Originally Posted by
str
" What I don't get was why wasn't there any inquiry post it?
A. I don't understand that either. Very surprising.
"That tells me that it was an incident that the stewards did not considered it initially that could have changed the outcome of the race.
A. I hear you loud and clear. Agreed.
" Maximum Security was the best horse which I have believed all along.
A. he was clearly the best horse and you were right Mr. G. and T.
"In addition, did that foul call warrant
Max Security to be placed 17th?? I honestly don't think so. If the jockey affected, Tyler Gaffalione, had made the objection, it would have had more substance to the call. But when Prat made the objection, he was just an opportunist who was taken a shot at the situation and hoping Max to come down.
A. Once they were dealing with the objection, they took a look at all that were impeded and while they can indeed do that, and do do that often enough, an inquiry posted would have allowed that to be smoother IMO.
" Someone else has posted an article regarding the rules in US and else where. If this incident happened in France where Prat was from, Maximum Security would have never come down.
A. Yes. that is true. USA rules are different and they have always been. IMO what that has led to is each state or set of Stewards have over the years started interpreting and enforcing things differently. Like Calif. a few years back. I never raced under the rules that Steward Edwards judged and he didn't either. It has evolved into this because of the way the rules are written . That is a shame. If nothing else, maybe this will lead to reexamining the letter of the rules and allow for them to be amended so every jurisdiction is on the same page. The way it is now, that is not the case.
" It is almost like an unwritten rule among jockeys that on a big race if the jockey did not deliberately causing the incident, you just don't call it; especially when it's the Kentucky Derby.
A. That could be true, I do not know about today but when I was in the game it was more like, if an incident did not actually cost the rider the race. In other words, if the horse was out of gas and the rider knew it, and he gets fouled, he lets it go. My guess is that is exactly what Tyler had in mind when he decided not to claim foul. Was he fouled? Yes. Did it cost him from being right there at the finish? No. So he lets it go. That common courtesy within the riding colony has been like that for the last 50 years for sure.
" Why do you think this is the first time it has happened in 145 years??"
A. I get it Mr. G and T. I would be upset as well if I had bet on him mainly because over the years, it never happened and we all know the Derby is rarely a clean run race due to the amount of horses in it.
"Everyone is trying to politically correct. It is pitiful. "
A. I agree again. I hope that it is not that but it very well could be. One thing I go crazy about is when the goal posts change well after a precedent has been established. It drives me nuts.
" Yes, I am a sore loser. "
A. Nothing wrong with that in my book . That only tells me you are passionate about the game and the things you do. Passion drives success in my book and I would never hold that against you. And in this case, although the rules were followed, the circumstances were such that if this happened in that race yesterday, it should happen for as long as the rules stay as is. No swallow the whistle in big races. It should be all or nothing throughout racing. Total uniformity so the customer knows exactly what to expect going in. Or, and probably better still, reexamine the rules and go with the European version. Lastly, it would probably be much more fan friendly if they stopped taking horses down for betting purposes all together. These things IMO would be best suited to only affect the purses. That way, it would not have to happen within minutes and when Stewards are in any certain humor albeit happy or pissed off.
"I have a lot of respect for Bill Mott as a trainer, but to get your first Derby win this way, it is a win full of blemish; especially when your horse was 65-1."
A. He said it was bittersweet and you could tell he meant it.
Sorry Mr. G. and T. That had to suck. But from a handicapping perspective, you were absolutely right. You picked the best horse. Even though you don't get paid, do feel good about the correct call. Handicapping can be as much about confidence as anything else. The horse you bet was MUCH the best. Well done sir.
SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks
Reply With Quote
