Posted on 05/17/2019 2:35:01 PM PDT by Kevin in California
Maximum Security owner Gary West has issued a multimillion-dollar challenge to the owners of four horses that benefited from his horse's historic disqualification in the Kentucky Derby.
In a statement Friday, West said he would pay each of those owners $5 million if Country House, War of Will, Long Range Toddy or Bodexpress finishes ahead of Maximum Security in the next race against him through the end of the year.
West wants the owners of the other horses to also stake $5 million on the head-to-head result. He said he would donate any winnings to the Permanently Disabled Jockeys Fund and would still make a donation to the fund if no owners take up the challenge.
Pretty sporting of him. At least he’s making it interesting.
Love it love it love it
prove it on the field
That is the way of TRU sports
No handicaps
Mano a mano or team versus team or horse versus horse
Nice touch that he’s willing to give their winnings to the disabled jockeys fund
Good for him.
I don’t know the first thing about this situation, but in my exposure to sports, I think it should be a very blatant foul to disqualify the winner. From what I’ve heard, this wasn’t a flagrant foul.
In a rough track, there is going to be bumping. If you can’t handle it as a pro, you shouldn’t be out there.
If your horse is that brittle, the same.
Will be interesting to follow this.
Hey, if I’m off base, folks feel free to say so and explain why.
Thanks.
Youre off base!! :)
I don’t know jack about horse racing :)
But what you said sounds like it makes sense.
From what I’ve heard on a local sports radio show from a host who knows a lot about horse racing, the bumping down the stretch was only the last straw. Apparently that horse had been running erratically for almost the entire race. And you can’t blame it on the track if nobody else was having the same problem.
I don’t think you’re off base at all. In fact, I think you’re right on.
When racing in large numbers, horses bump up against each other. So do humans and cars.
I like it!
Putting his challenge up front.
With his money behind it, going to a related charity.
Wasn’t blatant at all. Heck, if it were blatant, the inquiry sign would have lit up which means the stewards saw nothing. This was an objection in which an owner, trainer, or jockey can launch. Objections for the most part are honored a small percentage of the time. This was incidental contact which happens a lot in a horse race ...especially a packed field such as this one was. A normal everyday horse race, the order of finish would have stood. Bottom line, Maximum Security was clearly the best horse who got screwed.
Each of your responses made sense.
I can’t say if even my own thoughts were on base, so I’m not going to disagree on any of this.
What I have leaned watching commentaries in the media, is that one group will say one things and another may say something 180 degrees different.
Both sides may have some good arguments.
Take care, and thanks for the responses.
Objections by jockeys in the Kentucky Derby are extremely rare. Only a handful had been made in over a 140 year history. Two jockeys made objections against Maximum Security. The stewards reviewed the tape and interviewed all the jockeys involved. There was no question that a foul was committed. The only question was whether the stewards should have looked the other way.
Thanks for the mention.
- 1) Ky Chief Steward Barbara Borden -- a flat-out dumb hillbilly girl who spent decades as a mere racetrack functionary for years on the rump circuit as a lip reader where she would flip up the horse's lip entering the paddock and match the tattoo to a clipboard (yee, haw) -- had a legal and moral duty to inform the jockey colony before the race, that the Derby for the first time would be held to the strictest interpretation of the rules. No Shoemaker driving Ferdinand to cut off Pat Day aboard Rampage, no Bet Twice tripping Alysheba twice, no Broker's Tip, . In other words, 'there's a new sherriff in town'. That did not happen.
- 2) The infamous photo that shows War of Will at an abrupt angle to the field of racing, shows War of Will attempting to drive outward into a hole that wasn't there every bit as much as it show Maximum Security floating the turn to avoid a pothole (something NO ONE has talked about except -- surprise, surprise -- War of Will's jockey).
- 3) On the gallop-out one of the top money-earning jockeys in the country who would like to stay that way, pulled up another Mott horse to yell to Mott to tell Flavien Prat aboard Country House to object/claim foul. As Prat, totally unaware of any racing issue, trotted by on Country House to turn around for dismount, Mott screamed to Prat, "Get on the phone!"
- 4) Court -- who does not ride for the West's -- was also told to object, despite having flailed away miserably aboard a tiring stretch runner named Long Range Toddy. Meanwhile, Gaffalione returning to the dismount from a hard-fading War of Will -- the only rider in the field who had a legitimate objection -- declined to do so; as did hillbilly Borden, who never lit a steward's inquiry.
- 5) While waiting an interminable 22 minutes during the non-inquiry (this horse came down on an objection, FReepers, NOT an inquiry), Mott jibed to NBCSports that "they would take this horse down in a maiden claimer on a weekday", a pointedly sarcastic and unforgivably shitty remark directed at the West's, who had started their speedy homebred in a Gulfstream maiden claimer before trainer Servis realized the colt was the goods.
he’s got a great horse, argueably the best on the track. But the horse drifted and encumbered the horse behind him. Stop with the posturing and come back next year and clear the track fair and square. But don’t risk the stud on an unnecessary race over ego.
he’s got a great horse, argueably the best on the track. But the horse drifted and encumbered the horse behind him. Stop with the posturing and come back next year and clear the track fair and square. But don’t risk the stud on an unnecessary race over ego.
I like racing with more than 1 horsepower...
The Kentucky Derby is limited to 3-year-olds. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
"But don’t risk the stud on an unnecessary race over ego."
How does offering a $20 million dollar bonus "risk the stud"?
Servis spends his summers at Monmouth Park. The West's like the speed-favoring track and they love Servis. I didn't have a nickel on Max in the Derby but I will in the Haskell - even if he's 1-10.
Lots of people here who don't know much about horse racing commenting here.
The horse can't come back next year. The Derby is for three year-olds only. Next year Maximum Security will be four years old. Maximum can and presumably will race in other races in the months to come; but not the Derby.
And incidents like this happen all the time on dry tracks too. The wet track had very little to do with this.
If it weren't for the ditz Chief Steward and her inane DQ, I doubt anyone would have thought that anything was amiss with the running of this year's Derby.
ML/NJ
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.