Kentucky Derby! Controversy!
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 132033
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 3:19 pm    Post subject: Kentucky Derby! Controversy!

The favorite wins but is disqualified, the first time ever. Instead, the longshot (65:1) gets the win. Thanks technology.
_________________
All gave some,
Some gave all
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 32514
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 3:23 pm    Post subject:

I created a thread and deleted when I saw yours. My thoughts....

Maximum Security crossed the finish line 1st, but after about 20 minutes an objection was upheld, and Maximum Security was disqualified crossing over into other horses lanes obstructing their path. Maximum Security clearly did get out of its path for a short period, but what angers me about these disqualifications is the win is given to the horse that finished 2nd, Country House....but Country House was not obstructed by Maximum Security.

Basically Maximum Security defeated Country House fairly, but is stripped of the win, and it is given to Country House who was not obstructed.
_________________
Order of preference for the draft pick @ #4: 1.) R.J. Barrett 2.) Darius Garland 3.) Cam Reddish 4.) Jarrett Culver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 32009

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 3:27 pm    Post subject:

It was the right decision.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 32514
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 3:31 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
It was the right decision.


I disagree with the outcome, not the decision. Country House did not deserve to win this race. Country House was not obstructed, and still could not win.
_________________
Order of preference for the draft pick @ #4: 1.) R.J. Barrett 2.) Darius Garland 3.) Cam Reddish 4.) Jarrett Culver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 32009

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 3:33 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
It was the right decision.


I disagree with the outcome, not the decision. Country House did not deserve to win this race. Country House was not obstructed, and still could not win.


Thats not the point. The horse shifted position impeding the rest of the runners which effected the race. Sucks that he lost but if it had been a $10,000 claimer or some regular race on a weekday they would've been DQ'ed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10602

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 3:43 pm    Post subject:

I saw a headline earlier that read :

"Kentucky Derby : Anna Nicole Smith's Daughter For the Win" and thought that somebody actually named their horse "Anna Nicole Smiths Daughter". So later when they were talking about confusion between "Maximum Security" & "Country House", I was really confused when a headline read "Disqualified". I thought "Anna Nicoles Smiths Daughter" had been disqualified? Now I'm a bit bummed that it wasn't at all true that somebody had the balls to name their horse "Anna Nicole Smiths Daughter".
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 32514
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 3:43 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
It was the right decision.


I disagree with the outcome, not the decision. Country House did not deserve to win this race. Country House was not obstructed, and still could not win.


Thats not the point. The horse shifted position impeding the rest of the runners which effected the race. Sucks that he lost but if it had been a $10,000 claimer or some regular race on a weekday they would've been DQ'ed.


It is exactly the point...as I said, I have never agreed with the rules when the winner is disqualified. I could make a strong argument that if not for the obstruction, Country House does not finish in the Top 3. The result is we have a winner of the Kentucky Derby, the most prestigious race in the sport, that was clearly not the best horse on the track. The obstruction primarily effected Code of Honor. If anything, the obstruction benefited Country House and helped it finish 2nd instead of 3rd or 4th. Also, you have to be a little less strict when racing on a track in that condition....f Maximum Security just slips over a single lane, no way you DQ the horse. Like I said, I am not happy that the winners of the race was clearly the 3rd, 4th or 5th best horse on the track...not that the best horse was DQ'd.
_________________
Order of preference for the draft pick @ #4: 1.) R.J. Barrett 2.) Darius Garland 3.) Cam Reddish 4.) Jarrett Culver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 32514
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 3:45 pm    Post subject:

Aussiesuede wrote:
I saw a headline earlier that read :

"Kentucky Derby : Anna Nicole Smith's Daughter For the Win" and thought that somebody actually named their horse "Anna Nicole Smiths Daughter". So later when they were talking about confusion between "Maximum Security" & "Country House", I was really confused when a headline read "Disqualified". I thought "Anna Nicoles Smiths Daughter" had been disqualified? Now I'm a bit bummed that it wasn't at all true that somebody had the balls to name their horse "Anna Nicole Smiths Daughter".


I saw her there...was kind of surprising so much time has passed....that little girl is already 12 year old. Very happy it appears she is so close with her father after that mess.
_________________
Order of preference for the draft pick @ #4: 1.) R.J. Barrett 2.) Darius Garland 3.) Cam Reddish 4.) Jarrett Culver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 32009

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 3:48 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
It was the right decision.


I disagree with the outcome, not the decision. Country House did not deserve to win this race. Country House was not obstructed, and still could not win.


Thats not the point. The horse shifted position impeding the rest of the runners which effected the race. Sucks that he lost but if it had been a $10,000 claimer or some regular race on a weekday they would've been DQ'ed.


