Kentucky Derby drama

[McLovin]

Whats really crazy is that the horse that ended up winning had 64:1 odds, the second lowest. Someone got screwed and someone got PAID.

The payout was $11,500 for a $1 trifecta. Insanity.

 

[Waquoit]

Does the fact that he won by two lengths, give or take, factor into it at all or no? I’m actually a very novice horse race better to be fair, i’m just curious.

No, not at all. And the rule is kind of like at a traffic accident. I was at a red light when a dope in a pick-up just plowed into the back of me. I got smashed into the car in front of me. When the cops got there, the guy in car in front of me started saying how he was going to sue me. The cop said, "No, you want to sue that guy" pointing to the guy in the pick-up.

 

[uconnfan68]

No, not at all. And the rule is kind of like at a traffic accident. I was at a red light when a dope in a pick-up just plowed into the back of me. I got smashed into the car in front of me. When the cops got there, the guy in car in front of me started saying how he was going to sue me. The cop said, "No, you want to sue that guy" pointing to the guy in the pick-up.

So the guy in front gets dq’d? Looked to me like the horse coming from behind ran into the leaders rear end. Watched with closed caption at a restaurant. No idea what was explained.

 

[uconnfan68]

Whats really crazy is that the horse that ended up winning had 64:1 odds, the second lowest. Someone got screwed and someone got PAID.

$9 million lost...

 

[Fishy]

So the guy in front gets dq’d? Looked to me like the horse coming from behind ran into the leaders rear end. Watched with closed caption at a restaurant. No idea what was explained.

Maximum Security changed leads too early after being spooked by the infield, so he basically took a right turn - he moved over into War of Will's path without being clear. We were really close to a NASCAR-style pile-up.

 

[Vancat]

Maximum Security changed leads too early after being spooked by the infield, so he basically took a right turn - he moved over into War of Will's path without being clear. We were really close to a NASCAR-style pile-up.

Just curious, did you hear or read that he changed leads or did you actually see that?

 

[Fishy]

Just curious, did you hear or read that he changed leads or did you actually see that?

It’s easy to see.

If you watch the replay, two strides before War of Will almost runs up his ass, he switches leads.

 

[Danzz]

I think horse racing sucks and know nothing about it but what a strange rule, the horse that isn't impeded wins because the winning horse is disqualified? What about the horse that was clearly impeded and almost knocked down?

This is the way it works. The horse seem to get distracted by the crowd and moved into another lane
and interfered. The horse that won got the benefit of the disqualification. Unfortunate but it was the right call.

 

[Waquoit]

Like I'm sure you guys know, a horse had never been DQ'ed for an in-race infraction before yesterday. It appears the stewards were content to let the results stand but were forced to address the incident when the jockeys claimed foul. If this was just another mid-week race, it wouldn't have taken 20 minutes to DQ the horse, it would have taken 2. It must have been agony for the stewards, they didn't want to do it but they had to.

But I was surprised to read that there hadn't been a foul claim since 2001. I wonder if there was an unwritten rule violated here.

 

[the Q]

Like I'm sure you guys know, a horse had never been DQ'ed for an in-race infraction before yesterday. It appears the stewards were content to let the results stand but were forced to address the incident when the jockeys claimed foul. If this was just another mid-week race, it wouldn't have taken 20 minutes to DQ the horse, it would have taken 2. It must have been agony for the stewards, they didn't want to do it but they had to.

But I was surprised to read that there hadn't been a foul claim since 2001. I wonder if there was an unwritten rule violated here.

I think the funny the actual jockey who was interfered with was one who did NOT claim foul

 

[superjohn]

 

[the Q]

I’m curious on the value of the best horse in the race. Does he still go for a derby winner price since he completely dominated the field anyway?

 

[whaler11]

$9 million lost...

They pay out a percentage of the handle - so the total amount lost by all bettors is the same no matter what the result is.

Parimutual - thank the french.

 

[Waquoit]

I’m curious on the value of the best horse in the race. Does he still go for a derby winner price since he completely dominated the field anyway?

