Saturday was a bad day for horse racing.
But it doesn't have to remain a bad day if it leads to change, specifically if it encourages stewards to become more transparent. Here's what happened Saturday at Gulfstream Park:
In the Rampart Stakes, House Rules rolled up on the outside and at the top of the stretch looked as if she was on her way to a clear victory. But the two horses to her inside, Sheer Drama and Wedding Toast, fought back gamely. A race that looked like it was going to lead to an easy victory suddenly looked like it might become something of a battle. In mid-stretch, thinking no doubt that if he could persuade House Rules to change strides, onto her right lead, she would draw clear, jockey Javier Castellano began shifting his weight in the saddle. But as he did that, House Rules dropped over a path, forcing jockey Joe Bravo to check Sheer Drama sharply.
House Rules went on to win by more than a length. And even though House Rule clearly and indisputably interfered with Sheer Drama, the stewards allowed the finish to stand.
The Fountain of Youth was more complicated. Frosted led the field into the stretch, and if his strength and power can be measured by his rider, Irad Ortiz, the gray colt looked like he might romp. Ortiz seemed to be sitting on a keg of untapped energy. And where was the threat? Bluegrass Singer had begun to fade; Upstart and Itsaknockout were in a drive but gaining little. But then suddenly Frosted was empty; the keg, as it turned out, contained nothing.
So what was the difference between the Rampart and the Fountain of Youth? This isn't about a problem with the stewards' decisions; this is about a profound problem of perception.
He drifted out as he tired, appearing to bump with Upstart and forcing him to drift. After being straightened, as jockey Jose Ortiz used a left-handed stick, Upstart drifted again, interfering with Itsaknockout, whose rider, Luis Saez, had to check. Was Itsaknockout also lugging in? Maybe. As a consequence of all the drifting and bumping and possible lugging, Saez couldn't ride Itsaknockout, or at least couldn't encourage him in any meaningful way, through the final sixteenth of a mile, and they finished nearly three lengths back. The stewards disqualified Upstart, dropping him to second and putting up Itsaknockout.
So what was the difference between the Rampart and the Fountain of Youth? This isn't about a problem with the stewards' decisions; this is about a profound problem of perception.
The stewards, assuming their pose of godly omniscience, will no doubt say House Rules was going to win anyway and Upstart wasn't. Really? Can anybody make such an assertion with absolute confidence? House Rules, by the way, never changed to her right lead; maybe she wasn't going to draw clear. And Sheer Drama finished with energy after recovering from the trouble to get by Wedding Toast at the wire for second. Can the stewards be absolutely certain Sheer Drama wasn't going to get to House Rules, too? As for the Fountain of Youth, Saez put Itsaknockout in an all-out drive at the three-eighths pole. Can the stewards be absolutely certain he was going to sustain that move all the way to the wire and pass or threaten Upstart?
When fans ask about consistency and about the difference between the Rampart and the Fountain of Youth, they might arrive at conclusions and explanations that differ alarmingly from the stewards'. Fans might point out that House Rules was ridden by the leading jockey at Gulfstream Park. They might also point out that Itsaknockout came from the stable of the leading trainer, Todd Pletcher. And, human nature being what it is, fans might conclude that the stewards were eager to propitiate the prominent connections.
I don't for a moment mean to suggest that was the case. Nor do I believe the horses' connections had any influence at all on the decisions. But because the process lacked transparency, Saturday's decisions at Gulfstream Park invite such speculation.
Events at Gulfstream Park, in fact, argue for two changes:
First, more transparency. Stewards should explain their rulings and their decisions immediately on the in-house broadcast and then in a daily report. And they should remember that an explanation isn't merely a recitation of the rules. What was their thinking, their reasoning? What did the jockeys say? Moreover, the rules require more clarity. What justifies a disqualification?
Second, more supervision. Jockeys are riding more aggressively and dangerously today than at any time in the recent past. The consequences of ignoring this would be regrettable. Actually, if the stewards don't quell jockey aggression, the consequences could be disastrous.