I saw first hand a horse break it’s leg during an annual hunt race in my area. I never really got past that. This weekend we were at a place that had many derby parties and I do enjoy the hats and such, but I have no taste for horse racing.
Horses can be trained to not spook.
The problem is the field is too crowded for the derby. Most races it isn’t a foul because there is much more room. They have to have some more leeway with that many horses rounding the corners.
I’ve read that many other races are just a field of 12.
Horses have a flight instinct for protection. If they hear or see something that scares them, their natural instinct is to get away from it - aka spook. Some are more sensitive than others. I used to own a very high strung thoroughbred and I worked around his antics, but no way could I train him not to spook.
Also, keep in mind these are 3 year olds so they’re still kids.
Well, the thing is this… if you can’t train your horse not to do something that is against the rules, there are consequences. In this case, it was a DQ. Often, a horse will have its gate card pulled, which means that it is not allowed to enter the gate for a race. Talk to anyone in racing and you’re likely to hear about a horse who was a phenom but had some quirk that ultimately kept him out of the running ,(literally).
It is true that these are powerful animals with powerful instincts. If those instincts make them unsafe to themselves and/or other competitors, they cannot win and/or race. It sounds harsh, but this is for everyone’s safety.
Also I believe the horse in question has only 5 races under his belt. I think if he bumped the 2nd place horse out of his lane or stride. Even if he caused the 8th place finisher to pull up, move outside or misstep. Sure.
But for a slight hoof to hoof moment for the number 8 horse who had nothing left.
Nah. Bad call.
@privatebanker, Do referees stop calling fouls if it’s clear one team is going to lose? The severity of the foul only determines how severe the penalty is, not whether or not you get cited.
Rules are in part meant to preserve the integrity of the race results. But also to protect horses and jockeys. That slight hoof to hoof moment could have easily resulted in one or more horses falling injuring horses and/or jockeys.
So should they be going back and overturning all the other races with more severe fouls, yet the results were allowed to stand? Or is it just this horse that gets docked for doing 56 in a 55mph zone because it could have been dangerous and some others who were doing 66 or 76 in the zone were allowed their victory? What about all those who have lost the race in the earlier parts due to being bumped or cut off?
I got a nice chuckle out of the comment telling us all that a horse can be trained not to spook, especially when we’re talking about a 3 year old racehorse. We humans haven’t even figured out how to get other humans to be polite, much less young teens who are rarely disciplined so they don’t give in to their opponent in a race.
We raise and sell kids ponies. Teaching them not to spook is a big deal and takes a long time with some never really passing the bar.
Even some super well trained horses still spook in unusual environments like a large parade or similar.
Well trained humans spook in unusual environments too. Fear is a major driving force.
Very few races have as many horses as the Derby. And I do believe the Derby has had that many horses for decades. I don’t think there should be that many for the reason @privatebanker said, but it is what it is. (Pardon the overused phrase! ?)
Regarding TB racing in general, it’s already a dying sport. There are fewer fans, fewer folks going to the tracks - and many who do are drawn by casino gambling there - and fewer TBs themselves being born and registered. All that wasn’t due to this decision at all.
The main question from this is how much will it speed up the process.
The big races still draw those who know nothing about the sport, but that’s not everyday racing. That’s the equivalent of watching the Super Bowl.
"I got a nice chuckle out of the comment telling us all that a horse can be trained not to spook, especially when we’re talking about a 3 year old racehorse. "
Then maybe this horse doesn’t have the temperament for the job. The wellbeing of the jockeys and horses (although that track record is not good - pardon the pun - and one reason I’m not a huge fan of racing) should be paramount.
As far as any results/misdeeds in the past, any decision today that goes by the rules shouldn’t be predicated on past decisions, or lack thereof.
“The main question from this is how much will it speed up the process.”
I could argue the opposite. If they don’t play by the rules, in an age where people are more focused on the treatment of animals having a horrible incident occur would be much more of an issue for racing.
I suppose to sum up my spooking thoughts - even a well trained horse/pony or critter who doesn’t usually spook can do so given the right scary incident - same as humans. In the past, some have drifted out on the turn merely because they were tiring - no foul claimed.
Had anything been intentional - no doubt - penalized foul. It wasn’t. Even the main jockey who was affected didn’t claim he was fouled.
Time will tell if this actually helps racing as a sport. I sure wouldn’t bet on it. Somewhere out there one can probably place bets though! It’d be quite the longshot in odds.
