Derby Post-Mortem

Don't disagree with the disqualification, but still puzzling over the handling.

Leader Maximum Security drifted in front of War of Will, turning him sideways. Long Range Toddy (you can just see the top of his dark head and ears) is also affected. Country House, on the outside, isn't determined by the Stewards to be interfered with, but since he finished second, he's placed first when Maximum Security is disqualified and put seventeenth, since Maximum Security had to be placed behind Long Range Toddy (who finished farther back than War of Will), who placed sixteenth.

One of the three big longshots I bet was Long Range Toddy, but even though he was interfered with and forwardly placed until the foul happened, I wasn't expecting him to be able to remain forwardly placed through the stretch, so I don't feel like the incident cheated me out of anything. Therefore, I don't have a dog in the fight, so to speak, and am looking at the situation more from a philosophical standpoint.

The whole situation was puzzling from a variety of standpoints, and I'm not too happy with NBC's post-race coverage. They had at least a dozen reporters during the telecast, but they were so focused on fashion, celebrities, and drunks in the infield, that they apparently couldn't be bothered to run down the various jockeys to figure out who actually claimed foul, etc.

So, for me, as one dependent upon the NBC coverage to know what was happening while they were on the air, this is how this whole thing unfolded.

Maximum Security was being jogged back toward the winner's circle, with a jubilant first-time Derby winning jockey Luis Saez being interviewed. Then it was announced that Flavian Prat, jockey of second place finisher Country House, had lodged a claim for interference. Normally, jockey's claims are quickly dismissed, because if something serious happened during the race, the stewards usually saw it and immediately post the "inquiry" sign because they want to take another look at the film before declaring the race official. No such inquiry was posted. The interviewer, on her pony, asked Saez if he had any reason to think he caused interference, and he defensively said of his horse, "He's just a baby. He got spooked by the crowd, but I immediately took hold of him and straightened him out." Which indicated that something had indeed happened at the top of the stretch.

Prat had already dismounted, and when a microphone was put his face, he seemed shockingly nonchalant. Normally, jockeys who feel they were interfered with, especially in a big race, are screaming bloody murder, insisting they would have won otherwise, etc. But Prat just seemed sort of "whatever", like he had only half-heartedly claimed foul, and seemed to go back and forth on whether his horse was actually interfered with. So, it seemed a forgone conclusion that the race would be declared official, especially since there wasn't any mention of any other jockeys claiming foul.

But then the minutes dragged on. In looking at the top of the stretch footage over and over, the NBC analysts, including retired Hall of Fame jockey Jerry Bailey, concluded that Maximum Security definitely drifted out at the top of the stretch, but he was clearly the best horse, and Country House actually benefited from the interference to War of Will and Long Range Toddy. So, all the stranger to me -- though no one else mentioned it -- that no other jockeys were claiming foul (plus the Stewards didn't seem to have any problem with the race before Prat objected) -- and yet the "whatever" Prat did claim foul.

During the 20+ minutes following the race, Country House's trainer, Hall of Famer Bill Mott who had never won a Kentucky Derby, said, "The Stewards shouldn't treat this race any differently than any other race." Pretty much anyone would agree with that, but everyone in racing knows that there's a reason there's never been a disqualification for interference in the Kentucky Derby. With the large fields, of 20 horses or nearly so, and so much on the line, there's a lot more rough riding and bumping around than in any ordinary race, and most jockeys don't bother claiming foul, and the Stewards have historically not found anything serious enough, relatively speaking, to take issue with.

This time they did (after it was brought to their attention by Prat's claim of foul), and for the first time in history, the winner of the Kentucky Derby was disqualified for interference -- in this case, placed seventeenth, because Long Range Toddy finished sixteenth, but NBC never declared where Maximum Security was placed before the telecast ended. And while I don't quibble with the interference -- and it was sort of heartening to know that the three Stewards were willing to make that ultra tough decision to take down a favorite and put a 60-1 longshot as the winner instead -- I was astounded that a single half-hearted claim of foul could result in a horse being disqualified, when the riders of the horses most interfered with apparently didn't complain.

