If you ask someone's opinion on HISA, it's either gonna be good (rare), bad (sometimes) or ugly (most of the time). I generally like to look at things like this on a case by case basis, and in one aspect, I can clearly say I think it's good.
That aspect is increased oversight.
Yesterday at Monmouth a horse who appeared lame was scratched, as the even money favorite, with a couple of minutes to post. This has been nothing that new the last few years certainly, but I think we forget sometimes how it used to be.
When I was playing races on Betfair - where you could both back or lay horses - keeping tabs on how a horse looked (especially if it was a short price) was something to pay attention to. And there were several folks doing just that.
One gentleman from the UK that I ran across in my travels only layed horses at the exchange, and it was almost solely based on their looks. He had a very sharp eye, growing up with horses, and it's all he did to make his living. He played mostly UK racing, but pivoted to "cowboy racing" as he called it, when the exchange carried massive numbers of North American racetracks.
I'd get a call or email from time to time asking if I saw the six, and if not I should pitch him in the supers. He was usually right.
One day for a Grade I race I watched a filly in the walking ring who appeared to be walking a little short. Not long after, the post parade pretty clearly showed that something was amiss - the horse looked pretty awful. If my memory serves me, she was 2-5 on the board, and I think 1.57 on the exchange.
I put an offer to book the 1.57 and it went away, I moved it up a couple of times and got filled at I think an average of 1.66. It was one of my bigger lay bets ever.
I got pinged on email from my UK friend.
"I bought up to 1.8, that's all me," he typed.
She actually ran credibly, coming across in 5th or 6th, and the crowd (again if memory serves) saw what most saw and she closed way up at 4-5. I think it may have been her last race.
Fast forwarding - the game has changed.
Despite costing the track megabucks, we see gate scratches (sometimes even two horses like yesterday's Monmouth 5th race, which followed a horrific breakdown on Saturday; sometimes in the Breeders Cup). And we see even money shots scratched in claimers.
But it's more than top-line data, because that is muddied.
The culture change, and through perhaps better diagnostic testing, we see many of these horses don't even enter the box. The Teardrop situation likely happens less and less. I suspect the I Want Revenge type scratches don't make it to Saturday morning to the same extent anymore.
Even void claim rules have protected horses from those who may want to unload a lame one.
There are several reasons for this change, but I think one of them, in 2025 is the presence of HISA.
There's hierarchical oversight that this sport never had before.
Trainers are more vigilant because the track vets are more vigilant. The track vets are more vigilant because the track execs are more vigilant. The track execs are more vigilant because the Commissions are more vigilant.
And, from the top rope, they're more vigilant because HISA is watching all of them.
For that - in this instance at least - I give HISA a cheer. I suspect the horses probably thank them, too.
Have a nice Monday everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment