In the 2014 Breeders Cup Classic, Bob Baffert’s colt Bayern took a left turn out of the gate directly into the lane of the favorite, Shared Belief. It was a clear and obvious foul. Shared Belief and Mike Smith were lucky not to go down. Despite being nearly wiped out at the start, Shared Belief finished fourth beaten 4 lengths.
Bayern won the race.
And kept the race.
In the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs on Saturday, Maximum Security, who showed himself to the world to be much the best horse in the field of twenty, was disqualified for causing interference to two horses that finished off the board. One that finished eighth, and one that finished sixteenth.
After reviewing the race, the Churchill Downs stewards followed and enforced the rules as they are currently written. But only in America could Maximum Security have been disqualified in this manner.
The question is – are the rules fair? Was a legitimate, courageous and gallant Kentucky Derby winner stripped unreasonably of a famous victory in America’s greatest race? In every other racing jurisdiction in the world, the stewards are allowed to use their intelligence and discretion to decide whether the placings of the first four horses would be any different, had interference not taken place.
In the case of Maximum Security, the second horse past the post, Country House, had every chance to get by him. But couldn’t. As his rider said on national TV, the interference to Country House was really nothing to him. He had a clean trip and every chance coming down the lane. The third horse past the post, Code of Honor, was not involved and would not have been any closer and the same can be said for the fourth past the post, Tacitus. And War of Will, who was impeded, might have been sixth or perhaps fifth at the very best.
The stewards in any other country would deem that the best horse on merit passed the post first in the Kentucky Derby. And that the second, third and fourth horse – and all the other horses – would still not have finished in front of Maximum Security if the interference had not taken place. Thus they would have ruled “no change”.
Which seems like a fair and reasonable result, and the right thing to do – given the winner’s clear superiority.
Now, there are some who are saying that Luis Saez could have caused an accident and that it was a dangerous situation. Of course it was a dangerous situation. Any horse race, especially one with 20 runners, is a dangerous situation. And interference took place. But was Saez careless or negligent on Maximum Security? Or reckless? Or was it Maximum Security himself who decided to change paths?
As the horses rounded the turn, on a horrible track that was a quagmire of miniature puddles and ponds and the roar of the crowd hit the field head on, Maximum Security drifted out and impeded War of Will. Was this due to reckless or dangerous riding by Saez? No. In the world of motor sport, it would have been called “a racing incident”, i.e. simply a situation that sometimes comes with the territory. Luis Saez was not guilty of reckless riding, and corrected Maximum Security as soon as he was able. And while there was interference, there was no interference that changed the positions of the first four horses home.
So why did the stewards DQ Maximum Security? Purely and simply because there was interference. And the rules currently say if a horse causes interference with another horse, he must be disqualified and placed behind the horse he interfered with.
America’s rules in this area need to come into line with the rest of the sensible world. Where stewards here in the USA could and would have the right to use their reasonable discretion, weigh up the cause, effect, degree of the interference, take into account whether it was intentional or accidental, and decide if it altered the finish position of the first four home.
Just like they did when they decided to let Bayern kept the Breeders Cup Classic..