Kentucky Derby Protest Upheld - International Racing - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Kentucky Derby Protest Upheld - International Racing - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Kentucky Derby Protest Upheld  (Read 473 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15685
O.P. « 2019-May-05, 10:52 AM »
https://sports.nbcsports.com/tag/2019-kentucky-derby/

 Run on a bog track some jockeys out wide all the way would have copped a spray over here .Hard to see this result being overturned in Australia...major disappointment to the connections and backers of the first horse home relagated to the second last place bad enough if relegated to second but out of the money , :o


Giddy Up :beer:

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18869
« 2019-May-05, 11:28 AM Reply #1 »
That is an absolute joke. emthdown emthdown emthdown emthdown emthdown emthdown emthdown

Online pwa54

  • Listed
  • User 2549
  • Posts: 211
« 2019-May-05, 12:26 PM Reply #2 »
Bizarre decision. The minimal interference didn't affect the result one bit.

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31244
« 2019-May-05, 01:22 PM Reply #3 »
It was a 100% correct decision.

It did effect the result.

The Jockey on the first across the line never stopped riding never lost moment and caused massive carnage behind him.

If the jockey rode to the rules he would have stopped ridding, He would have lost momentum and the result would have been far different.

Correct decision.




Online pwa54

  • Listed
  • User 2549
  • Posts: 211
« 2019-May-05, 01:44 PM Reply #4 »
There wasn't "massive carnage" behind him.

I know it's their rules but online reaction in the US calls it as JWH does, an absolute joke.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4593
« 2019-May-05, 03:39 PM Reply #5 »

The US rules are different

--------------- the decision is to disqualify the horse causing interference  -- that horse is then 'out of he race'-- it is not about whether the 'winner' was impeded -- he was the first horse home of those still in the race.

Offline firezuki

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 259
  • Posts: 17969
« 2019-May-05, 03:59 PM Reply #6 »
One of the worst decisions I've ever seen. 

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4593
« 2019-May-05, 04:20 PM Reply #7 »


Local reaction to the KD decision is simply misguided.

It is about time the 'disqualification' option was cleared for use in Australia.

The one time it was 'used' was with Choisir  -- it should have been used in some Slippers and Cups

Offline j.r.b.

  • Group 2
  • User 230
  • Posts: 1990
« 2019-May-05, 08:28 PM Reply #8 »
The US rules are different

--------------- the decision is to disqualify the horse causing interference  -- that horse is then 'out of he race'-- it is not about whether the 'winner' was impeded -- he was the first horse home of those still in the race.

That's not quite right.

The transgressor is placed immediately behind his victim or victims.

If the first past the post interferes only with the runner up, and no other runner, the he will be placed 2nd.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15685
« 2019-May-05, 10:14 PM Reply #9 »
AAP reports the owners are considering their options to appeal the stewards decision.

"Gary West, who owns Maximum Security with his wife, Mary, indicated they may pursue an appeal.

"I think this is the most egregious disqualification in the history of horse racing," he told the Associated Press.

"And not just because it's our horse.

"We are exploring our options to appeal.

"If we can't appeal to the stewards, our other options are the state racing commission. If those don't work, we might go to legal options."

The disqualification was a crushing turn of events for Maximum Security's trainer Jason Servis and jockey Luis Saez, who had already begun celebrating.

Instead, the previously undefeated Maximum Security was demoted to 17th of 19 horses for veering out turning for home and stacking up War of Will, Long Range Toddy and Bodexpress (also owned by the Wests), according to Barbara Borden, chief steward of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.

Country House, in turn, was brushed by Long Range Toddy.

Sent off as the 9-2 second choice, Maximum Security was placed behind all the horses he bothered.

"I never put anybody in danger," Saez said. "My horse shied away from the noise of the crowd and may have ducked out a little."

Servis backed up his jockey.

"He's right. He straightened him up right away and I didn't think it affects the outcome of the race," he said.

Prat claimed Maximum Security ducked out in the final turn and forced several horses to steady, including Long Range Toddy, whose jockey, Jon Court, also lodged an objection.

Mott said War of Will and Long Range Toddy "lost all chance" to win.

"They were in position at the time to hit the board," the trainer said. "If what happened to us was the only thing they were looking at I don't think you would have seen a disqualification."

Mott said the incident was caused by Maximum Security's action and not Saez's riding tactics.

"I don't think Luis Saez did anything intentionally," he said. "My heart actually aches for them a little bit. That's the way it is. I've been on the other end of it, just not in the Kentucky Derby."

The only other disqualification in the Derby occurred long after the race in 1968. Dancer's Image, the first-place finisher, tested positive for a prohibited medication, and Kentucky state racing officials ordered the purse money to be redistributed. Forward Pass got the winner's share and a subsequent court challenge upheld the stewards' decision."

Giddy Up :beer:



Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4593
« 2019-May-06, 12:06 AM Reply #10 »


There will be no appeal

On the face of it the disqualified horse led from start to finish -- and that will be a factor in its stud value.

It will get more interesting if MS wins the two next legs -- and was denied a crown in the first leg.


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4593
« 2019-May-06, 04:04 AM Reply #11 »


Is Chris Roots an umpire

................ from the SMH this morning:
 Kentucky Derby ruling wouldn’t happen here

Racing might be a worldwide sport but it runs on many different rule books.

The decision in the Kentucky Derby to disqualify 11/2-length winner Maximum Security and award the race to second-placed Country House was bemusing if you follow the Australian rules.