It is exactly the point...as I said, I have never agreed with the rules when the winner is disqualified. I could make a strong argument that if not for the obstruction, Country House does not finish in the Top 3. The result is we have a winner of the Kentucky Derby, the most prestigious race in the sport, that was clearly not the best horse on the track. The obstruction primarily effected Code of Honor. If anything, the obstruction benefited Country House and helped it finish 2nd instead of 3rd or 4th. Also, you have to be a little less strict when racing on a track in that condition....f Maximum Security just slips over a single lane, no way you DQ the horse. Like I said, I am not happy that the winners of the race was clearly the 3rd, 4th or 5th best horse on the track...not that the best horse was DQ'd.


So a rider can just zigzag across the track and use that as a tactic to win. The rules are there to prevent this sort of thing from happening and preventing a spill which can result in some really bad PR....yes, much worst than a runner getting DQ'ed from the biggest race of the year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 32514
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 3:53 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
It was the right decision.


I disagree with the outcome, not the decision. Country House did not deserve to win this race. Country House was not obstructed, and still could not win.


Thats not the point. The horse shifted position impeding the rest of the runners which effected the race. Sucks that he lost but if it had been a $10,000 claimer or some regular race on a weekday they would've been DQ'ed.


It is exactly the point...as I said, I have never agreed with the rules when the winner is disqualified. I could make a strong argument that if not for the obstruction, Country House does not finish in the Top 3. The result is we have a winner of the Kentucky Derby, the most prestigious race in the sport, that was clearly not the best horse on the track. The obstruction primarily effected Code of Honor. If anything, the obstruction benefited Country House and helped it finish 2nd instead of 3rd or 4th. Also, you have to be a little less strict when racing on a track in that condition....f Maximum Security just slips over a single lane, no way you DQ the horse. Like I said, I am not happy that the winners of the race was clearly the 3rd, 4th or 5th best horse on the track...not that the best horse was DQ'd.


So a rider can just zigzag across the track and use that as a tactic to win. The rules are there to prevent this sort of thing from happening and preventing a spill which can result in some really bad PR....yes, much worst than a runner getting DQ'ed from the biggest race of the year.


I am really not sure what you are missing.....I am not defending Maximum Security....I have never suggested that the horse did not technically break the rules. I am not happy the horse(s) effected by the infraction did not benefit much, but a horse that was not effected by the infraction is declared the winner when that horse (Country House) likely benefited from the infraction in the first place.
_________________
Order of preference for the draft pick @ #4: 1.) R.J. Barrett 2.) Darius Garland 3.) Cam Reddish 4.) Jarrett Culver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 32009

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 3:56 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
It was the right decision.


I disagree with the outcome, not the decision. Country House did not deserve to win this race. Country House was not obstructed, and still could not win.


Thats not the point. The horse shifted position impeding the rest of the runners which effected the race. Sucks that he lost but if it had been a $10,000 claimer or some regular race on a weekday they would've been DQ'ed.


It is exactly the point...as I said, I have never agreed with the rules when the winner is disqualified. I could make a strong argument that if not for the obstruction, Country House does not finish in the Top 3. The result is we have a winner of the Kentucky Derby, the most prestigious race in the sport, that was clearly not the best horse on the track. The obstruction primarily effected Code of Honor. If anything, the obstruction benefited Country House and helped it finish 2nd instead of 3rd or 4th. Also, you have to be a little less strict when racing on a track in that condition....f Maximum Security just slips over a single lane, no way you DQ the horse. Like I said, I am not happy that the winners of the race was clearly the 3rd, 4th or 5th best horse on the track...not that the best horse was DQ'd.


So a rider can just zigzag across the track and use that as a tactic to win. The rules are there to prevent this sort of thing from happening and preventing a spill which can result in some really bad PR....yes, much worst than a runner getting DQ'ed from the biggest race of the year.


I am really not sure what you are missing.....I am not defending Maximum Security....I have never suggested that the horse did not technically break the rules. I am not happy the horse(s) effected by the infraction did not benefit much, but a horse that was not effected by the infraction is declared the winner when that horse (Country House) likely benefited from the infraction in the first place.