I am not a horse race fanatic but will watch the three major races if I remember. It’s nice because they go so quickly. While watching this race I saw #7 veer into the other horses and thought “that can’t be good”. It seem the two closest horses that were accelerating dropped back after that. Country House was on the outside and wasn’t too affected by the infraction. I’m not sure the infraction changed the initial outcome of the race but if the rules state that a horse cannot move into the lane of another horse then it was clearly an infraction. For the horses next to him that were accelerating and had to drop back in was a real change in momentum. It’s much easier to continue to accelerate than it is to regain your momentum. I think Country House found himself all alone on the outside and ran really well. In conclusion I think the stewards made the right decision. Regardless of the reason a horse should not be allowed to cut off other horses. It’s racing not roller derby.
I agree with the stewards too. I believe that the disqualification was justified because of the rules. Most of the times, these rules are not enforced but when are brought to the table, to me, the ruling is clear.
A lot of people in our second home area speed along the country roads, pass when they feel like it, and do all sorts of things with wild abandon because the roads rarely have traffic and not under police patrol. When they stuck a police car on the road the citations were issued and people were outraged. This never happened before, no harm done, etc etc. But it was still against the laws of the road that just weren’t being enforced.
I missed the KD infraction when it happened, and had to look for it on the reruns to see what happened. And, yes, it happened. I would have voted with the stewards that unanimously agreed that the infraction occurred though it was not caught at the time. With cameras and instant replay, perpetual replay, all the angles that can be viewed, the instant slowed down and magnified, there was no question what happened and it was a breach of the rules. Had someone not brought it to attention, it would not have been noticed, and Maximum Security would have been the winner.
My guess is that many such fouls and missteps can be found on tape of many horse races. This got caught soon enough that it was addressed.
I am slightly amazed at how Gary West, Maximum Security’s owner, is now badmouthing Churchill Downs. He claims they are money grubbers looking to cash in on a large field. The Derby has been allowing a field large enough to use the auxiliary gate for quite some time. I remember when they didn’t have as many entrants, but I was young then and now I’m not!
There is so much demand to “run for the roses” that they have developed an intricate point system to see which horses qualify for the race. Horses must be nominated at birth for the Derby or pay additional fees if they are added to the list of possibles at later dates. None of this was new to Mr. West. He knows that the race field is large (possibly too large), that it may be run in poor conditions such as Saturday’s sloppy track, and that it is asking quite a bit for 3 year olds to go the mile and a quarter. If the outcome had been different, we wouldn’t hear him complaining about Churchill Downs this week. Just saying…
Country House is not going to the Preakness. The reason given is that he’s developed a cough.
Intention should be irrelevant. Result is what counts.
I’m a hockey fan, so I’ll give hockey analogies. Hockey players don’t (in general) intend to hit other hockey players in the face with their sticks, but hockey is a fast game and accidents happen. Hitting a player in the face with a stick is a penalty, and it’s two penalties if the hit draws blood. If it were not a penalty, if the players could say a high stick in the face was an accident (which it normally is) and not be penalized, then hockey players would be less careful with their sticks, and more accidents would occur. The rule should be enforced as is: intention or no intention, a stick to the face is a penalty. A player is responsible for controlling his stick, the rules say.
Here’s an even better analogy from hockey. It used to be the case that a defending player in the zone was allowed to shoot the puck out of the defensive zone and into the stands. If things got tense, players would do that on purpose; it was a recognized normal play. This delayed the game, and moreover was kind of dangerous to the crowd. Now, it is a penalty to shoot the puck out of the zone into the crowd.
Lo and behold, suddenly pucks don’t get shot into the crowd from the defensive zone very often. But they sometimes do, and when they do, it is always a penalty. Whiners say that the puck in the crowd was unintentional, and shouldn’t be a penalty, but that misses the point: it’s a penalty because we don’t want players to do it, and we want them to be careful and not even risk shooting the puck into the crowd by mistake. And the fact that it’s a penalty stops players from making that mistake. The rule change worked.
Similarly, in horse racing, horses are not allowed to swerve and cut off other horses, because it’s dangerous. Intention does not come into it. This is good! It incentivizes trainers and jockeys to prevent their horses from making such dangerous moves. If the stewards were to take intention into account, then trainers and jockeys would have no reason to stop their dangerous horses dangerously causing accidents. A jockey is responsible for controlling his horse, the rules say.