Sunday at Tampa Bay Downs, I experienced one of those Abbott and Costello moments, only the apt paraphrase is more like: “They’re Off, You Lose.” “No, Wait a Minute; You Won.” “No, You Won, But, I’m Sorry, You Lose.”
For some reason that is unclear to these experienced eyes, the final race of the day, one that completed the Late 5, Pick 4 and Pick 5 sequences, was taken off the turf and rescheduled to the main track.
Three races already had been run on the grass, yet, off the turf came the finale. Even if it were the last race, it was the best one on the card, a nice allowance race featuring three year old fillies.
It was an event that was good enough to attract the favorite from the New York-based barn John Terranova, and also an uncoupled pair from the powerful grass outfit of Graham Motion.
Viewed on my 48-inch high definition television monitor, three previous grass races appeared to go without incident. The seventh race at 1-1/16 miles, run an hour before the rescheduled event, featured a winner that raced wide throughout, with his winning momentum carrying old pro Vanquisher six wide at headstretch.
The horse he defeated was a game, come-again runnerup, Themanmythnlegend, who re-rallied along the inside to briefly loom a potential upsetter.
Did I mention that between the seventh and ninth race, it never rained?
This same scenario played itself out at Gulfstream Park last winter, only it poured prior to the running of their finale. The race came off the turf and, after a bevy of scratches, the payoffs were based on the remaining entrants.
Predictably, the incident became a public relations nightmare and might have become the impetus of Florida racing law regarding rescheduled turf races being changed this summer.
Following a precedent set in New York several years ago, Florida races rescheduled to another surface after betting has closed, such as Sunday’s Tampa Bay finale, will be designated an “ALL” race for those holding tickets on sequential wagers.
Short of issuing a multi-race wagering bet slip that allows for “alternate” selections in the event of late scratches and/or surface switches, deeming rescheduled races an ALL is a fair and equitable solution.
Following the eighth race, my partner and I were alive to four horses in the Pick 5 finale, offering will-pay possibilities, with rounding, of $1,400, 600, 500 and 6,000. The straight odds on those runners, respectively, were 3-1, 3-1, 6-5 and 12-1.
Since we were alive with four horses, we would have four winning “ALL” tickets in the Pick 5 regardless of the result. Langcita moved to the lead at headstretch and held off the rally off the poor starting, much-the-best favored runnerup, Pelipa.
Motion and Terranova finished 1-2. Our $1,400 possibility beat our $500 possibility by 1-1/4 lengths.
Before we knew for certain what the rule was in this situation, I said to my partner I’d just as well take my chances rather than settle for an “ALL” if that were the case. Instead of $1,400, we collected $153 four times. You can do the math.
I also said at the time that this race never should have been rescheduled to the main track. No one wants to put jockeys in harm’s way; no one. But the Tampa stewards should have trusted their own expertise and visual evidence and done what was best to serve the betting public.
The running times of the three previous grass races appeared in line with the quality of the horses, neither aberrantly slow or fast. There was no discernible bias favoring a particular running style.
Tampa boasts one of the deepest jock’s rooms in the country in terms of sheer numbers. If riders didn’t want to ride, replacements were readily available.
I’m sure there will be a predictable explanation forthcoming deeming the rescheduling a necessity. But barring something truly unusual, the explanation will ring hollow here. Today’s stewards put the wishes of horsemen and management before those of the betting public they are paid to serve.
The “ALL” provision protected the public; the stewards should have served them.
The state of Florida did the right thing by amending racing rules governing rescheduled turf races this summer. It’s too bad that today’s racing officials too often fail to take responsibility, own the moment, and do likewise.


31 Dec 2012 at 06:22 pm | #
This is sour grapes.
“Viewed on my 48-inch high definition television monitor, three previous grass races appeared to go without incident.”
Ah, technology. Just like being there except you were not.
“No one wants to put jockeys in harm’s way; no one.”
“If riders didn’t want to ride, replacements were readily available.”
Shouldn’t staetement one read “No one wants to put good jocks in harms way, only the bad/desperate ones?”
“But barring something truly unusual, the explanation will ring hollow here.”
