We could’ve learned a lesson on Aug. 1, 1992

by John Berry

It’s amazing!

Nothing is unanimous in this world.

There’s always someone on the other side of the fence that wants to try and throw a wrench into a situation thought to be cut and dry and begin a challenge to the reasoning of that seemingly clear-cut situation.

Our Mane Attraction columns began this mini-crusade to modernize our grand sport and pull it out of the 1950s — the last time that timing races was changed.

Breeders certainly have modernized our sport and deserve huge kudos for their genius to figure out how to make the coveted 2:00 mile pretty much a thing of the past with the standardbred of today traveling 50-to-60 lengths (or more) faster than in the “modern” days of the past.

The thought was one of many to make changes that just may entice more spectators, fans, and participants to enjoy what once drew thousands of people of all ages to the actual confines of a racetrack on race days and nights back then.

Today, with so many gaming options available, it matters not whether that participant chooses to make an appearance at a “racetrack near you” or from a simulcast locale enjoying the camaraderie of other punters or from the comfort of one’s own living room sofa with phone in hand.

With so many racetracks disappearing over the last few decades, a very small percentage of horse racing fans live within the confines of a track.

That’s why radical changes must take place to keep our sport a viable one — not subject to de-coupling and just plain closure.

When we touched on timing races in splits finer than a-fifth-of-a-second, several applauded the proposal, but one stalwart remarked, “I don’t give a rat’s — about it.

“To us bettors, it’s all about cashing or not cashing a ticket. That’s it.”

This punter closed with a challenge to show any viable necessity to timing in 10ths, 100ths, or 1,000th’s of a second.

How’s this one???

Back in the Hambletonian days surrounding that grand venue in 1992, there were 27 entries, necessitating three division of nine.

They did have 23 starters in one heat in 1953 featuring three tiers — 10, 10, and 3.

But, in that 1992 event, the first three official finishers earned a spot in the final along with the fastest fourth place finisher of those first three heats.

The three heat winners, Valley Boss Bi, King Conch, and Baltic Sonata, moved on to the final, along with Armbro Keepsake, Herschel Walker, and Alf Palema (second in their eliminations) and Ships Watch, Rising Light, and Sirocco Spur.

When everything was sorted out after that third elimination, two horses were tied for fourth at 1:57 in their elimination to see who gets that final spot — Guardian Angel and Prince Keith.

The final spot was decided by the Judge — the lifetime earnings tiebreaker rule wasn’t introduced until 1996 — and that draw went to Prince Keith.

Litigation followed and it took probably close to a full year — maybe a tad more than that — before the purse money of $1,104,000 in that final heat was released.

One full year for owners with, literally, many thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in harness racing, forced to wait for the funds that should’ve been normally dispersed within a few days.

I have been told that this holdup had nothing to do with the official order of finish for the first three, Alf Palema, King Conch, and Herschel Walker, or even the minor fifth place award, as there were 10 starters in the final.

It was the litigation that held up the whole shebang, all because it took the word of the judge and a “pill” from a leather bottle to break that dead heat in time; the same time in two different elimination heats.

If a horse is timed in 1:57, there are 20 possible different times between 1:57:00 and 1:57.19 before the timer trips to 1:57.1 in fifths-of-a-second.

No names about the litigants here — this is ancient history now.

But, now that technology has caught up with today, wouldn’t it be sensible to initiate modern timing rules so this never occurs again?

Once is once too many when any amount of money is on the line, especially when it’s in a spectator sport, like ours.

Owners, trainers, drivers, and everyone else involved should not have to be waiting more than the normal time to receive the rewards of their investment(s) in our sport.

Maybe a thought to take that equation out of the picture might be taking the top four in any three eliminations and have a great betting affair for the fans with a 12-horse final with some real betting value.

It’s supposed to be a spectator sport, you know.

That’s just one of who knows how many changes that need to be addressed.

On another point, if our sport has such stringent rules on medications, wouldn’t it be sensible to test every horse in every race to really get to the nitty-gritty of medication values and their impact on if and what threshold impacts performance?

We have those that acknowledge that testing has come so far that, say, a five nanogram amount of a medication can be detected in an Olympic size swimming pool.

Has there been any testing on those five nanogram of whatever enhances the performance of a horse or horses?

Realizing this takes a tremendous amount of manpower and money to implement, wouldn’t it be well worth the investment to solidify the future of our sport for generations to come?

One prominent horseman said that testing is “quite haphazard” now where it could be any scenario, such was the winner, and top three finishers, any random horse, claimed or specially designated horses or horses selected by judges, officials or regulatory veterinarians.

The problem is that there is no exact number of horses designated for testing and this varies from state racing commission to state racing commission.

What is tested, blood, urine or both?

It probably depends on the jurisdiction…and that is just another reason that there should be uniform rules that could affect owners, trainers, and drivers and another reason a commissioner should be appointed to make uniform rules for all.

This would, unquestionably, solve the situation and harness racing would, then, be known for its strict compliance to solidify its integrity.

One other note from long time player Smitty.

Several months ago in a Mane Attraction column, we suggested a “fill it or kill it” proposal, making sure that our races are adequately filled and present decent value for the BDHC punter.

Races with five or six horses do little to enhance handle.

But racing secretaries have enough pressure on them to get horses raced, as this sport desperately needs its owners.

Smitty suggests to card them and race them as non-wagering events before the regular program.

“In this way,” he said, “everyone could get raced and we’d have nine or 10 or 11 races worth betting, instead of 14 or 15 races, and the program would end an hour earlier.”

It’s really something to think about.

More thoughts in upcoming Mane Attractions.

By the way, I am far from being an expert on many of these subjects introduced, but I am willing to listen.

May The Horse Be With You!