Kentucky Derby controversial ruling

[Big John]

Maximum Security had apparently won the race. But after an objection had been filed, he was eventually brought down to 17th position by review that he blocked the path of another horse, and that 65-1 longshot Country House was declared the winner.  Odd also that Country House's path was not blocked.

Makes other sports reviews look tame in comparison.

[Alps]

The interesting finding was that the owner who brought the complaint, his horse was not really affected by it, but several others were. Country House stayed clean to the outside and thus won as a result. Had Maximum Security run properly, Country House would have been toward the back of the pack in likelihood.

[jakeroot]

Not a lot of support for the final outcome in my family, except for Maximum Security getting that DQ. Country House may very well have benefited from Maximum Security's wanderings, with those other front-runners getting held back. No real winning today.

[thspfc]

Maximum Security definitely impeded War of Will, but it didn't change the outcome of the race, most likely. I didn't like the ruling, but I watch 1 horse race per year so my opinion doesn't matter.

[mgk920]

Maximum Security had apparently won the race. But after an objection had been filed, he was eventually brought down to 17th position by review that he blocked the path of another horse, and that 65-1 longshot Country House was declared the winner.  Odd also that Country House's path was not blocked.

Makes other sports reviews look tame in comparison.

MASSIVE amounts of money were redirected as a result, too (not to say that that doesn't happen with a replay review call reversal in other sports, such as in a big NFL, baseball or overseas football game, either - did the ball completely cross the line, or was it really saved?).  As amended, IIRC, the on-track payout price for the $1 superfecta (first four finishers in order) was in the range of $57K.

Mike

[jeffandnicole]

Country House was affected as he then had to move outside,  causing him to run longer than if he could've stayed closer to the rail.

That said, I do think Country House benefitted as a few other horses got trapped in the mass.

And finally...I benefited as well. I had a $5 Win Place Show bet on Country House ($15 total) so that was a nice win. Weather has been scrappy today so I haven't gone back to the OTB to collected my winnings. Even if the on-track decision wasn't changed it still would be been a better payout for the place/show wagers than what Maximum Security would've paid out.

I did have some exacta and trifecta wagers with the 5 and 8, but the 13 horse screwed them up.

[jp the roadgeek]

I ended up benefitting from the DQ.  I did have a 7-13 $2 Exacta Box and a 7-13-14 $2 trifecta both ruined by Country House, but had a $5 Win-Place-Show on the 13.  The DQ moved me up from just the show money to both place and show.  I laid out $37 on bets, so I went from losing $12.50 to winning $25.50 with the place-show paying out $62.50.

Daymn, that $5 WPS on Country House paid some nice change, son ($534).   

[Scott5114]

This was an interesting race for me personally, as it's the first Kentucky Derby since I got trained as an OTB cashier, though I wasn't working OTB at the time and only got to watch it on the NBC feed instead of the in-house feed from Churchill. I did get to have the regular OTB cashiers explain to me what the foul was called on and why, though. (For anyone who isn't aware why impeding is a foul–some really dangerous stuff can happen as a result of horses colliding.)

It should be noted that inquiries like this are routine in racing, and the stewards make calls like this all the time in smaller races. This is simply the first time it's had to happen in the Derby.

Apparently the reaction of the customers to the DQ was so loud that security responded because they thought an incident was in progress. Fortunately nobody took it out on the staff.

As amended, IIRC, the on-track payout price for the $1 superfecta (first four finishers in order) was in the range of $57K.

Churchill offers a Hi-5 (pentafecta) as well, and that would have paid out ~$544,000 if anyone had hit it.

[hbelkins]

I should probably turn my Kentuckian card in, because I've never cared one bit for horse racing and rarely if ever watch the Derby. (I didn't watch this year). I've never been to a horse race, and in fact when I briefly worked for an employer that took semi-annual trips to Keeneland for the spring and fall meets, I was actively looking for excuses not to go but was let off the hook when I changed jobs. I'm just not a fan of the horse industry in Kentucky overall; they get all kinds of government coddling and they push for policies that impede development. (Plus the NIMBY horse farm owners make it impossible for the Bluegrass Parkway to ever be connected to I-64, so there's that.)

What I find interesting is that the rules for horse racing are codified in official state government policy (in this case, the Kentucky Administrative Regulations). In what other sports are the rules ensconced in what amounts to state law? That makes possible a court challenge to the decision, which is something you don't have in other sports -- for example, all the blown calls in the NCAA Final Four.