You don’t care what was the truth, you are just mad about your payoff. You made more money than your 2 lowest odds horses would have paid. Would we have seen this writeup if the “$500 winner” would have come in? Please explain how this benefitted the track.
Really really lame.
31 Dec 2012 at 07:35 pm | #
HRI regulars are going to be shocked--shocked--to learn that OTM Al once again being the champion of the upperdog, coming to the defense of the racing establishment.
I should have lied by omission. I thought long and hard about relating my “personal” experience in this for fear that someone would see it as sour grapes.
Well, Al, as someone who regularly plays P4s and P5s--those with attractive takeout rates, that is--there’s NOTHING like going into the final leg knowing that you can’t lose.
Yes, I confess that I was rooting for the tough-luck favorite, or the other 3-1 chance, to win, knowing that it would have resulted in a small windfall ($153 x 4 vs. tickets paying $500 and $600, respectively, just as you figured).
What I am guilty of is being a “sore winner,” something I abhor because it’s unseemly.
I know now that I should have not told the entire story, so that I could have looked like a hero to disingenuous observers such as yourself.
The real issue here, OTM, just as it is whenever I disagree with any official decision, is to speak for those who don’t have a voice and to possibly make the authorities think twice before they act next time.
Then that’s probably folly, like having your political opponent negotiate in good faith, or having critics fail to try understanding both sides of an issue.
31 Dec 2012 at 07:49 pm | #
Defending? No, I’m calling you a hypocrite. It is patently clear with the two statements you made about the jockies. Don’t want them hurt but sure bet you can find some suckers to ride the race. Sorry that you damned yourself with that one.
Further, you don’t even have an official decision to disagree with, only the result, that the race was taken off. You don’t even know what the official decision was. You admit this yourself.
Maybe if you would have put together a complete story I would have took your side, but as I said originally, all I see here is sour grapes.
31 Dec 2012 at 09:28 pm | #
It seems more like the Grapes of Wrath are involved here as, once again, the Serial NYRA Apologist graces HRI with his joyful presence and personal animus. I can only imagine his delight when he thought he found something he could bash one of the turf writers he proudly and openly despises without challenge elsewhere.
How could it be that this fearless foe of hypocrisy found nothing to flap his gums about in the face of the New NYRA Board’s hypocrisy when it stopped questioning the wisdom of prohibiting betting by executives once someone pointed out that board members would be unaffected by the ban?
31 Dec 2012 at 09:49 pm | #
I,
Never mind New NYRA executives betting or not, which I personally see as a non-issue.
But the question is, in light of Jerry Bossert’s honest assessment of Aqueduct by the Sea, should be directed to Ms McClain.
Where is the largesse you received from Genting, collecting interest? Yes, some of it goes to the smaller purses of winter, but it’s certainly not being spent on capital improvements.
OK, there are probably plans on the drawing board as I write this, but progress has been s-l-o-o-o-w in this area to say the least.
Just would hate to think that somehow those funds will be diverted to prop up NYRA’s end of year balance sheet.
31 Dec 2012 at 10:16 pm | #
Hey Linkboy. Nice attempt at deflection, but although NYRA is to blame for AIDS, Hurricane Sandy, 9/11 and the rest of the world’s ills, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is the type of whine that has become all too common. All blame, no facts. Tell us the full story of Tampa on 12/30 and then let us judge. Until then it is simply a sorry sob story.
Mr. Pricci, I must say using “Bossert” and “honest assessment” in the same sentance humors me to no end. However, you two want to be the reporters around here. Why don’t you find out and tell us why the capital improvements are moving so slowly. I know why. In fact it has been reported. Why not tell us what the problems are.
31 Dec 2012 at 10:36 pm | #
Oh, do share, Mr. Al…
And I called Bossert’s story an honest assessment because I was at Aqueduct in early December. Casino? Very Nice. Aqueduct? Dirty and depressing.
Oh, and since you know everything but are reluctant to share with this audience, a question: Are you aware that Tom Durkin, who suffers from chronic bronchitis, had to call John Imbriale to help him one afternoon a few weeks ago because the space heater in the announcer’s booth couldn’t cut the cold enough for Tom to continue doing his job?
