Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, Howard, I'm just not convinced of the legitimacy of the DQ.
Racing has never been, will never be, and can never be an exact science. Stuff happens. And has happened a zillion times before with no sanction. I saw no indication there that the jockey did anything deliberate in attempt to gain advantage. And, in the absence thereof, I believe the original order of finish should stand.
And that's not even considering the ripple effect of this decision on the sport's following for a good while to come. After this, who's gonna give a hoot about the Preakness or the Belmont? And next year....if a win can be stolen that arbitrarily, how many will ask themselves....why bother?
I agree.
The stewards didn't want to DQ, but given all the deaths at Santa Anita earlier in the year, they must have felt under pressure to do something. It's not like we haven't seen these incidents before.
There's another video out there, taken from another angle, that appears to show War Of Will caused the near collision and that's what caused MS to drift to the right.
Maybe that's why WOW's jockey didn't make an objection?
Who knows? Mr. West plans on taking it to the courts at this point.
The stewards didn't want to DQ, but given all the deaths at Santa Anita earlier in the year, they must have felt under pressure to do something. It's not like we haven't seen these incidents before.
There's another video out there, taken from another angle, that appears to show War Of Will caused the near collision and that's what caused MS to drift to the right.
Maybe that's why WOW's jockey didn't make an objection?
Who knows? Mr. West plans on taking it to the courts at this point.
Exactly. Routinely. Always have and always will.
Many have said that there were too many horses in the race and that it should have been postponed and run in better track conditions. I agree with both of those points. But it was run how and when it was run. And arbitrarily invalidating the race results will only throw salt into a wounded industry.
Thank you for posting that, Casey. Yes, it surely looks there like #7 reacted defensively to encroachment by #1.
Begs the question....what's really going on here? Is anything honest and fair anymore? Perhaps there is a sinister agenda or, as you suggested, the stewards just over-reacted due to the Santa Anita deaths. But even so, why not start sanctions with #1?
When the left leg of one horse is between the back legs of the horse in front of it (per news story or video) both the horses and the jockeys are in a danger zone and possibly headed for a serious injury.
I got tied up with a long phone call and no time ti do the math. I took Improbable for $2 and a 4-2-1 trifecta. $3 is cheaper than pop corn at a movie.
Plenty of good races before and after The Belmont Stakes.
I only wish Owendale could have finished second. He almost did. He was too far back (further back than I anticipated) and made a 7 wide move at the top of the stretch that cost him at least second place.
I probably should have stuck with my second choice, War Of Will.
Two exacta tickets and my place bets on Owendale went in the trash. But at least I salvaged the show.
Who knows if Maximum Security didn't interfere with War Of Will in the Derby we may be seeing a horse going for the Triple Crown in 3 weeks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.