book, because the result would be total chaos in the sport.


Horses bump and jostle and jockey for position in almost every race — particularly at the starting gate and in the early running on the backstretch. Stewards overlook almost all of it. Most of the time their tacit standard is that a horse will be disqualified if his foul clearly cost a rival the chance to win or get a high placing.


NBC’s slow-motion coverage clearly showed Maximum Security moving in front of War of Will, forcing jockey Tyler Gaffalione to steady his mount. This was a foul — no doubt about it. The incident could have resulted in a bad accident — but it didn’t. It probably cost War of Will a length, but he recovered quickly. He had a clear path ahead of him and a quarter of a mile in which to catch Maximum Security, and he drew within a length of the leader, but he faded badly at the end and finished eighth. He was never going to win the Derby, or even finish in the money. Nor were the two longshots who were behind War of Will on the turn and were also hampered by the incident.


So I don’t see how justice was served in any way by disqualifying the best horse. And it certainly was not served by elevating Country House, who had a relatively easy trip, and had every chance to catch Maximum Security in the stretch, but couldn’t do it.

--Andrew Beyer

https://www.drf.com/news/beyer-q-maximu ... s/all-news

I waited for Andrew Beyer's take because I was confident he would get it correct. He's not a wimp or made of clay. Just too bad he's not the full time Post horse racing columnist any more, or his views would have been more immediate and prominent.

I'm not surprised everyone else here ignored Beyer's view on this. Beyer figures will be mentioned every day but his opinion shuffled if it's not preferred. Overall it is a comical mad dash toward stuffy conventional wisdom, no different than Randy Moss and Jerry Bailey taking the cowardly way out after 20 minutes. It was like they were being steadily absorbed by fear right there on national television, petrified to go against what they knew the industry consensus would be. It reminded me of a Star Trek episode with Bones absorbed by aliens and Kirk fruitlessly slapping him in the face to shake him out of it.

Matt Carruthers and Andrew Beyer were the only prominent voices to apply real world standards and perspective. Beyer, like Carruthers, used a basketball analogy. He compared the situation to changing the outcome of a basketball game based on a foul away from the ball.

Anyway, we now have an electoral college Kentucky Derby winner. That electoral college Derby winner immediately defaults to fear. There are real world parallels indeed.

[Starine]

Thanks to those who shared the opinions and reasoning of Matt Carruthers and Andy Beyer -- good food for thought there. Do you treat 20-horse fields the same as 10-horse fields?

[sweettalk]

Thanks to those who shared the opinions and reasoning of Matt Carruthers and Andy Beyer -- good food for thought there. Do you treat 20-horse fields the same as 10-horse fields?

in this case, field size isn't as important. what i mean is, he was clear in front, and 3 horses or 30 horses behind him, he still cuts 5 paths over and turns WoW sideways.

if we mean the beginning, then yes, i would. if 20 horses makes it so hard to keep from making what would otherwise be inquiry fouls, maybe we can finally talk abt reducing the field size instead of "but it's THE DERBY so in this one instance you can do what you otherwise aren't allowed to". that double standard shouldn't exist. it's either a rule that comes with consequences for breaking, or it isn't.

of course, i'm just a fan, so my opinion wouldn't carry the weight of an opinion from someone with more experience. but, there's mine, all the same.

[MR-W]

I voted yes on the decision, however, I would like to change it to "no". Everything happens so fast and the stewards are pressured to make a decision as quick as possible. After further analysis and watching two different angles I think WOW caused MS a whole bunch of problems. I believe that MS was struck from behind at least once if not three or four times. It really bums me that the race ended up this way.
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing ... derby-foul

[Kurenai]

I waited for Andrew Beyer's take because I was confident he would get it correct. He's not a wimp or made of clay. Just too bad he's not the full time Post horse racing columnist any more, or his views would have been more immediate and prominent.

I usually don't agree with Beyer on a lot of things, but I pretty much said the same thing here on the forum right after the DQ. And I still see it like that. Yes, the horse committed a foul. No, it didn't change the outcome of the race in the slightest bit. So a big no for a DQ.

