https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/04/sports/kentucky-derby-stewards-video-review.html
I have several friends who are involved in horse racing as their profession and I’ve been following their discussions on other social media platforms.
They all supported the call, citing safety and what could have happened to horses and jockeys (potentially lethal, given the speed) had the swerve touched another horse. Their point “That’s why we have the rules.” The stewards who are chosen to officiate at a race as big as this know their stuff, and they do get the benefit of video review. It’s unfortunate that it happened to such a big race with such a big audience. But having known, through this same group of friends, people and horses that have gotten hurt, I am glad to see enforcement of rules that protect horse and rider.
DH and I watch the Derby every year and were so crushed that Maximum’s win was DQ’d. As we are also hockey people, we ascribe to don’t let a call decide the series – but the swerve was really obvious. I hope the jockey isn’t ostracized/blackballed because of it. With such a sloppy track and no real hope of a Triple Crown, maybe they were extra cautious
@doschicos - Off topic, my D competed in the big hunter jumper circuits here in the West with a trainer that is well known. I wonder if we know who your relatives are in that world! D never went to Florida and competed in the big winter circuit, but her trainer took kids there and D’s favorite horse actually came from a big name trainer from the Midwest.
We have a former CCer (no longer active) who has won multiple Eclipse awards for writing about thoroughbred horse racing and usually attends the Derby. I just checked her FB page for an opinion, and she’s overseas on vacation and hasn’t posted. ? I’ll keep an eye on it and let you know if she says anything, though.
Family member reposted a FB message from a friend in the business (former jockey) and the comments - close to 200 - are all in support of the DQ decision. Kudos being given to War of Wills jockey for checking up successfully and avoiding what could have been a tragic event. Talk about how the media has gotten a lot wrong. Talk of rules are rules. Talk of people who know racing think it is the right call.
Here’s a video of the stewards talking:
Donna Brothers was on Sunday Today this morning explaining the decision and why it was the right one. I looked to see if the segment was posted separately so I could link, but unfortunately not (at least for now). She explained that changing lanes was not permitted in the US, but that it was tolerated more under international rules. When she interviewed Maximum Security’s jockey in the backstretch yesterday, he mentioned the horse being slightly spooked by the crowd, so I think he knew that things went a bit awry at that point.
I spent quite a bit of time at Keeneland during my college years, to the point of calling horse racing my college minor. I still remember what agony it is to see a horse break down during a race and have to be put down in the van because the injury was too severe for recovery. One of the important ways to minimize such situations is through close adherence to the racing rules. The fact that the stewards took so long showed that they were taking their responsibility seriously.
Someone earlier talked about horse racing being a dirty sport. It can be at the lower end of the game, but at the stakes level, I think all involved are looking for a good race. I really hope that Maximum Security will be back in the winner’s circle as I was heartbroken for his trainer yesterday. He was so joyful and then just minutes later so crestfallen.
I think the commentators were kind of awful, and contributed to the confusion of viewers. They had a clear view of how they wanted the call to go, regardless of the rules, and kept stating it.
From watching the vids in slow-mo, War of Will looked like it had a valid complaint IMO, and the rules are in place (in part) to prevent the kind of tragedies we’ve sometimes seen in racing. I couldn’t really see where other horses were affected, but it was a unanimous call by the Stewards who I assume had better means of assessing the situation than we did and know more than any of us do about what constitutes a fault, so I support the decision. Just because a tragic accident didn’t occur doesn’t mean they should suspend or bend the rules of racing to keep the fans happy. I still felt sorry for everyone connected to Maximum Security , though.
And since people supporting the decision are being asked how much they follow racing, I wouldn’t say I follow it, but . . .
- I started going to the races once or twice a year when I was a teenager and loved it. If I wanted to impress a date in college, my father had a friend on the racing commission who would reserve a table for us at the Turf Club.
- I had an uncle who co-owned a couple or race horses, but only went with him once to watch one of them run when it was at a local track.
- I also had a friend in college whose father owned a stud farm and went to the races with he and his sister a couple of times. They also co-owned a horse that finished second in the Kentucky Derby which was pretty exciting when it happened.
- My mother, grandfather and great grandmother are/were all Kentucky Colonels (not military or any relation to the Sanders family :wink: look it up if not familiar), and it was a family event to watch the Derby every year.
