HORSE RACING – PREAKNESS STAKES 2019 PICKS & FOLLOW-UP TO DERBY CONTROVERSY

Before I go into handicapping the second-leg of this year’s Triple Crown races, I want to add a bit more commentary about the Kentucky Derby debacle.

I’ve noticed a deep divide has formed about how the Derby ended between the horse racing industry and the general public.  In a nutshell, horse racing people seem to be stunned that the general public is stunned about Maximum Security’s disqualification.  

Apparently, DQ’s are common in horse racing.  Barry Abrams, horse racing expert and host of ESPN’s excellent “In the Gate” podcast said during the most recent episode that disqualifications due to interference “happen every day” and are “standard practice”.  

The reason, Abrams said: “the only thing that matters is the safety of the horses and riders.” “The next person [may] come along on purpose… and say hey, [he] got away with it in the biggest horse race in the country, why can’t I get away with it?” And, that “cannot be legislated… no questions asked.” 

Abrams seems to equate the many disqualifications in horse racing as a good thing because the system is working to protect the horses and riders.  But, the disconnect with the general public here is the idea that automatic disqualifications without appeal are the only remedy to keep everyone safe.  This makes the system seem unfair when there are other options that could still deter bad behavior.

One suggestion would be to let the outright winner of a race claim the title at the time even with a registered objection of interference.  THEN, have the stewards go back and take a deep dive into what happened. That would include interviews with the jockeys and trainers which should be taped and/or recorded. If warranted, the winner then gets disqualified.  After that point, allow for a meeting with the horse owner(s) to discuss with the stewards their decision and provide a short period of appeal before it becomes a final ruling.  

Wouldn’t this solution still keep everyone safe and render more fairness?  Why can’t we at least discuss the premise that the interference rules in horse racing should be looked at with more care?  As I wrote in my last post, it seems possible that fairness and safety can come together in this industry, with minor tweaks in the rules.  

Another problem the general public is having with the Kentucky Derby disqualification is that after almost two weeks since the race, there is still no more clarity from the Kentucky stewards about what happened.  Even my mother who is in her 70s who only watches the Triple Crown races asked me to explain to her yesterday the following questions:

Why are appeals not permitted against stewards’ rulings on interference, yet the jockey who got suspended in this case can appeal?  How do the owners of Max Security know what the stewards relied upon to make their decision?  Was it fair and just? Why should we just take the stewards word for it?  What if War of Will did knock into Maximum Security while he was spooked at the far turn?  (Max Security’s legs were cut up so extensively after the race that the trainer had an MRI done to be sure no damage was done.  And, apparently, the horse did not behave the same he did before the Derby, he got beat up so bad.)  

Surely the continued ambiguity about what happened at the Derby can’t be good to instill confidence in the betting public going forward?  

I also hinted at another point I wanted to make above.  A “Stewards Ruling” was released this week by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission in which the jockey of Maximum Security, Luis Saez, was suspended for fifteen racing days for “failure to control his mount and make the proper effort to maintain a straight course thereby causing interference with several rivals that resulted in the disqualification of his mount.”  

So, are the stewards admitting with this ruling that Saez was ultimately to blame for his horse’s disqualification at the Derby?  Then why were the owners of Maximum Security penalized and their horse demoted immediately after the race?  Why does Saez have the right to appeal and not the horse owners?  Does it have to do with the jockeys having a union and the horse owners not having one? 

And, here’s another thing: Were the stewards aware that Saez has received six suspensions in the last eight months, five of them for “careless riding”?  Did they factor that into their decision on Maximum Security, along with the 20 suspensions Saez has had since 2013? As a horse handicapper/bettor, should I factor in the suspensions for interference a jockey has had in the past when making my selections, in case this happens again? 

On a final note, the owners of Maximum Security filed a Federal lawsuit against the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission this week.  At least the Derby debacle has gotten the horse racing community to discuss the system of how interference is adjudicated.  And, that is a good thing whether the horse racing industry likes it, or not. 

