I have been thinking of an analogy to track and field, very similar. If Usain Bolt was running an event and found himself 10M ahead after about 30M and strayed into the lane next to him he would be disqualified, even though there is no way he impeded the person in that lane because they were 30 feet behind him. It doesn’t matter why he veered into the other lane or if it had an impact on the race, the rule was broken so he must he disqualified.
Maximum Security may very well have been the best horse in the race but he did not win because of a rule violation, no different than Bolt being the best runner in the race but not being declared the winner because of a broken rule.
In defense of Riddle, I have read that Man O’War injured a tendon in his match race with Sir Barton, and also that they felt out the handicappers about how much weight they would put on him if he raced as a 4 yr old and were told it could be 160 lbs or more. After all, he was assigned huge weights as a 3 yr old, almost always ran under a strong hold, and still won going away. One can see that they would be afraid of breaking him down. I don’t think Riddle was chasing money. He also refused to run him in the Derby, because he thought it was too early to ask a 3 yr old to run that far.
Horse racing is a very expensive sport and the financial risks are great. I do love to see horses run beyond their 3 year old year, but I don’t fault owners for syndicating their colts after a successful 3 year old season.
My initial post in this thread about spending a significant part of my college years and twenties at Keeneland would identify my as a Kentuckian. I’m not only fond of horse racing, but I have been known to root for the Wildcats during basketball season. My interest has diminished in UK basketball in more recent years, however, as we have seen so much “one and done” among the strongest players. While I miss following a player over a four year career, I understand that they may be missing out on a once in a lifetime financial opportunity by entering the NBA draft. Remaining in college and retaining their eligibility might please me as a fan, but if they experience injury in a subsequent season, their chance to make a better life for themselves and their family may be out the window. I may not like it, but I respect the financial calculus that goes into that decision. All that said, I do love it when the NBA players come back to school during the off season to finish their degrees (Shaq for one after he left LSU).
The difference, of course, is that in horse racing the horses change lanes all the time. Horses starting on the outside always try to move closer to the rail because it’s a shorter path around the oval (unlike human footraces where the starting points are staggered so everyone runs and equal distance). Horses trapped behind a bunched-up pack will often move to the outside to get around the congestion. And horses running along the rail will sometimes move out a lane or two because it gives the jockey more maneuvering options if things get tight around that horse. And it’s not even necessarily a foul to impede the path of another horse. You could have three front-runners running stride for stride with no room between them, leaving other horses looking to move up no other option than to go wide to try to get around them. Happens all the time.
The rule that applied in the Derby calls for disqualification if “a leading horse or any other horse in a race swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey.” I think the stewards correctly applied that rule, much as I dislike the result.
But that’s the rule only in the U.S. and Canada. The more widely used rule internationally states: "If, in the opinion of the Staging Authority’s relevant judicial body, a horse or its rider causes interference and finishes in front of the horse interfered with but irrespective of the incident(s) the sufferer would not have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference, the judge’s placings will remain unaltered.” In other words, in the rest of the world, interference results in a DQ only if the horse that was interfered with would have finished ahead of the horse doing the interfering. Applying that standard, many experienced horse racing people think Maximum Security would not have been DQed, because the stewards couldn’t conclude that War of Will or Long Range Toddy—the two horses they said were interfered with—would have clearly beaten Maximum Security. In some countries other penalties, like fines or suspension of the jockey or the horse, might apply, but disqualifications for interference are quite rare. Some people were already agitating to drop the U.S. rule in favor of the international rule. Those voices will only grow louder after this year’s unprecedented Derby result. I’m agnostic on this. I’d like to see evidence that there are not appreciably more serious accidents and injuries under the international rule, but if the accident and injury rates are comparable, the international rule seems fairer.
If a human runner in the final 100m of an 800-meter race was crashed into, nearly fell, stayed upright and kept running, would we assume the collision didn’t affect his performance simply because he kept running?
For one, humans understand rules, horses do not. If the jockey caused something to happen, purposely or not, then the analogy works, but the jockey did not. When jockeys cause something, few quibble about the consequences.
More importantly, the analogy works IF you’re ok that up until now, Usain Bolts have stepped out of their lane - even interfering with runners right next to them - and not been DQd. With horses, runners coming out of the gate often severely bump others and definitely cause them the race - but do not get DQd. The spirit of the law has been that intentions matter. Was it “horse racing” and “these things happen” or the jockey trying to impede another coupled with “Did the better horse lose(?)” when you’re at the end of the race and these things can be seen.
There would be no controversy if the same rule had been applied similarly to previous runners, esp those where infractions were a bit more obvious. It’s only this one they changed for.
