Maggie's Farm

The real issue is the concept that all a university's problems will be 'solved' by getting rid of Greek-letter organizations.

I once read an article by the president of a small college in central NY which had finally gotten rid of Greek organizations, I think it was Alfred College. The president said "nobody misses them, nobody cares they are gone." Of course not. The sample he bases this on is a small group which likely went to his school, in part, because they weren't interested in fraternities anyway.

But, if you ARE interested, you stayed away.

Thing is, the problems don't go away. They either are ignored, since non-fraternity hazing or 'reckless or criminal' behavior does not get as much attention. Nor does non-fraternity drinking. If they are not ignored, they go underground and are harder to root out.

Many underground fraternities exist. My son's, on Miami Ohio's campus, was kicked off but went underground. They are just as successful, but now can easily break all the rules with almost no repercussions (unless they engage in criminal behavior - which even non-fraternal students will face issues with) since it's much more difficult to monitor and report.

It's a flawed concept. Take away the things which are most obviously 'broken' and the problems go away. Except they don't. They just move and you pay less attention to those problems now.

One thing I'm certain of is that philanthropic events decline. Syracuse used to have one of the largest fund raising dance marathons in the US - started by and largely managed by my fraternity. When I danced in it in 1984, we raised more money than almost any other school in the US. As far as I know, it's non-existent now. Penn State's "Thon" is much larger (though I don't know its history).

For what it's worth, I've been part owner of 2 race horses (neither of which amounted to much) and my college buddy has had many more, and still has an active stable (though no horses in it at this point in time, as he's looking for new ones to add).

He and I discussed the decision and agreed it was the absolute correct decision. A horse in the lead must maintain its line, but that's particularly true in a tightly packed race like that one. If it had a substantial lead, any drifting would have been immaterial.

In this case, it drifted out of its line and clipped the horse behind it as that horse was making a move, which also wound up impeding the horse that was (ultimately) named the winner.

People can complain all they want, but the rules stipulate what must be done in a case like that, and the rules were adhered to. Did the best horse win? Probably not. Maximum Security was the best horse. But Maximum Security also broke the rules.

Right now the NFL is in the midst of changing its rules because of an egregious non-call in the NFC Championship Game. Should that call have been overlooked the way it was? Probably not. It's a good idea to have rules like this, but it's even more important to enforce them if you're going to have them.

You can believe it's never happened before because it hasn't. I've followed the Kentucky Derby (to be honest, horse racing in general) for over 20 years and while this hasn't happened in the Derby, it HAS happened in many races I've attended (and it even cost me a bet once).

The fact that over X thousands of races occur a year, and of those thousands, it only happens .0X% of the time indicates the data set of Kentucky Derbies is SO SMALL that the likelihood of it actually happening is slim to none.

There are plenty of precedents for it, and just because it's the Derby doesn't mean you don't apply the rule.

From my perspective, the optics are actually REALLY GOOD. In fact, as the race ended, I even said "Wait for the inquiry." Everyone stared at me and asked "What inquiry?" I said "You'll see." Indeed, they did. The stewards missed it, but I saw it. For an experienced person, this was no surprise.

Here's something worth remembering (since it reinforces why Maximum Security should have lost):
"In one of the most unforgettable Kentucky Derbys in history, Alysheba overcame near-disaster to win the roses in 1987. In the homestretch, a colt named Bet Twice was leading the way while Alysheba surged into contention on the outside. Suddenly, Bet Twice drifted out, causing Alysheba to clip heels and stumble with the rest of the field close behind. Miraculously, Alysheba regained his footing, shrugged off the incident like it was nothing, and rallied past Bet Twice to win."

Bet Twice was not penalized as the ONLY horse which was impaired was the horse that wound up winning. Had Bet Twice impaired other horses by clipping its heels, there's no doubt he'd have been moved further back than Place (as Maximum Security wound up impairing 16 other horses' paths, he was moved back 16 spots).

So, technically, it HAS happened before, but because the event didn't alter the outcome, it was reviewed and deemed immaterial. That happens more frequently than what happened last weekend.

Also, I didn't bet on the Derby. Although I did pull Country House's name out of a hat at the party I was attending - and won $80. So some might say I was partisan.

Since I was the 'experienced' horseman at our party, everyone asked me what I thought. I said the rules are clear and so was the evidence. Once the objection was raised, it has to be investigated, and once the evidence is seen, it has to be enforced. That said, I reminded everyone I was likely to win the pool money, so if they thought I was partisan, they may have a case.

I could go without the money. It wasn't life-changing, but I usually put $10 on longshots and I completely forgot to this year. Kicking myself.