[Scott5114]

What I find interesting is that the rules for horse racing are codified in official state government policy (in this case, the Kentucky Administrative Regulations). In what other sports are the rules ensconced in what amounts to state law? That makes possible a court challenge to the decision, which is something you don't have in other sports -- for example, all the blown calls in the NCAA Final Four.

Poker, if you consider it a sport. Horse racing is state-regulated mostly because it is so closely associated with parimutuel betting. (The Oklahoma race tracks are state-regulated too.) Because there's gambling involved, it has to be regulated by a gaming commission or equivalent agency to ensure the races are conducted fairly, same as poker, blackjack, roulette, slot machines, etc.

Yes, people bet on the NCAA and the major league sports, but betting is not the primary purpose of producing those events and not run by the leagues, so the applicable regulation is applied to the companies offering the bets, and not the leagues themselves. In horse racing, the tracks are both running the races and offering the bets so both fall under gaming regulatory authority. (Although I do believe there have been Congressional inquiries into the MLB before, so one could argue that Congressional oversight over the league means they are regulated by federal lawmakers.)

[oscar]

(Although I do believe there have been Congressional inquiries into the MLB before, so one could argue that Congressional oversight over the league means they are regulated by federal lawmakers.)

Or at least could be, in theory. I think they aren't, though some lawmakers can try to browbeat MLB for whatever reason.

Don't be surprised if Jeopardy! comes under Congressional scrutiny, over its latest controversy. At least until it becomes clear that the complaining Congresscritters are dumber than the average Jeopardy! contestant.

[Scott5114]

Don't be surprised if Jeopardy! comes under Congressional scrutiny, over its latest controversy. At least until it becomes clear that the complaining Congresscritters are dumber than the average Jeopardy! contestant.

That has precedent, too–the game show fixing scandal in the 1950s. (This is why most of the pricing games on The Price Is Right have the correct price revealed by turning over a simple cardboard sign, so that it can be verified that the correct price was printed up and set before the contestant began to play the game.)

[ilpt4u]

(Although I do believe there have been Congressional inquiries into the MLB before, so one could argue that Congressional oversight over the league means they are regulated by federal lawmakers.)

Or at least could be, in theory. I think they aren't, though some lawmakers can try to browbeat MLB for whatever reason.

I believe Federal/Congressional Oversight for MLB or the NFL is derived from antitrust law exemptions...MLB's exemption from a Supreme Court ruling in the 1920s and NFL's from the Sports Broadcasting Act which lets leagues bargain National TV contracts instead of the individual teams owning their own TV rights, like the other sports have (at least in-market)

Don't be surprised if Jeopardy! comes under Congressional scrutiny, over its latest controversy. At least until it becomes clear that the complaining Congresscritters are dumber than the average Jeopardy! contestant.

Other than a Professional Gambler playing Jeopardy! to maximize return, and having good buzzer timing and broad knowledge, I find it hard to believe it is "fixed"  in any favor

[roadman]

Other than a Professional Gambler playing Jeopardy! to maximize return, and having good buzzer timing and broad knowledge, I find it hard to believe it is “fixed” in any favor

Used to be (even in the Trebek era) that Jeopardy only allowed someone to win a total of five games before bringing in a totally new slate of contestants.  The undefeated winner for that five games would then be invited back at a later date to play in the Tournament of Champions, which was a run-off among the top contestants.

[hbelkins]

Don't be surprised if Jeopardy! comes under Congressional scrutiny, over its latest controversy.

What's the controversy, other than one guy is winning a crapload of money?

I believe Federal/Congressional Oversight for MLB or the NFL is derived from antitrust law exemptions...MLB's exemption from a Supreme Court ruling in the 1920s and NFL's from the Sports Broadcasting Act which lets leagues bargain National TV contracts instead of the individual teams owning their own TV rights, like the other sports have (at least in-market)

Wonder if that's what brought about the change in NASCAR's television policy? It used to be that the individual tracks negotiated their own TV contracts. That's why you'd see some races on ESPN, some on CBS, some on TNN, some on TBS/TNT. Then they went to Fox getting half the season and ABC/ESPN (now NBC) getting the other half of the season.

For radio broadcasts, it's split up by track ownership. Bruton Smith's tracks all are affiliated with PRN; everyone else (including the France family's ISC) has MRN. Of course, most radio stations that carry the races are affiliated with both networks so they carry all the races.

