What's Going On Here : life at ten

Scapegoat - By Lenny Shulman

Blood-Horse Staff — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:50:00 GMT

(Originally published in the September 10, 2011 issue of The Blood-Horse magazine. Feel free to share your own thoughts and opinions at the bottom of the column.)

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.

This one-of-a-kind mess stems from the 2010 Ladies’ Classic (gr. I), when second-favorite Life At Ten was allowed to jog around the racetrack, burning millions of bettors’ dollars, after her trainer, Todd Pletcher, noted “she was acting a little unusual” in the paddock and her jockey, Velazquez, told a national TV audience “she’s not warming up the way she usually does.” A TV producer phoned Veitch and told him about
Velazquez’ interview.

It is not Veitch’s job to scratch a horse based on a third-party phone call, which, by the way, misquoted what Velazquez actually said. At that point Veitch decided to allow the veterinarians present to do their jobs—observe the horses and make their own decisions.

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.

Life At Ten’s condition was internal. Pletcher, although feeling there was something amiss with the filly, sent her out to the racetrack. Despite state law that “trainers shall bear primary responsibility for the health and physical fitness” of the horse, Pletcher was not sanctioned by the KHRC. None of the vets—nor the other two stewards—were sanctioned for doing exactly what Veitch did.

Velazquez knew something was wrong from talking with Pletcher and warming up the horse. A week before he had complained to stewards when vets at Keeneland refused to scratch a horse at the request of rider Garrett Gomez. Thus, Velazquez knew if he alerted the vets to his doubts about Life At Ten, it would have meant an automatic scratch. He chose not to. Pletcher assistant Mike McCarthy testified that as Velazquez unsaddled
Life At Ten, he told McCarthy, “I knew it. I should’ve scratched her.”

Veitch had some tough calls to make during this Breeders’ Cup; some were found wanting. We didn’t agree with his decision not to send Life At Ten to the test barn after she raced so poorly. But Kentucky statues and regulations clearly leave such decisions to the stewards’ discretion.

The commission apparently thought Veitch would take a deal similar to Velazquez’. He has instead chosen to stand and fight the charges levied against him.

Veitch is a proud man who comes from generations of horsemen. He followed his father, Syl, also a trainer, into racing’s Hall of Fame, saying at the time that adding to his ancestors’ reputations “means everything.” Recently, he added, “I feel the reputations of my father and myself have been injured unnecessarily, and I would never accept a penalty for something I feel has been unreasonably applied. They’re looking for a scapegoat, and I am not willing to accept that.”

In his seven years as Kentucky’s chief steward, Veitch has established a reputation as a fair and impartial judge and has run a tight ship, free of controversy or scandal.

Why then does the KHRC continue to pursue Veitch, who played a minor part in this comedy of errors?

It may have something to do with a dispute between Veitch and KHRC executive director Lisa Underwood concerning a medication violation case against trainer Bernie Flint days before the 2010 Breeders’ Cup. Underwood wanted Veitch to issue a harsher sanction against Flint. Veitch disagreed, citing mitigating factors, and apparently a brouhaha ensued after Veitch’s position prevailed. Is a grudge trumping common sense here?

Unfortunately, continuing to fight will prove costly. Veitch’s legal fees have already far exceeded the $50,000 the Commonwealth has poured into the case. And if the commission decides to sanction Veitch, his lawyers will take the case to federal court, where both sides’ costs will escalate. We understand why Veitch is fighting, despite the emotional and financial pain to himself and his family. Perhaps we should ask the KHRC what’s to be gained by spending tens of thousands more on this witch hunt.

Plenty of Blame - By Eric Mitchell

aspradling — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:10:00 GMT

(Originally published in the July 9, 2011 issue of The Blood-Horse magazine. Feel free to share your own thoughts and opinions at the bottom of the column.)

