Re: Derby DQ and the rules (610 Views)
Posted by:
P-Dub (IP Logged)
Date: May 05, 2019 01:05AM
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am posting this to a thread that was posted
> eighteen months ago, but that might be interesting
> to revisit in the current context. As I
> understand the international rule, Maximum
> Security would not have come down unless the foul
> affected a horse (according to the stewards, Long
> Range Toddy and/or Bodexpress in this case) that
> would have finished ahead of him. The most common
> rule in the US requires only that the foul must
> have cost the fouled horse a placing. The
> Thoroughbred Idea Foundation are pushing for
> adoption of the international rule:
>
> https://racingthinktank.com/reports/tif-reports-ch
> anging-rules
>
> I like the idea of having more things decided on
> the track and fewer decided in the stewards'
> booth. There are ways other than disqualification
> to deal with fouls.
>
> Disclosure: I lost an inconsequential amount of
> money because of the DQ, but tend to agree that,
> under the current rules, it was the correct call.
The stewards said the #1 was impacted.
"We had a lengthy review of the race, interviewed affected riders and determined that the seven horse drifted out and impacted the number 1, who in turn interfered with the 18 and 21. Those horses were all affected."
One can make the case that the #1 had a chance to possibly finish ahead of the #7
P-Dub