The challenges of Preakness 2025 (G1) were a thriller. He provided us with a controversial fight of three horses in the upper section and a furious load of journalism in Deep Stretch to win the race in a sensational performance.
Halfway through the section, Gosger had a dominant advance of about five lengths. He looked at the free house. But journalism surprisingly stormed the house to win half a length.
On the forgiveness of ESPN, the interruption, while a replay of the last part of the preakness was shown, Michael Wilbon said that “when journalism drops this horse (Gosger) and turns into secretariat for about eight seconds, I thought it was one of the most exciting things that I have ever seen in sport.”
I must say that I consider Wilbon’s comment according to which journalism turned into secretariat during the last eight seconds of the race on site.
As for whether or not whether or not there should have been a disqualification in preakness, opinions vary. Some say yes. Others say no. Some say that the target number should have dropped. Others say that journalism is the one that should have been disqualified.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. In fact, a difference in opinion is extremely important with regard to horse racing. It is because it is a sport in which people constantly express their opinions via betting bets.
The following is my opinion on the question of whether a DQ was justified or not in the Preakness. This comes from someone whose considerable experience during a career of five decades in horse races understands that it has been a steward on tracks in California, Washington and Idaho.
In my opinion, the orientation of the objectives should have been disqualified and placed the last to provoke a chain reaction. I think the objectives have arrived and caused interference to journalism. And when the objectives have arrived, he pushed intelligent journalism, which made it possible to be severely hampered.
At the time of the incident, journalism, in my opinion, had rightly established its position between the goal oriented towards the goal and intelligent. Journalism, without disturbing anyone, had risen in a narrow hole between intelligent and oriented towards the goal. Once journalism did, he was entitled to this path on the track. According to the video reruns I have seen, the orientation of the objectives then entered and was again responsible for journalism and the intelligent.
Some people say that journalism has made its way between oriented and intelligent goals. I do not agree. If you stop the video band at the top of the section, journalism had once again imposed itself between the objectives and intelligent, the three horses being almost even in terms. Oriented towards the objective then entered journalism. This is what gives the impression to some that journalism had made its way between its two rivals, which it had not done.
At the time of the incident, it seems to me that Clever ended again fourth. It also seems to me that Clever withdrew at the time at the time. But in my opinion, even if intelligent retired again when he was seriously hampered, he was denied the opportunity of better placement. Consequently, it is my conclusion that the orientation of the objectives should have been disqualified and placed the last, behind intelligent.
What if intelligent had once again been able to go home enough to finish sixth? I don’t think it could categorically be said that it was impossible. Admittedly, by finishing the sixth intelligence again would no longer be part of the bag. But what happens if one of the first five finish was then disqualified for a bad test? This would move smart again up to fifth and he would earn $ 60,000.
Here is another way to look at it. What if journalism and / or intelligent had declined again? Again, in the circumstances, I would say that it was not impossible. Would the stewards then disqualified the objectives oriented to be the culprit? I think it’s likely. Thus, I believe that it is fair to say that, most likely, the main reason why the objective was quite lucky not to be disqualified was neither journalism nor the fact that it is.
As for the Flavien Prat responsibility on bears oriented towards the goal for the incident, I think that Prat was probably not entirely to blame and perhaps not to blame at all. I think that an inexperienced objective has oriented a goal, at least, assumes a certain responsibility, if not responsibility.
I think that at the beginning, Prat was only what is commonly called the race by giving no district to journalism. But then, the slightly run goal oriented towards the goal, during the race, came and triggered the chain reaction. The speed with which Prat acted to correct the oriented objectives is, I believe, to open up to the debate. Consequently, in terms of possible sanction for Prat, I would approach him with an open mind and welcome the thoughts of my two steward colleagues, especially if one or the two commissioners had been a jockey.
Regarding the journey of Umberto Rispoli on journalism, I think he made a tactical error in the turn when he chose to go inside rather than outside. And I’m not a quarter of Monday morning. During the race, when the horses were at the front, I told my wife: “Rispoli made a big mistake when going inside.”
My feeling is that if Rispoli rose a horse whose chances were 10-1 or more, it would have been the risk of potential traffic problems by going inside. But Rispoli went up a money favorite. I believe that when someone rises a favorite like that, it is prudent for them to avoid potential traffic problems if possible.
Some said Rispoli had not had the chance to go outside outside. I strongly disagree with this assertion.
Based on the video reruns I have seen, in particular aerial rereading. Rispoli had the opportunity to go around the horses in the extreme turn. It seems to me that, for a brief moment, Rispoli even started going around the horses. But in an instant, he seemed to change his mind and rather plunged inside, endangering himself to encounter traffic problems.
I concede that Rispoli did not seem to receive the response of the journalism he wanted when the rider seemed to push journalism on the backstretch and early in extraction. But since Rispoli rose a horse that was perceived as the best it was put in favoritism, I believe that Rispoli’s right decision in far would have been to go around the horses in order to avoid the possibility of getting involved in traffic jam, which exactly happened.