But honestly at this point, I no longer give a hoot. It seriously is the straw that broke all my love for the “sport.” Baltimore is likely going to be moving the Preakness over the loss of interest in horse racing and Pimlico getting closed down. That’s been news for years, so is not related at all to this - though I’m sure they aren’t happy with events either with no Triple Crown hopes bringing in more folks.
The sport is dying. This will probably accelerate it. Such is life.
^ I found that video pretty compelling. War of Will is the horse that should have been DQed. He tried to move up through a gap that didn’t exist, apparently fouling the horse to his immediate right and forcing a couple of other horses (including the declared winner Country House) farther outside—all while Maximum Security maintained his lane. When those horses tried to move back closer to the rail, it again forced War of Will farther in, behind Maximum Security–still in his lane. War of Will then charged right into Maximum Security, striking him once or twice in the leg and once apparently kneeing him in the groin. It was only at that point that Maximum Security suddenly changed lanes, apparently reacting to the kicks. His jockey, of course, couldn’t see any of this—after the race he said he thought the horse was spooked by the crowd noise. Under the circumstances, I think it’s pretty telling that War of Will’s jockey wasn’t the one complaining about a foul.
The stewards didn’t go far enough back in the video to see this whole chain of events.
This was a robbery. I’m sorry. It’s almost like the officials felt pressure to do something and quickly. Instead of rather than doing nothing.
Shows a lack of courage in the face of potential criticism. Everyone says they made a tough or brave call. Actually I think they caved.
And yes many mile races 5k and 10k longer distance races have jostling bumping and elbowing in the pack. You can’t judge a sprint with assigned lanes clearly marked for each. It’s a bad example and not comparable.
Just found this thread and happy that there’s a conversation on here about this. I’ve been following horse racing for years and watched the Derby live with my family. I was shocked by the DQ and immediately after watching the videos posted on social media following the race, thought there was no good reason to DQ Maximum Security. I haven’t wavered in that opinion.
Original opinion: Why disqualify the horse? The horse still thinks he won. The jockey, owners, and trainers take the blame. Saez no longer has won a Derby; the owners faced a multi-million dollar (in winnings, breeding, etc) blow; we are talking about a hugely impactful situation here. Discussing what “might have happened” seems to miss the point. I think the owners are completely justified in suing the racetrack, because they were basically robbed of millions of $$. And the jock is being unfairly penalized for safely and skillfully maneuvering a horse out of a difficult situation. The jock obviously did nothing to cause interference.
Opinion after watching the videos blaming War of Will: I think they present a strong case in favor of Maximum Security not being disqualified, but I don’t think WoW should be disqualified. To my knowledge the rules stipulate that a horse must cause an impediment that eliminates another horse’s chances of finishing better than they did. Since the owners and jock are only arguing that WoW impeded Maximum Security from behind, and MS finished first, I don’t think you can DQ WoW. Unless you were to argue with strong evidence that WoW caused the entire debacle, first interfering with MS which alone caused him to weave out and cut the 2 other horses out of the race, and I don’t think we know enough to make that call. Just reverse the call on MS and give the connections their well-earned money.
Overall, I kind of like the drama stirred up by this controversy and the attention it’s getting–much better than the bad publicity elicited by the recent rash of equine deaths at Santa Anita. I don’t think this incident alone is enough to “kill the sport.” Actually, in the circles I run in, no one who is seriously into horse racing is worried about that. Racing is a fairly insular community, and one that tends to live 50 years in the past, but if racing ever dies, believe me, it will die hard. It won’t fizzle out; in fact, the only way it will die in the modern age is if gov action forces a shut down. And I don’t think such a thing will happen, because the economic (and historic) interests are too great.
@Racingfan53 Regardless of the sport living or dying over the next few years, folks can know those stewards were rather inept and will go down in history as idiots. Unfortunately, since I agree that courts will not reverse any “sports” decision, they’ve changed history for the innocent who should be enjoying the time of their lives (racing-wise) and will never get the chance for repair.
@“Cardinal Fang” I agree with your assessment on safety…With all the horses dying at Santa Anita I would think that the Kentucky Derby would be erring on the side of safety …penalizing those horses/jockeys who do “illegal” things that can be dangerous to help prevent further occurrences in the future
@bopper - in light of the more extensive look of the race, are you saying you think they should DQ War of Will? Or are you agreeing with the bad call because the horse from behind causing the problem is ok, but a horse reacting to it is not?
Federal lawsuit filed by owners of Maximum Security. This might be more exciting than the race itself! ?
I understand your reasoning, @“Cardinal Fang” , but I think this situation is a little different. Good chance of restoring Maximum Security as the winner.