Jockey Luis Saez rolled out on Maximum Security turning for home, causing what the Americans call a foul. War Of Will was severely checked and lost his running, and finished eighth. Country House, which was to the outside of War Of Will, didn’t cop as much interference and was a well-beaten second over the line.

Connections of both horses lodged objections, and the protest was upheld on the strength of the foul on War Of Will.

It would have been a suspension for Saez in Australia but he would have kept the race as the interference caused was not greater than the margin between the two horses. But if there is “foul” in the US the horse is disqualified, and it was a clearly the right decision under their rules.


Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5955
« 2019-May-06, 06:49 AM Reply #12 »
Prefer the American way,

It makes jockeys think more than twice about causing interfrence. The horse is wayward rather than the jockey shouldnot change this sound basis.

Our stewards have their heads in the sand about how many lengths are lost when momentum is interrupted and their 'judgement' is extremely unsound in my view when estimating if the margin beaten is sufficient to reverse a result after interference. The American way fixes this glaring problem - which is far more common.

Fours

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 26127
« 2019-May-06, 08:36 AM Reply #13 »
I like the relegation rule if the interference alters the result but in this case it didn’t

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5955
« 2019-May-06, 10:26 AM Reply #14 »
By the way,

The jockey is paid a fee for a reason!

Jockey has to stop or control or limit any waywardness of the horse.

It would open the floodgates if any instance of interference was allowed to be blamed on the horse only - the jockeys would say it was the horse every time in the stewards room to various forms of grey... Then they'd be taking >2 years to decide things like the QLDer's

Fours

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15685
« 2019-May-07, 01:18 PM Reply #15 »
MAXIMUM SECURITY DERBY APPEAL DENIED
Tuesday 07 May, 2019   
Gary B Graves

Maximum Security's owner has confirmed an appeal against the colt's Kentucky Derby disqualification.

The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission has denied an appeal of Maximum Security's disqualification as Kentucky Derby winner for interference, saying the stewards' decision is not subject to appeal.

The commission's letter to attorney D Barry Stilz, who filed the appeal of behalf of owners Gary and Mary West, also denied a request of a stay of the disqualification ruling pending appeal because the law does not provide for such an appeal.

Racing stewards disqualified Maximum Security as the winner and demoted him to to 17th place and elevated Country House to first after an objection filed by two jockeys.

Stewards determined the colt impeded the paths of several horses in the race.

Maximum Security is the first Derby winner disqualified for interference in the race's 145-year history.

"The stewards unanimously disqualified Maximum Security following two objections lodged immediately after the 145th running of the Kentucky Derby and after a thorough review of the race replay," the commission said in its letter.

"That determination is not subject to an appeal."

After a 20-minute video review, officials found that Maximum Security, who was 4-1 favourite, was guilty of a contact foul when he appeared to take a wide turn and impede other horses in the home stretch.

Gary West said he did see Maximum Security, who led from nearly start to finish, move over several lanes but felt such contact was inevitable given the number of horses allowed to race in the Kentucky Derby, which usually features 20 horses but this year had 19 year after a late scratching.

"Churchill Downs, because they're a greedy organisation, has (20 horses) rather than 14 like you have in the Kentucky Oaks, the Breeders' Cup, every other race in America," he said.

"Just because they can make more money, they're willing to risk horses' lives and peoples' lives to do that. I'm not a fan of that. I think they ought to have 14 like every other race.

"Yes I saw the horse move out, but every Kentucky Derby, you could sit down two or three or four horses if you wanted to, because it's like a rodeo out there."

West said there would be no rematch with Country House when Baltimore's Pimlico hosts the Preakness Stakes on May 18.

"We are not going to run The Preakness," West said. "There's no Triple Crown on the line for us, and no reason to run a horse back in two weeks when you don't have to."

ENDS


An earler report from Just Racing quotes the owner as being upset that stewards didn't allow him to view the video evidence while stewards were considering the protest he also complained that there's a lack of transparency leaving him no alternative to attempt to appeal the protest decision ...he said stewards would not talk to him until Thursday.

https://justracing.com.au/2019/05/07/owner-to-appeal-kentucky-derby-result/

Strange that the connections weren't permitted to be present at  the protest hearing normal practice here and in such a prestigious race you would think the owners had a right to be heard.

Giddy Up :beer:
« Last Edit: 2019-May-07, 01:28 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 15685
« 2019-May-16, 07:34 PM Reply #16 »
Maximum Security owners file lawsuit
Posted by: AAP+ at 7:16pm on 16/5/2019
Posted in: Horse Racing News
0 Comments
   
Gary and Mary West, owners of Maximum Security, have filed a lawsuit seeking to have the Kentucky Derby disqualification of their horse overturned in court.

Maximum Security was first past the post at Churchill Downs, but the stewards found him to have caused interference to War Of Will, with Long Range Toddy and Bodexpress also impacted.

Following a lengthy deliberation, the stewards awarded the race to outsider Country House, with Maximum Security demoted to 17th, behind Long Range Toddy.

The Wests’ appeal to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission was turned down last week and they have now filed a lawsuit that refers to the disqualification as a “bizarre and unconstitutional process”, according to a statement issued to www.bloodhorse.com.

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2675
« 2019-May-16, 08:57 PM Reply #17 »
Surely MS would be long odds against succeeding . . Despite the merits of the case

Rules is Rules etc . .

But in the 'Land of the Brave' . . Who knows?  :chin:


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap