The noxious vapor path left by the unfolding of the Nov. 5 Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Turf (G1T) at Del Mar continues to waft via the corners of the sport. Social media will not let it go, and rightfully so, and neither ought to these official entities who presided over the scratching, unscratching, and subsequent purse-only profitable efficiency of the colt Modern Games , whose very name belies the awkward rules and procedures that ended the first day of the championship racing on a chorus of catcalls and bad vibes.
One week later, only two questions had been answered of the many swirling around the classic Howard Cosell soundbite, “Who goofed? I’ve got to know.”
First, Carl Woods, the assistant starter injured while trying to free Albahr , pinned in the gate next to Modern Games, was okay and going right back to work. These people are tough.
The other was the identity of the veterinarian on the scene who made the honest call—though misguided and premature—to scratch Modern Games. By offering Dr. Chuck Jenkins up for public sacrifice in the name of holy transparency and without sufficient context, racing officials did nothing to improve their standing with the keepers of bad karma. But that’s for later. And it always comes.
The true crime perpetrated on the betting public was allowing Modern Games to run as a non-wagering interest, a term that should not even exist in pari-mutuel horse racing. Wagering is horse racing, and horse racing is wagering. To insert a horse into a pari-mutuel event that does not carry the wagering dollars of customers is an afront to the deepest understanding of the modern sport. And by “modern” I mean going back hundreds of years.
It may be argued that the working of a horse race has nothing to do with the betting on that race, and within the literal sense that is true. The 2 worlds are separate, although equally vital, one representing the bodily actuality of a blood sport during which each step could possibly be the final for each horses and riders, whereas the opposite is a participatory assemble involving the danger of {dollars} primarily based on the end result of an occasion over which the particular person risking these {dollars} has no affect or management.
However that’s an ivory tower argument that holds no water. Pat Cummings of the Thoroughbred Initiative Basis has made the purpose, greater than as soon as prior to now week, that Trendy Video games working for purse cash solely was honest just for “Godolphin, Charlie Appleby, and William Buick,” the proprietor, coach, and jockey. For everybody else—the opposite homeowners, trainers, jockeys, and horseplayers who guess on Trendy Video games—it was decidedly unfair, simply because it was unfair that some horseplayers benefited from the shift in pari-mutuel payoffs to the horses who completed behind Trendy Video games.
Alas, the stewards had no selection within the matter. The regulation that was utilized—the now infamous CHRB rule #1974—states {that a} horse faraway from the wagering pool resulting from an error, when neither the proprietor nor the coach is at fault, shall begin anyway for purse cash as a non-wagering curiosity. The operative phrase there may be “shall”—not “could” or “on the stewards’ discretion.” It’s a time period that comes with a set of handcuffs, together with the power to clean these fingers of any accountability.
“Individuals have been upset, and understandably so,” stated Scott Chaney, CHRB govt director. “There was an error, no query. However in case you’re speaking about eliminating the rule, it’s essential take into account the tremendous distinctive circumstances that occurred. The vet made the type of mistake I’ve by no means heard of earlier than and can most likely by no means occur once more. Then, the previous favourite needed to win, and the post-time betting favourite didn’t end second. All these issues needed to line up for the actually distasteful end result.
“I submit, although, that if (Trendy Video games) would have been put again into the wagering pool, you’d have had fewer individuals upset, however those who have been upset would have had an excellent greater beef,” Chaney added.
The lack to reinstate the mutuel swimming pools linked to Trendy Video games is one other matter that must be addressed, and shortly. We’ll wait.
The present wording of Rule #1974 has not been round that lengthy. In truth, it celebrated its tenth anniversary simply final April, amended from its earlier textual content, which learn, “A wagering curiosity could also be anyone horse in a race, or could also be two or extra horses coupled as a single wagering curiosity as an ‘Entry’ or the ‘Area.'”
On the time, the coupling of a number of horses as a single betting curiosity was on its method out in California. There was ongoing angst in regards to the sturdy half of the entry being scratched, sticking bettors with the weaker half in the event that they weren’t capable of swap or refund their tickets. Eliminating coupled entries solved that drawback.
Across the similar time, there occurred a number of clerical racing workplace screw-ups conveying the message to stewards {that a} horse had been scratched when it had not. In consequence, a motion arose from the ranks of householders looking for redress for such errors. Unjustly disadvantaged of an opportunity for a bit of a handbag, they lobbied for the concept their incorrectly scratched horse needs to be inserted again into the sector. The sausage-making of compromise started to grind, and what got here out the opposite finish was the concept the horse scratched in error ought to run for purse cash solely.
This was a misguided try to chop the newborn in two, supposedly defending the pursuits of each horseplayers and homeowners. In truth, such a observe does extra hurt than good.
“That idea promotes homeowners instantly over bettors,” Cummings stated on The Paulick Report. “It says there are going to be two races right here—one for the homeowners, one for the bettors—however the bettors do not get to take part in that first race, the place their bets indirectly could also be doubtlessly impacted by a horse they can not wager on. That has to go. It does beg the query: Is what occurred within the CHRB rule that was in impact to permit Trendy Video games to run for purse cash solely … fairest for the most important variety of clients? And the reply is totally no.”
Neither is it honest for the opposite homeowners within the race who discover their horses working beneath completely different orders. Not surprisingly, Chaney disagrees.
“The problem of rule-making is to negatively influence the fewest potential individuals whereas reaching the intent of the rule,” Chaney stated. “I do not see any draw back in a purse-money-only horse. I perceive it is robust watching the horse you want win the race and never be capable to guess on it. However that horse remains to be topic to the entire issues the opposite horses are, together with the driving guidelines. It isn’t as if there is a horse on the market working free doing something he desires. The one distinction is, you’ll be able to’t guess on that horse.”
As variations go, that is a giant one, principally the distinction between a pari-mutuel horse race and an exhibition. I submit that you could’t run them each on the similar time and do justice to both.
