(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/05/1862/1048/AP19124837585902.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Country House was declared the winner of the 145th running of the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs on Saturday following “an inquiry ruling†and the disqualification of Maximum Security, officials said.
The disqualification marked "the first time in 145 years" that "the horse who finished first in the Kentucky Derby was disqualified," the official Twitter account for the sporting event said.
Country House was a 65-1 longshot in the race that included 18 other competitors. Maximum Security, who crossed the finish line first, was disqualified for interfering with the path of serveral horses....
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/country-house-declared-kentucky-derby-winner-after-inquiry-ruling-maximum-security-disqualified-officials-say (https://www.foxnews.com/sports/country-house-declared-kentucky-derby-winner-after-inquiry-ruling-maximum-security-disqualified-officials-say)
Someone made a killing at those 65:1 odds when the disqualification was announced.
President Donald Trump added his outrage on sunday to the national dustup over Saturday's controversial Kentuky Derby finish, complaining that disqualifying the apparent winning horse for interfering with another is a sign of 'political correctness' run amok.
'The Kentuky [sic] Derby decision was not a good one. It was a rough and tumble race on a wet and sloppy track, actually, a beautiful thing to watch,' Trump wrote on Twitter.
'Only in these days of political correctness could such an overturn occur. The best horse did NOT win the Kentucky Derby - not even close!'
Someone made a killing at those 65:1 odds when the disqualification was announced.
Mr. President, do you have to comment on EVERYTHING?Yes. Yes, he does.
Anyway...
This is the first time in any competition I have ever seen a winner declared who didn't actually win a game. Most sports, if they disqualify the winner, simply state there is no winner.
An Olympic silver medalist does not get the gold if the original gold medalist is DQ'ed.
If an NCAA sports team has all its wins wiped off the record, the losing teams don't get the benefit of having their losses wiped out.
In the NFL, heck, once that game is over, all results are final. You could get away with something totally illegal and the NFL will not overturn a game result, ever.
So why does horse racing do it? Country House placed in that race and was unaffected by the alleged rule violation; he would not have won had Maximum Security not committed the foul. So now that horse gets a win he didn't earn? That's garbage.
Should the first-place car be disqualified, the second-place car would become the winner of the event and receive all benefits (including the trophy) from the victory.
An Olympic silver medalist does not get the gold if the original gold medalist is DQ'ed.I believe they do. I have seen track meets - and I believe this includes the Olympics - where the winner later failed a drug test, so 2nd place received the gold medal.
I think that you will see a parallel in the latest NASCAR rules:
https://us.motorsport.com/nascar-cup/news/nascar-will-disqualify-race-winners/4332802/ (https://us.motorsport.com/nascar-cup/news/nascar-will-disqualify-race-winners/4332802/)
A day after the most controversial finish in the 145-year history of the Kentucky Derby, one thing seemed resolute, there was near unanimity among trainers that the stewards made the right decision to disqualify Maximum Security and award the victory to Country House.
[...]
“I absolutely, positively believe they were right in their decision,†Casse said. “If they made a mistake, it’s that they should have put an inquiry [sign] up. … If it were the last race, it would have taken about two minutes, if that long. Only reason it took so long is because it was the Kentucky Derby.â€
Many in horse racing agree with Maximum Security's disqualification at Kentucky Derby (https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-kentucky-derby-maximum-security-disqualified-20190505-story.html)
Lucas Aulbach, Louisville Courier Journal Published 8:02 a.m. ET May 6, 2019 | Updated 9:13 a.m. ET May 6, 2019
Two days after his horse finished first in the Kentucky Derby but was disqualified after an interference objection, Maximum Security owner Gary West said his horse will not run in the Preakness Stakes and that he plans to file an appeal with the state racing commission over the results of Saturday's race.
The appeal will be filed Monday, West said on NBC's "Today" show, though Kentucky Horse Racing Commission regulations say “findings of fact and determination shall be final and not subject to appeal.†West did not say whether he would file a lawsuit if the appeal is not accepted by the commission but hinted that it would be a possibility.
Maximum Security owner plans Kentucky Derby appeal, says disqualified horse won't run in Preakness (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/horses/triple/derby/2019/05/06/kentucky-derby-2019-maximum-security-appeal/1116132001/)
I believe they do. I have seen track meets - and I believe this includes the Olympics - where the winner later failed a drug test, so 2nd place received the gold medal.@mountaineer
I just saw an article that said Maximum Securities winning tickets would not be honored.@berdie
I actually do understand that. Who the heck keeps a losing ticket? How would a person prove it?
I just saw an article that said Maximum Securities winning tickets would not be honored.
I actually do understand that. Who the heck keeps a losing ticket? How would a person prove it?
Somewhere in Africa, children are wearing "Maximum Securities - 2019 Kentucky Derby Winner" T-Shirts.
@mountaineerThe question is one of whether the foul altered the finish. Considering the second place horse was on the outside and not offended, the horse offended was not able to keep up with the first horse over the line, Did the alleged foul alter the finish?
That actually happened in the 1968 Kentucky Derby. Dancer's Image won the race but was disqualified after he flunked a post-race drug test. (His people appealed in the courts for about four years to no avail, too.) Forward Pass was named the winner as a result.
By the way, folks, this is the written rule under which Maximum Security was disqualified:
If a leading horse or any other horse in a race swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause the same result, this action shall be deemed a foul . . . If, in the opinion of the stewards, a foul alters the finish of a race, an offending horse may be disqualified by the stewards.
How ironic. In a sport criticised so often for disregarding the safety of horses and their jockeys, a rule put into place to help secure that safety was broken and the horse breaking it disqualified.
Mr. President, shut your tweeter a moment and consider: The best doesn't always get to win, for various reasons. Just ask the 1954 Indians, the 1969 Orioles, and the 2001 Mariners, though their losses weren't for breaking any rules.
And even the best aren't immune to the rules. There were (and still are, though their ranks dwindle by the year) those who thought Pete Rose should have been given a pass from breaking baseball's written rules because they thought he was "the best" at his business, too. How did that work out for him?
The question is one of whether the foul altered the finish. Considering the second place horse was on the outside and not offended, the horse offended was not able to keep up with the first horse over the line, Did the alleged foul alter the finish?@Smokin Joe
How sad for Maximum Security.It was a muddy track and Maximum Security slid a bit to the outside. You mean they can control a horse to within inches of where it needs to be? Not a chance. Plus the jockey said the horse was spooked by the crowd and reacted. If it were intentional then that would be another thing....but it wasn't.
It was a muddy track and Maximum Security slid a bit to the outside. You mean they can control a horse to within inches of where it needs to be? Not a chance. Plus the jockey said the horse was spooked by the crowd and reacted. If it were intentional then that would be another thing....but it wasn't.Basically, that was what I saw as well, adjusting for sloppy track conditions, not a credible attempt to interfere with another horse, one which Maximum Security had passed, and which came in a few lengths behind.
Maximum Security was THE WINNER. Taking the win away was just a joke.
Basically, that was what I saw as well, adjusting for sloppy track conditions, not a credible attempt to interfere with another horse, one which Maximum Security had passed, and which came in a few lengths behind.
Maximum Security's fourth win prior to the Derby (he was, of course, 4-for-4 before the Derby) was in similar conditions in the 24 January Optional Claiming race at Gulfstream Park. He wasn't exactly a stranger to sloppy tracks and neither was his jockey.Run any horse around the same track on the same day and he won't step in the same place. Each event is different, for lots of reasons. This was a different track.