First Time In 145 Years That A Winner At The Kentucky Derby Has Been Disqualified

a reply to: Justoneman

So you think they disqualified this horse so they wouldn't have to pay wagers?

It is fairly common to disqualify horses for rubbing in lesser races.

The thing is, you cannot tell how purposeful it was on the jockey's part. And if you allow it in the derby, every jockey in a low stakes race is going to treat it like a demolition derby.

You have to punish rubbing, or it will be come how the sport is played. As in, "if you not cheating, you're not really trying."

a horse's instinct is to swerve in toward the rail. This horse rubbed on his right, which is trying to break up the pack and get the lead.

You allow this and you'll have Ben Hur within a decade.

a reply to: Graysen

watching the videos some of y'all have Kindly posted, I believe MS was losing the lead, and was either trained or jockeyed to put the pinch on that pack of horses. I think it did affect the horse that should have come in second. The horse on the outside benefited, and was declared the winner, when he would have finished 4th or 5th if the rubbing hadn't have happened.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Muddy track and the horse caused the interference, not the jockey.

Controversial call for sure 😎

Muddy is a nice way to call it...looks like a pond. The pink horse did swing in a good 8 feet into the green inside horse that was gaining, so one could say that the pink horse showed the momentum of the green, but in the final stretch all 4 horses were equal at that point with a good spread.

Derby stewards disqualified Maximum Security for interfering with hard-charging War of Will when both horses were approaching the top of the stretch, in turn causing War of Will to interfere with Long Range Toddy and in turn causing Long Range Toddy to interfere with Bodexpress, who then bumped slightly into 65-1 longshot Country House, who crossed the finished line second.

www.si.com...

Punish Rubbing? The only bump was a different horse.

This is good. Now any horse who even gets near another can be asked to be DQ'ed. If the horse hadn't been near me, my horse would have won.

Snowflakes.

edit:

Looks as though in the future, any horse who loses his lane needs to be DQ'ed. Fair is fair, right.

a reply to: ketsuko

Right before 22 seconds in you can see him switch leads. If you pause it at 22 seconds you can see him ending his stride on his right front foot. Its kind of neat to see that lead switch in slow motion because that right foot lingers in the air just a little longer and you can see his neck take just a little longer stride to make up for the lead switch.

I think he got tired of leading on his left, in fact I'm positive that he got tired because its to the horses advantage to lead on the inside foot while on a circle. That's why he veered off the circle, its not to his advantage at all to lead on the outside front foot.
You can also give a horse the command to switch leads with your feet but that obviously didn't happen in this case.

I wonder how they'll explain to him that he can't go switching leads and veering into other horses and almost causing an accident?

It would be interesting to know how fast they were traveling. Some say these derby horses have been clocked as high as 55 to 60 mph and that 40 to 45ish is a good average.

a reply to: Trucker1

The guys on the video were saying he is a fairly inexperienced horse. It's possible he made a mistake and just got excited or took a miscue from the jockey and switched up early like the turn was done. Between the excitement and tension of the race and the noise of the crowd, animals will do things. Heck, so will people when they're inexperienced.

They got it on video and it was a fair call. Beyond that, rules are rules.

As to a financial motive that's not true. The bets go into a pool and are paid out no matter who wins. But then I suppose people who don't understand it might be confused. Maybe read up on how the betting works?

Things like this happen all the time. It's interesting it's never happened at the Derby, but beyond that?

So the house is covered. Lots of people lost money.

Bettors who put down money on Maximum Security winning, placing or showing at the Derby lost $9 million, according to ESPN. Ed DeRosa of TwinSpires.com, the online wager service for Churchill Downs, says the winnings of the bets on Maximum Security that didn't pay out would have been $42 million, according to Scott Miller of The Action Network.

Link

edit:

And someone(s) made more money.

a reply to: roadgravel

Maximum Security was a 4-1 favorite, so a lot of people bet on him to be somewhere in the top, but that means none of his payouts were going to be all that big. So it's not like anyone lost a lot of money on any one bet.

Generally, favorites are favorites for a reason, and they usually are going to win, place, or show, and for that reason, they make popular bets. And also for that reason, you aren't taking him big money for betting on the favorite. Country House ... on the other hand was a massive longshot. If you want to make this a conspiracy you might start entertaining the idea that someone DQ'd Max Security to allow Country House to win and make a massive payout. That's a far more likely conspiracy.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: roadgravel

Maximum Security was a 4-1 favorite, so a lot of people bet on him to be somewhere in the top, but that means none of his payouts were going to be all that big. So it's not like anyone lost a lot of money on any one bet.

So why bet.

But then someone(s) made huge money at 65-1 to win.

Hopefully every race will be under review and horse DQ'ed.

a reply to: roadgravel

Because it's gambling.

Have you never bet on a horse or dog race before?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: roadgravel

Because it's gambling.

You do realize that it is a big deal to some people. People are willing to cheat in it.

It's OK. The snowflakes will try conquer racing also. I don't think the rich will let it happen though.

You win the debate.

a reply to: roadgravel

The people who bet on the correct horses got the money? You do understand that the percentage going to the "house" is the same no matter what?

So Maximum Security or whatever his/her name WON but somehow was placed in 5th place?

To me that's a clue the race was fixed based on wagers and payouts!

It's a shame in America to see such a traditional championship reduced to.. gambling & staging!

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Here’s a thought. Every time there’s a controversy like the hanging Chad in Florida. The stuff involved in gains value .

Since this is the first time in history that a horse was disqualified in the derby. It stands to the reason that the betting slips will be worth something in a little while .

Especially the bigger ones .

Sports memorabilia is at the top of collectibles . Nobody’s gonna make their money back but they could possibly get a little something,... something .

If you’ve got one of the slips save them. If you live next to a racetrack. ( especially Churchhill downs ) go raid the garbage . Lol

a reply to: shawmanfromny

That Horse would have been Declared Winner in a NASCAR Race . Too Many Horses in that Race . Crowed Field Caused this Disqualification Imo .

a reply to: Artesia

Clearly you have not a clue about how betting on horses works or the rules.

You're betting against everyone else betting. It's called parimutuel betting. The house gets a fixed percentage, so they don't care who wins. They did not get one dime extra as a result. You could not be more wrong.

The video explains it and proves the disqualification was justified. Horse racing has rules. You should learn about it before having an opinion on it. Go to a local track, it's a lot of fun and if you make small bets it costs no more than going out for dinner and you might just win more than you spend.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Exactly, the summer before my senior year in high school, a group of us used to hit the dog track for the afternoon matinee races because it was something different to do. We'd take $30. It was enough to get in and leave about $20 for betting. The game amongst ourselves was to see who could last the longest betting before we ran out of money. The goal was to make it through the afternoon without going broke.

$20 would make the $2 basic bet for slightly more than half the races, so you had to hit at least some of the time in order to last.

I recall one time we covered all the dogs in the race except two between the group of us, and there was somehow this massive wipeout. Amazingly, guess which two dogs finished the race? The two we hadn't bet on.

You quickly learned some things about reading a race form.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's one thing I miss being up here in Alaska. When I lived in Idaho I went to the local races all the time. I even had a two year winning streak once that netted me thousands. When I lived in the Seattle area I went to Longacres often. Sadly that track closed years ago.

When my wife an I would go out for an evening we would usually spend about $200, so we would replace that and instead go to the track with a $100 in each of our pockets. A long full day of entertainment for cheap and we generally went home with half the money still in our pockets.

Addicts should stay away though.

I'm not big on dog races. I don't like the whole kill them if they don't win part of that. I went a couple of times but after I found out about what they did with the dogs, I stopped.