PREAKNESS STAKES PICKS

This year’s running of the 144th Preakness Stakes will showcase a wide-open field of thirteen entrants, the most since 2011.   The field will also lack the top four finishers of the Kentucky Derby.  Not having the top two horses compete at Pimlico from the first-leg of the Triple Crown hasn’t been done in nearly a century. Thus… the number of contenders. At least a few trainers figure they have a shot at winning this historical race lacking true elite challengers.

One that’s close is Improbable (#4 post), Bob Baffert’s entry.  The colt came in fourth at the Derby (after the disqualification – he would have been fifth) and is the Preakness morning line favorite.  But, he hasn’t had the success as a three-year old that one would like to see and feel confident about to bet on.  

That said, I really like Improbable to be in the mix at the finish line.  During his three-year old career, his speeds have remained at or around the same – fast.  And, he almost beat Omaha Beach at the Arkansas Derby in April.  

But, the colt can be fussy in the gate and is known to break slow.  I also didn’t get a good vibe from Baffert when he spoke about Improbable this week.  While the Hall of Fame trainer seemed positive, he didn’t boast which is something he does when he’s feeling good about a horse.  He used such phrases “we’ll see what he does” and “we’ll see how he handles Pimlico”.  

The two major boosts that Improbable does have, however, is (1) the great Mike Smith will be on the reigns for the first time.  If anyone can get a win out of this horse, it’s him.  Still, the horse has to be there.  Will Improbable finally step up and fulfill his talent on Saturday?  That is the big question mark in this race.  (2) Improbable came out the Derby well, according to Baffert.  We shall see on Saturday if the quick two-week turnaround is too much for the rising star.

I also like how this race is setting up for Owendale in the #5 post.  His stable mate (#3 Warrior’s Charge) can set the pace and could be a bit of a rabbit for the #5.  If not, Owendale has tactical speed which is important at Pimlico and his forward placing racing style will benefit him.  He also has set the second fastest speed this year behind Improbable and is more rested than the Baffert colt, not having raced in about a month.  The only question for him (and aren’t there always questions…  can he handle this distance?) 

War of Will in the #1 post should be near the finish line at the Preakness as well.  I’ve been on the fence about this colt because he has been a little up and down since the Risen Star in February.  But, I’m getting more confident about him since the Kentucky Derby where he finished seventh, but likely due to the interference with Max Security.  This horse is also ok with rain, in case thunderstorms come in and spoil the party at race time.  

Alwaysmining out of the #7 hole is a very talented, locally-bred colt that checks a lot of the boxes for me.  The gelding has good speed, will likely be a pace setter or just off the pace and will handle the distance.  While this will be a mega step up for him in class, he just might have the goods to pull this thing off. 

Bourbon War in the #2 post turns my head.  He is a closer which doesn’t help at Pimlico where forwardly placing horses have won this race four out of the last eleven chances.  But, I think he has enough tactical speed to keep closer, which I expect the jockey will, rather than letting him slip way behind. I like his odds, too.  Currently at 12-1, I expect this will tighten on race day.  

Anothertwistafate is an intriguing horse who shares the same sire of Justify.  He has been steadily improving, is training well and may use his big, long strides to help take him around the tight turns at Pimlico.  A knock is that this will be a ginormous leap in class for the colt and I am a bit worried about him coming out of #12, wide into a quick-coming first turn.  

There is something about Warrior’s Charge I can’t get out of my head. Just because he’s never run in a stakes race before and there is doubt about him handling the distance, we shouldn’t discount his chances.  This is one of the fastest horses in the field, he is improving now and likes to be forwardly placed. The BIG question is if he can stay up front with the big boys, as I expect he’ll be setting the pace early.  He reminds me of Max Security in this way.  Many expert handicappers seem to think he’ll fade off the front as others pass him. But, what if he doesn’t?

My Top 7 Picks:

Improbable

War of Will

Owendale

Warriors Charge

Alwaysmining

Anothertwistafate

Bourbon War

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://theladylovessports.com/contact.