Andy Beyer in the Post today went through the machinations stews normally go through when deciding if they're going to place a horse back. It was a piece talking about what regulars know all too well, but for newer race-watchers, it was pure gold.
One section caught my eye, and it's been alluded to a few times the past week --
"What purpose was served by disqualifying the winner? If it was to make a statement about the importance of safety in race-riding......."
There's been no secret that the Santa Anita situation has had reverberations. In fact, PETA showed up at a CDI shareholders meeting recently and had an audience with the gambling giant. It seems, of late, jurisdictions - certainly publicly - are walking on eggshells about these horse and horse safety issues, and don't want to step in it.
What Beyer alludes - the stews making a call based on a statement about safety - is pure speculation. But there is some evidence it could be true. If it was, and there was a bias to change something that looked dangerous that wasn't there last year, or 144 other years, I think they sure went about it the wrong way.
A regular business, or sports league, in my view, would do something like this (and I know this seems obvious) -
On Tuesday, at a Q and A, the track and commission said "the Derby is a roughly run race, and we'll be keeping a closer eye on things this year"
On Friday, at the jocks meeting they told them, "careful out there, because we're watching for interference."
If something like that did occur, the DQ on Saturday would not even be a story. The Wests would've expected it, just like everyone else would've. There'd be a shrug.
I think it does resonate, because horse racing is often reactive, rather than proactive. I don't know if it's the lack of a central office, proper and good PR, or what. But it's always in the back of our minds when something like this happens. I don't think that changes anytime soon; confidence appears to me to be lower than ever right now.
Have a nice Tuesday everyone.
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
Monday, May 6, 2019
Change the Derby, the Crown. Sure, Be Nimble
On Saturday, Multiracewagers on twitter made a pretty neat point.
As we know, the Masters shocked us by moving up leader group tee times to 9:20 eastern, going off in threesomes, and throwing the entire tournament out of whack on a whim. This was to get the tournament in on Sunday for fans and players, in seamless fashion. The logistics of it must have been stout.
And this is supposed to be an event married to tradition, and everything else.
Meanwhile, the folks running the Derby saw the radar and shrugged.
Who knows, does Maximum Security get messed up if the track is fast which it would've been if they moved the race up?
Sloppy tracks, especially with twenty horses, can cause serious issues. We "love our horses" right?
Regardless, it wasn't even apparently discussed. Tradition, money, something.
Today we saw chatter (if you have these words blocked on twitter, I don't blame you) that the Triple Crown races should be changed.
In recent years, and again this year, with horses' connections talking about skipping the Preakness like it's a starter allowance at Canterbury, why not talk about it.
Moving back to old, traditional, never-change golf, the PGA Championship goes next week. The event, branded as "Glory's Last Shot" is held in August, and has been for a gazillion years...... until it wasn't. They moved the event up to have four golf majors on the calendar in four straight months. They think it will help the sport.
I love tradition. I'm all for tradition. But that doesn't mean we can't progress.
Running a Preakness when a full field of great horses can meet, moving a Derby from a 6:35 post time to 4:40 to ensure a better and safer race for fans, bettors and horsepeople, should not be simply be shrugged off.
Change, and being nimble is sometimes a good thing.
Not that I expected any different..... the biggest golf tourney of the year moves tee times up 4 hours to finish ahead of weather. Biggest horse race of the year? Let's wait until weather hits and turns the track into a sea of mud.— Skibasher (@MultiraceWagers) May 4, 2019
As we know, the Masters shocked us by moving up leader group tee times to 9:20 eastern, going off in threesomes, and throwing the entire tournament out of whack on a whim. This was to get the tournament in on Sunday for fans and players, in seamless fashion. The logistics of it must have been stout.
And this is supposed to be an event married to tradition, and everything else.
Meanwhile, the folks running the Derby saw the radar and shrugged.
Who knows, does Maximum Security get messed up if the track is fast which it would've been if they moved the race up?
Sloppy tracks, especially with twenty horses, can cause serious issues. We "love our horses" right?
Regardless, it wasn't even apparently discussed. Tradition, money, something.
Today we saw chatter (if you have these words blocked on twitter, I don't blame you) that the Triple Crown races should be changed.
In recent years, and again this year, with horses' connections talking about skipping the Preakness like it's a starter allowance at Canterbury, why not talk about it.
Moving back to old, traditional, never-change golf, the PGA Championship goes next week. The event, branded as "Glory's Last Shot" is held in August, and has been for a gazillion years...... until it wasn't. They moved the event up to have four golf majors on the calendar in four straight months. They think it will help the sport.
I love tradition. I'm all for tradition. But that doesn't mean we can't progress.
Running a Preakness when a full field of great horses can meet, moving a Derby from a 6:35 post time to 4:40 to ensure a better and safer race for fans, bettors and horsepeople, should not be simply be shrugged off.
