There was enough rancor to go around. There were lusty boos before and after the stewards' inquiry. Richard Mandella, the trainer of Setsuko, who missed by a nose after twice almost being knocked down in the stretch, said next to nothing. This is not Mandella, never has been, but there he was, in the wake of the outcome, offering "I've got nothing to say, no comment, it wouldn't be worth writing," and walking away. His jockey, Victor Espinoza, was more to the point. "It's the wrong decision," he said. "I don't know why it took so long to make the wrong decision. I think the stewards are blind. They need to have some education so people know what's going on at the races. Obviously, those three stewards, they don't know what they're looking at. How many times do they have to drop me to disqualify the horse? That's insane."
Before the bumping, Sutherland had already hit Game On Dude twice lefthanded as they left the quarter pole. When the horses straightened out, there was Game On Dude on the inside, with Setsuko on the outside and Twirling Candy, a 1-2 shot in need of a respirator, between them. Twirling Candy and his rider, Joel Rosario, drifted to the outside, slamming into Setsuko. Twirling Candy bounced off and was headed in Game On Dude's direction, but before he could get there, Sutherland whacked her mount two more times lefthanded. I watched this in slo-mo dozens of times, and every time I came away convinced that Game On Dude bumped Twirling Candy before Twirling Candy made contact with him. There was daylight between the two horses while Sutherland was flailing away. When the horses finally bumped, that sent Twirling Candy to his right again, as Setsuko took the worst of it for the second time. Setsuko still made the lead, by a tiny margin, before Game On Dude came on again, just in time for the wire. Twirling Candy finished fifth.
Of the stewards, Chaney and Ward voted for no change in the result. Sawyer, who felt that Game On Dude and Twirling Candy were equally responsible for the bumping, came down on the side of disqualification. Chaney saw something I didn't. "It's a fair debate whether (Game On Dude) came out a little bit," he told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "The lefthanded whipping actually makes the horse look like he's coming out. But we looked at the horse itself and not the lefthanded whipping. (Game On Dude) was still going straight. On a quick glance, it looks like (Sutherland) is hitting lefthanded, the horse comes out and just starts the big disaster. But if you watch it closely, the inside horse goes very straight, maybe comes out an inch if you want to be really critical, but most of the drifting is coming from the middle horse and (he) makes contact and causes the whole chain reaction after that. There are several more bumping incidents, but it was initiated by the middle horse (Twirling Candy)."
No matter how many times I watch the head-on, I see daylight between Twirling Candy and Game On Dude, until Sutherland begins her whipping. "The inside (Game On Dude) came out, and the outside (Setsuko) kind of stayed with me," said Rosario, Twirling Candy's rider. "He (Game On Dude) bumped me pretty hard, and I lost control. After that, I didn't have anything. I lost all the momentum."
Baffert's win came on top of his win in the race last year with Misremembered, a horse he bred. He started four horses this time.
"The five (Twirling Candy) came in, and his hind end hit the 11 (Game On Dude), and that started a chain reaction," Baffert said. "(Rosario, on Twirling Candy) was out of horse, and that's what started that ping-pong effect. It was a tough call. The first time I saw it, live, I thought we might be in trouble. But when I saw the replay, I knew there was a chance of us staying up."
Sutherland, one of Canada's leading riders, doesn't ride for Baffert, but she got the call when John Velazquez, Baffert's jockey at entry time, stayed back in Florida to ride at Gulfstream Park. A female jockey had never won the Big 'Cap, and in fact, few of them had ever ridden in the race. Robyn Smith and Julie Krone rode in the race once each, and last year Sutherland finished 10th with Pool Play, a 70-1 shot. Game On Dude, who had run only once since running fourth in last year's Belmont, was 14-1. Before Game On Dude, Sutherland had won only three races the entire meet. "If you're sitting there at the right time," she said, "something great can happen." Her body language was one wall-to-wall smile.



06 Mar 2011 at 12:06 pm | #
Mr. Christine, I saw it the way you and Kim Sawyer did. Nothing personal against Sutherland, and Game on Dude ran the best race of his life; but it was a bad ride and a bad call by the 2 stewards. In the post-race interview, Baffert’s face put the lie to his words. Setsuko should’ve had the win.
But hey, what about that Quindici Man? Looked like a silver bullet coming up the stretch!
06 Mar 2011 at 02:19 pm | #
Questionable decisions by stewards have occurred for decades and have aroused the ire of patrons of Thoroughbred racing also for decades (and my ire for decades). Steward decisions are, in fact, a contributing factor to driving ‘fans’ away from the ‘game’.
