Replies

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

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/

Toddy, who I wagered on, was tiring. You can't impede a tiring horse.

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.”