Change, and being nimble is sometimes a good thing.
Sunday, May 5, 2019
The Kentucky Stewards Have Some Splaining to Do
Hey, did you hear? There was a DQ in the Kentucky Derby...... of the winner. I feel like typing that again, because I am sure you were as shocked as I was.
In the vast history of the 145 year rough and tumble event - where you can find a foul probably four times a year if you look hard enough - there have been a grand total of five inquiries (not a typo). One was allowed (a fourth, placed fifth) and the rest were let stand, including a 1933 claim where the jockeys were trying to beat each other up down the lane.
Why has it always been like that?
I spoke with a newbie about it, where she asked "it was a foul right, so he had to come down?". I told her a simple story.
It's the last play of the Super Bowl, millions of dollars and glory are at stake; millions are watching on television. The Hail Mary occurs and the ball floats to the end zone.
I asked her, "is there pass interference?"
She said, "yes, really bad interference. It's laughable"
"And it's not called, because.... "
"They don't want to change the result."
In modern Thoroughbred racing, this occurs in a lot of big grade I races. My personal favorite was Goldikova in the '11 Mile, where she wiped out almost the entire field and was left up, but there are many, and I'm sure you have a favorite or two of your own. It's maddening because oftentimes it is dangerous, but they let the horses decide.
Much of this was covered in an excellent book called Scorecasting. It's just the way it is.
This year, the stewards, for some reason, decided to inject themselves into the outcome. And I, for one, am left wondering why.
Why did they do something they've never done for an in-race infraction, ever? That is, DQ a winner who was pretty clearly much the best?
Sports - with both participants and customers - is expectation. We expect a mauling on Hail Marys, and we expect half the field to get mugged in the Kentucky Derby. When the officials call things differently, they enter the spotlight, and it's inevitable - they'll have a lot of explaining to do.
Have a nice Sunday everyone.
In the vast history of the 145 year rough and tumble event - where you can find a foul probably four times a year if you look hard enough - there have been a grand total of five inquiries (not a typo). One was allowed (a fourth, placed fifth) and the rest were let stand, including a 1933 claim where the jockeys were trying to beat each other up down the lane.
Why has it always been like that?
I spoke with a newbie about it, where she asked "it was a foul right, so he had to come down?". I told her a simple story.
It's the last play of the Super Bowl, millions of dollars and glory are at stake; millions are watching on television. The Hail Mary occurs and the ball floats to the end zone.
I asked her, "is there pass interference?"
She said, "yes, really bad interference. It's laughable"
"And it's not called, because.... "
"They don't want to change the result."
In modern Thoroughbred racing, this occurs in a lot of big grade I races. My personal favorite was Goldikova in the '11 Mile, where she wiped out almost the entire field and was left up, but there are many, and I'm sure you have a favorite or two of your own. It's maddening because oftentimes it is dangerous, but they let the horses decide.
Much of this was covered in an excellent book called Scorecasting. It's just the way it is.
This year, the stewards, for some reason, decided to inject themselves into the outcome. And I, for one, am left wondering why.
Why did they do something they've never done for an in-race infraction, ever? That is, DQ a winner who was pretty clearly much the best?
Sports - with both participants and customers - is expectation. We expect a mauling on Hail Marys, and we expect half the field to get mugged in the Kentucky Derby. When the officials call things differently, they enter the spotlight, and it's inevitable - they'll have a lot of explaining to do.
Have a nice Sunday everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Most Trafficked, Last 12 Months
-
Standardbred Canada has a poll up asking who is the greatest trotter who ever lived. These questions are fun, but really it is impossible t...
-
There has been a lot of discussion of late via #simocon about racing, betting and signals and all the rest. The main theme is that racing ca...
-
2024 marked the first year ever that Woodbine Entertainment did not put out a year end press release detailing their annual and year over y...
-
We've all seen public money dry up over the years in all of racing, where the sharp money seems to know. We've also seen (for not on...
-
I spent a couple of hours the past few days listening to the Bet With the Best podcast with guest Marshall Gramm. In my view, it is one o...
-
I'm always looking for new ideas or mediums to learn in the game (in that evergreen quest to get better) and I'd been meaning to div...
-
On the Harness Edge this morning, I see that there is a story up about the BCSA offering their members up for driver and trainer interviews ...
-
How do we differentiate ourselves from thoroughbred bettors? What are the pros and cons of being a harness bettor? In a recent article at R2...
-
Good morning everyone. I hope the day is treating you well. So much happened this weekend, and much of it stuck in my craw (or in my amazem...
Similar
Carryovers Provide Big Reach and an Immediate Return
Sinking marketing money directly into the horseplayer by seeding pools is effective, in both theory and practice In Ontario and elsewher...