There really is no "derby winning price" for a horse as a potential stallion. Winning the Derby is just one factor. He showed he could carry his speed for a distance, that's very desirable and the DQ doesn't erase that. In fact, not too many Derby winners over the past 40 years have been great stallions. Seattle Slew was. So was Sunday Silence but he did all his work in Japan. None of the current top money stallions are Derby winners though American Pharoah is getting some heat. The owners didn't think much of this horse as a potential sire as they ran him in a claiming race early on.

 

[Peacefrog]

I had a place bet on Code of Honor so things worked out for me. Was in the Caesar’s sports book. Fun to watch the crowd react.

 

[Jay-Bone]

There really is no "derby winning price" for a horse as a potential stallion. Winning the Derby is just one factor. He showed he could carry his speed for a distance, that's very desirable and the DQ doesn't erase that. In fact, not too many Derby winners over the past 40 years have been great stallions. Seattle Slew was. So was Sunday Silence but he did all his work in Japan. None of the current top money stallions are Derby winners though American Pharoah is getting some heat. The owners didn't think much of this horse as a potential sire as they ran him in a claiming race early on.

Wasn't Max the one that was bought for $16k six months ago? Regardless of this outcome, the owners will certainly turn a profit. They'll still have a chance to get a major ROI in the next two races.

 

[B1GEast]

Wasn't Max the one that was bought for $16k six months ago? Regardless of this outcome, the owners will certainly turn a profit. They'll still have a chance to get a major ROI in the next two races.

I think that no one purchased him at that price, not sure, but $16k is the correct amount.

 

[Waquoit]

Wasn't Max the one that was bought for $16k six months ago? Regardless of this outcome, the owners will certainly turn a profit. They'll still have a chance to get a major ROI in the next two races.

No, Max was up for sale at $16K but there were no takers. However, the horse named Tax (#2) was claimed for $50K last October and has returned about $300K in purse money since.

 

[RichZ]

There really is no "derby winning price" for a horse as a potential stallion. Winning the Derby is just one factor. He showed he could carry his speed for a distance, that's very desirable and the DQ doesn't erase that. In fact, not too many Derby winners over the past 40 years have been great stallions. Seattle Slew was. So was Sunday Silence but he did all his work in Japan. None of the current top money stallions are Derby winners though American Pharoah is getting some heat. The owners didn't think much of this horse as a potential sire as they ran him in a claiming race early on.

Wouldn't being spooked that severely by the crowd be a trait that would have a negative effect on the horse's stud value?

 

[Waquoit]

Wouldn't being spooked that severely by the crowd be a trait that would have a negative effect on the horse's stud value?

I'd just be guessing, but I wouldn't think so. I think the horse's own pedigree is more of a negative factor. That said, there's not a huge market of potential buyers so if an outfit or two has concerns, it could depress his price.

 

[Danzz]

I'd just be guessing, but I wouldn't think so. I think the horse's own pedigree is more of a negative factor. That said, there's not a huge market of potential buyers so if an outfit or two has concerns, it could depress his price.

The Kentucky Derby is not much of race to determine the best horse. Long shots can win at Churchill Downs but will often fail at the Preakness and Belmont. The Belmont is the true test of a 3 year old and the horse that wins The Belmont will have the most stud value.

 

[Fishy]

The Kentucky Derby is not much of race to determine the best horse. Long shots can win at Churchill Downs but will often fail at the Preakness and Belmont. The Belmont is the true test of a 3 year old and the horse that wins The Belmont will have the most stud value.

Not remotely true.

The ability to run a mile and a half is not valued by American breeders.

Unless you're talking about a horse with a terrific pedigree going for the Triple Crown, the horse that wins the Met Mile on the Belmont undercard gets more of a bump than the Belmont winner.

I'd just be guessing, but I wouldn't think so. I think the horse's own pedigree is more of a negative factor. That said, there's not a huge market of potential buyers so if an outfit or two has concerns, it could depress his price.

Yep. No one is going to be knocking the door down to overpay for him, Derby or no Derby. He's fast, but his breeding is not something that will help him - they just sold the sire to someone in Brazil.

 

[superjohn]

To the horse racing fans, what's the appeal?

 

[Waquoit]

To the horse racing fans, what's the appeal?

It's like solving a whodunit except it's a whosgonnadoit. And when you are right, you get paid

 

[uconnfan68]

It's like solving a whodunit except it's a whosgonnadoit. And when you are right, you get paid

When you guess right... and you understand the game behind the race. ;^)