Disqualification

Forum rules
Do not to post anything abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or sexually-orientated.
Do not post anything negative about any player.
No advertising other games.
The management reserves the right to delete or lock threads and messages at any time.
Read the complete SIM rules and legal information.
User avatar
Ash Tarasin
Grade 2 Winner
Posts: 707
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Disqualification

Post by Ash Tarasin » 1 year ago

Dave Trainer wrote:
1 year ago
Not as crazy as placing him 17th behind a horse who wouldn't have beaten him.
It's not crazy.
Ashley Gibson already explained this earlier in this thread:
"The stewards from the KRC who made the decision read a statement after 9 p.m. Saturday to explain the decision. They said the objection against Maximum Security was filed by War of Will and Long Range Toddy. Barbara Borden, chief state steward for the KRC, said after a review which included interviews of the jockeys, they determined Maximum Security "drifted out and impacted the progress of (War of Will), in turn, interfering with (Long Range Toddy) and (Bodexpress)."
Borden said the stewards unanimously disqualified Maximum Security, who was placed in the finishing order at No. 17, below the lowest-finishing horse that he was deemed to have bothered, which is KRC procedure."

The hypothetical question whether he would have beaten Long Range Toddy or not is uninteresting.

User avatar
Corey Lange
Miler
Posts: 165
Joined: 11 years ago

Re: Disqualification

Post by Corey Lange » 1 year ago

Ash Tarasin wrote:
1 year ago
Dave Trainer wrote:
1 year ago
Not as crazy as placing him 17th behind a horse who wouldn't have beaten him.
It's not crazy.
Ashley Gibson already explained this earlier in this thread:
"The stewards from the KRC who made the decision read a statement after 9 p.m. Saturday to explain the decision. They said the objection against Maximum Security was filed by War of Will and Long Range Toddy. Barbara Borden, chief state steward for the KRC, said after a review which included interviews of the jockeys, they determined Maximum Security "drifted out and impacted the progress of (War of Will), in turn, interfering with (Long Range Toddy) and (Bodexpress)."
Borden said the stewards unanimously disqualified Maximum Security, who was placed in the finishing order at No. 17, below the lowest-finishing horse that he was deemed to have bothered, which is KRC procedure."

The hypothetical question whether he would have beaten Long Range Toddy or not is uninteresting.
The absurdity that the 7 horse was the one that impacted Bodexpress almost makes this whole statement worthless. The 20 was going backwards after WoW made his first failed run between horses. Bode was well out of the picture before the MS move out of his path.

User avatar
Louise Bayou
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5597
Joined: 11 years ago

Re: Disqualification

Post by Louise Bayou » 1 year ago

Okay so even IF WoW, LRT and the rest were "done" and MS was much the best its still totally fine that he bore out 4-5 spots, ran into several horses and made horses check hard? Because its the Derby? And the whole "Oh nobody was beating him" doesn't wash for me because we don't know that for sure. That is why there is a race in the first place. We have no idea what the horses that were checked were going to do. We can speculate but we don't know for sure.
“It’s like I’m driving a Mac truck with the speed of a Porsche and the brain of a rocket scientist,” Gary Stevens on Beholder

User avatar
Andrew James
Grade 2 Winner
Posts: 734
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Disqualification

Post by Andrew James » 1 year ago

This whole conversation is so funny. You have 99% of the people (those who werent winning or losing money either way) saying the very obvious right decision was made.

Then you have the 1 percent that lost a wager who can't deal with it.
AJR:

Y39 SC Champ Nightchill, Y42 SC Champ Forge of Darkness, Y43 SC Champ Amsterdam, Y47 SC Champ The Reckoners

User avatar
Corey Lange
Miler
Posts: 165
Joined: 11 years ago

Re: Disqualification

Post by Corey Lange » 1 year ago

Andrew James wrote:
1 year ago
This whole conversation is so funny. You have 99% of the people (those who werent winning or losing money either way) saying the very obvious right decision was made.

Then you have the 1 percent that lost a wager who can't deal with it.
Didn’t win or lose money. But nice try.

User avatar
Corey Lange
Miler
Posts: 165
Joined: 11 years ago

Re: Disqualification

Post by Corey Lange » 1 year ago

Louise Bayou wrote:
1 year ago
Okay so even IF WoW, LRT and the rest were "done" and MS was much the best its still totally fine that he bore out 4-5 spots, ran into several horses and made horses check hard? Because its the Derby? And the whole "Oh nobody was beating him" doesn't wash for me because we don't know that for sure. That is why there is a race in the first place. We have no idea what the horses that were checked were going to do. We can speculate but we don't know for sure.
Lou, idk if you’re disagreeing with me or someone else. Yes the 7 moved out. I get where they found the DQ.
But ignoring the clearly dangerous move by WoW (x2), which arguably if that had been removed would have meant MS would have not impacted anyone else. Encouraging/rewarding jocks to squeeze their horses into bad spots does not make the game safer.

