 |
Nick Kling reviews the Suwannee River Handicap at Gulfstream and the reversal of a decision to allow the ruling to stand after the winner went to the gate without a jockey on her back for approximately ten minutes.
3 Comments
Add this link to...
Tell a friend
Bury
3 Comments
Add this link to...
Tell a friend
Bury
Comments
The link to the story is on the right side of the page once you load it. Not sure what the issue is with the newspaper's website.
I'm glad you brought this to us, Nick. You proposal makes sense, but that certainly doesn't mean it will be implemented (as usual). It should show just how out of touch the stewards are from the bettors. Taking it a step farther, I had a letter published in last Saturday's DRF lambasting Gulfstream for switching the distance of The Very One Handicap from eleven furlongs to nine furlongs.
The rationale was the waterlogged inner turf course, compared to the outer course which was in better shape, but they cannot handle 11 furlongs on the turf. So - instead, they run at the handicapped weights for 11 furlongs, over 9 furlongs. Our own Nick Tammaro bet the race from a simulcast location, not even knowing the race distance had been changed.
Pat,
I don't know what the problem on the website is either. I think they have a way of updating the newest items that produces that result.
An emailer correctly pointed out to me the bettors still got screwed in the Suwannee since the correct decision was made a month after the race had been made official. However, the point is that there was a backstop to correct an obviously erroneous decision.
Your turf course letter was right on. For some reason, the nitwits (and that is a relatively benign term compared to what we should use) who run racing refuse to acknowledge that 80-90 percent of their handle comes from off-track.
Isn't it interesting that government regulators will crack down on a gnat-like mistake if stocks, bonds, or commodities are involved, but could care less that off-track racing bettors get fleeced on a regular basis.
My public steward argument has two key points: 1) one of the stewards should only be concerned with customers (bettors), and, 2) four stewards would require a 3-1 or 4-0 vote to disqualify a horse, eliminating the contentious close calls which infuriate bettors.
Nick's column is excellent, as usual, and he once again is a leading proponent for someone protecting the people who are supporting the sport. I recall his calling for, and attempting to put together, an organization similar to what this NTRA group seems to advocate, back what had to be about 10 years ago.