The rules are if the rider has committed a foul they are usually moved down the order of finish. It doesn't matter if they won the race. In fact it is pretty uniform no matter the stature of the race. You believe that the result should remain the same because of the stature of the race.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 32514
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 4:05 pm    Post subject:

^^^I know that is the rules....I have seen DQ's in person....even at that track (although it was not the winner). I view it like this.....if you, myself, Usain Bolt and my 90 year old neighbor was in a race for a million dollars. Bolt trips up a little and bumps you and I.....we both stumble to different degrees and cant recover, then Bolt flies by my 90 year old neighbor for the win.....then afterwards Bolt is DQ'd and my 90 year old neighbor is declared the winner.
_________________
Order of preference for the draft pick @ #4: 1.) R.J. Barrett 2.) Darius Garland 3.) Cam Reddish 4.) Jarrett Culver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 32009

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 4:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Kentucky Derby! Controversy!

venturalakersfan wrote:
The favorite wins but is disqualified, the first time ever. Instead, the longshot (65:1) gets the win. Thanks technology.


Not really new technology. They've been doing this type of stewards enquiry for as long as I remember since I started watching in the 80's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 42839
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 4:41 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
It was the right decision.


I disagree with the outcome, not the decision. Country House did not deserve to win this race. Country House was not obstructed, and still could not win.


Thats not the point. The horse shifted position impeding the rest of the runners which effected the race. Sucks that he lost but if it had been a $10,000 claimer or some regular race on a weekday they would've been DQ'ed.


It is exactly the point...as I said, I have never agreed with the rules when the winner is disqualified. I could make a strong argument that if not for the obstruction, Country House does not finish in the Top 3. The result is we have a winner of the Kentucky Derby, the most prestigious race in the sport, that was clearly not the best horse on the track. The obstruction primarily effected Code of Honor. If anything, the obstruction benefited Country House and helped it finish 2nd instead of 3rd or 4th. Also, you have to be a little less strict when racing on a track in that condition....f Maximum Security just slips over a single lane, no way you DQ the horse. Like I said, I am not happy that the winners of the race was clearly the 3rd, 4th or 5th best horse on the track...not that the best horse was DQ'd.


So a rider can just zigzag across the track and use that as a tactic to win. The rules are there to prevent this sort of thing from happening and preventing a spill which can result in some really bad PR....yes, much worst than a runner getting DQ'ed from the biggest race of the year.


I am really not sure what you are missing.....I am not defending Maximum Security....I have never suggested that the horse did not technically break the rules. I am not happy the horse(s) effected by the infraction did not benefit much, but a horse that was not effected by the infraction is declared the winner when that horse (Country House) likely benefited from the infraction in the first place.


I agree completely. Max Security was disqualified fairly, but the fact that Country House benefits from that DQ is hugely problematic for the reasons you outline. The decision was sound, the results are where the inequities enter into it. I just don't know how you can really change that without opening an even bigger can of worms.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 132033
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 4:44 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
It was the right decision.


I disagree with the outcome, not the decision. Country House did not deserve to win this race. Country House was not obstructed, and still could not win.


But the decision led to the outcome. When #1 is eliminated, #2 wins.
_________________
All gave some,
Some gave all
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 32514
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 5:43 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
I agree completely. Max Security was disqualified fairly, but the fact that Country House benefits from that DQ is hugely problematic for the reasons you outline. The decision was sound, the results are where the inequities enter into it. I just don't know how you can really change that without opening an even bigger can of worms.


you are correct.....I complain, but I do not know a fair solution.
_________________
Order of preference for the draft pick @ #4: 1.) R.J. Barrett 2.) Darius Garland 3.) Cam Reddish 4.) Jarrett Culver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
audioaxes
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 10771

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 8:44 pm    Post subject:

i dont know crap about horse racing but the so called obstruction didnt really seem that blatant to DQ the winner
_________________
draft Hunter after trading DOWN with Bulls or Suns for a 2020 1st rounder
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenChild
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 3108
Location: Hawaii

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 9:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Kentucky Derby! Controversy!

lakersken80 wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
The favorite wins but is disqualified, the first time ever. Instead, the longshot (65:1) gets the win. Thanks technology.


Not really new technology. They've been doing this type of stewards enquiry for as long as I remember since I started watching in the 80's.


Yup me too! I remember those enquiries. I was super young kid and my dad used to always take me and let me choose the horses. When my horse won, there was an enquiry but they still gave it to my horse and I won $40 placing a $2 bet my dad made for me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 16762
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:02 am    Post subject:

As was discussed, there's basically no way to have ever known who would have won the race after the incident. Maybe Maximum Security would have, but, of course, it's an automatic DQ in this case. So you just have to default to the 2nd place finisher. There's no easy, clean way to do it, but I think the procedure they follow in these inquiries is the most fair way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 11529

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 5:53 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
^^^I know that is the rules....I have seen DQ's in person....even at that track (although it was not the winner). I view it like this.....if you, myself, Usain Bolt and my 90 year old neighbor was in a race for a million dollars. Bolt trips up a little and bumps you and I.....we both stumble to different degrees and cant recover, then Bolt flies by my 90 year old neighbor for the win.....then afterwards Bolt is DQ'd and my 90 year old neighbor is declared the winner.


