KHRC scapegoating of John Veitch (Multiple thread merge; Update)

[Kasept]

Lenny Shulman approproiately excoriates the ongoing attempt by KHRC's Lisa Underwood to turn the Life at Ten affair into an opportunity to destroy widely respected John Veitch. It's a grotesque abuse of position by Underwood to continue the persecution of Veitch. Enough already.

[Kasept]

Scapegoat (Full column at B-H)
By Lenny Shulman

As thousands of visitors from around the continent and the world descend on Kentucky for Keeneland’s September yearling sale and October race meeting and the November Breeders’ Cup at Churchill Downs, they may smell the odor of scapegoat emanating from the office of chief racing steward John Veitch.

After a nearly one-year investigation the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission has concluded that Veitch and jockey John Velazquez acted inappropriately during last year’s Life At Ten Breeders’ Cup fiasco—charging Veitch with five violations of state regulations.

Velazquez accepted a $10,000 fine after admitting that mistakes were made—but not necessarily by him. Inconveniently for the commission, Veitch has denied wrongdoing, and state law gives stewards broad latitude in decision-making.

[MaTH716]

There were 11 KHRC and Breeders’ Cup vets on the racetrack, in addition to several on-call vets on the grounds. According to testimony given in the KHRC investigation, at least seven of them knew, before the race, about the Velazquez interview, or of a “rumor” that there were concerns about a horse. None took any action regarding the filly. After observing her on the track, none thought she was unfit to race.

So the vets decide to bury their heads in the sand (not that they would have found anything wrong with her) and Veitch continues to take crap from it.

At this point does anyone really care? I'll start caring when the disscussion begins about refunding all the money she burned that day. Otherwise they should just move on. It was a black eye on the sport and the probably lost some bettors over it. Finding a scapegoat now isn't going to bring those lost bettors back. Let's just move on.

[Cannon Shell]

Always nice to work for people who have your best interests at heart. This is what happens when a political operative is named head of the racing commission and is given a to do list by the same people who blame lasix for all evil in the world.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

t this point does anyone really care? I'll start caring when the disscussion begins about refunding all the money she burned that day. Otherwise they should just move on. It was a black eye on the sport and the probably lost some bettors over it. Finding a scapegoat now isn't going to bring those lost bettors back. Let's just move on.

Yep, thankfully she was OK so the bettors are the ones who paid the price. As usual.

[analyizethis]

Scape goating aside, what procedures are now in place that would ensure that this type of theft of the bettors/customers money doesn't happen again?

Does Kentucky have different steps than other jurisdictions, have changes been implemented or do the ruler makers feel that the in place procedures are adequate but were just not adhered to?

The fact is that when the gate opened the filly was never given an opportunity to compete in the race and no one knows why. When was the decision made by the jock not to engage the field; prior to the start of the race or based on the filly's reaction to encouragement after the race began?

Take a look for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOTo5KGjMUo

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by analyizethis

Scape goating aside, what procedures are now in place that would ensure that this type of theft of the bettors/customers money doesn't happen again?
Does Kentucky have different steps than other jurisdictions, have changes been implemented or do the ruler makers feel that the in place procedures are adequate but were just not adhered to?

The fact is that when the gate opened the filly was never given an opportunity to compete in the race and no one knows why. When was the decision made by the jock not to engage the field; prior to the start of the race or based on the filly's reaction to encouragement after the race began?

Take a look for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOTo5KGjMUo

Nothing, because jocks don't give interviews 99.9% before races.

I would think that this happens a lot more than you think, but like I said the jockey isn't telling a national audience before a 25k claiming race that his mount is not warming up well.

[pweizer]

Not warming up well is one thing. But Life at Ten was never asked to run from the moment the gates open. She never takes a forward step and is never encouraged to do so by the jock. That does not happen all the time.

Paul

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by analyizethis

Scape goating aside, what procedures are now in place that would ensure that this type of theft of the bettors/customers money doesn't happen again?

Does Kentucky have different steps than other jurisdictions, have changes been implemented or do the ruler makers feel that the in place procedures are adequate but were just not adhered to?

The fact is that when the gate opened the filly was never given an opportunity to compete in the race and no one knows why. When was the decision made by the jock not to engage the field; prior to the start of the race or based on the filly's reaction to encouragement after the race began?

Take a look for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOTo5KGjMUo

I just don't know what can be done? Any suggestions?

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by pweizer

Not warming up well is one thing. But Life at Ten was never asked to run from the moment the gates open. She never takes a forward step and is never encouraged to do so by the jock. That does not happen all the time.

Paul

It really came apart at the seams so quickly. She broke a step slow and she was last instantly. I thought that JV gave her about a 1/4 of a mile to try to get her stride going, but it just never happened. Not sure what else he was supposed to do after the slow break, quarter horse her to the lead?

IMO, JV was in a no win situation and I have no fault with him.

(edit : ) Obviously, I might have a different feeling if I had a boatload of money on her. I only had a small win bet.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

It really came apart at the seams so quickly. She broke a step slow and she was last instantly. I thought that JV gave her about a 1/4 of a mile to try to get her stride going, but it just never happened. Not sure what else he was supposed to do after the slow break, quarter horse her to the lead?

IMO, JV was in a no win situation and I have no fault with him.

But who takes the blame then? That is the question that no one seems to be able to answer. The person BEST suited to tell the condition of the horse once they are on the racetrack is the jockey. I'm not saying that he wasn't in a difficult position but once he said that the horse wasn't warming up properly AND he didn't alert the vets in charge of his feelings AFTER he has already told a national TV audience, well isn't he really the only one who could have made a difference? And I am not suggesting that jockeys be given the authority to scratch horses but you need to pass along that information to the state vets on the scene if you remain concerned as JV did when he repeated that she still wasn't right.

As said before, very few scenarios will ever play out like this especially considering that the connections had nothing to gain by starting her and having her ease. Hell I have seen this happen in claiming races where the jock breaks from the gate and basically pulls the horse up 5 strides out of the gate in the hopes some sucker dropped a claiming slip. And it would be hard to imagine that the connections were trying to make some srt of betting coup considering the size of the purse.

[analyizethis]

The blame really needs to be with the jock. On the one hand he announces on television that the horse isn't warming up right, then he decides that it isn't necessary to inform the state vets of any concern and then he basically eases her up out of the gate. Aside from a fine to the jockey, the only change that is put in place is to prohibit jocks from talking to the television crew. Maybe all that is enough of a deterrent to protect the bettors going forward but I guess I'm skeptical.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

But who takes the blame then? That is the question that no one seems to be able to answer. The person BEST suited to tell the condition of the horse once they are on the racetrack is the jockey. I'm not saying that he wasn't in a difficult position but once he said that the horse wasn't warming up properly AND he didn't alert the vets in charge of his feelings AFTER he has already told a national TV audience, well isn't he really the only one who could have made a difference? And I am not suggesting that jockeys be given the authority to scratch horses but you need to pass along that information to the state vets on the scene if you remain concerned as JV did when he repeated that she still wasn't right.

As said before, very few scenarios will ever play out like this especially considering that the connections had nothing to gain by starting her and having her ease. Hell I have seen this happen in claiming races where the jock breaks from the gate and basically pulls the horse up 5 strides out of the gate in the hopes some sucker dropped a claiming slip. And it would be hard to imagine that the connections were trying to make some srt of betting coup considering the size of the purse.

Velazquez had said after, that there were other times when Life at Ten hasn't warmed up well and when the race started she was fine.

Obviously Pletcher was aware that something was off in the paddock and the reports said that 7 vets heard what JV had said in the interview. I'm guessing if one of the vets followed through and checked her out before she went in to the gate, she still would have raced. I'm not sure if Pletcher heard the interview, but it's hard for me to believe that he wasn't aware of it.
So then it would have came down to John Velazquez on his own accord refusing to ride a top filly in one of the biggest races of the year on a national stage for his bread and butter employer who just happens to be arguably one of the best trainers in the world.

I guess everyone should share in some of the Blame, but like the point I tried to make yesterday, who really cares? The money bet on her isn't coming back. As far as the future goes, I'm pretty sure jocks will think twice about reporting the "accurate" conditions of their mounts before these big races. Let's face it, if JV doesn't give the interview then the fallout from this wouldn't have been so great.

It's nice to be connected in Kentucky. Just ask Underwood.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Velazquez had said after, that there were other times when Life at Ten hasn't warmed up well and when the race started she was fine.

Obviously Pletcher was aware that something was off in the paddock and the reports said that 7 vets heard what JV had said in the interview. I'm guessing if one of the vets followed through and checked her out before she went in to the gate, she still would have raced. I'm not sure if Pletcher heard the interview, but it's hard for me to believe that he wasn't aware of it.
So then it would have came down to John Velazquez on his own accord refusing to ride a top filly in one of the biggest races of the year on a national stage for his bread and butter employer who just happens to be arguably one of the best trainers in the world.