Conditions at Aqueduct these days are nothing short of deplorable; a Board member admitted as much at the last public meeting, saying that he doesn’t even go to Aqueduct to watch his horses race on most afternoons.
There I go, deflecting again.
31 Dec 2012 at 10:48 pm | #
So write your exposé then. I’m sure you’ll do better than Bossert as you do have talent in writing. I know I’ll never get an answer on how you are all for jockey safety but think it’s appropriate to troll the jock room for replacements when the jockeys that have been riding find conditions unsafe.
31 Dec 2012 at 11:12 pm | #
unrelated, but, something i want to bring up.
pompano park reduced the takeout on the pick 4 to 10% . the lowest in the country.
the bet is sponsoed in part by the us trotting association strategic wagering initiative. free pp’s are available at their wbsite. the pool is guaranteed at five thoiusand.
last week no one hit two days in a row, so there was a carryover that got up over 30 thousand.
i decided to give it a shot. downloaded the pp’s and handicapped.
only one problem, interbets (catskill otb) didn’t have the pick 4 on their wagering menu. i called them to find out why (i’ve bet the pompano pick 4 at otb in the past). they didn’t understand why and told me they’d look into it.
they also said the problem could be with the racetrack.
well the bet still isn’t available online, so i went to the otb in kingston. guess what? although the bet is listed on the sheet, it’s not available there either. they don’t know why.
now the only difference between now and last year is the lowered takeout. up till a few weeks ago the takeout was 15% and the bet was available then.
doesn’t seem right.
01 Jan 2013 at 12:28 am | #
It seems to me that the Stewards at race tracks are not held accountable for their decisions. Why couldn’t the stewards at Tampa announce why this last minute decision had been made in light of no apparent reason for the decision to come off the grass. I tried to listen to the feed on both TVG & expressbet but was not able to get any info. Once again there is no transparency. Last year at Laurel, a horse I was involved in was taken down with no stewards inquiry about 10 minutes after the race was over. I called the stewards to ask them about their ruling since there was no contact during the race between horses & jocks & the second horse never caught the leader. The steward I spoke to told me that the decision was made in the best interest of racing. I asked him how taking down the favorite in the race & the leading rider without incident was in the best interest of racing. He never answered the question & hung up. I guess this is sour grapes on my part.
01 Jan 2013 at 12:42 am | #
They know why Denny, they won’t take it because of the low takeout--they can’t make money on it. The USTA giving its support understands a marketing effort.
And Catskill OTB wanted to run NYC-OTB. What a joke. Reach out to Pompano and the USTA and let me know what kind of response you get. Off topic is fine, especially if it helps the player.
Think the DRF harness writer will touch on this? Why not ask him? Or ask OTM Al, he’ll know, but he won’t say.
01 Jan 2013 at 12:49 am | #
Thanks for sharing, laurelman. I spoke with the marketing vice-president at Tampa Bay Downs and she was very helpful, but explained that it was a state of Florida matter. I’ll follow up with Fla. officials when I get down there again next week.
So, you were looking for transparency, and said that you were involved with a horse, as an owner I assume?
Well, if owners can’t get an answer, and get hung up on by an official, what chance do bettors have that their best interests will be held in high regard?
Two chances of that, and I haven’t seen Slim in weeks. Thanks for weighing in.
01 Jan 2013 at 01:39 am | #
Well, nice to see some effort. Not sure what a race at Laurel a year ago has to do with the issue though. Looking forward to hearing what happened. Seem to recall Tampa being lauded as a friend to players up until last year.
I think you answered the trotter question quite well. Have contended ADWs are a major impediment to lowering take to many deaf ears. Nice to see a concrete example. Oh, and you’ll be glad to know we agree on the Catskill OTB issue. Wonder how much grease was behind that now dead bill.
01 Jan 2013 at 02:23 am | #
Denny M several years ago Keeneland lowered their takeout and NY OYBs and the NE regional tracks refused to take the signal
09 Jan 2013 at 09:44 am | #
Motion and Terranova finished 1-2. Our $1,400 possibility beat our $500 possibility by 1-1/4 lengths. Rech Chemcial Co.Ltd http://www.rqsulfates.com