ShareThis Page
Maximum Security’s Preakness status unclear after Derby DQ | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World Sports

Maximum Security’s Preakness status unclear after Derby DQ

Associated Press
1117567_web1_1117567-9b915cb6ec48435ca636fdd5bf40b204
Flavien Prat hugs Country House after winning the 145th running of the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs on Saturday, May 4, 2019, in Louisville, Ky.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The next stop in the chase for the Triple Crown is the Preakness, though Maximum Security and Country House remain noncommittal for the May 18 race following Maximum Security’s disqualification from the Kentucky Derby.

Owner Gary West said Sunday he is unsure whether to enter Maximum Security in the Preakness as he ponders appealing the historic decision.

West also said he realizes the appeals process could extend well beyond the upcoming race at Pimlico in Baltimore. And with Kentucky racing stewards’ ruling Maximum Security interfered with other horses that led to his disqualification, there might not be a point to racing the colt in the Triple Crown series’ middle jewel.

“When you’re not going for the Triple Crown, sometimes it doesn’t make sense to wheel the horse back in two weeks,” West said in a phone interview with the Associated Press.

“If there’s going to be an appeal it will almost certainly be before the Preakness, but appeals historically take some time to sort out. Win, lose or draw, we’re not going to know the outcome of that until probably months, if not years, down the road.”

Maximum Security was first to finish Saturday’s muddy Derby before becoming the marquee race’s first winner to be disqualified for interference. Stewards elevated runner-up Country House, a 65-1 long shot, to the winner’s circle after determining Maximum Security impeded his path and two others’ exiting the final turn. Maximum Security was ultimately placed 17th of 19 horses after starting as the 9-2 second betting choice, ending his four-race winning streak.

Stewards cited a section of the rule that calls for disqualification if “a leading horse or any other horse in a race swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey.”

Chief steward Barbara Borden said in a news conference that she and two other stewards interviewed riders and studied video replays of the incident during a 22-minute review after the finish. The stewards did not take questions from reporters.

West said the earliest he could see the stewards’ video evidence would be Thursday, which could determine if he files an appeal in a process he was still trying to understand.

“We wanted to have the stewards explain to us what they saw and show us on their video the pictures of exactly what they saw, and they refused to allow us to do that,” he said.

“That was really pretty bush league, because there is no rule that they can’t show the film to the owner and trainer that got disqualified for the first time in the history of the Kentucky Derby other than they aren’t working today, or Monday, or Tuesday or Wednesday.”

And the best story on the track may not materialize: a Maximum Security-Country House rematch.

Country House trainer Bill Mott said the colt was in good shape after the Derby but remained noncommittal about the 1 1/8-mile Preakness, which is shorter than the Derby. It would mark his fourth race in eight weeks if he runs.

“It may compromise his chances a bit, and it’s not a normal situation to run so often,” Mott said. “But the Triple Crown is not a normal situation.”

West also declared Maximum Security fine but will monitor him the next few days.

“The revenge motive doesn’t even enter into my mind,” West said. “The horse proved he was the best horse (Saturday) by far. If he’s not 100%, we would not even think about taking this horse to the Preakness and then we won’t know that for a few days.”

Categories: Sports | US-World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.