But I’m no expert. It’s just entertainment to me and I’m not much of a gambler, so I only bet small amounts to place or show on every race so I have some stake in them, and usually pick a horse based on the name or because I like the way it looks. 
I’m not a racing fan but I am a hockey fan, and I disagree with “don’t let a call decide the series.” If someone commits a obvious penalty the refs have to call it, even if it’s overtime in Game Seven of the Stanley Cup Finals. Otherwise, what will decide the series is the team that is willing to be dirtier, knowing they’ll get away with it.
I agree with the stewards’ decision also. Maximum Security was not the best horse if he spooked due to the crowds and his jockey was not the best since he could not control him. Rules are rules and I’m glad the stewards did not let the magnitude of the race alter the decision.
I’m not a horse racing fan, but a tennis fan. I’ve now seen Serena Williams severely penalized (fairly) in three U. S. Open finals to the extent that it likely affected the outcome. Rules are there for the great and the small.
Just want to add that I don’t follow this reasoning.
I don’t know of any sport or competition where penalties, fouls, etc. are called based on whether a competitor would have won, made the touchdown, basket, run, goal, etc. or not. If Michael Phelps had enough false starts to be disqualified from an Olympic race, are they not supposed to call it because the fans believe he is the best and no one would been able to beat him regardless? What about Lance Armstrong?
Horse person (both kids did A circuit hunter/jumper stuff and I ride recreationally), but not a racing expert. I’m not sure about call.
I’ve owned two off-track thoroughbreds who would move or jump inside ring if anything remotely startled them (non-riders may be surprised at the stupid, minor things that scare a horse), so if Maximum Security really spooked, the only thing his jockey could do is stay on and get him back to lane. Doesn’t make sense to move inside as the shortest course and best position would be inside rail.
However, it looks as if Maximum Security’s jockey had his elbows out … maybe he was trying to get in way?? Very dangerous, especially on wet track. Jockeys ride with those crazy short stirrups - can they still use their legs to guide their horse? If so, I’d be curious to see tape showing horse from inside.
It was disappointing, and the commentators/interviewers seemed kind of obnoxious while we were waiting for decision.
I guess it would be important to know how thorough the rules briefing is explained to the horses before the race and if they understood that they would be obligated to have a mechanical override of any natural and normal responses to exterior interference and distractions? Perhaps Maximum Security did not understand that he did not have the right to react to excessive crowd noise and approaching runners thunder?
A horse’s most sensitive area which prompts reaction is around the back side, but if running a race and the roar of horses at one’s haunches and grandstand thunder gets unexpectedly loud, we expect an unnatural reaction or we penalize them? SMH.
Sorry folks. You can’t apply rules which cannot be understood or controlled.
Suppose that Maximum Security spooked, not because of anything the jockey did but because he’s a horse. Do you mean to say that should be a defense, and if the horse spooked, he shouldn’t be disqualified? If that’s what you’re saying, I disagree. Unintentional fouls are called all the time in all sports, as they should be.
You’ve given an argument for changing the rules, not an argument for a horse being penalized for violating them.
If a jockey knows his horse, he likely knows if crowd noise or a wet track or positioning along the rail adds risk that the horse will startle. I don’t buy that shying into other horses because of crowd noise ought to be dismissed. Plenty of other horses don’t do that. He could have chosen to take his horse to the outside, and didn’t.
@"Cardinal Fang. Thinking about your question. I don’t like the stewards’ decision.
But “horse error” is not excuse in any other disciple that I know of so you are correct.
If jumper spooks on course and adds time or refuses, well, too bad. Hunters and eq, judged correctly, should be same.
If I remember correctly, there was some drama a few years ago about a top level dressage rider whose horse spooked, but they still received high score. I guess this is the same.
I have got out of the habit of watching horseracing so I can’t comment on this, but I am puzzled about the claim that this is the first Kentucky Derby DQ. I distinctly remember watching the race when I was ten and totally into it (huge race fan when I was a kid) and Dancer’s Image was disqualified for some kind of medication in his system. I had been rooting for Forward Pass so I was glad, but in time and reading up on it it did seem that Dancer’s Image was unfairly robbed.
But in any case, this one is not the first disqualification.
Who’s claiming it is the first? Yes, Dancer’s Image in 1968. You’d think that one would be more clear cut but still controversial.