Don’t must jobs require schooling of some sort? Stewards become stewards just because they are breathing and have been associated with Thoroughbred racing in some form, or have an influential friend within the industry.
Wait a bit until there is another stake race with obvious violations by jockeys and you will get another commentary from a turf writer; such violations, and decisions made by stewards, occur daily coast to coast at racetracks beneath the radar of turf writers; and, the bettors, feeling ‘ripped’, head for a casino next out.
Isn’t the obvious thought being why isn’t there a school for stewards? To have a school would require racetracks to agree that such is needed.
Won’t happen! So, bettors who find the inconsistency of steward decisions also find it ridiculous gamble on the horses.
You can cheer and jump up and down when your horse crosses the finish line first, but don’t go by a round of beers until the official sign is posted, as there are stewards to contend with; and this has been going on for decades.
Just another situation that is driving people away from Thoroughbred racing.
06 Mar 2011 at 02:19 pm | #
I was there and initially thought Game on Dude should go down. After seeing the replay about 2 dozen times I do think that Twirling Candy initiated the mess; with that being the case, the original finish should stand. However, I do think Chantel should be suspended three days because it was an error of judgment to go to the left-handed whip in that situation. Setsuko was never going to beat Game on Dude.
06 Mar 2011 at 02:23 pm | #
wmcorrow; I agree with you about stewards attending some kind of formal training but I don’t think the situation at Santa Anita is what drives away fans. More so, it’s a situation like last year’s BCLC where the connections of Life at Ten and the stewards robbed the fans that keeps gamblers away.
06 Mar 2011 at 03:35 pm | #
Why not hire retired jockeys as Stewards? What better “schooling” could there be than to actually have been there, done that?
06 Mar 2011 at 03:41 pm | #
Sher: Brilliant idea! Now, how come I never thunk that!
BTW, your the first, to my knowledge, who ever wrote ‘coming up the stretch’.
06 Mar 2011 at 04:30 pm | #
Hey folks,
There is a school foor racing officials but the point of emphasis is rules and regulations, not racing watching.
Generally, stewards do come from a racing background and there have been many riders who became stewards: Johnny Rotz, Walter Blum and Bill Hartack quickly come to mind.
Hartack was no friend of the turf media in general but he made a great steward and really knew how to communicate his ideas: We’ve written recently about the inaugual Breeders’ Cup Classic to illustrate that point.
I had to watch the tape over and over before deciding that, after changing my original opinion, that the judges made the difficult but correct call. More on that later this week.
Somehow the Big Cap always winds up to be great theater.
Thanks all.
JP
06 Mar 2011 at 05:51 pm | #
Mr. Pricci: I am not surprised that the school for stewards you mention teaches the rules and regulations; that once learned the students are not taught how to implement them. Pretty much describes all aspects of the Thoroughbred industry, doesn’t it (nothing done right, as there is no central authority demanding it, while each racing association goes about its business with self-interest their only motivation)?
06 Mar 2011 at 06:25 pm | #
BC,
Trained observer commentary notwithstanding, I’m applying some emotional salve today to a butt that may have been bitten by the boycott. G O D was my choice (see “Dumb Sizing” comment #18), but a mind bet was all I could make because commitment is what this thing is all about.
I don’t mind saying that it would never have entered my mind to play an 11 / ALL / ALL / ALL dime super for $72, but I’m usually good for an up and down $1 exacta wheel on my top picks when they’re 10-1 or better and, in my mind, the real robbery that occurred yesterday was the exacta paying only 250-1 when a 15-1 beat a 25-1 with an odds-on favorite in the pool! Was it the increased takeout or were the wise guys and/or batch bettors jumping on those two horses?
The boo-birds dumping on Lady Godiva was uncalled for. Chantally-go-lightly Sutherland got the mount because weight is what handicaps are all about. One could make a case that the top-weight was assigned lower than it should have been (and might have been for another trainer).
Baffert’s choice of jockey wasn’t as baffling as his horse’s Beyer figures. The speed figure makers and devotees will undoubtedly come out of the woodwork and jump all over me for pointing out that G O D’s 88 at 1 1/16 m in 1:40-3 in an optional claimer was questionable in light of the San Pasqual winner’s 98 at the same distance in 1:40-4. A comparable rating would have been a new top for G O D and confirmed his newly-found maturity as well as his readiness.
The “Dudes” had faced each other twice before in the Florida Derby and the Belmont. Baffert was in charge for the latter and was rewarded by G O D’s 4th to F D’s 3rd by a length (or 2 Beyer points) because the former had only beaten G3 foes at LS at 1 1/16 m while the latter had finished 2nd in the G1 Preakness to L A L at 1 3/16 m.
