by Brett Sturman

Drew Monti reached the $20 million milestone for lifetime driving earnings on Nov. 25 when driving at Plainridge Park, but he may have reached that mark a day — or even a race — sooner had it not been for an odd circumstance that happened the month prior in a race at Batavia Downs.

When driving in the race 12 nightcap on Oct. 12 at Batavia, Monti — racing from the 1-hole with a horse named Silverhill Blaze — yielded around the first turn, re-took by the quarter pole and coasted from there to an apparent easy two-length win. For a replay of the race before reading either my commentary or the judges’ reason for the disqualification, the race can be seen here.

In the judge’s issuance of ruling on Oct. 23, Monti was found guilty of “changing course/causing interference” with further details that Monti “crossed over without clearance and put a wheel under the #2 and #3 at the quarter pole and caused them to take up and shorten their stride.”

In Monti’s request for a hearing, he stated as his reason for the dispute of the ruling simply that, “I believe there was no evidence of interference. I also believe my horse should not have been disqualified.”

If you watched the replay, it’s nearly impossible to not come to the same conclusion as Monti. Breaking the replay down frame by frame, the #3 horse starts moving to the outside even before Monti and the #1 begin to clear.

Semantics aside, the physicality of what the judges described simply wouldn’t be possible to have happened based on what the video shows. If Monti had crossed without clearance as the judges ruled, how would the #3 horse have been able to move to the outside at the same time – it’s just not possible. If anything, the #3 would have either had to have grabbed up or move to the inside to avoid Monti – neither of which happened.

The timing of this column as it is, is due to the fact that the hearing was to be scheduled for three days ago on Dec. 5, a result of Monti’s requested hearing requiring a stay of suspension originally scheduled for Oct. 27 through Nov. 3. On evidence and planned witnesses, if there was ever a chance for a judge’s decision to be overturned then this would be the case.

But as it turned out, an agreement was reached prior to the scheduled hearing. In an amended ruling in lieu of Monti withdrawing his request for a hearing and waving further rights to appeal, Monti’s initial eight-day suspension was reduced to a three calendar-day suspension which, when taken between Dec. 9 and 11, results in no actual racing days as the Batavia calendar shows its current meet ending on Dec. 7.

In today’s day and age, the amended ruling down to next to nothing is about as close to an admission of a mess-up without having formally have it recorded as such. In addition to Monti ending up really no worse for the wear, the same could eventually be said for the Silverhill Blaze horse owner.

Though losing the $4,500 winner’s share of the purse in the N/W1250L4 conditioned race on Oct. 12, Silverhill Blaze was eligible to remain in the same condition next out, a race he won 11 days later on Oct. 23 and earned $5,000 for his repeat efforts. For good measure, Monti won again with the horse two races later in an elevated race condition that awarded $6,500 for finishing first.

So, who ends up losing out? As is regrettably typical, it’s the bettors who are always left without any recourse. In the Oct. 12 race where Monti and Silverhill Blaze were disqualified, they were the 8-5 race favorite. The plurality of money across the $4,000 win-place-show pools, $3,600 exacta pool, $4,300 trifecta and almost another $4,000 between the superfecta, late double and final pick-3 pools was wagered and directly tied to Monti’s drive. Even if it was tacitly implied the judges erred, it’s not like any of the race payouts are ever going to be revised.

Of course, disqualifications happen all the time and rarely do they go without some element of controversy. But this is one of the more egregious examples of judges taking a race out of the hands of the participants, awarding the race to a 30-1 longshot who would have never won otherwise, and in the process undermining and making wagering even less inspiring for the entire harness racing product.

I hope it makes judges think twice next time before committing to change the results of a deserving winner in an already-won race.