By Eric Mitchell - @EJMitchellKy on Twitter

Public hearings are supposed to provide answers and resolution. Unfortunately, the administrative hearing held June 28-30 to determine whether Kentucky Chief Steward John Veitch violated racing regulations only muddied the issues further and raised more questions.

Here’s what we know.

Veitch is under scrutiny for allowing Breeders’ Cup Ladies’ Classic (gr. I) second-choice Life At Ten to start after her rider, John Velazquez, told ESPN analyst Jerry Bailey during a post-parade interview that the mare was not warming up well. Velazquez did not notify any of the veterinarians stationed on the track about his concerns. Instead, ESPN producer Amy Zimmerman called the steward’s office and relayed what Velazquez had told Bailey and a national TV audience. What exactly Zimmerman said is disputed. During the hearing Zimmerman said she relayed to the stewards that Velazquez said his horse “ain’t right.” Veitch recalled the message was vague— that the stewards needed to watch the ESPN broadcast. Nothing more specific.

We also know Life At Ten was not acting right in the saddling paddock. Trainer Todd Pletcher said so but asked Velazquez to take her out onto the track anyway to see if she would “wake up.” David Vance, who manages the racing stable of Life At Ten’s owner Candy DeBartolo, said the mare had acted similarly before other races.

The mare’s demeanor did not improve. We understand the jockey’s in a tough spot. He is Pletcher’s first-call rider and it’s the Breeders’ Cup. Summoning a state veterinarian and telling him your horse isn’t right minutes before the Ladies’ Classic is risky business for a rider. Having said that, jockeys have done so in the past. Ask Garrett Gomez, who refused to ride a horse at Keeneland last fall and lost mounts.

Was Velazquez convinced the mare would be OK in the race? Apparently not, by the way he broke her out of the gate at a lope and never engaged the field at any point.

During the hearing Veitch said none of the stewards saw anything outwardly concerning about Life At Ten as she warmed up. She didn’t appear in distress. She wasn’t lame. She wasn’t bathed in sweat.

Here is where the case enters a great gray space. Association steward Brooks Becraft said he thought Velazquez’ comments would have warranted the stewards contacting a veterinarian on the track. Veitch countered if the stewards had done so, they may as well have gone ahead and scratched the horse. Veitch then added that stewards aren’t qualified to make such a call; that they “never contact a veterinarian on a veterinary or medical opinion. We are not trained that way.”

The stewards—Veitch, Becraft, and Rick Leigh—then disagreed on what they have the authority to do independently and what requires a decision by Veitch as the chief steward. Can there really be so much ambiguity among the state’s top regulators about their responsibilities at the track? One of the most troubling facts of the case is despite her obviously poor performance, Life At Ten was not tested immediately after the race. This is Veitch’s biggest sin in the whole sordid episode that cost bettors worldwide many hundreds of thousands of dollars and tarnished the Breeders’ Cup. After all, not only was Life At Ten a low-odds horse that performed poorly, but she is trained by Pletcher, who has had his own brushes with medication positives. He served a 10-day suspension after the filly Wait a While tested positive for procaine following a third-place finish in the 2008 Breeders’ Cup Filly & Mare Turf (gr. IT) at Santa Anita. Wait a While had been treated prior to the championships with penicillin-G, which contains procaine, and apparently the recommended withdrawal period wasn’t adequate for her. Pletcher was also suspended for 45 days in 2006 when traces of mepivacaine, a Class 2 local anesthetic, were found in Tales of Glory, who finished third in a race at Saratoga Aug. 14, 2004, and was ruled unplaced in the race.

In a statement after the Breeders’ Cup, Pletcher said Life At Ten had trained “brilliantly” up to the race, had been examined on a regular basis by her primary care vet, and that her pre-race blood sample had been subjected to comprehensive instrumental screening analysis—consistent with analysis performed on post-race samples (taken the following day)—and that no prohibited substances had been found. After the Breeders’ Cup, Pletcher said Life At Ten seemed to have had an adverse reaction to the anti-bleeder medication she got prior to the race and tied up.