Here's an olympic presedence:

https://www.olympic.org/news/steven-bradbury-australia-s-last-man-standing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 2911
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 7:35 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
Aussiesuede wrote:
I saw a headline earlier that read :

"Kentucky Derby : Anna Nicole Smith's Daughter For the Win" and thought that somebody actually named their horse "Anna Nicole Smiths Daughter". So later when they were talking about confusion between "Maximum Security" & "Country House", I was really confused when a headline read "Disqualified". I thought "Anna Nicoles Smiths Daughter" had been disqualified? Now I'm a bit bummed that it wasn't at all true that somebody had the balls to name their horse "Anna Nicole Smiths Daughter".


I saw her there...was kind of surprising so much time has passed....that little girl is already 12 year old. Very happy it appears she is so close with her father after that mess.


To Lt. Drebin: “Is this some kind of bust?”
Lt. Drebin: “Yes, it’s very impressive.”

Anna Nicole and Pam Anderson were it for me as a younger man. The reality show ruined it for me, but for awhile they were it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 11529

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 8:25 am    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Aussiesuede wrote:
I saw a headline earlier that read :

"Kentucky Derby : Anna Nicole Smith's Daughter For the Win" and thought that somebody actually named their horse "Anna Nicole Smiths Daughter". So later when they were talking about confusion between "Maximum Security" & "Country House", I was really confused when a headline read "Disqualified". I thought "Anna Nicoles Smiths Daughter" had been disqualified? Now I'm a bit bummed that it wasn't at all true that somebody had the balls to name their horse "Anna Nicole Smiths Daughter".


I saw her there...was kind of surprising so much time has passed....that little girl is already 12 year old. Very happy it appears she is so close with her father after that mess.


To Lt. Drebin: “Is this some kind of bust?”
Lt. Drebin: “Yes, it’s very impressive.”

Anna Nicole and Pam Anderson were it for me as a younger man. The reality show ruined it for me, but for awhile they were it.


And then there was the never-aging Heather Locklear and don't forget Elizabeth Hurley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 32514
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2019 10:16 am    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
As was discussed, there's basically no way to have ever known who would have won the race after the incident. Maybe Maximum Security would have, but, of course, it's an automatic DQ in this case. So you just have to default to the 2nd place finisher. There's no easy, clean way to do it, but I think the procedure they follow in these inquiries is the most fair way.


not that it matters, but Maximum Security would have won that race. I think what was lost in the race was how strong that horse ran on that (bleep) track. There were several times where another horse made their move down the final stretch, and in many races would have passed the leader, but each time Maximum Security just fought them off. That is one reason I find it so heartbreaking in that I am not sure how Max Security runs in the longer race, but I saw a horse that had the strength to make a Triple Crown run.
_________________
Order of preference for the draft pick @ #4: 1.) R.J. Barrett 2.) Darius Garland 3.) Cam Reddish 4.) Jarrett Culver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 32514
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 6:41 am    Post subject:

Maximum Security owner to appeal; no Preakness

Quote:
The owners of Maximum Security plan to file an appeal with the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, contending that their horse should be declared the rightful winner of the 2019 Kentucky Derby, owner Gary West told the "Today" show on Monday.

Maximum Security will also skip the Preakness, West said.


LINK
_________________
Order of preference for the draft pick @ #4: 1.) R.J. Barrett 2.) Darius Garland 3.) Cam Reddish 4.) Jarrett Culver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 4799

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 7:41 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
^^^I know that is the rules....I have seen DQ's in person....even at that track (although it was not the winner). I view it like this.....if you, myself, Usain Bolt and my 90 year old neighbor was in a race for a million dollars. Bolt trips up a little and bumps you and I.....we both stumble to different degrees and cant recover, then Bolt flies by my 90 year old neighbor for the win.....then afterwards Bolt is DQ'd and my 90 year old neighbor is declared the winner.


Yeah, you've got to offer up a solution or this just seems pointless.

The way I see it, there were 20 horses. So, there are 20 possible outcomes plus running the race over. So, pretty much 21 possible solutions.

You don't like this solution. You gave an analogy that it went to a horse that didn't "deserve" to win.

So which horse "deserved" to win? There's only 20 horses. You gotta pick one.

If not, then basically what you're saying is, any decision the stewards made, you'd be on here talking about how that horse didn't "deserve" to win.

And that's pointless to me.

Even in your analogy, you don't even offer up a winner. So, who wins between Bolt, you, me, and your 90 year old grandma? What would be your ruling?


Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Mon May 06, 2019 7:58 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB