Kentucky Derby drama | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Kentucky Derby drama

Fishy said:
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.
Expand ...
Just curious, did you hear or read that he changed leads or did you actually see that?
 
Vancat said:
Just curious, did you hear or read that he changed leads or did you actually see that?
Expand ...

It’s easy to see.

If you watch the replay, two strides before War of Will almost runs up his ass, he switches leads.
 
superjohn said:
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?
Expand ...
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.
 
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.
 
Waquoit said:
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.
Expand ...

I think the funny the actual jockey who was interfered with was one who did NOT claim foul
 
Screenshot_20190505-133546_Chrome.jpg
 
.-.
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?
 
uconnfan68 said:
$9 million lost...
Expand ...

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.
 
the Q said:
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?
Expand ...
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.
 
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.
 
Waquoit said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Jay-Bone said:
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.
Expand ...

I think that no one purchased him at that price, not sure, but $16k is the correct amount.
 
.-.
Jay-Bone said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Waquoit said:
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.
Expand ...

Wouldn't being spooked that severely by the crowd be a trait that would have a negative effect on the horse's stud value?
 
RichZ said:
Wouldn't being spooked that severely by the crowd be a trait that would have a negative effect on the horse's stud value?
Expand ...
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.
 
Waquoit said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Danzz said:
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.
Expand ...

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.

Waquoit said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
Waquoit said:
It's like solving a whodunit except it's a whosgonnadoit. And when you are right, you get paid
Expand ...
When you guess right... and you understand the game behind the race. ;^)
 
Unless one horse pulled a knife on another horse, I really don't care. Every jockey was whipping his horses ass. It's a weak ass move to whine about contact.
 
temery said:
Unless one horse pulled a knife on another horse, I really don't care. Every jockey was whipping his horses ass. It's a weak ass move to whine about contact.
Expand ...

Especially if you weren’t even involved in the contact...
 
.-.
superjohn said:
To the horse racing fans, what's the appeal?
Expand ...
$$$. If people could not bet on horses, there would be zero interest and the sport would not exist. Lets see what happens to horse racing over the next decade. They have already gotten some real bad press with all of those horses getting put down at Santa Anita. The negativity surrounding the outcome of the Derby doesnt help either with casual fans. Theres almost zero interest in horse racing in people under 45, and as great a moment it was when American Pharoah became the first horse to win the Triple Crown in 40 years, you could make the argument that it hurt the sport from a casual viewers standpoint. There was no longer that history tied to it. When Justify was going for the Triple Crown, it just didnt have the same “buzz” because it happened three years earlier.

Going back to my point about interest in horse racing for younger people. Its just not there. Keep in mind, back in the day, wagering on horses was the only kind of legalized betting. There was no Mohegan Sun or Foxwoods in the 1940’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and Atlantic City didnt pass legalized gambling until the late 70’s, but you could go to the track and bet on horses. Now, sports betting is legal in New Jersey and soon to be legal in CT. More people are going to bet on football, basketball, and baseball than horses so that is another main reason I think horse racing will decline.
 
superjohn said:
To the horse racing fans, what's the appeal?
Expand ...

Looking at:

Current odds
Jockey
Trainer
Owner
Races at this distance
Races on this surface
Recent practice times
Recent race performances
Season WPS %'s
What the "experts" pick

Then tossing in drinking and lucky numbers and names that strike a chord. My biggest win ever was on a horse that had my mom's name in it and I threw a bet in at the last second. My buddy bets on gray horses any time they race.

So, you take the mix of all those numbers.....and you pick a winner, or winning trifecta that isn't just taking the heavy favorite. There's excitement and satisfaction in it.
 
Ts5034 said:
$$$. If people could not bet on horses, there would be zero interest and the sport would not exist.
Expand ...
Not zero, but much, much less. They have non-wagering races that get a decent crowd. But I agree, racing will be gone sooner rather than later. And ironically so will all the thoroughbred horses. There's no such thing as "wild" horses. Those non-domesticated horses are actually feral; domesticated animals that escaped into the wild. Without racing, there will be no incentive to breed thoroughbreds anymore.
 
It's just weird to me that dog racing is banned almost everywhere, dog fighting and cock fighting are banned everywhere and prison sentences doled out for people partaking in it, and yet horse racing is still celebrated.
 
Go to Saratoga. Make it a few days

Don't tell me there is no charm nor buzz about the sport. Go to a place that has oodles of things that create the experience. Maybe I'd cut 90% of the sport and just have it at a few pristine places. (having said that ... wazzup with Santa Anita)
 
superjohn said:
It's just weird to me that dog racing is banned almost everywhere, dog fighting and cock fighting are banned everywhere and prison sentences doled out for people partaking in it, and yet horse racing is still celebrated.
Expand ...
You don't think there is a difference between an animal being trained to run fast and an animal being trained to kill?
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,331
Messages
4,564,583
Members
10,464
Latest member
Rollskies27


Top Bottom