User avatar
Dave Trainer
Grade 2 Winner
Posts: 701
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Disqualification

Post by Dave Trainer » 1 year ago

Andrew James wrote:
1 year ago
This whole conversation is so funny. You have 99% of the people (those who werent winning or losing money either way) saying the very obvious right decision was made.

Then you have the 1 percent that lost a wager who can't deal with it.
I'm from the UK. We have different rules over here. No financial interest in the race at all.

User avatar
Ashley Gibson
Grade 1 Winner
Posts: 893
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: In My Own Little World... they know me here...

Re: Disqualification

Post by Ashley Gibson » 1 year ago

Corey Lange wrote:
1 year ago
Louise Bayou wrote:
1 year ago
Okay so even IF WoW, LRT and the rest were "done" and MS was much the best its still totally fine that he bore out 4-5 spots, ran into several horses and made horses check hard? Because its the Derby? And the whole "Oh nobody was beating him" doesn't wash for me because we don't know that for sure. That is why there is a race in the first place. We have no idea what the horses that were checked were going to do. We can speculate but we don't know for sure.
Lou, idk if you’re disagreeing with me or someone else. Yes the 7 moved out. I get where they found the DQ.
But ignoring the clearly dangerous move by WoW (x2), which arguably if that had been removed would have meant MS would have not impacted anyone else. Encouraging/rewarding jocks to squeeze their horses into bad spots does not make the game safer.
I am not sure how this is WoW's fault. He was going around MS. He was clear, until MS came over into him. WoW wasnt going into a bad spot he was going into an open spot. MS went into a bad spot, he wasn't clear when he veered (if he had been clear this would not even be a discussion).
"I think it needs to be reiterated that Ashley Gibson is my hero.." - John Slotman (March 4, 2010 0757)

4:16 PM [John Slotman] I don't even know where to start.
4:16 PM [John Slotman] Except I heart Ashley.

User avatar
Corey Lange
Miler
Posts: 165
Joined: 11 years ago

Re: Disqualification

Post by Corey Lange » 1 year ago

Ashley Gibson wrote:
1 year ago
Corey Lange wrote:
1 year ago
Louise Bayou wrote:
1 year ago
Okay so even IF WoW, LRT and the rest were "done" and MS was much the best its still totally fine that he bore out 4-5 spots, ran into several horses and made horses check hard? Because its the Derby? And the whole "Oh nobody was beating him" doesn't wash for me because we don't know that for sure. That is why there is a race in the first place. We have no idea what the horses that were checked were going to do. We can speculate but we don't know for sure.
Lou, idk if you’re disagreeing with me or someone else. Yes the 7 moved out. I get where they found the DQ.
But ignoring the clearly dangerous move by WoW (x2), which arguably if that had been removed would have meant MS would have not impacted anyone else. Encouraging/rewarding jocks to squeeze their horses into bad spots does not make the game safer.
I am not sure how this is WoW's fault. He was going around MS. He was clear, until MS came over into him. WoW wasnt going into a bad spot he was going into an open spot. MS went into a bad spot, he wasn't clear when he veered (if he had been clear this would not even be a discussion).
WoW ran into the exact same “non hole” once before on that turn and got checked back. He was at best questionably clear the second run into that hole (the moment of the main question). The replay before it this thread shows that first attempt at 3:59 (midway through the last turn). Tyler wanted a shot at the Derby and pushed his horse where he saw what he thought was his tiny hole twice. He got blocked both times, and the second time corresponded with the very beginning of the veer of MS.

Bobby Bonilla
Two Year Old
Posts: 21
Joined: 2 years ago

Re: Disqualification

Post by Bobby Bonilla » 1 year ago

Corey Lange wrote:
1 year ago
WoW ran into the exact same “non hole” once before on that turn and got checked back. He was at best questionably clear the second run into that hole (the moment of the main question). The replay before it this thread shows that first attempt at 3:59 (midway through the last turn). Tyler wanted a shot at the Derby and pushed his horse where he saw what he thought was his tiny hole twice. He got blocked both times, and the second time corresponded with the very beginning of the veer of MS.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CarsoniPH/st ... 0144457730

Pause the video at 0:16 and you can clearly see that War of Will has a clear path through the "non-hole" that you keep referring to. At that point he's running side by side with the 18 Long Range Toddy(they're literally looking each other in the eye) and at the same time is in no way running behind Maximum Security as he's at the flank of the 7, maybe 3/4 a length behind but with a clear path in front of him. I'm really not sure how this was a dangerous move by Tyler when he went AROUND Maximum Security and was about to pull up beside him when the 7 veered out at least 4 paths(went from the rail all the way to where the 18 had been running 4 wide) and completely compromised the chances of three other horses. Regardless of whether Maximum Security was the best horse in the race (he was), he absolutely cost the other three horses any opportunity of a higher placing(especially War of Will) and that really isn't debatable, hence the disqualification.

