The 2019 Kentucky Derby: What The Hell Just Happened?

There is only one time each year when people seem to care about my horse racing picks and that is the first Saturday in May.  Is it because I have some awesome track record when it comes to the Kentucky Derby?  Well no.  The first Derby I can remember handicapping was in 1987, so that means  I've made picks for the last 33 years.  Here is my complete list of winning tickets that I've cashed during that time:

• 1997: My first winner as Silver Charm holds off Captain Bodgit and Free House.  My top 3 picks finish 1-3-2, meaning my three-horse exacta box and trifecta box plays are paying for dinner.
• 2011: The dream comes true.  When Animal Kingdom crosses the finish line first with Nehro and Mucho Macho Man behind him, not only have I hit the trifecta cold with my top three picks, but I crushed it with a 20-1 shot on top.  The 14-year drought since Silver Charm is over.  How long will it be before I knock another Kentucky Derby out of the park like I did in 2011?  Spoiler: More than 8 years.  Probably way more than 8 years.
• 2015: I believe American Pharoah is best, but I try to beat him with Firing Line, choosing him as a bit of a price.  Almost works out, but Pharoah is just too tough in the end.  With Dortmund being the only other horse in the race that I like, I go with some three-horse boxes again and make out alright, despite not choosing the correct winner.
• 2018: Another future Triple Crown winner that I tried to beat.  Audible was my choice in an attempt for value, but I also used the obvious Justify on top of my exactas and trifectas.  On the bottom of those tickets, I used Good Magic and a few prices.  Nothing sexy, but it makes up for all the lousy bets I made on the undercard.

To recap: 33 years, 2 winners on top, 4 exactas, 4 trifectas.  (Sick brag!)  So why do friends and family even bother asking me for picks when the Derby comes around each year?  Because I'm the only guy they know who follows horse racing all the time.  Not only do I watch hundreds of races each week, I'm passionate when I talk about the game and, from what I've been told, I do a decent job of explaining horse racing concepts in a way that non-horse racing folks can relate to.

That last part is the reason I've decided to write this blog post.  Maybe this will develop into a thing.  Maybe it won't.  But after all of the controversy following Saturday's Kentucky Derby, I felt there was a need to try and explain what happened.  The horse racing industry is dealing with a lot of issues currently and poor communication ranks right up there.  The inability to explain why everything happened the way it did in the aftermath of the first-ever on-track disqualification of a Derby winner was disappointing to say the least.  So I'm going to do my best to explain what happened Saturday in as objective of a way as I can.  Fair warning though: there's a lot of ground to cover.

(Note: This post is going to be peppered with NFL analogies that will be far from perfect.  I've never met anyone who had really good analogies and I'm no different.  But I do think there is a lot that went on yesterday that is relatable to controversies in America's most popular sport.)

Okay, let's get into it:

That was total bullshit yesterday!  The best horse got screwed.  His connections were robbed.  ESPN reported that those who bet on Maximum Security lost $9 million!  Where did that money go?  Probably to the stewards who took him down.  Bumping goes on all the time and they don't do anything, but when I'm about to cash a huge trifecta, they suddenly DQ the horse.  I'm never betting on horse racing again!

Wow, we're just diving right into the deep end here.  As someone who bets on horse racing all the time, I get it.  There's nothing worse than landing on a winner and having it taken down.  And when it happens in a big race like this where the payouts could be astronomical, then I certainly understand why people would be pissed.  I can't even fathom how jockey Luis Saez, trainer Jason Servis, and owners Gary and Mary West must have felt Saturday night.  But was it the right call?

Did the winner (Maximum Security) commit a a foul on the far turn of the Kentucky Derby?

As more replays have been made available in the 24 hours since the running of the race, I think there has been more consensus on this basic question.  Here is a link to the incident on the far turn tweeted out by handicapper Scott Carson.  Did Maximum Security drift out several paths and impede a handful of his opponents?  That video seems to confirm that he did.

Is that enough to merit a disqualification?

