Capper's Corner

Jump to Comments

We are one week removed from the Derby disqualification and I am shocked and appalled by the national media’s coverage to date.

In summary, the coverage has been geared towards spreading mis-information and falsehoods, and fanning the flames of controversy, rather than dedication to hard facts and focusing needed attention on the outdated rules of the sport.

With that stated, let’s take a look at my top complaints, while largely protecting the innocent (the offenders).

Lack of Focus on the Current Rules which were the basis for the Stewards Decision

What was Reported

Essentially, nothing on the rules of the sport have been a focus. While a few outlets called into question the general rules or made comments related to it in the context of the outcome of the race being altered, it’s fair to suggest that this area has been under-reported on, since the Derby fiasco unfolded.

Facts, Omissions, Clarifications, and Corrections Needed

I will address this in a subsequent post. We will look at the flaws of the current rule, and explain what needs to be done to remedy.

Claims of Inconsistent Disqualification Rules

What was reported

Multiple outlets claiming the Derby always contains a level of unacceptable bumping due to the crowded field, and no disqualifications have ever occurred.

Facts, Omissions, Clarifications, and Corrections Needed

Yes, it is true there are plenty of cases of bumping in the race, but it needs to be stated, that typically this bumping occurs in the first quarter mile of the race, and especially as the horses exit the starting gate. This is common and always accepted as normal.

What we are talking about here is:

1. A real rules infraction, whereby a horse moved out two paths and impeded other horses
2. And which occurred during a critical juncture of a race
3. With consequences to the impacted horses

Conflating – or somehow trying to link – the two types of infractions was incorrect.

Bettors Lost $42 Million

What was Reported

Multiple outlets spent 95% of an article reporting how the bettors who wagered on Maximum Security lost money. Only as a footnote, did they report that the beneficiaries were people who wagered on Country House.

Facts, Omissions, Clarifications, and Corrections Needed

Horse Racing uses a pari-mutuel wagering system. The track makes the same amount no matter who wins the race. To insinuate unfairly that people lost money is ludicrous. The betting public was unaffected by the change in terms of raw dollars won or lost. Yes, it is true, more people were impacted because of the larger volume of tickets on Maximum Security than Country House, but this was a result of the odds of each horse.

Also, note, CNN’s Coy Wire forgot to point out that people that wagered on Country house were the beneficiary’s.

With regard to non-pari-mutuel wagering, for example fixed odds futures bets that Casinos took, bettors were mostly helped with the disqualification. As the Westgate Sportsbook confirmed, the house went from a 5 figure gain to a 5 figure loss as a result of the disqualification.

Focus on the Process

What was Reported

Too much focus on the 20 minutes that it took the Stewards to come to their decision. Too much focus on which jockey’s lodged the objection.

Facts, Omissions, Clarifications, and Corrections Needed

As judge Chamberlain pointed out in my Cousin Vinny….”that is a clear, concise, well thought out argument —- OVER RULED !!”

Are you kidding me. The most controversial decision in all of horse racing and people are insanely focused on this level of minutia concerning the process?

Here is the short answer:

The Stewards were likely not all in agreement, and in took them awhile to get the last holdout on board, so that they could present a unified front to the public and appear unanimous.

The jockey of Country House did the correct thing in lodging the objection, even though he wasn’t affected by the infraction. He had the most to gain – in finishing 2^nd, he could get moved up to the win slot. The only way he could be sure the Stewards reviewed the race was to lodge an objection. Riders know that it is perceived “bad form” to lodge an objection in a key race such as the Derby, and he couldn’t take a chance that the other jockeys wouldn’t lodge the objection. So, he correctly, took matters into his own hands. In the case of War of Will, he was correct. His jockey did not claim foul. As the jock and the trainer pointed out post-race, they had nothing to gain, because they would only to move up one slot, from 8^th to 7^th.

Obsession with Country House as the Winner – When he was not affected by the infraction

What was Reported

One large outlet reported on the Sunday after the Derby, that they are not sure how Country House could be declared the winner when he clearly was not impeded by the infraction.

Facts, Omissions, Clarifications, and Corrections Needed

Maybe it was a mistake by the reporter, but, wow, really? If you are not aware that the 2^nd place finisher – by default – is placed “first” if the winner gets disqualified, then we have serious issues.

Focus on Presidential Tweets

What was Reported

About 15 to 25% of articles written post-Derby made some reference to the Presidential tweets claiming Maximum Security shouldn’t have been disqualified. Some even went the step further to reference the tweet in bolstering their position that the DQ was not justified.

Facts, Omissions, Clarifications, and Corrections Needed

I am not sure how a journalist could quote a neophyte, laymen, or any politician with no industry knowledge or with no established basis in fact or credibility in regards to the matter or subject at hand. All these people did, was try to fan the flames of controversy, and they should be ashamed of their decision to reference the tweet.

Focus on One Trainer’s Comments

What was Reported

Several outlets referenced Bob Baffert’s dissent with the Stewards decision.

Facts, Omissions, Clarifications, and Corrections Needed

Baffert’s opinion was in the minority of the trainer community. Approximately 80-90% of trainers agreed with the decision, or at least were okay with the decision – and largely understood the merits to which the Stewards applied the rule and arrived at their decision. They should have made reference in their articles that his opinion was not majority.

My slant —- Consider the source —- Bob Baffert is notorious for wanting results to stand, as his jockeys sometimes push the limits of the rules. We all remember Bayern’s 2014 Breeders Cup Classic antics, cutting off 3 horses in that race to be the lone speed of the race. And, it was only last year, when Baffert sent out a hopeless longshot – ironically named Restoring Hope – in last year’s Belmont Stakes to be the lead blocker for Justify, and keep the competition away from him in the early stages of the race.