It took nearly two hours, but finally things started to make more sense. The Stewards came out with their official statement. They said they talked to "all the jockeys involved", and yet their statement only referenced Prat and the jockey of Long Range Toddy. They never mentioned the rider of War of Will, the horse who was turned nearly sideways by Maximum Security drifting in front of hm. So, as of Sunday morning, I'm still perplexed by that. War of Will and Long Range Toddy were both declared to be interfered with, and since the latter finished the worst of the subject group at sixteenth place, Maximum Security (who was otherwise undefeated) had to be placed behind him, and declared the 17th finisher of 19 horses. The stewards also concluded that second place finisher Country House was not interfered with, but since Maximum Security was placed 17th, that moved Country House up to be the winner.

So, considering the way people react to these types of things, especially at sporting events, I'm sure the stewards and Country Home's people will be receiving death threats, etc., which is unfortunate. Everybody feels bad for Maximum Security's people, and let's not even get started on all the bettors who thought they'd picked the correct horse, only to have their temporary fortunes lost. This was the first time, during the Derby winner's circle ceremony, that I've ever heard boos from the crowd.

There was one prior disqualification in the Kentucky Derby. That was in 1968, but it was due to a post-race urinalysis, so didn't happen until days after the race. And then the DQ was disputed in the courts for five years, but it finally stood for all time that the second place finisher was the official winner.

There is some talk of Maximum Security's people appealing the DQ, but it's not certain that an appeal is even legally possible. Even though the prevailing feeling seems to be that Maximum Security was the best horse in the race -- and none of the horses he interfered with would have overtaken him in the stretch -- there also seems to be strong agreement that his number had to come down, because he did indeed cause some serious interference. (In fact, many in racing are breathing a huge sigh of relief that War of Will stayed on his feet. He could have easily gone down, creating a catastrophic domino effect behind him. As is, most of the coverage of the Derby DQ by the general media has been with a refreshingly humorous slant.)

Of course, this race will be talked about for years to come, with everyone having an opinion. Most I've seen are from my horse racing game. One friend of mine, who has lived in Louisville all his 60 years, and had an uncle who trained horses at Churchill Downs, thought it likely the Saez purposely let Maximum Security drift in front of the others, to try to preserve his spot in front. I would think that was hogwash, except I had a "something is wrong with this picture" feeling when, for the second time, Saez ultra defensively said, "He's a baby. He spooked from the crowd." Okay. But while there was a crowd in the infield, there was a much larger crowd in the grandstand that was surely noisier. So, wouldn't the horse have spooked away from the grandstand, rather than toward the grandstand?

It's been pointed out that in other countries the DQ wouldn't have happened, because North America is the sport oddball that considers interference reason enough to take a horse's number down; while in other countries, the feeling has to be that the horse interfered with would have finished in front of the offending horse, had the foul not happened. So, many foreigners who bet the Derby are ultra pissed.

However, one of the fellow players in my horse racing game is a successful jockey in Australia. She has described herself as "fearless", but of the Derby she said:

As a jockey myself, I was horrified by the footage. I’ve been put in that same situation and it’s the only time I’ve ever been scared in a race. It was only the fact that Maximum Security kept his momentum up and sheer bloody luck that there wasn’t a terrible fall. Every jockey that could see or hear the situation would have stopped riding their race, if only momentarily. Given that it was the point when everyone wants to try to make a move, I have no doubt at all that it significantly impacted the outcome of the Derby. It’s extremely difficult for a horse to get a check and then get going again.

In any case, it was a fun day for me. I was betting the earlier races, and had three winners at high odds, plus second place finishers at high odds in two others. So, even with spending more money on the Derby than usual, and getting nothing back, I still came out nicely ahead. And witnessed history being made -- the first time ever that a horse's number was taken down for interference.