As a “class” handicapper, I figured it was between T C and the Dudes, but I also remembered that Mandella had long maintained that Setsuko was a legitimate Derby horse without sufficient earnings to prove it. The trainer’s legendary three-BC-winner day at SA proved nobody is better than getting a horse ready for a big race. So my logical dime super would have been those four in all slots and the five San Antonio survivors in the bottom two for $50.40. Without the trouble, T C would have been in there; surely in front of S C.
The correct play is always ALL in the bottom slot and, when possible, in the bottom two. The former for $67.20 would have done the trick, but the latter for $86.40 would have been well worth the additional $9.20. Chaos rewarded that analysis with a payoff of 48,000-1 (60-1 on the investment), but it’s always easy to say after the fact.
I can also say that the right dude finished first and the dudette out-finished the dud.
06 Mar 2011 at 07:09 pm | #
It was a total circus. Jockey’s speaking twice to the stewards? Ridiculous. Baffert trying to grab the phone too? Even worse.
No matter what you thought of the decision it was handled in a poor manner.
06 Mar 2011 at 09:29 pm | #
Mr. Corrow - “up” seems a much more positive direction to me than “down.” :-D
07 Mar 2011 at 01:20 am | #
Indulto: Hey, dude, I read that you have all but chucked the one aspect of gambling on the ponies that was once, apparently, appealing: using learned skills to handicap horses. You have succumbed, it is my belief, to the tantalizing draw of dime wagering, where the ‘all’ button replaces taking the time to figure out what horse figures to finish in the top four positions.
Dime wagering has clearly made a study of the past performances irrelevant, and has also clearly eliminated the last vestige that made wagering on the ponies unique: one with a bit of handicapping skill could attain an advantage over the lazy gamblers. So now it is just numbers: handicap the probably winner, then pound the ‘all’ button. Much like what Steven Christ does with his wagering on the pick six during the Saratoga meet; he goes five or six deep in a race, which clearly flaunts handicapping skills.
Seems to me that the $72 spent on the dime super could just as well be spent on Powerball tickets or scratch off tickets, as I don’t note any difference.
I’m right about one thing, though: Thoroughbred rcing is all about gambling, about cashing tickets. Hard to understand how horse racing is still referred to as a sport; and why the industry is still waiting for the crowds to come to it.
07 Mar 2011 at 03:35 am | #
wmc,
Thanks for reading my elongated exorcism, but you seemed to have missed the point. Regardless of the raging cyberdebate surrounding the stewards’ decision, a genuine SCORE was achievable with a GOOD handicapping opinion and a small bankroll. Perhaps too many other bettors were also sitting on the sidelines with respect to Santa Anita on Saturday.
You can knock fractional wagering all you like, but of course a false prophet would have no need for profit. You’re probably wise to refrain from sharing your own detailed thought processes for handicapping and wagering. As you claim to be unconcerned with pre-race odds on your selections, it’s difficult to imagine you walking away with a serious investment multiplied by a factor of fifty. I’ll be delighted to listen to any actual or hypothetical situation that might have put you up several thousand dollars for the day with an investment of $100 or less.
Please reread the 2nd paragraph of #10. I indicated that I would NOT have bet a $72 ticket using all combinations with a single horse on top.
07 Mar 2011 at 07:04 am | #
Indulto: I gamble on the horses, not to make a ‘score’, but to simply make a profit. My objective is to leave with more money than when I started.
Winning thousands of dollars with a minimal investment is everyone’s goal, even I would like to make a score; but, a very longtime ago I got tired of the almosts, the ifs, et cetera. Everyday I hear at the OTB the comment “I would’da had the X if only ...”
Until the pick three came into existence, I made only win and double wagers, which do not provide huge payoffs; but they do payoff!
I suppose that a person who wagers only on Saturday, or infrequents a wagering facility hasn’t the time nor patience to settle for merely a small profit. Since I bet just about everyday, I can survive with minimal profit.
Odds mean nothing to me. How can one eliminate a 3-5 plodder that probably will win in a pick three or a double? That plodder, if liked, allows for a single play which allows for more options, or a larger investment, in the other two legs (but not more than three per leg as then one is not handicapping).
Last year I signed (IRS) for only two payoffs, and was astonished that the payoffs reached that level.
Fractional wagering is the wrong way to go, as such is giving false hope to bettors. Just because the bet is a dime, and more combinations are achievable, the ultimate payoff is usually peanuts unless a ‘bomb’ materializes (the ‘game’ is simply not that easy). Plus, fractional wagering is destroying what wagering on the ponies is all about: handicapping.
Well anyway, who da ya like today?
