Beyer Q & A: Maximum Security shouldn't have come down

Q. What is your opinion about the DQ in the 2019 Derby? Should this lead to talk about standardized rules in racing and maybe a commissioner?

—Dwight Shellman

A. I am glad you asked this question because I feel strongly about the issue: Maximum Security should not have been disqualified.

Many sets of racing rules will say something like those in Kentucky, which declare that a horse may not “swerve in so as to interfere with…or impede any other horse.” If you go by the book, Maximum Security committed a punishable foul. But as every racing fan knows, no racing jurisdiction goes by the book, because the result would be total chaos in the sport.

Horses bump and jostle and jockey for position in almost every race — particularly at the starting gate and in the early running on the backstretch. Stewards overlook almost all of it. Most of the time their tacit standard is that a horse will be disqualified if his foul clearly cost a rival the chance to win or get a high placing.

NBC’s slow-motion coverage clearly showed Maximum Security moving in front of War of Will, forcing jockey Tyler Gaffalione to steady his mount. This was a foul — no doubt about it. The incident could have resulted in a bad accident — but it didn’t. It probably cost War of Will a length, but he recovered quickly. He had a clear path ahead of him and a quarter of a mile in which to catch Maximum Security, and he drew within a length of the leader, but he faded badly at the end and finished eighth. He was never going to win the Derby, or even finish in the money. Nor were the two longshots who were behind War of Will on the turn and were also hampered by the incident.

So I don’t see how justice was served in any way by disqualifying the best horse. And it certainly was not served by elevating Country House, who had a relatively easy trip, and had every chance to catch Maximum Security in the stretch, but couldn’t do it.

--Andrew Beyer