"Instant replay" in one form or another has been used in horse racing for more than seventy-five years.
Try calling this Triple Dead Heat for Win without it! 
Posted on 05/04/2019 6:04:28 PM PDT by Morgana
According to the rules of racing:
4.15 Fouls: A leading horse, when 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 or intimidate or impede any other horse or Jockey, it is 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, any offending horse may be disqualified by the Stewards.
Clearly a foul was committed. Luckily the bumped jockey kept his cool or a terrible tragedy could have ensued.
It has nothing to do with 'feelings'. 'Feeling' and 'optics' are for Libtards.
No, it's that the racing rules should be applied consistently, which is something that has never happened and will continue to never happen.
What Luis Saez did happens every. single. day., it's called 'herding', and given that the stewards ommitted this in their pre-race address to the jockeys -- when they could have easily said, "hey guys, we know many of you are from out of town, Churchill has decided to call herding this year", without that admonition, then the Kentucky Derby is the absolute wrong spot to start calling herding a foul, when herding has occurred in nearly every. single. prior. Derby.
But herding hasn't even been called during the prior five days of racing so far at Churchill.
For Christ's sake, the opening race on opening day, in a tiny 6-horse field, the favorite came left off the rail in the drive to herd the second-choice and to expressly take away his lane. No inquiry, no objection, nothing.
Which directly puts the lie to Mott's classless comment that the stewards would take this horse down on a weekday. The hell they would.
Dozens of identical no-calls happen across the nation every single week. Right or wrong doesn't enter into it. The racing rules are ignored, unless it benefits rich ownership LLCs or HoF trainers, not the humble West's and their homebreds trained by Servis.
"Section 12. Fouls. 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."
The latter sentence is the issue here. The only consistency Kentucky stewards have shown is to consistently ignore this rule, where no-calls prevailed for literally a century, dismissing even their own inquiries, not to mention jockey's objections and trainer's objections.
And on the rare occasions they enforced the rule, they only did so when the foul cost a runner a placing in the money; and even then, DQs have occurred almost exclusively between the first two finishers, with the winner demoted to 2nd.
Furthermore, the Kentucky stewards -- until yesterday - have been strident in interpreting this rule to avoid 'unjust enrichment', which would be for example, moving up Country House -- who was not impeded in the slightest, nor was a threat to overtake the winner.
Rather, as I stated earlier, this mistake was caused because Libtards believe in optics, and mistakenly believed that the PETA-induced hysteria at Santa Anita somehow would have caused a 'no-call' in this instance to be scrutinized.
Note, if you can, that the Stewards themselves didn't even light the inquiry sign. It was Flavien Prat -- a notorious 'herder' his own self -- taking a parting shot at losing with a jockey's objection on a horse who wasn't even fouled.
For Christ’s sake, the opening race on opening day, in a tiny 6-horse field, the favorite came left off the rail in the drive to herd the second-choice and to expressly take away his lane. No inquiry, no objection, nothing.
...
But two riders made objections in the Derby:
Borden read a statement explaining the decision. She declined to take any questions. (The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission is a state government agency charged with regulating the conduct of horse racing and parimutuel wagering on horse racing and related activities.)
She explained that the riders of No. 18, Long Range Toddy, and No. 20, Country House, had lodged complaints against Maximum Security, saying there had been interference as they left the quarter-pole and headed for home.
“We had a lengthy review of the race,” Borden said. “We interviewed affected riders.” She said the stewards had unanimously agreed that Maximum Security drifted out and affected the progress of No. 1, War of Will, in turn interfering with Long Range Toddy and No. 21, Bodexpress.
“Those horses were all affected, we thought, by the interference,” she said. “Therefore, we unanimously determined to disqualify No. 7 and place him behind the 18, the 18 being the lowest-placed horse that he bothered, which is our typical procedure.” That made Maximum Security the 17th-place finisher officially.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/04/sports/kentucky-derby-stewards-video-review.html
From this morning...
