‘Boots, eyes and ears;
Every breed should have something like this’
CHARLESTON, S.C. (Thursday, April 20, 2017) — The American
Quarter Horse Association is pioneering cost-effective loaner integrity teams
that provide investigative reinforcements for the sprint sport’s big-event
days.
The AQHA program was the main focus of discussion on Wednesday’s
panel “Policing the Backside: A View from the Front Line” on the second of the
three-day Association of Racing Commissioners International’s 83rd annual
conference on Equine Welfare and Racing Integrity.
“The needs are great. But our thoughts are to put our money where
our mouth is,” said Janet VanBebber, a former Quarter Horse trainer who is the
AQHA’s chief racing officer. “If we’re going to preach about integrity and
improvements in certain areas of our sport, then we need to apply our resources
in that same area.”
The AQHA has developed protocols and teams of people to go to
tracks, typically for a Grade 1 or 2 race, and provide enforcement assistance
to the commission of jurisdiction. “We don’t try to take control of their
racing,” VanBebber said. “Instead we’re just trying to help them if they don’t
have their own resources, or knowledge or protocol, to help them pursue having
an integrity team. Our hope is they will go on and grow a program within their
own jurisdiction.”
The AQHA in 2016 deployed 18 teams ranging from two to nine
people — all members of the multi-breed Organization of Racing Investigators —
to various jurisdictions. That included five to the Quarter Horse hotbed of
Ruidoso, N.M., once to administer out-of-competition testing, and to Los
Alamitos for the Challenge Championships, she said.
“Accumulatively they could have 200 years of racing experience,”
VanBebber said. “… More and more jurisdictions are willing to partner with us,
realizing that we are just here to help. Integrity touches everybody…. One of
our greatest responsibilities in racing is to represent the best interests of
the gambling public. It also evens the playing field on the racetrack; it
protects the horse and the rider.”
VanBebber said last year the program helped uncover 18 contraband
and 17 medication violations. “It tells me we’re making an impact,” she said.
“But more importantly is the deterrent.”
Tom Sage, executive director of the Nebraska Racing Commission
and who has been involved with the AQHA program, calls it a “public-private
partnership —and the public part is the commission.
“We are there to assist the commission, so any violation the
integrity team would find, we report it right to the commission…. We’re boots
on the grounds, we’re the eyes and ears in the barn area.
“… These teams are very beneficial for the jurisdictions, for the
racetracks and for the AQHA. I would challenge all the other breeds to get
ahold of Janet. Get ahold of myself and others. Every breed should have
something like this.”
While the current program centers on the top-end racing, Sage
said he could see all breeds creating and expanding quick-hit integrity teams
to come in to tracks to address a problem with daily racing.
Crop panel whips up
impassioned discussion
An assembly that included four former jockeys from different
racing jurisdictions whipped up frank dialogue about the use of riding crops,
which until a few years ago were always called whips. The ARCI model rules
committee is expected to discuss the crop/whip rule Thursday.
Panel moderator Doug Moore, a former jockey who is executive
director of the Washington State Racing Commission, noted the built-in
conflicts in crafting an appropriate rule for a whip’s use.
“We have to take into account public perception,” he said. “We
tell these people that these horses are bred for and love to run. But then we
turn around and use a whip on them, and they want to know why. We also tell the
jockey that they must give their best effort. But then we turn around and tell
them that they can only hit the horse three times in succession, when the horse
may be responding to that whip. So how much is overuse of the crop? And should
the rule apply for all breeds?”
Former jockeys Ramon Dominguez and Alan Monet went toe-to-toe
with California Horse Racing Board executive director Rick Baedeker over
California’s restrictive whip rule.
“There are many reasons why we use a riding crop, but the most
important is to maintain safety and for encouragement,” said Dominguez, who
noted the big change made to crops came in 2008 but said that technology has
produced an even better one now with a cylinder popper that can’t cut a horse.
Dominguez said it is a problem for jockeys being forced to
routinely change their stick style depending on where they were riding,
suggesting it prevents them from performing at an optimum level.
“It is time we come together for a uniform set of rules across
the country for the greater good of the sport,” he said, later saying it is
“our responsibility” to educate the public that the new crops are not abusive.
Of course, what a uniform rule might require is the source of
debate. In California, a jockey can hit a horse at most three times in
succession before giving the horse a minimum of two strides to respond.
Baedeker said that the stewards had found “there’s no question
that the jockeys have more control of the horse when their hands on the reins
more often than not,” with the new rule and “as a result, they’re riding
straighter…. We think it’s fairer for the betting public and the owners that
the horses are staying straighter and there are fewer DQs.”
