2019 Kentucky Derby (Controversy)

Frank23 said:
I don't.

What's weird about posting Big Mike's takes?
Click to expand...

He's been a senile can for long time. And you seem to really enjoy posting his videos with zero comments or analysis of your own.
 
Well, this story is not quite over. https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...ity-owners-ask-court-to-order-win/1302099001/

Maximum Security's owners ask court to summarily declare it winner of 145th Kentucky Derby

The owners of Maximum Security have asked a federal judge to summarily order their horse reinstated as winner of the 145th Kentucky Derby.

In a motion for summary judgement filed Friday in U.S. District court in Lexington, Gary and Mary West allege that stewards failed to follow the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission’s own rules when they disqualified Maximum Security as the victor.

First, they say stewards were required to find that Maximum Security, as the leading horse, was not “clear” of other horses when he allegedly chose a different path on the track. Records show the stewards made no such finding, the motion says.

Second, the motion says stewards were required to find that even if Maximum Security committed a foul, the result of the foul altered the finish of the race. The stewards made no such finding, according to the motion.

Third, had the stewards found that Maximum Security committed a foul that altered the finish of the Derby, they had discretion not to disqualify Maximum Security, the motion says. “Yet the Stewards did not exercise that discretion and did not explain why they chose, for the first time in the nearly century-and-a-half history of the Kentucky Derby, to exercise their discretion to disqualify the winner of the Derby on the basis of a foul committed in the race,” the motion says.
....

From the court motion:

“A leading horse if clear is entitled to any part of the track. If a leading horse or any other horse in a race swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause the same result, this action shall be deemed a foul. If a jockey strikes another horse or jockey, it is a foul. If in the opinion of the stewards a foul alters the finish of a race, an offending horse may be disqualified by the stewards."
==============================================================================================

I am a big skeptic that the courts will do anything. They rarely do in sports.

Anyways, when reading the complaint, it actually sounds pretty on target. I watched the "foul", but it looks like another horse was clipping his hind legs and he simply escaped by going faster shifting away. It really looks like a natural move to me, and it doesn't look like it altered the race.

I watched a video of Maximum Security running the Florida Derby and he smashed it. That horse is powerful fast. It's too bad he didn't run the Preakness and is now also skipping the Belmont. This was a huge miss for horse racing.


 
Whippy McGee said:
Well, this story is not quite over. https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...ity-owners-ask-court-to-order-win/1302099001/

Maximum Security's owners ask court to summarily declare it winner of 145th Kentucky Derby

The owners of Maximum Security have asked a federal judge to summarily order their horse reinstated as winner of the 145th Kentucky Derby.

In a motion for summary judgement filed Friday in U.S. District court in Lexington, Gary and Mary West allege that stewards failed to follow the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission’s own rules when they disqualified Maximum Security as the victor.

First, they say stewards were required to find that Maximum Security, as the leading horse, was not “clear” of other horses when he allegedly chose a different path on the track. Records show the stewards made no such finding, the motion says.

Second, the motion says stewards were required to find that even if Maximum Security committed a foul, the result of the foul altered the finish of the race. The stewards made no such finding, according to the motion.

Third, had the stewards found that Maximum Security committed a foul that altered the finish of the Derby, they had discretion not to disqualify Maximum Security, the motion says. “Yet the Stewards did not exercise that discretion and did not explain why they chose, for the first time in the nearly century-and-a-half history of the Kentucky Derby, to exercise their discretion to disqualify the winner of the Derby on the basis of a foul committed in the race,” the motion says.
....

From the court motion:

“A leading horse if clear is entitled to any part of the track. If a leading horse or any other horse in a race swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause the same result, this action shall be deemed a foul. If a jockey strikes another horse or jockey, it is a foul. If in the opinion of the stewards a foul alters the finish of a race, an offending horse may be disqualified by the stewards."
==============================================================================================

I am a big skeptic that the courts will do anything. They rarely do in sports.

Anyways, when reading the complaint, it actually sounds pretty on target. I watched the "foul", but it looks like another horse was clipping his hind legs and he simply escaped by going faster shifting away. It really looks like a natural move to me, and it doesn't look like it altered the race.

I watched a video of Maximum Security running the Florida Derby and he smashed it. That horse is powerful fast. It's too bad he didn't run the Preakness and is now also skipping the Belmont. This was a huge miss for horse racing.

Click to expand...

You will probably also find somewhere in the rules that the decisions are up to the stewards and the stewards alone.
 
ralphc1 said:
You will probably also find somewhere in the rules that the decisions are up to the stewards and the stewards alone.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. I expect nothing to come of it. I am ignorant to horse racing for the most part, but everytime I watched the "foul" it seems the horse behind the winner came up on his a bit, made him adjust, and "FOUL!!!". The "foul" seemed insignificant.

I wonder how good Maximum Security really is? He was clearly the fastest in the Derby distance, but we will never know if he had Triple Crown capabilities.
 
Whippy McGee said:
I think you're right. I expect nothing to come of it. I am ignorant to horse racing for the most part, but everytime I watched the "foul" it seems the horse behind the winner came up on his a bit, made him adjust, and "FOUL!!!". The "foul" seemed insignificant.

I wonder how good Maximum Security really is? He was clearly the fastest in the Derby distance, but we will never know if he had Triple Crown capabilities.
Click to expand...

You never know what can happen in court. The NFL had the same type of language as to how the NFL commissioner had the authority to suspend players but a court in Minnesota disagreed when a Viking player was suspended.
 
 
wwkirk said:
How about a new thread? This one is about 2019.
Click to expand...

I was planning. Then I used the search function here. That led me to this thread that is only two years old and the word "controversy" in the title too.

Two controversies in two years.

So, I thought adding to the conversation here would be sufficient.

But, I also posted a new thread in Mayberry.
 
First the trainer denies everything and says they will wait for the second sample and fight it in court. Next it was floated that somebody else drugged the horse. Then somebody comes up with some bullshit theory that another horse was doped and pissed on hay that was feed to the winner so the horse tested positive. Finally they say that they were using some ointment that had the banned substance in it hinting that they didn't realize it until the test came back and they started checking the products they used.
 
ralphc1 said:
First the trainer denies everything and says they will wait for the second sample and fight it in court. Next it was floated that somebody else drugged the horse. Then somebody comes up with some bullshit theory that another horse was doped and pissed on hay that was feed to the winner so the horse tested positive. Finally they say that they were using some ointment that had the banned substance in it hinting that they didn't realize it until the test came back and they started checking the products they used.
Click to expand...
Definitely sus.
 
I don’t really know enough about horse racing to comment. However I’m glad to hear your wife is hot TS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,589
Messages
55,429,264
Members
174,775
Latest member
shawn_bogart

Share this page

Back
Top