07 Mar 2011 at 03:24 pm | #
wmc,
Indeed you and I are playing at different tables. You appear to specialize in lower-level claiming races whereas I prefer stakes, allowance, and higher-priced claiming races which, generally, are run on weekends.
Until the late ‘70s, I too concentrated on win bets, doubles, and exactas. I played only one track, on-track, and was able to play everyday only during Saratoga. Perhaps that’s why all races don’t appear alike to me. In those days, takeout was equal for all, players were not as well informed, top horses stuck around longer and didn’t all reside in the barns of a few trainers, and medication wasn’t the factor it is today.
I frequently found horses at 5-1 through 10-1 that I could bet with confidence, and even leveraged a few into scores with doubles and exactas. I have seldom cashed a signer on a 2-horse exotic wager since then. The game has changed and I have been forced to adapt to it.
Today I am up against stronger players with larger bankrolls (many getting relief from higher takeouts through rebates), and lower pari-mutuel payoffs. What worked for me in the past, no longer does. The only way I can bet favorites profitably is to leverage them in exotic wager pools involving three or more horses. I have cashed signers on $1 trifectas, pick-3s, and pick-4s, but I couldn’t play the superfecta or pick-5 successfully until minimums were reduced to 10 and 50 cents, respectively. I am still waiting for a pick-6 I can play competitively.
So when you pontificate that “Fractional wagering is the wrong way to go, as such is giving false hope to bettors,” all I can do is shake my head because this is the most realistic way to recruit newbies and keep them afloat and interested until they catch on.
Of course a “bomb” has to go off to get a big payday, but that’s part of the challenge – finding beatable favorites like T C who most of the racing press were prematurely placing on a pedestal. Stakes races with large, competitive fields offer opportunities other conditions seldom do.
“… fractional wagering is destroying what wagering on the ponies is all about: handicapping.” Now you’re contradicting yourself, brother Corrow. For years, you’ve been telling us racing is a gambling game, and it’s true. The most successful players are good gamblers. Handicapping is an art, but that’s all it is unless the practitioner can convert his opinions into cash.
What frustrates me about exchanging opinions with you is that you always use general statements you either can’t or won’t backup with details and specifics. You’re obviously capable of articulating your positions. Why don’t you show some fortitude and vigorously defend them in depth for a change?
07 Mar 2011 at 03:32 pm | #
Indulto,
I don’t believe Wendell exists in bodily form.
Either he’s the creation of an HRI reader whose intent is to frustrate those who “engage” him, or he’s some sort of cyber-generated robotic persona.
07 Mar 2011 at 04:19 pm | #
NK,
wmc is all too real. No computer program could create a character combining obstinateness, myopia, and self-indulgence to the extent both he and I possess those qualities. LOL!
Liked your piece on handicaps. For years Steve Crist tried to eliminate G1 handicaps with just the arguments you debunked. I loved trying to beating highweights with lightly-weighted longshots, or even “fair” assignments like True Knight’s when he beat Forego in the Suburban—my final on-track wager at Aqueduct prior to relocating to the West Coast.
Hovdey has long championed handicaps and when Bobby Frankel declined an assignment (I think for Medaglia D’ Oro), Hovdey wrote something to the effect that handicap weights should be assigned by a national board that determined the weight to be carried at any track for some period of time so that trainers couldn’t shop for a better deal.
I was disappointed in Hovdey’s self-annointed edict that G O D should have been DQed. I too watched the replays and don’t see how blame could be affixed with enough certainty to alter the finish. Perhaps Sutherland should be fined for hitting the horse when she did, provided such an offense is specified in the rules of racing.
07 Mar 2011 at 05:39 pm | #
Indulto and Mr. Kling: Do your own thing, I am doing mine. Bet on the horses as you see fit. I have nothing to prove, nor am I going to go into detail how I have managed to survive for fifty-two years wagering on the nags.
I have concluded that I am spending to much time at HRI; time that should be spent looking at the past performances for tomorrow’s races.
07 Mar 2011 at 05:57 pm | #
And so the slippery one slithers awy to frustrate another day. No doubt he’ll claim he was “ping-ponged” in the final stages by his opposition.
09 Mar 2011 at 03:34 pm | #
Two comments.
I would have left the result stand. A steward must be absolutely certain before taking a horse down and in this race, there was too much going on which left room for doubt. In this situation, better not to interfere. I understand the other position and do not quarrel with it but believe that the fault in the bump between Game on Dude and Twirling Candy was 75/25 that of TC/Rosario.
Second, there is training for stewards—go to “horseracingofficials.com” to learn more. And contrary to what was written earlier, the classes, both initially and in the mandated Continuing Education follow ups (required every two years), much film work is done.