I guess everyone should share in some of the Blame, but like the point I tried to make yesterday, who really cares? The money bet on her isn't coming back. As far as the future goes, I'm pretty sure jocks will think twice about reporting the "accurate" conditions of their mounts before these big races. Let's face it, if JV doesn't give the interview then the fallout from this wouldn't have been so great.

If he has just alerted a vet that she wasnt warming up great then the onus would have been off of him. He didnt have to refuse to ride her, just have one of the team of vets examine her as she warmed up. If they agreed that something was visably amiss then they in conjunction with the stewards make the call. But if you dont make anyone in an official capacity aware that something might be wrong then the fault lies with you IMO. Like you said it doesnt really matter at this point and the horse was acting sluggish, not lame which would be a lot more common occurence. Of course had the vets/stewards scratched the horse and nothing was found wrong with her I'm sure someone would have been sued for something.

[trackrat59]

Anyone have any thoughts? I was surprised to see this.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...no-cause-given

[Danzig]

so the sacrificial lamb has finally been 'slaughtered'. i have yet to understand why the responsibility wasn't on the trainer in this situation in addition the jock-who paid a fine.


'Sent off at odds of 7-2, Life at Ten, owned by Candy DeBartolo, was discovered to be lethargic in the saddling area and again on a the racetrack warming up. That observation was relayed to ESPN on live television by jockey John Velazquez, who never persevered with the filly once the gates opened.'


since when is a trainer not responsible for his horse?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so the sacrificial lamb has finally been 'slaughtered'. i have yet to understand why the responsibility wasn't on the trainer in this situation in addition the jock-who paid a fine.


'Sent off at odds of 7-2, Life at Ten, owned by Candy DeBartolo, was discovered to be lethargic in the saddling area and again on a the racetrack warming up. That observation was relayed to ESPN on live television by jockey John Velazquez, who never persevered with the filly once the gates opened.'


since when is a trainer not responsible for his horse?

What can the trainer do? I have never seen a horse scratched for being lethargic in the paddock, ever. Once she went to the track the trainer can't really do anything. I'm not quite sure what the Stewrds were supposed to do either because according to all reports there were no lameness issues and there is very little chance that the vets suggest a scratch for a horse that is sound behind the gate. Obviously we have the luxury of knowing how it turns out but imagine the uproar from people had they scratched a horse who was one of the choices in a 3 million dollar race who nothing was found wrong with afterwards? I dont know the pick3 or pick 4 rules in KY but the post time fav lost the race so there would have been a lot of handwringing over tht especially when the next day Pletcher announced that she was fine.

Veitch simply wasn't politically skilled enough to survive in the KHRA run by political operatives who are tasked with a mission by the ivory tower crowd. Supposedly the biggest beef is he wouldnt bury the hatchet in Bernie Flint who had a positive test at Ellis Park because there was some mitigating evidence that the positive wasnt valid. Underwood wanted Veitch to drop the hammer on Flint anyway and Veitch wouldnt do it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What can the trainer do? I have never seen a horse scratched for being lethargic in the paddock, ever. Once she went to the track the trainer can't really do anything. I'm not quite sure what the Stewrds were supposed to do either because according to all reports there were no lameness issues and there is very little chance that the vets suggest a scratch for a horse that is sound behind the gate. Obviously we have the luxury of knowing how it turns out but imagine the uproar from people had they scratched a horse who was one of the choices in a 3 million dollar race who nothing was found wrong with afterwards? I dont know the pick3 or pick 4 rules in KY but the post time fav lost the race so there would have been a lot of handwringing over tht especially when the next day Pletcher announced that she was fine.

Veitch simply wasn't politically skilled enough to survive in the KHRA run by political operatives who are tasked with a mission by the ivory tower crowd. Supposedly the biggest beef is he wouldnt bury the hatchet in Bernie Flint who had a positive test at Ellis Park because there was some mitigating evidence that the positive wasnt valid. Underwood wanted Veitch to drop the hammer on Flint anyway and Veitch wouldnt do it.

it just seemed to me from comments pletcher made that she wasn't herself and he knew it..
i guess my main beef is that they went after veitch, when pletcher,imo, knew more about the situation. did they assume veitch was watching tv and saw the interview??

and yes, no doubt there'd have been an uproar had they scratched her. look at the trainer, jock, etc when they scratched that euro horse this year-and she had a physical injury.


but i guess captain hindsight strikes again, this time in kentucky.

[Merlinsky]

Listening to ATR today, I couldn't help but go "preach it, brother Steve!" Love it when he gets riled up about injustice. Some people need to be torn a new one.