User avatar
Regina Moore
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2667
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Contact:

Re: Disqualification

Post by Regina Moore » 1 year ago

This is the best article I've seen so far on the Derby. It addressed all my questions.

User avatar
The Steward
Hall of Fame
Posts: 15369
Joined: 14 years ago
Location: So Cal!
Contact:

Re: Disqualification

Post by The Steward » 1 year ago

Nena Olson wrote:
1 year ago
Diane Townsend wrote:
1 year ago
It would be interesting how people would feel if it had been the other way around and the longshot was disqualified while the second? favourite was promoted to win the race?
Don't worry, had Maximum Security been a Baffert horse and he had been DQed, a lot of the current angry people would be throwing parades in the Steward's honor.

The amount of name calling that Mott and Prat have been receiving is actually disgusting.

Here is a photo of the incident

Image
Barbara Livingston
@DRFLivingston

MAXIMUM SECURITY (pink), COUNTRY HOUSE (left), and WAR OF WILL, 2019
@KentuckyDerby final turn, great shot by Jim Leuenberger/DRF.
@DRFInsidePost

Also watching this video clip in slow mo

https://twitter.com/OMGsportsClips/stat ... 6213474309

Bodexpress looks like he checked hard too
You forgot the most important part - photo discovered and edited by yours truly ;-) I asked Jim if he had a shot. He said Of what? LOL.
"There's no secret to training a good horse. It's a matter of being fortunate enough to get one."
"Funny how you often regret the stuff you didn't do more than the stuff you did do" - GG

User avatar
Corey Lange
Miler
Posts: 165
Joined: 11 years ago

Re: Disqualification

Post by Corey Lange » 1 year ago

Bobby Bonilla wrote:
1 year ago
Corey Lange wrote:
1 year ago
WoW ran into the exact same “non hole” once before on that turn and got checked back. He was at best questionably clear the second run into that hole (the moment of the main question). The replay before it this thread shows that first attempt at 3:59 (midway through the last turn). Tyler wanted a shot at the Derby and pushed his horse where he saw what he thought was his tiny hole twice. He got blocked both times, and the second time corresponded with the very beginning of the veer of MS.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CarsoniPH/st ... 0144457730

Pause the video at 0:16 and you can clearly see that War of Will has a clear path through the "non-hole" that you keep referring to. At that point he's running side by side with the 18 Long Range Toddy(they're literally looking each other in the eye) and at the same time is in no way running behind Maximum Security as he's at the flank of the 7, maybe 3/4 a length behind but with a clear path in front of him. I'm really not sure how this was a dangerous move by Tyler when he went AROUND Maximum Security and was about to pull up beside him when the 7 veered out at least 4 paths(went from the rail all the way to where the 18 had been running 4 wide) and completely compromised the chances of three other horses. Regardless of whether Maximum Security was the best horse in the race (he was), he absolutely cost the other three horses any opportunity of a higher placing(especially War of Will) and that really isn't debatable, hence the disqualification.
They’re running the corner. The angles hide & exaggerate different views. This totally hides that WoW shoves that “path open (it does close before he moves up again). Watch the other replay and you will see that WoW costs the 18 and 21 their run before the move of the 7, while the 20 is minorly moving in to pinch the 21 bad. Ignoring what the 1 did is the problem with all of the debate surrounding the DQ. There were 2 horses at fault.

User avatar
Rochelle Zahacy
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2559
Joined: 2 years ago

Re: Disqualification

Post by Rochelle Zahacy » 1 year ago

KINGSWOOD
Pensioner Program
• Pension your 2yo or older horse
• Ship your horse to any Kingswood Location
• Sell your horse to Rochelle Zahacy for $0


Stallions
TACITUS (TBS Stud, DM/DR) **2x STEWARD APPROVED**

User avatar
Corey Lange
Miler
Posts: 165
Joined: 11 years ago

Re: Disqualification

Post by Corey Lange » 1 year ago

Rochelle Zahacy wrote:
1 year ago
Here is a really good angled video

https://twitter.com/CarsoniPH/status/11 ... 57730?s=20
Exact same video Bobby just posted. You can’t see the 1 moving out. Yes, the move of the 7 is clear, but that ignores the impact of the 1.
Here’s the link again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci_ychn7ga0 Watch 3:59, before the big swing at the move of the 1.

Post Reply