All questions answered but one.
As I said in the prior post, I didn't have any problem with Maximum Security being disqualified -- in fact, it showed great courage on the part of the stewards and now the "first time" monkey is forever off their backs.
However, as a highly interested observer, I was baffled by how things went down post-race at Churchill Downs. Gradually, a more complete story has unfolded the past few days, as individual point of views are considered. My biggest puzzlements were:
1. The DQ situation all started because of the half-hearted "whatever" claim of foul by Flavian Prat, the jockey of second place finisher (and eventual official winner) Country House. And Country House, it turned out, wasn't even interfered with.
2. The second claim of foul was by Jon Court (trivia: oldest jockey ever in a Derby at 58yo), even though he was 16th on Long Range Toddy and 15th place if Maximum Security was DQ'd wouldn't have helped his situation, since purse money is only paid back to fifth place.
3. The jockey, Tyler Gaffalione, of the horse most interred with, War of Will, didn't claim foul, even though his horse was gearing up for a full run and ultimately finished a close eighth, despite the interference.
4. The stewards never posted the "Inquiry" sign. An inquiry means they're looking into something they saw during the running of the race, irrespective of whether any jockeys claimed foul. The fact that they didn't made it seem like nothing serious happened, and experienced race fans didn't have any reason to think the claims of foul by the jockeys would be upheld. Few jockey objections are allowed, unless the stewards also noticed a possible infraction during the running of the race. Think of an NFL football game. The referee sees an infraction and throws his yellow flag. The "Inquiry" sign in horse racing is like throwing a yellow flag, indicating that they think something happened and they're taking a look. That was the most baffling thing for me -- the stewards never posting the Inquiry sign on the tote board.
So, in the hours that have followed, a lot of facts have been unfolding that have clarified a lot of things. It's still very bizarre, but not so much when given each individual person's particular motivation.
A. Hall of Fame trainer Bill Mott, who had never won a Derby, had two horses in the race, Tacitus and Country House. Tacitus was considered the much, much better of the two. He was ridden by top rider Jose Ortiz, and was just gearing up for his best run at the top of the stretch, where he was clear the fracas but saw the interference. Tacitus finished fourth and upon jogging back to where trainer Mott was, Ortiz said of the winner, "His number has to come down" because of the near-disaster Ortiz witnessed. But since Tacitus wasn't in the vicinity of the trouble, it didn't make sense for Ortiz to claim foul. So, Mott told Prat on Country House to claim foul, since his horse was next to the ruckus, and that would move Country House and Tacitus into the first and third placings if the claim was upheld. That explains why Prat seemed so half-hearted -- almost apologetic -- while being interviewed while waiting for the stewards' ruling. It wasn't his idea and he knew his horse hadn't been bothered, though he would definitely benefit -- be declared the winner -- if the steward's agreed that a serious infraction had occurred.
B. Long Range Toddy was interfered with, but he ended up 16th, so even if the foul hadn't happened, it's a no brainer that he wouldn't have improved his position significantly, so a DQ wouldn't help him. But jockey Jon Court is said to have claimed foul only because Prat had -- ie, Court was aware that interference had indeed happened, and it likely seemed the right thing to do, even though there wasn't any benefit for himself. (A retired top jockey has said that he thought it was "low" of Court to claim foul when his horse finished badly enough that DQing the winner wouldn't matter to his situation.)
C. Tyler Gaffilione, on War of Will, told his trainer about the interference and they discussed claiming foul, but decided that being moved up from eighth to seventh wouldn't be of any benefit, so "why rain on someone else's parade?" In the days since, the trainer has said he didn't realize how bad the interference was -- inferring that if he'd realized War of Will had almost gone down, he would have had Gaffilione claim foul if only to emphasize the seriousness of the interference.
D. Even though they didn't post the Inquiry sign, the Stewards were looking at the race even before any of the jockeys claimed foul. For me, that was the most reassuring news. Still, I am baffled as to why they never posted the Inquiry sign to let the public know they were on it. Some are saying that at some tracks -- and particularly Churchill Downs -- the stewards often don't post the Inquiry sign, even though they're looking into the race. But I've yet to hear any explanation as to why this is so. What's the point of having an Inquiry sign if one isn't going to use it? That's the one last troubling question I have.
Of course, it isn't over, and despite his mild manner the first hours after the race, Maximum Security's owner is threatening to take it as far as he can through the court system.
If the stewards hadn't disqualified Maximum Security, I would have understood that, as well. The Kentucky Derby is notorious within the industry for lots of rough riding and banging around, and "anything goes". That's why, historically, very few riders have ever even attempted to claim foul. For those with that perspective, I got a chuckle out of Bob Baffert, as I think he put it best:
No one ever calls an objection in the Derby. It’s always a roughly run race. Twenty-horse field. I have been wiped out numerous times, but that is the Derby. I can see by the book why they did it. But sometimes you’ve got to take your ass-kickings with dignity.
Maximum Security kicked everybody's ass.
Comments