SARATOGA SPRINGS, May 6, 2010--I’ve known John Veitch for some time. I first met him back in the day through Newsday turf writer Bill Nack. He hung out afternoons in a cottage on the Belmont backstretch with his buddy, David Whiteley.

Our relationship carried on through the Alydar-Affirmed era, he being the trainer of the former, of course, and it continued later when he was holding forth evenings at Lillian’s on Broadway here in Saratoga during race meets.

He doesn’t do that anymore and neither do I. In fact, I’m not sure I know anyone who does. The place is too crowded, as they say, so no one goes there anymore.

That, and the inevitable change of life style fostered by the kind of wisdom that only many spins around the track and resultant maturity can provide. When the teeth grow long, stamina grows short.

Anyone who’s met Veitch, now chief steward for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is familiar with his level of intelligence. When he first left the backstretch world, he tried to wise everyone up, telling anyone who listened that the trend of breeding for speed and the sales ring instead of the racetrack would have dire consequences.

Nobody listened, of course, but Veitch turned out to be a visionary. Eventually, steroids found their way into the backstretch and equine bloodstreams. They weren’t illegal at the time and had therapeutic uses. Of course, like too much of any good thing, they were abused.

That’s no longer the case as steroids were banned in the aftermath of Eight Belles and Big Brown’s Belmont debacle. So for the most part, two-year-old fillies don’t resemble five year old geldings any longer.

In the main there are two kinds of trainers; those who work for big outfits or have huge public stables, or betting trainers who must survive by their wits, skill and handicapping acumen.

As trainer for Calumet Farm, there never was a need for Veitch to survive via the betting window. Now, of course, as chief steward he can’t bet but it’s a role for which he is suited by dedication and sentiment.

Veitch deals with a strong hand and has unwavering integrity. He was the driving force behind righting L’Affaire Biancone. However, it might have been better for all horseplayers had Veitch been a bettor in the past, an exacta bettor to be precise.

Horseracing is based on a difference of opinion. It’s why one handicapper could look at Super Saver’s Arkansas Derby and see a colt hanging in deep stretch, while another looks at the race and sees a horse showing signs that perhaps it can be rated.

Moments after the Kentucky Derby, NBC showed replays of the stretch run. Moments after that, I was screaming at the high definition picture indicating that, to me, jockey Kent Desormeaux gave third finisher Paddy O’ Prado only intermittent urging in deep stretch.

Intermittent urging normally is reserved for a race winner, a horse clearly out front that is sure to win and needs not to be ridden aggressively in the final strides to do so.

Intermittent urging is commonly associated with the short descriptive comment “won ridden out,” meaning a horse was neither ridden aggressively nor eased late in a dominating performance. It means that the rider is keeping his horse focused while saving a little for next time. Bettors have no problem with this tack.

But not so on Saturday when Desormeaux’s intermittent late handling in all probability cost Paddy O’ Prado’s owners second money and bettors a winning 4-10 exacta. Originally, I wasn’t going to write about the incident because I had a vested interest in the outcome. Then I read a series of newspaper quotes.

“I think he thought he had second locked up,” trainer Dale Romans told Jennie Rees of the Louisville-Courier Journal. “I think if he kept riding harder, we’d have hung on for second.”

Then, perhaps not wanting to lose the talented Desormeaux‘s services, he qualified his remarks by adding: “He's a Hall of Fame jockey. You know you're going to get a good ride from him in the Preakness.”

The official Equibase chart indicated that Paddy O'Prado “hung” in the final sixteenth while Ice Box came roaring up on the outside to secure the place. In my opinion, Paddy O’ Prado did not hang, and apparently it didn’t appear that way to Desormeaux, either.

On Tuesday, continued the Rees story, Desormeaux sent Romans a text saying in part: “Could have won Derby. Let's win the Preakness … Galloped out in front FYI…”

Could have won, but should have been second. Hanging finishers normally don’t gallop out in front.

When I read Veitch’s comments in the story, my face turned devil’s red. “We looked at it and it was very marginal,” he said. “He has a reputation for doing that, but it really didn’t alter the outcome.”

Nearly $22 million was bet in the Derby exacta pool, not counting additional monies wagered in each of three advance betting pools conducted by Churchill Downs. Stewards everywhere need to learn the following: Their first obligation is to the betting public not the horsemen. On that there is no compromise.

Desormeaux’s actions probably did alter the outcome. A review of the replay, available online for review, will show that Desormeaux did not drive his horse strongly to the wire. In the final stages, the rider looked over his right shoulder and probably surmised that he could easily keep Make Music For Me safe, which he did by several lengths.

But Ice Box was rallying widest of all and outside of Make Music For Me. The rider likely never saw that late threat coming. Then, with the wire fast approaching, he like made peripheral contact with Ice Box and went back to scrubbing on ‘Paddy’. Too little and too late.

When a rider loses a race, or a placing, due to overconfidence, it’s usually the result of “styling,” showing the crowd and the connections that he and his horse are in complete control. They are wrong often enough to affect many outcomes. The practice is wrong headed and countermands the rule that jockeys must ride their mounts out to the finish.

Stewards on the other side of the world take this aspect seriously and their actions are transparent. American stewards do not and operate behind closed doors. Maybe they should be allowed to bet if for no other reason than to learn how it feels when their choice is beaten by rider arrogance.

What is really unforgivable here is the admission by Veitch that Desormeaux “has a reputation for doing that.” Then why is he not punished for doing so? Why is he allowed to continue flouting the rules so that he earns a reputation for doing so? This can no longer stand.

If by definition and opinion Desormeaux’s actions were too marginal to alter the order of finish, fine. I don’t agree but I can accept that judgment calls in any sport are part of the game. But when a rider is a member of the Hall of Famer in his sport, shouldn‘t he be a positive role model instead of one with a reputation for breaking the rules?

Maybe if jockeys were suspended and fined, say, the equivalent of the purse they cost the horse’s connections, this practice of not riding horses out to the finish would stop. But for that to happen, stewards everywhere must do their jobs. They are employed to protect the betting public.