KY Derby 145---wanna know why horse racing is dying a slowwww death?

Question

Yeah....sour grapes. I had Maximum Security as my back up win and in exotrics with the CH and Code under him for less.

I remember my first Derby in, probably, 1961 as a little kid. I think Carry Back was the winner. My dad was a big horse player, so we were Derby centric.

This means I have watched 59 consecutive Kentucky Derby's. NEVER have I seen anything as egregious as the steward's call today.

I saw an interview with her on TVG a few days ago and thought that she didn't have a clue. Guess I was right.

The reaction of the crowd at the track was utter shock. With 90% of them annual track goers, not regulars like us, even they couldn't believe it. How many of them holding $2 Max tickets were disappointed that they couldn't feel good about having picked the Kentucky Derby winner?

This stupid act, which flies in the face of attendees,owners, trainers and those of us who are passionate about the game.... let alone the betting public..... it is a major reason I got out of the game as a horse owner of 15 years. IT STINKS!

it is all about the tracks making money......Churchill, the 1% of the one per centers, and FU to the rest of us. I ask, do you want to know why horse racing is a dying sport? You can point to May 4, 2019 for one of the reasons.

mikeyp1 · Answer

Yeah....sour grapes. I had Maximum Security as my back up win and in exotrics with the CH and Code under him for less.

I remember my first Derby in, probably, 1961 as a little kid. I think Carry Back was the winner. My dad was a big horse player, so we were Derby centric.

This means I have watched 59 consecutive Kentucky Derby's. NEVER have I seen anything as egregious as the steward's call today.

I saw an interview with her on TVG a few days ago and thought that she didn't have a clue. Guess I was right.

The reaction of the crowd at the track was utter shock. With 90% of them annual track goers, not regulars like us, even they couldn't believe it. How many of them holding $2 Max tickets were disappointed that they couldn't feel good about having picked the Kentucky Derby winner?

This stupid act, which flies in the face of attendees,owners, trainers and those of us who are passionate about the game.... let alone the betting public..... it is a major reason I got out of the game as a horse owner of 15 years. IT STINKS!

it is all about the tracks making money......Churchill, the 1% of the one per centers, and FU to the rest of us. I ask, do you want to know why horse racing is a dying sport? You can point to May 4, 2019 for one of the reasons.

mikeyp1 · Answer

I am reading on this forum about the impeding of Max.....They wouldn&#x27;t make that call at Yapavi Flats or Ruidoso Downs, let alone at Churchill. Anyone who knows anything about horse racing and has watch 1000&#x27;s of races as most of us have know that it was not impeding.

gambleholic63 · Answer

I think your first three words summed it up.

dcp1985 · Answer

I don&#x27;t know how you could say that he didn&#x27;t impede the 1 and the 18 horse with any degree of intellectual honesty.  I mean the 18 horse practically stopped in his tracks, and War of Will was making a serious move at the time it happened.  Did it affect the outcome?  Nobody will actually ever know.That being said, I posted in another thread that I have a huge philosophical problem with the way things went down.  The horses that were infringed upon didn&#x27;t actually protest, it was the 20 horse that wasn&#x27;t impeded, and obviously stood the most to gain that protested.  It was extremely grimy and underhanded, but at the same time it doesn&#x27;t diminish the infraction that Maximum Security made.I can&#x27;t disagree with you that it&#x27;s all about the tracks making money though.  Like most things in today&#x27;s world the greed and bottom line of whatever entity usually supersedes any consideration to the patrons that support it.  The whole concept of pari-mutuel betting is a farcical scam but that&#x27;s a rant for another day.  Did any nefarious factors like that play in to the decision?  I don&#x27;t have enough experience or knowledge to say, but the fact remains Maximum Security did impede those two horses.  It&#x27;s just a shame all around because he really did seem like the best horse in the race, probably would have won anyway, and now we&#x27;re stuck with a faux champion that nobody except its weasely connections can feel good about "winning".

bmiller1632 · Answer

Considering that track conditions and how tight the horses were in the mud that was horrific call by the stewards .. Maximum Security was robbed of a Kentucky Derby and jockey Luis Saez career will be stained for life

joe pockets · Answer

Bad call in my eyes.

bigred84 · Answer

He phucked the 1....I had the 8.....1  was going to run him over...He was locked n loaded..

mr_armchair_qb · Answer

Regardless, its the Kentucky derby with a field of 19 horses on a sloppy track, and their will always be bumping with a field that large. It was a terrible decision made by the stewards, and will be a black eye for the derby. To the uninformed, casual racing fan, the result is shocking and leaves a bad taste in their mouth, it also leaves them with a sinking feeling as their day was ruined with their horse being disqualified.

This race has been run for 145 years, never once, has the outcome been determined by the stewards. The worst point being the stewards themselves never launched the inquiry, it was the jockey on the 20 horse. He who had the most, to gain if perhaps the results of the race were reversed. The fact of the matter being, three individuals in power (The stewards) had the opportunity to make a decision that could impact the derby for years to come, and impact their fan base. They chose to take the route that would impact the sport and tarnish the race forever. During the most exciting 2 minutes in sports, Maximum Security led from start to finish and left no doubt in any spectators view he was clearly the winner. There was no significant reason to disqualify that horse on any given day, other than corporate greed, and taking the public's money. The decision was a disgrace, and as a horse racing fan I was truly disappointed.

djbrow · Answer

The reason Tyler did not object is because he faded when he straightened out meaning that the infraction, in the jockeys own eyes, did not change the outcome.

That is supposed to be how the rule is applied.

gold6185 · Answer

If you&#x27;ve watched or bet 1000&#x27;s of races-this ONE race shouldn&#x27;t be any more or less important then any other race. It&#x27;s the same as people who bet 10X their normal on the Super Bowl-when it shouldn&#x27;t be treated any differently then any other NFL game. Accept the results &amp; move on-end of story.

DoubleUp4Life · Answer

Looked very clear to me he impeded in real time ....I started jumping up and down when I saw the replay I thought NBC was way behind and foolish for congratulating Luis Saez .....

Midnight1 · Answer

I have seen much worse take place across the country &amp; changes were not made.&#xA;If Maximum Security goes in the Preakness, he&#x27;ll win again.

mikeyp1 · Answer

We all grieve in our own way

KY Derby 145---wanna know why horse racing is dying a slowwww death?

Hot Forum Topics