He said the rule has changed the way the jockeys ride and “has
made a difference in perception.”
Former jockey Alan Monet, who is chair of the ARCI rider and
driver safety committee, said jockeys need more discretion than the California
rule provides, especially in the final sixteenth of a mile.
“Because they are trying to win a race,” said Monet, who brought
old whips and the new padded crops to show the difference. “I’m not saying a
horse should be unmercifully beaten. I’m saying it should be up to the jockey —
and up to the stewards. Instead of hitting him three times, maybe it’s four
time. We’re not talking about misuse… I
think the three-whip rule is actually good, but it’s the response time we have
an issue with. One stride is the proper time for the horse to respond…. If you
put your whip away in the last sixteenth of a mile and you allow your horse two
strides and you get beat a nose, not only are the bettors going to be mad, the
trainer and you’re going to be mad that you let that happen.”
Chris McCarron, the retired Hall of Fame jockey, told of his own
heavy use of the whip early in his career and how he studied jockeys such as
Laffit Pincay on when and where they were striking horses and adapted his
style.
“My biggest pet peeves are that the stewards aren’t strict enough
on the riders in the use of the crop, most particularly when the horse is
well-beaten,” he said, adding that jockeys can adapt to the new rules. “If
you’re a professional athlete with as much hand-eye coordination, as much
physical ability as jockeys have to possess — because it is damn hard to ride a
Thoroughbred — they can change.”
Insights of a champion
handicapper
The racing regulators heard first-hand from 2016 Eclipse Award
champion handicapper Paul Matties Jr., part of the panel “Questioning Whether
Racing Officials Get It Right.”
“I think the stewards do their jobs well, most people do. This
industry wouldn’t be able to operate without them, or as smoothly as it does,”
he said.
But Matties, a professional gambler and horse owner from Ballston
Spa, N.Y., said rules should change with the evolution of racing, including the
impact of social media and the public’s attitude toward animals.
“It’s a lot worse when I’ve bet and spent the time to figure out
the puzzle of that race, and be correct, and then just have it taken down for
whatever reason,” he said of disqualifications. “If it’s a legitimate reason,
it’s a horrible feeling. But when you feel like it’s not a legitimate reason,
it’s even worse. It’s the perception. I don’t think it happens very often. But
just because it has happened, I think there has to be some changes made.”
Matties said the public should hear not just why a horse was
disqualified, but the rule involved and how it was applied. The same should be
happen when a horse is not disqualified, he said.
“I think there would be less a feeling that something malicious
was done,” he said. “If something could be done that cites an actual rule,
these feelings would dissipate over time and the perception would get better.”
In an era when racing jurisdictions are working toward having
matching rules involving medication use and drug testing in horses, Matties
said he’d like to see uniformity in how interference is called across the
country.
Matties was asked about one of racing’s most famous no-calls
since Codex and Genuine Risk in the 1980 Preakness. That was Bayern swerving out
of the gate, in the process taking out his main competition for the lead, then
going on to win the 2014 Breeders’ Cup Classic at Santa Anita.
“This was a race where everybody was watching; everybody had
their own jurisdiction and perception,” said Matties, who said he wasn’t really
impacted by the stewards keeping Bayern as the winner. “There are some that say
that, ‘it doesn’t matter what happens first two jumps out of starting gate,
we’re not going to do anything.’ This is the idea of no standardized rules.
That would have been avoided if there had been an updated rule involved, that
everybody had seen the last few years and cited every time. I don’t think there
would have been an uproar on that decision. But because there’s a
generalization that it’s a judgment call and every jurisdiction was different,
that was going to be a nightmare and everybody would have a different outlook.”
Mike Hopkins, the long-time executive director of the Maryland
Racing Commission and a former steward, noted that stewards’ roles have
changed.
“They’ve progressed over the last 30 years,” he said. “At one
point, for those of you in the audience who do remember this, when stewards
made decisions, no one dared to question the decision they made — or appeal.
That’s all changed. Owners, trainers aren’t shy about questioning the judgment
of the stewards…. Look at the number of races that we do. In the mid-Atlantic
area, there were more than 6,300 races last year. There were probably 75
disqualifications; two or three appeals. Everything was upheld except for one.
The public perception is that if they lost a wager, they’re highly critical.
“… I think the stewards do a very good job. From my perspective
as an executive director, I try to encourage the stewards to be very transparent…
to have an open-door policy to review what they’ve looked at, and why they made
the decision they made.”
The panel also included Cathy O’Meara, coordinator of the Racing
Officials Accreditation Program, and moderator Judy Wagner, ARCI’s outgoing chair
and the 2001 National Handicapping Championship winner.