When all is said and done, it appears many more people than Veitch can share the blame for letting this mare down. The trainer, jockey, on-track vets, and stewards all had questions in their minds, and none of those questions translated to action. So she started, ran poorly, and left bettors feeling duped and empty-handed.

Integrity We Can Believe In By Eric Mitchell

aspradling — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:13:00 GMT

(Originally published in the February 12, 2011 issue of The Blood-Horse magazine. Feel free to share your own thoughts and opinions at the bottom of the column.)

By Eric Mitchell - @EJMitchellKy on Twitter

[Santa Anita Park was accredited with the Oak Tree Racing Association in 2009. An earlier version of this post stated otherwise.]

The aftermath of the Life At Ten debacle during the Breeders’ Cup World Championships Nov. 5 stretches into week 15 without resolution.

While it is certainly admirable the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission is leaving no stone unturned (89 interviews conducted), the longer this travesty goes without answers or action, the worse it looks for all involved—Kentucky, the Breeders’ Cup, and the National Thoroughbred Racing Association.

In summary, Life At Ten was the 7-2 second-choice in the Breeders’ Cup Ladies’ Classic (gr. I). While in the saddling paddock, it became apparent to trainer Todd Pletcher and others in the vicinity that the multiple grade I winner was not herself. She was described as sluggish. In the past the mare had been a little slow to warm up, so Pletcher sent jockey John Velazquez out to the track to see if she would show more energy. During a pre-race interview on ESPN with analyst and former jockey Jerry Bailey, Velazquez told a national audience the mare was not right. Velazquez apparently said nothing to the veterinarians stationed around the track and the starting gate. A television producer, however, did alert the stewards to what Velazquez told Bailey.

Still, Life At Ten was loaded into the gate, started without any sense of urgency or energy, and was not persevered with for the remainder of the Ladies’ Classic. After the race Pletcher suggested she may have had an adverse reaction to Salix, an anti-bleeder medication. No blood or urine samples were taken after the race because the testing barn was full and it would have been unsafe to put her in the already crowded barn, according to chief steward John Veitch.

One misstep after the other.

Another disturbing layer added to this mess is that Churchill Downs, host of the 2010 Breeders’ Cup, is accredited through the NTRA’s Safety and Integrity Alliance. The purpose of the alliance is to establish standards and practices that promote the safety and integrity of Thoroughbred racing. These standards include injury reporting and prevention through programs such as pre-race veterinary inspections, medication and testing, jockey safety and health standards, aftercare for retired racehorses, and wagering security. These are admirable programs, and we must strive to implement uniform standards at all racetracks.

But how does the Life At Ten episode reflect on the effectiveness of this program? Churchill Downs spent tens of thousands of dollars on the accreditation process, made changes and upgrades, and went through an inspection of all its facilities and processes. And still, a horse unfit to race was allowed to start on racing’s championship day.

“It is very troubling, but we think the situation underscores the need for the alliance,” said NTRA president Alex Waldrop.

Interest in the voluntary accreditation has been sluggish. Only 19 of about 65 racetracks have signed on in two years—14 in 2009 and five in 2010. The alliance’s independent monitor, former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, recently reiterated his disappointment and even suggested the American Graded Stakes Committee, which is run by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, consider withholding graded status from races run at unaccredited tracks. That’s an interesting and probably ineffective bit of coercion, even if the AGSC agreed to it. And its members didn’t.

Does anyone in the industry have the stomach or the legal authority to take the graded stakes away from Oaklawn or Gulfstream Park, which are not accredited? Are we willing to let our historically premier races go ungraded or moved to another track? Or, what if it is revealed in the Life At Ten mess that Churchill Downs violated some condition of its accreditation? Would the Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands or Kentucky Oaks (both gr. I) lose their graded status? We all know the answer is no.