[oscar]

Don't be surprised if Jeopardy! comes under Congressional scrutiny, over its latest controversy.

What's the controversy, other than one guy is winning a crapload of money?

His "violation" of an "unwritten rule" that you start with the lowest-dollar items in each category and progress to the highest-dollar items, rather than go straight to the high-dollar items to quickly build your total and then take maximum advantage of the "Daily Doubles".

Sounds to me like a very innovative strategy, one that will soon be emulated by other players.

[vdeane]

Is the strategy really that innovative?  Whenever teachers would have us play Jeopardy to review for a test in high school, that's how everyone played every single time.  My understanding is that most people don't do that in the real game so they can get a feel for the categories - something which James doesn't need to do because he has such a broad base of knowledge, any more than we would have had to do in high school because it was the same material we just spent the last several weeks learning.

I have noticed that the game developers have put a counter to his strategy with the daily doubles in place - the last several games, the daily double was in with one of the $1000 clues, resulting in him getting it so early that it was difficult to capitalize on (in fact, often as one of the first two, when it would only be worth $1000 anyways).

[Alps]

The time I played anything similar I started in the 600s, which I figured was a hedge against obscurity but the best chance to capitalize early.

[Verlanka]

I believe Federal/Congressional Oversight for MLB or the NFL is derived from antitrust law exemptions...MLB's exemption from a Supreme Court ruling in the 1920s and NFL's from the Sports Broadcasting Act which lets leagues bargain National TV contracts instead of the individual teams owning their own TV rights, like the other sports have (at least in-market)

Wonder if that's what brought about the change in NASCAR's television policy? It used to be that the individual tracks negotiated their own TV contracts. That's why you'd see some races on ESPN, some on CBS, some on TNN, some on TBS/TNT. Then they went to Fox getting half the season and ABC/ESPN (now NBC) getting the other half of the season.

Did they really? That might explain why the race schedule bounced from network to network in the 90s.

[roadman]

Don't be surprised if Jeopardy! comes under Congressional scrutiny, over its latest controversy.

What's the controversy, other than one guy is winning a crapload of money?

His "violation" of an "unwritten rule" that you start with the lowest-dollar items in each category and progress to the highest-dollar items, rather than go straight to the high-dollar items to quickly build your total and then take maximum advantage of the "Daily Doubles".

Sounds to me like a very innovative strategy, one that will soon be emulated by other players.

Not a new strategy, in spite of the "unwritten" rule.  I've seen several players do this before "King James" arrived.

[hbelkins]

Not a new strategy, in spite of the "unwritten" rule.  I've seen several players do this before "King James" arrived.

As have I, which is why I hadn't really noticed anything out of the ordinary about his approach.

[mgk920]

What I find interesting is that the rules for horse racing are codified in official state government policy (in this case, the Kentucky Administrative Regulations). In what other sports are the rules ensconced in what amounts to state law? That makes possible a court challenge to the decision, which is something you don't have in other sports -- for example, all the blown calls in the NCAA Final Four.

Boxing?

Mike

[jon daly]

Not a new strategy, in spite of the "unwritten" rule.  I've seen several players do this before "King James" arrived.

As have I, which is why I hadn't really noticed anything out of the ordinary about his approach.

The difference is that he has the right mindset to pull this off. Most folks are too risk averse to succeed with this strategy.

[jon daly]

I should probably turn my Kentuckian card in, because I've never cared one bit for horse racing and rarely if ever watch the Derby. (I didn't watch this year). I've never been to a horse race, and in fact when I briefly worked for an employer that took semi-annual trips to Keeneland for the spring and fall meets, I was actively looking for excuses not to go but was let off the hook when I changed jobs. I'm just not a fan of the horse industry in Kentucky overall; they get all kinds of government coddling and they push for policies that impede development. (Plus the NIMBY horse farm owners make it impossible for the Bluegrass Parkway to ever be connected to I-64, so there's that.)

What I find interesting is that the rules for horse racing are codified in official state government policy (in this case, the Kentucky Administrative Regulations). In what other sports are the rules ensconced in what amounts to state law? That makes possible a court challenge to the decision, which is something you don't have in other sports -- for example, all the blown calls in the NCAA Final Four.

Hunter S Thompson was from Louisville and he had a jaundiced view of the Derby:

http://grantland.com/features/looking-back-hunter-s-thompson-classic-story-kentucky-derby/

[Rothman]

What didn't Hunter S. Thompson have a jaundiced view of?