OK horse racing fans

For all the talk on this thread about the need to protect the horses’ safety—a laudable goal, to be sure—the rule under which Maximum Security was DQed says nothing about safety. It’s a foul to “interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey.” In short, it’s all about impairing another horse’s chances of winning or improving its finishing position.

If they were concerned about the safety of horses and jockeys, the managers of the Kentucky Derby would not have allowed such a large field. With that many horses, it’s almost inevitable that there will be some bumping and jostling as jockeys battle to create a clear path. That’s what War of Will did when, hemmed in by horses to his right and Maximum Security running in a straight line ahead of him, he first attempted to nudge the horses to his right farther outside, away from the rail, and then, failing that, ran straight into Maximum Security ahead of him, fouling him several times. It was only at that point that Maximum Security left his lane, apparently to get away from being kicked from behind. Apparently a complaint of interference was also filed against War of Will but never investigated, and the stewards didn’t even bother to talk to the jockey who filed the complaint against War of Will even though the stewards said his horse had been interfered with.

Since when is horse racing protected by the constitution? And if they did reverse the decision, they’d have some very crazed people who bet on the race at the track. What a mess.

Read more here: https://www.kentucky.com/sports/horses/kentucky-derby/article230422669.html#storylink=cpy

Mess is an understatement.

At least it gives the stewards their just rewards going down in history as the folks who incorrectly caused it all.

Try to get back my 65 to 1, 10 dollar bet. Lol.

I know nothing about racing, but I was rooting for the horse who decided he didn’t need a jockey to race in the Preakness (Bodexpress).

Me too!

Me three!! Amazing how he stayed with the pack!

Wasn’t that the “cutest” thing? Who’s a good horse?? LOL.

It should be easier to run without having to carry a person on your back. Sometimes riderless horses finish first.
https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2013/06/28/Riderless-horse-wins-race-at-Belmont/1291372427714/

I found the Preakness result highly interesting in light of the opinions I’ve read in various places that the horses interfered with in the Derby were no-hopers with no chance to win. The Belmont should be interesting.

I also think that the owner is making a complete ass of himself. He’s become an embarrassment to all.