While all jurisdictions don't have the same rules regarding what constitutes a disqualifiable offense (yet another horse racing issue), the general rule of thumb in the US is that if you interfere with another horse and cost them a placing, then a foul has been committed.  For example, let's say a horse who would have finished second gets bothered by an opponent and ends up third.  If the horse that bothered him won the race, the offending horse would be disqualified and placed behind the horse he interfered with.  So in that example, the horse that was interfered with would move up to second and the disqualified horse would get dropped down to third.

We've gone over whether Maximum Security impeded his opponents.  That leaves the question of whether he cost them a placing.  There are 5 other horses that were affected by Maximum Security's zig-zag course around the far turn.  They were:

• #1 War of Will - He is the horse that Maximum Security makes contact with
• #18 Long Range Toddy - He is the horse that War of Will bumps into after Maximum Security comes over
• #21 Bodexpress - He is the horse that Long Range Toddy bumps into after Maximum Security comes over
• #20 Country House - He is the horse furthest to the outside
• #13 Code of Honor - After Maximum Security floats out, he then darts to the inside towards Code of Honor, who is skimming the rail

I'll address these from least controversial to most controversial:

• #20 Country House - He was mildly affected, if you can even say that.  Haven't heard anyone other than jockey Flavien Prat claim that he was cost a placing.  And even Prat seemed gun-shy about making that case when interviewed on live TV.
• #13 Code of Honor - While all of the focus was on the horses that Maximum Security affected when he made a right on the far turn, there wasn't as much focus on what happened when Maximum Security attempted to straighten out.  He swerved all the way back to the left, nearly running into Code of Honor, who was on the rail at this stage.  Certainly a dangerous move.  Code of Honor was surging up towards the lead when this happened, leading some on social media to question whether this was an infraction.
• #21 Bodexpress - He definitely checks (horse-speak for "jams on the breaks"), but it looks like he was starting to back out of the race.  Didn't hear too many people on social media make the case that the incident cost him a placing (although there were 3 important folks at Churchill Downs who felt like it did).
• #18 Long Range Toddy - He checks sharply, but like Bodexpress, may have been about to call it a day.  His jockey certainly felt like it cost him a placing though, a key development for how this all ends.
• #1 War of Will - He takes the worst of it and after watching replays, it is a miracle that he doesn't fall.  The horse continues on, finally succumbing at around the 1/16th pole (6-7 seconds from the finish line).  Late in the race, he's alongside Code of Honor battling for 3rd, but 2-4 horses (depending on your point of view) go by him in the final few strides before the wire.

Remember, the question here isn't "did Maximum Security cost another horse the chance to win?"  The question is "did Maximum Security cost another horse a placing?"  Country House is a no.  If you held a vote on the others, I'm guessing that Code of Honor and Bodexpress would probably end up as a no as well.  Long Range Toddy is definitely the trickiest of the group.  If you're certain that he is fading at that point, it likely didn't cost him a placing.  If you're not certain of that, then his sharp check definitely cost him a placing.

That brings us to War of Will.  I've talked to some folks who said he was also done when the incident took place, but the fact that he is still battling for 3rd at the 1/16th pole weakens that argument.  Did checking and jumping over (through?) Maximum Security's legs on the turn cost him 4th, 5th, 6th, or 7th at the very end of the race?  Seems more likely than not.

Fine, let's say I buy all of this and you disqualify the horse that was best.  How is he not second now?  If you're saying War of Will would have won without that interference, why wasn't he placed first?  Or leave Maximum Security first and put War of Will second, fourth, sixth...or wherever he would have finished?  On what planet does it make sense to give the roses to Country House, a horse who wasn't bothered at all and couldn't get by the winner?

The current rule regarding how horses are placed after a disqualification is similar in nature to how the NFL determines where to place the football after a penalty.  Are you ready for an imperfect analogy?  Strap in kids!

Imperfect NFL Analogy #1: You're watching a game and your team has the ball on their own 30 yard line.  The QB turns and hands the ball to the running back.  He sweeps to the right, breaks a few tackles, busts free, and runs 70 yards for a touchdown.  You're celebrating because not only has your team tied the game, but also because that dude just got you 13 points for your fantasy football team as well.  Life is good.  Then you see the dreaded yellow graphic appear on the screen.  FLAG.  Offensive holding has been called.  They show a replay of the left guard grabbing hold of a linebacker.  Was that defensive guy going to be able to get across the field and tackle the runner heading up the right sideline?  Hard to say.

