You're at a teletheatre, betting the races. The seventh dash just crossed the wire and you know you've got a winning ticket that is sure to pay well. You turn away from the television screen, contemplating your big payday, when you hear somebody utter the most dreaded words imaginable: “There's an inquiry.”
You hope whoever said it was speaking about a simulcast race from Los Alamitos, but you know in your heart that your big score is in jeopardy. The next five minutes feel like hours. You glance at the screen and look away quickly, hoping the number will stop flashing, or the word “Inquiry” will change to “Official.” You close your eyes and open them, but your gaze remains locked on that television screen.
And then it comes. “Ladies and gentleman…” You can hear it in the way the track announcer says it. You've watched thousands of races and the tone of his voice is all you need to hear. Seconds later, your greatest fears are realized and your horse is “First, placed last.”
Yes, it's true that for every person who gets hurt from that inquiry, there is someone who benefits, but every horseplayer knows that those minutes of anguish take months off of lives. Horseplayer's wounds don't quickly fade from memory.
Flash forward a few months, when the race in question goes in front of a Commission panel, and an appeal is upheld. After “careful consideration,” the placing is reversed. While the purses are accordingly divided up, what about you, in the teletheatre - the customer? You receive no money, no apology, and no mention in the ruling. Your concerns are a distant memory.
While I will fully defend the right of rulings to be reviewed by an appellant body, especially when it comes to illegal substances, licensing, fines and suspensions, I question a system where “Official” race results are later overturned, because the judgment of Commissioners varies from the interpretation of on site judges.
When was the last time the result of a hockey game was changed two months after it ended because the league office felt the referees made a mistake? How about football or basketball? These things simply don't happen.
Interestingly, the sport of baseball has a mechanism where a game can be put under protest by a losing manager. But the rules very clearly state: “No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire.” Only once in the last 28 years has a Major League Baseball appeal been upheld and that was because of a failure by the home team's grounds crew, forcing a game to be prematurely and unfairly rained out. It was not because an umpire made a call that the league office disagreed with.
When a professional golfer has a question about where his ball should be placed, the judges make a call, and he continues with his round. When a tennis umpire rules in or out, the call is final. Just like in horse racing, these decisions can cost players and team owners hundreds of thousands of dollars, but that's why numerous checks and balances are employed on site, during the event. We have a crew of qualified judges, numerous television camera angles to look at, and the ability to interview participants on the spot. Shouldn't “Official” be official?
Last year, a bettor at Gulfstream Park lost out on a $1.66 million payout when a horse he'd chosen in the final leg of the Rainbow Six wager was disqualified for mid-stretch interference. Imagine if the owner of the DQ'd horse had appealed the call, and had it reversed. Yes, the owner would get a larger piece of the $34,000 purse, but the customer would still walk away with nothing. Surely we can do better.
Darryl Kaplan
Very well written and amusing
Very well written and amusing synopsis of that dread scenario Darryl!
Almost as if you know the feeling first-hand...
Horse racing
Horse racing (harness/thoroughbred) needs CONSISTENCY in their rulings.They also need to eliminate when the Commissions ruling varies from the interpretation of on site judges. The way to do that is to implement what they have in the NHL, which is the situation room or better known as the WAR ROOM.
A centralized video review room. The same qualified group of people would work there every night. They would make the same decisions night in and night out. Consistency and accuracy. The technology exists.
There is some subjectivity to it. But the same group of guys/gals who are going to call a pylon/break/excessivewhipping/etc. today/tonight are going to call it that way tomorrow day/night, too.
Ah Mr. Joe Riga. You keep
Ah Mr. Joe Riga. You keep speaking the truth and all we do is keep calling it Hell!!
I would like to add the
I would like to add the dovuta hanover "fair start". That was the second time in two weeks that happened to me.
I have to agree with most of
I have to agree with most of the points made here by Darryl and Joe Rigs' comments. I think that Joe is pointing out one of my major concerns with racing and that is the inconstancies of the officiating from track to track and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This brings up another big problem that I've wanted to write about and that is the ridiculous drug testing procedure which provides no protection whatsoever for the customer. Example -
I have $100.00 invested in Win tickets and the top of my Ex, Tri and SF tickets on a horse at 10-1 odds. So my horse finishes 2nd and I tear up all the tickets. Then next week the drug test comes back as positive on the winner and he is disqualified and my horse is placed first and the purse is redistributed thus protecting the horse people involved but what about me? Nobody redistributes the mutual payouts or my investment! If drug testing is going to protect the customer the only way it will work is to test every horse before the race and scratch any horse that tests positive.
The judging of harness racing
The judging of harness racing is awful. It's the most inconsistent judging of any sport I've watched. Placements happen depending on who is involved in the inquiry not on what has transpired to create the inquiry. The only jurisdiction that I've seen that has competent judging is New Jersey.
I agree with Joe in regards to getting post time favorites in pick 3 and pick 4 tickets. This has to be the most ridiculous thing in all of horse betting.
To any of us that have been
To any of us that have been part of this game for a long time I would say quite a few of us have had this happen to them. I can tell you it has certainly happened to me and I assure you I was not happy. This is one aspect of the game (along with the ridiculous fair start rule) that is extremely unfair to the fans and I can certainly see how it would turn anyone off the game. To add to what Darryl is saying, what is just as frustrating is how an incident at one track will cause a horse to be disqualified the same incident at another track will not even be looked at. While this seems to apply more to thoroughbreds it happens in standardbred racing as well.
There are certain rules that are very suspect at best.
1) the disqualification only to be reversed later as clearly described by Darryl
2) the fair start rule which is anything but a fair start, which even drivers like Chris Christoforou admitted in a recent interview was extremely unfair, in this case to both the bettors as well as the connections of the horse involved.
3) the lapped on break rule which is so inconsistently interpreted that it is laughable.
These are just 3 examples of where horse racing needs to improve if they want to attract and retain fans. As Darryl so clearly points out this does not happen in any other sport and it should not happen in horse racing. Three stewards with access to replay should be able to get it right the first time.
Another ridiculous rule is how someone who bets a win 4 ticket is forced to accept the post time favourite if their horse is scratched. This is unfair because most people who bet a win 4 ticket or any race for that matter do so by trying to determine how the race may unfold. For example if the race time favourite is a closer and he is a favourite because there is deemed to be a lot of speed in a race, well what if the scratched horse is one of the speed horses. Does that not now compromise the closer's chances. Maybe as a win 4 bettor I would've preferred to have the horse who may also be a speed horse and who's chances are now enhanced by the elimination of the other speed.
I am not sure what the answer is but perhaps they can give holders of live win 4 tickets the option of either keeping their ticket and accepting the post time favourite or cashing out for a refund prior to the start of the race.
Something should be done because it is not a fair rule.
In reply to To any of us that have been by fantom
If the officials in ice
If the officials in ice hockey were related to the players, I would never get out of the penalty box, however I have now the understanding, the judges ruling is correct, if you disagree go to rule 2, when you read that it says refer to rule 1.
Seriously people,why does an official need to speak with anyone when a penalty is being handed out, either it is or it is not. Furthermore the time has come where changes will be beneficial to everyone in the business, we know what changes will be beneficial for all, lets hear them please,thank you. Mike
Or continue complaining forever,,,the administration may not understand what we know,lets share it with them.