[swale1984]

[]The Kennedy was not built to be the Audobahn.

I thought it was the Tri-State that was the Autobahn. I mean, I was going 70 on it once and a state trooper blew by me like he was Arazi and I was Bertrando.


But, to be sure that I'm on the actual topic: The stewards made the right call. The chain reaction caused by MS ducking inside compromised too many horses' chances.

[ElPrado2]

He had to be placed behind the horse that was impacted. Whether the horse that was not impeded won the race means nothing. The horse that was impacted lost all chance, and MS had to be placed behind him.

[stark]

Luis Saez Camp Argues Rivals Caused Derby Foul

A representative for Luis Saez at a stewards' video review May 10 presented evidence she believes makes the case that other horses were the cause of any interference in the Kentucky Derby Presented by Woodford Reserve (G1) May 4 at Churchill Downs.

Video worth a look in the story here... https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing ... derby-foul

[Starine]

Interesting perspective. What does everyone else think of the video?

[Kurenai]

WEll that would be a reason why Gaffalione didn't object at the end of the race (everyone wondered why). But hard to tell if he hit MS first and that's why he veered out, or if he hit him because he veered out. Kind of like "what came first the chicken or the egg".

[stark]

One thing is for certain..... If Tyler would have taken the Calvin Borail trip on the inside none of this would have happened, heck he might've even won the race!

[Apollo]

I'm not surprised by that video. I never understood how Gaffalione was credited for saving anything. I watched the Derby over and over again last weekend because I had so many matchup wagers. I always go back and isolate each matchup and see how the two horses fared at various stages.

The aspect that always stood out when I watched my matchups against War of Will was that Gaffalione ran an awful race, an impatient race. He was strangling the horse many times. Then he tried to force an opening that was not there. Meanwhile if that had been Calvin Borel he's got a relaxed horse, sits on the rail, and bursts inside Maximum Security.

The best still frame is the one that shows War of Will's head pointing far outward while every other horse head is aimed at the finish line. That shove outward would have worked in a typical race. You are jostling one horse and he'll bump outward to make room for you. But since it's the Derby you've got 3 horses lined up across from each other and all of them are angling left. No chance all of those jockeys or horses can sense what is going on and make a coordinated cotillion move to their right for Tyler Gaffalione.

I'm not going to argue it frame by frame, which is being done on many sites. But I believe War of Will did clip Maximum Security's right hind leg, exaggerating the drift that was going to happen anyway. I say that because I always noticed that Maximum Security's head remained square to the wire. A typical horse moving out that much will face where he is running. Game Winner did that when the chain reaction forced him way wide. Since Maximum Security always seemed to know the target I think his back half was jostled outward by that clip from War of Will.

I had both Improbable and Game Winner in matchups against War of Will so not all was lost with Gaffalione's stupid ride. If he had stayed on the rail I probably win all the Maximum Security matchups and win wager but War of Will could finish ahead of Improbable and Game Winner.

Bob Baffert got it right along with Matt Carruthers and Andrew Beyer. All of them looked at the big picture instead of the incomparably ignorant comparison to a foul in a typical weekday race. Baffert said nobody files an objection in the Derby, that sometimes you have to take your licking and lose with dignity. That was Bill Mott's option. Instead he turned into a laughingstock. That's how I'll always view him. Look what he created. It was prior to my birth than none of the Derby top three ran in the Preakness. Welcome to Bill Mott's creation. Now the coward is going to shelve his electoral college Derby winner until fall. Not once in my life have I ever viewed Forward Pass as winner of the Kentucky Derby. Bill Mott will gulp once he steadily grasps a similar reaction.

I love the poll here with 70/30 agreeing with the disqualification. Very predictable for a racing site, where purity is gold. After all, this is 1948. What could possibly go wrong? Meanwhile on Paulick Report they ask if the decision was Good or Bad for horse racing. The tally is 65% Bad 35% Good. That is the reality of the matter, and this sport cannot afford anything highest profile that is 65% Bad 35% Good.