OT: Kentucky Derby.

[nuraman00]

I thought I made a thread on here, but can't find it.

Here were my predictions:

2019 Kentucky Derby odds, best predictions: Expert who has nailed 9 Derby-Oaks Doubles releases picks

Maximum Security 9-2
Improbable 5-1
Tacitus 5-1
Game Winner 6-1
Roadster 9-1
Code of Honor 12-1
By My Standards 15-1
Win Win Win 15-1
War of Will 17-1
Vekoma 22-1
Cutting Humor 25-1
Gray Magician 31-1
Tax 37-1
Long Range Toddy 49-1
Master Fencer 50-1
Spinoff 51-1
Plus Que Parfait 55-1
Country House 64-1
Bodexpress 99-1



I'm going with:

1. Game Winner
2. Cutting Humor
3. By My Standards

 

[nuraman00]

Maximum Security definitely impeded the progress of the horses behind it. No, they probably wouldn't have finished in the top 3, but it was still a violation.

I also don't watch enough horse racing to know how often this happens. I only watch these 3 major tourneys at this time of the year, and usually I just fast forward right to the race, watch the race and maybe 1 - 2 mins of the celebration, and that's it.

I do give them props for making the call, because it's the first time in history that the winner was disqualified due to an objection. If it doesn't happen today, it's likely going to take something even more egregious for a call to be overturned.

It's a difficult call to make, so I give them credit.

The broadcasters said that it wouldn't have impacted the outcome, but I don't think that should matter.

Also though, we're dealing with animals, and not humans. Who knows what made the horse go out of its lane. It's not like a real person.

The only way to really see the foul is to watch the replays. It was too hard to see anything in real time, since there's so much congestion.

Again, maybe this happens all of the time, but partly for the sake of standing up for the rules, I like the call.

Mike Tirico (I didn't know he did calls for NBC) said "if it's a foul in the first, it's a foul in the 4th". All of the broadcasters actually disagreed with the objection. But they all gave credit to Country House after he won.

I forgot why Tirico said that line even though he disagreed with the overturn. I think he was explaining what the judges might be thinking.

So basically, 2 - 3 horses could have placed higher if they weren't impeded. 2 of them still wouldn't have finished top 3, but one of them might have gotten to 3rd.

So I think for the sake of trying to apply the rules consistently, I agree with it. I don't like the reasoning that because it wouldn't have impacted the overall winner, or even 2nd place, that it shouldn't have been called.

A horse racing "expert" was on the radio, and thinks the horse got scared by a puddle.

Someone else said that fouls should only be applied if it's intentional by the jockey.

Or that there should be a Flagrant 1 (unintentional) and Flagrant 2 (intentional) system.

With a Flagrant 1 being a fine, given to the horse that was impacted.

Flagrant 2 means disqualification and fine.

Those are interesting ideas, that could probably work.

 

[nuraman00]

War Of Will, the horse that was the most impeded in the Kentucky Derby and could have possibly won 3rd place in that race, finished first in The Preakness.

Also, the jockey for Bodexpress fell off right when the gates opened. I had never seen that happen before.

I was rooting for the horse to finish in the top 3, because I wanted to see what would happen.

Interesting that the horse still ran and competed. I guess the horse still knew to keep running, even without a jockey.

I thought it would stop running.

 

[nuraman00]

That is one of the most amazing things I've seen. A horse won a race without a jockey.

@MHSL82, why didn't you tell me that a horse can win without a jockey?

The horse was on the outside too for major portions of it. The beginning, and at about the 3/4 point.

Somehow, he got a second win and blew past everyone at the end.