“Kentucky Horse Racing Commission chief steward Barbara Borden said the riders of Long Range Toddy and Country House lodged objections against Maximum Security for interference.
“We had a lengthy review of the race,” Borden said. “We interviewed affected riders. We determined that (Maximum Security) drifted out and impacted the progress of War of Will, in turn interfering with the 18 and 21. Those horses were all affected by the interference.”
........
Last night I thought I read only Country House filed an objection.
I don’t see how this ruling will be changed.
Here’s an interesting statistic. In the entire history of the Derby there have only been five jockey claims of foul. In Yesterday’s race two different jockeys made a claim for the same foul:
Besides the extra attention at play, it’s hard to forget there’s also little historical precedent for disqualifying a winner of the Kentucky Derby. In the race’s 141-year history, there has been just one stewards’ inquiry, one disqualification, and five jockey claims of foul.
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/tough-call-stewards-officiating-derby-tall-order/
I wonder how many people had a $2 win ticket on Country House and seeing the finish, tore their ticket up or threw it away. You know somebody must have.
I keep hearing slavery and reparations are needed. Are you saying horses need them also ;)
Again, this decision was agenda-driven on optics. And optics are for Libtards.
This is the same woman, btw, who just a few years ago when the f***knuckles at PETA weren't exercising their grudge against animals, defended Espinoza hitting Triple Crown winner American Pharoah 32 times in the Kentucky Derby.
Why? Bob "Triple Crown" Baffert > Jason Servis:
"Jockey Victor Espinoza's ride on Kentucky Derby winner American Pharoah has been under scrutiny over the past week for what some consider an excessive use of the whip during the battle to the wire with Firing Line.Espinoza's tactics were the focus of a Bloomberg.com article that not only discussed his victory aboard American Pharoah, but pointed out that the colt had been “whipped 32 times.”
In the days since that article was published, however, many people in the racing industry, including fellow riders and Kentucky's chief steward, have come to the defense of Espinoza and his ride in the Derby.
In a recent interview with the Lexington Herald-Leader, chief steward Barbara Borden said that after reviewing the race again, the stewards felt Espinoza's use of the crop “fell within our regulations and felt no disciplinary action was warranted.” “Honestly, nobody called us about it or anything. We just started hearing about it,” Borden told the Herald-Leader. “We have (reviewed the ride again) and we have the same feeling we had after the race was over: It's within the boundaries of our regulations. He did hit the horse quite a few times but it was all within the rules of the state.”
Perfectly legal in NASCAR.
Isn’t that what I said?
And the only rider who even had a claim -- Gaffalione -- did not.
And the only rider who even had a claim — Gaffalione — did not.
...
I don’t know why he didn’t. Maybe he saw the other jockeys making their calls and waited to talk to the stewards after they started their investigation:
Maximum Security led the field into the final turn, and the trouble began when they moved back toward the Churchill Downs grandstand. Maximum Security drifted out and into the path of War of Will, who had to check hard. Long Range Toddy and Bodexpress were also affected by the mishap.
“I really thought I was going to win the Derby,” said War of Will jockey Tyler Gaffalione. “I checked pretty hard when (Maximum Security) came out as far as he did.”
https://www.kentucky.com/sports/horses/kentucky-derby/article230044534.html
"Instant replay" in one form or another has been used in horse racing for more than seventy-five years.
Try calling this Triple Dead Heat for Win without it!
“And here comes the winneeeeeeeeeeeer............Feetlebaum!”
(I had to look that one up!)
Ahh the good old days of Dr. Demento.
In times gone by, films were taken of races from various elevated positions around the track. Long shots were taken down the front and/or back stretches. These were imaged on film in small canisters and after the field had passed these positions, a car with a driver and catcher would proceed inside the outer rail, stop under the position and the camera operator would drop the canister to the catcher...who often used a baseball glove to make the catch. The canisters would then be brought to the stewards for review in case of any challenge. The camera used for photo-finishes was permenantly mounted at the finish line
NEVER HAPPEN!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.