Inquiry at Fair Grounds

I’ve been known to bet a first time starter on occasions when I’m simply underwhelmed by the horses in a maiden race that have already made their debut. Just such an occasion arose on December 23 at Fair Grounds.  The favorite, Big Chief Deke, wasn’t much at all and was catching most of his money based on the name of his trainer; Bret Calhoun.

I decided to go with a first time starter from the barn of Wesley Hawley named Look At The Time. He’s a decent enough debut trainer and his main man Miguel Mena was in the irons. The price was far too great to pass up at 24-1. I bet $12 to win, place and show.

Turning for home, Mena made a move between horses after sitting  behind the pacesetters most of the way. He bumped the favorite, who checked just slightly before failing to mount any sort of bid while finishing a well beaten fourth. In other words, he was not going to win regardless of whether or not the bump occurred.

Look At The Time drew away to win by a little over 4 lengths. I reached over and gave my dad a high five and just moment later the last thing a horse player wants to see stung my eyes.

The inquiry sign lit up and my horse was taken down. Click here to watch the race.

Clearly, this was upsetting to have my horse cross the finish line first at large odds only to lose my money due to a largely ambiguous decision by the stewards.

This got me thinking how crazy it is that thoroughbred horse racing, our sport, does not have uniform and clear cut rules throughout the country.

I’ve spoken to several prominent members of the horse racing industry to get their thoughts on the lack of set rules.

Bob Baedeker is a prominent handicapper, former TVG analyst, and author of Baedeker’s Guide to Thoroughbred Handicapping.

“My philosophy is that first and foremost the stewards obligation is to ensure that the race riding is safe and that the jockeys are protected. The next in my mind is that the players are protected.” said Baedeker.

“My general feeling is that if you bet a horse and he crosses the finish line first you should be paid 99% of the time. I believe that the best horse usually wins races barring traffic and other dramatic incidents. Knowing this, to penalize the owners and all the people involved, including the bettors, a foul has to be really flagrant.” Baedeker added.

“Inquiries are too long. They lack consistency and uniformity. Pass interference in football is tough, but it is pretty consistently applied. Referees might blow a few calls, but it’s pretty consistent. One of horse racing’s problems is it is so inconsistent. Different stewards and philosophies around the country. No real cut and dry rules to apply to the conduct of racing. It’s a very helter-skelter approach. This creates a negative impact and lack of confidence in horse players.” Baedeker said.

“Stewards must have good relationships with jockeys. Make rules known and apply them consistently and fairly. It’s not rocket science. Look at countries like France and Japan where the rules are so rigid and enforced fairly. They have respect of riders and are dramatic in terms of fines and penalties. Separation is important. Dont go out of your way to intimidate other riders.” Baedeker said.

Baedeker, known for his frustration with this issue, makes many good points. Horse bettors are the lifeblood of racing, pushing many millions of dollars through the windows each day. Remove them from the equation and everything else disappears.

I couldn’t agree more that for a change in the order of a finish to occur, a foul should have to be pretty flagrant. Reasonable people often disagree about inquires. I can’t begin to describe how frustrating it is to lose money over a decision that ambiguously could have gone either way.

The fact that different philosophies govern the conduct of horse racing can be maddening. While you practically have to knock a jockey off his mount at some places, at others if you bump ever so slightly, you could be coming down. This is creates a great amount of uncertainty and can prevent horse bettors from risking their hard earned money.

Conventional wisdom tells us that the longer the inquiry sign stays up, the greater the odds are of a change being made. This should be a non-factor. As Baedeker has opined, these decisions are quickly made and done so accurately in other sports. Why not in horse racing?

Scott Chaney is a steward at Santa Anita that has presided over events like the Breeders’ Cup. He was involved in a controversial decision over last year’s Santa Anita Handicap. You can see him talking about that here.

“Horse racing rules vary from state to state. There are a garden variety of things that could cause a disqualification, such as bumping, cutting another horse off, or hitting another horse with a whip.” Chaney noted.

“In California, we decide if interference occurred and then we decide if it cost the horse in question a better placing. If it did, then that horse that fouled him is coming down.” Chaney said.

“We view our role as managing the jockey colony. We will call riders in the next day and review races with them. Hearings will result in suspensions or we will just tell them what we didnt like. We have a hearing with riders every meet where we go over expectations for on the track behavior and race riding, among other things.” Chaney said.

It makes sense to disqualify a horse for cutting an opponent off. The same can be said for some bumping situations, and definitely for hitting another horse with a whip.

The Californian rule of determining if a foul cost a horse a better placing could be better. Often times, this isn’t a black and white issue and is subjective to the opinion of a steward. A horse could just be tired and fade regardless of a bump. This rule isn’t the same in every state and is a great example of why we need national uniformity. Bettors shouldn’t have to remember rules based on the jurisdication that they are playing.

I love that Chaney and his colleagues have frequent visit to see the jockeys and that they let the riders know their expectations. I hope this goes on in most places. In fact, it should be a required.

Ken McPeek has trained thoroughbred race horses for about 27 years. He is noted for winning the Belmont Stakes in 2002 with Sarava. More recently, he was the leading trainer at Keeneland’s fall 20011 meet.

“Anytime contact is made the rule says that the horse should come down. I had a horse come down at Kentucky Downs for the smallest of infractions, the horses just barely touched, and if they are gonna hold that standard they need to be consistent.” McPeek said.

“I think it’s ridiculous I’ve been training going on 27 years that we dont have some semblance of uniform rules. Can you imagine if Major League Baseball had different rules in every state? If it was 127 feet to 1st base in Ohio, but 130 feet in New York? It doesn’t make sense.” McPeek said.

They need to standardize distances at racetracks. Standardize rules from top to bottom. It’s hard on horse trainers when the rules are different everywhere as we run on different circuits. It can be confusing.” McPeek said.

McPeek touched on the point of ambiguity, as did Bob Baedeker did before him. This is frustrating for trainers as well as horse players. In 2012 there is absolutely no excuse for this. The failure of the powers that be to come together is inexcusable.

In the era of cable television and high speed internet, gamblers have other options. They can bet on the NFL, go to the casino, or play the lottery. At least if they do this, they will know the rules. If thoroughbred horse racing is to be taken seriously by all, the issues of its rules must be addressed immediately.

The rules of horse racing are archaic. It’s time to bring our sport into the 21st century.