But the rule in horse racing in terms of "where you place the ball after a penalty" is very similar: look at where the foul took place and go back from there.  In the football example, if the holding penalty took place at the 35 yard line, then the refs would bring the ball back there before walking off 10 yards for the holding penalty.  The result: replay the down from the 25 yard line.  They wouldn't look at where the play finished and then penalize 10 yards from there, putting the ball at the 10 yard line.  (Derby equivalent: Maximum Security finished first, penalize him 1 spot for clearly fouling 1 horse, that being War of Will, and put him second.)  They also wouldn't estimate where the defender who was held might have made the tackle (40 yard line?  50 yard line?) and place the ball there.  (Derby equivalent: Move War of Will to whatever placing you estimate he would have finished without interference.)  Because you can't "replay the down" in horse racing, you look at where the fouled party/parties placed and go back from there.  The stewards determined that Maximum Security fouled War of Will (8th), Bodexpress (14th), and Long Range Toddy (17th).  Everyone in the race from Long Range Toddy forward moves up a spot after the DQ, while Maximum Security goes behind Long Range Toddy, making him the new 17th place finisher.  A severe punishment to the horse who was almost certainly best, but based on the current rules, this is where he has to be placed if the stewards determined he fouled Long Range Toddy.

Why do you keep saying "current rules"?  Are new rules on the way?  Can we implement them retroactively so that I can cash this trifecta ticket I almost ripped up?

After this controversy, new rules are probably on the way.  At the very least, they are going to be discussed in earnest.  But no, they won't be retroactive.  You can rip up that ticket now.  You also might not want to read the next part, because you're gonna be furious again.

In international racing, the standard for a disqualification is much tougher to meet.  Those rules state that if "the sufferer would not have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference, the judge's placings will remain unaltered".  Most people in horse racing believe that Maximum Security would have remained your winner using this standard.  (My take: I'm not sure that you can definitively say that War of Will would have lost if no interference took place, but I recognize that I'm in the minority on this one.)

This ain't my first rodeo.  I've watched plenty of Derbies.  There's always bumping.  I bet Mendelssohn last year and he got clobbered at the start of the race.  No DQ there!  What gives?

It's true, there are horses crashing into each other at the start of every Derby and the stewards almost never disqualify anyone as a result.  In fact, stewards rarely disqualify horses in any race due to infractions that are committed just after the gates open.  You may have heard the name Bayern in the last 48 hours and with good reason.  In the 2014 Breeders Cup Classic, Bayern made a left turn out of the gate, wiping out the other horses in the race who had early speed.  He was then able to dictate the pace, just holding on late to win one of the world's richest races.  The inquiry sign went up and there was a long delay, just like there was on Saturday.  But Bayern wasn't taken down.  The stewards ruled that the horses who checked at the start had the rest of the race to improve their position and simply did not.  A similar case has been made against War of Will in this year's Derby, as many have said he had the entirety of the stretch to recover and pass Maximum Security, but he did not.  Reasonable folks can reach different conclusions.  But in case you are worried that every Derby is now going to end with an objection or an inquiry followed by a 20-minute delay, keep in mind imperfect NFL analogy #2:

Imperfect NFL Analogy #2:  Bumping in horse racing is like offensive holding.  You can argue that it takes place on every play, but officials are reluctant to call it unless it is egregious.

The incident on the far turn of the Derby didn't look that egregious to me.

Above I listed 5 horses that were involved in some way in the incident.  Had War of Will fallen, that number likely shoots up into the 8-12 range.  That's about as egregious as it gets.  No matter where you fall on the question of disqualification, the incident had to be reviewed.

You mentioned objections and inquiries.  What's the difference between those two?  On the NBC broadcast, they mentioned that the rider of Country House had lodged an objection against Maximum Security, but it looked like he wasn't bothered.

Imperfect NFL Analogy #3: An objection is similar to when a coach throws the challenge flag for a review.  An inquiry is more like a booth review.  Let's say a couple of horses are running down the stretch and one suddenly checks, giving his rival an easy win.  In a situation like this, you will often see both an objection and an inquiry.

So are we just talking semantics?  No, and the distinction is pretty important when it comes to this year's Derby.  If you watched the broadcast, you would have thought that there was only one objection in the race, that from the rider of the runner-up.  But a few hours later, we learned that there were two objections: one from the jockey on Country House and one from the jockey on Long Range Toddy.  The first objection was disallowed.  The second objection was upheld, which is how Maximum Security ended up 17th.

Why didn't the jockey on War of Will object?  He took the worst of it.  If he didn't object, no one should have!

This was one of the biggest questions after the Derby and the answers given by the trainer of War of Will (Mark Casse) were not particularly satisfying:

• He mentioned that jockey Tyler Gaffalione was shaken up after the race, thinking that he was definitely about to go down when Maximum Security crossed over into his path.  I get it.  Maybe he wasn't in the greatest state of mind post-race.  Certainly understandable.
• Casse mentioned that he and Gaffalione spoke about objecting, but that they didn't see much benefit in trying to move up from 8th to 7th.  Makes some sense, but there are other stakeholders involved here that seem to have been forgotten about.
• Casse also brought up that he is friends with the trainer of Maximum Security (Jason Servis) and didn't want to ruin the greatest accomplishment of his life.  The relationship between the two trainers should not have any bearing on whether an objection is lodged.  Definitely problematic.  Good thing the stewards can launch an inquiry into the incident on their own.

NBC didn't mention anything about a stewards' inquiry.

That's because there wasn't one and that was a massive failure on the part of the stewards.  They are the referees in our sport and somehow they missed a major incident that took place on the lead of the biggest race in the US as the horses were nearing the top of the stretch.  If they missed something that happened further back in the pack, you might understand.  But this involved the leaders!  How could they have missed something so obvious when horse racing Twitter was blowing up about it right after the horses crossed the finish line?

The answer: They probably didn't miss it.  It's more likely that they wanted to avoid a DQ at all costs.  Stewards are like referees in any other sport: They generally want to stay invisible because if they become the story, it's no bueno.  Once the jockey objections came in, they were forced to look at the incident, knowing that a disqualification in the Derby was going to result in chaos.  That being said, it's their job to make difficult calls like this.  They had an obligation to at least initiate the review via an inquiry, even if they decided not to take action in the end.  Mark Casse can subjectively decide whether an objection is warranted by his relationship with the other connections, but the stewards are meant to be the objective fail-safe in situations like this.

(Another huge fail from the stewards: A couple hours after the Derby, they held a press conference where they read a statement explaining how they came to their decision.  This is where it was first revealed that the jockey on Long Range Toddy had lodged an objection.  They declined to take any questions after reading the statement.  Poor communication in horse racing is a very big problem.)

This is the Kentucky Derby.  It is the Catalina Wine Mixer of horse racing.  There shouldn't be any disqualifications.

This was another popular take on the situation.  And I know folks who feel this way across all sports.  You can't let the refs decide the Super Bowl!  You can't make that call this late in the game!  Just let them play!  To paraphrase from the novel Animal Farm, their view is that all moments are equal, but some moments are more equal than others.  (I read books once upon a time.  True story.)  This debate came up at this year's Final Four when a foul was called against Auburn with less than a second left in the game.  A shooter from Virginia attempted a game-winning three-pointer and the defender made contact with him.  Should the rules be applied consistently, no matter how crucial the moment is?

My opinion: I generally feel that the rules should be enforced consistently no matter the moment, but in horse racing, there is a greater importance for doing so.  If the rules aren't enforced, then we create an incentive for jockeys to make moves that risk the safety of other horses/jockeys in the race.  The sport just went through a horrific period where nearly two dozen horses were lost at the Santa Anita meet.  The industry was called out on how much they truly cared about horse safety.  Creating a situation where disqualifications only occur if a horse goes down sends the message that horse safety in not a priority for the industry.

The day before the Derby, they ran the Oaks, the race where the 3-year-old fillies take center stage.  Early in the race, Jaywalk, the 2-year-old champion from last year, came over into the path of Positive Spirit, a 44-1 longshot, causing that horse to clip heels and fall to the ground.  After the race, Jaywalk was disqualified.  I haven't heard a single complaint about that ruling.  Guessing it's partly because Jaywalk didn't win and partly because most people didn't know that the disqualification took place.  If War of Will had fallen in the Derby, then the disqualification of Maximum Security would have been a given.  But having a horse and jockey go down should not be the threshold.  We can't have a system where jockeys are toeing that line in order to win major races.

Imperfect NFL Analogy #4: The NFL now issues personal fouls in situations where the safety of a player is threatened.  You can't launch into a defenseless player.  A chop block will get you 15 yards.  Breathing on Tom Brady is a personal foul.  The safety of the players has become paramount and the rules are set up to reflect that.  Horse racing's rules have to reflect that the safety of our players is of the utmost importance.

So you're telling me that if one of Bob Baffert's horses had won, the stewards would have disqualified him like they did Jason Servis?

I am definitely not telling you that.

Imperfect NFL Analogy #5: Did you not just read what I wrote about breathing on Tom Brady?  The superstars in almost every sport seem to get more than their fair share of calls.  Horse racing is no different.  I couldn't tell you for certain whether Baffert would have been treated in the same way that Servis was.  All I can tell you is that he trained Bayern and that horse is somehow a Breeders Cup Classic champion.

How do I know the fix wasn't in?  ESPN said $9 million was lost and I heard the stewards were eating at Jeff Ruby's on Saturday night.  Coincidence?  I think not.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves.  Horse racing is guilty of communicating poorly, but media coverage of horse racing leaves a lot to be desired as well.  Here is the link to the ESPN article being referenced.  Betting on a race at the track and betting futures at a casino are two completely different types of betting.  As you can see at the end of the article, casinos have a rooting interest in which horse wins based on the future bets they have taken.  They use a fixed odds system.  If it says 20-1 on the board when you make a futures bet, you get 20-1.  When casinos set the line, they are hoping that an equal amount is wagered on each side of the line.  In that ideal situation, they will simply make their commission no matter who wins.  If the betting is lopsided in a given direction, then the house could end up losing money.  Hence, they prefer one outcome over another.

American horse racing uses a pari-mutuel system.  Each of the bets you can make (win, exacta, daily double, etc.) has a certain takeout rate.  Ever played poker in a casino before?  Notice how the dealer takes a small amount out of each pot and sets it aside for the house.  That's the rake.  If Worm from Rounders was a handicapper, he'd tell you that in the horse racing game of life, takeout is the rake.  (Or something like that.)  Just as the poker dealer could care less who wins the hand in progress, the track isn't worried about whether the 4-1 shot or the 65-1 finishes first.  They get their percentage up front.  You are competing against the other bettors at the race track, just like you're playing against the other folks seated around the table when you're in a poker room.  You're not competing against the house (even if it feels that way sometimes).

The article references that futures pools and pari-mutuel pools are separate, but it fails to explain the differences between the two pools.  By starting the article with the idea that bettors lost millions of dollars and then ending it with talk of the house winning or losing, it paints a picture that the track could have a vested interest in which horses win or lose.  And when a controversial disqualification takes place, it ratchets up wild conspiracy theories about the fix being in.  Nothing drives players away like the feeling that the game is rigged.  Horse racing has a responsibility to show that is not the case.  They should call out the media when sloppy articles like this one are published.

I did warn you at the beginning that there was a lot to unpack here, but you've finally reached the end.  I tried to cover all of the topics that seemed to hit the forefront over the last 48 hours.  There are those that will characterize this controversy as though it is a blemish on our signature event.  I don't see it that way.  This feels like an opportunity to me.  Horse racing is now under the spotlight and the industry needs to step up and make long overdue improvements.  I hope to be part of that effort in some capacity, even if it's simply explaining to friends and family what the hell happened in this year's Kentucky Derby.