The NTRA admits it needs to do a better job selling the alliance to the public, but more importantly it first needs to sell the alliance to the industry. The first step might be to show the racetracks accreditation means something and has direct benefits—that adopting uniform standards on safety and integrity could help restore confidence in Thoroughbred racing. More confidence means more owner participation, higher handle from gamblers, and higher TV ratings (when races are on TV, but that’s another column) from fans.

Life At Ten put us at this crossroads. The end result of the investigation must be meaningful and substantive, or the integrity of the alliance could be lost.

Two Questions Regarding Life At Ten - By Eric Mitchell

aspradling — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:06:00 GMT

(Originally published in the November 27, 2010 issue of The Blood-Horse magazine. Feel free to share your own thoughts and opinions at the bottom of the column.)

By Eric Mitchell - @EJMitchellKy on Twitter

David Vance, racing manager for Candy DeBartolo, is looking for the answer to two questions:

1. Should DeBartolo’s 5-year-old graded stakes winner Life At Ten have been scratched at the gate prior to the Breeders’ Cup Ladies’ Classic (gr. I) at Churchill Downs Nov. 5, and

2. Should the mare have been tested after the race?

Right now, neither Vance nor DeBartolo is getting the answers as quickly as each would like or has expected.

“I don’t understand why it is two weeks out and there is still no resolution,” said Vance from his home base in Oklahoma. “It allows for more speculation. From our vantage point, I would like to see an acknowledgement.”

The circumstances surrounding Life At Ten, the 7-2 second choice in the Ladies’ Classic, became a blemish on the 2010 Breeders’ Cup when jockey John Velazquez told ESPN commentators Jerry Bailey and Randy Moss about five minutes before the race that the mare did not feel right and was not warming up as she should. In post-race interviews, trainer Todd Pletcher acknowledged that Life At Ten did not seem right but told Velazquez to ride her out to the track to see if she woke up more. Clearly, she wasn’t right.

Vance, who was in the saddling paddock prior to the race, admits at the time, he didn’t suspect Life At Ten was not well. He thought she looked docile but attributed the calm to an experienced 5-year-old ready for the race. When the mare got out onto the track, Vance said the vets should have had a much different impression. When Vance reviewed the replays later, he noticed while Life At Ten was warming up around the five-eighths pole that the mare stumbled, staggered, and almost lost her balance. At that point, the fate of Life At Ten was in the hands of the state stewards and the 11 veterinarians stationed around the racetrack and at the gate.

With minutes to go before post time, what exactly happened and didn’t happen is fuzzy and part of an ongoing Kentucky Horse Racing Commission investigation. We know a television producer contacted the stewards and told them Velazquez’ on-air comments. It is unclear whether Velazquez ever talked to a vet. Still, 11 veterinarians and the stewards did not see anything amiss.

Now, a horse does not have to be lame or injured to be scratched out of a race. According to Kentucky’s senior and chief steward John Veitch, if a vet detects anything that makes him or her uncomfortable about a horse that he or she feels could compromise the horse’s ability to run, a scratch can be recommended to the stewards.

“We always follow the state vet’s decision,” Veitch said.

Life At Ten did not break well out of the gate, did not run well, and should not have raced at all.

Vance’s second question leads to major mistake No. 2. Life At Ten was not tested after the race because the testing barn was full.

“When we have something like Derby or Oaks day, the card is spread out a bit more,” Veitch said. “We didn’t have that luxury during Breeders’ Cup, with the races run closer together. We could not take her to the barn from a safety standpoint for the animals and human beings; it was very crowded. We just didn’t have that luxury.”

It should not be a luxury to test horses that are not behaving properly in a race. The 2010 Championships is not the first Breeders’ Cup ever held at Churchill Downs, and it will be held there again in 2011. If there was any question about the testing barn having enough space, couldn’t this have been addressed prior to the Championships? There is no question the protocols need to be followed to ensure the integrity of the samples being taken, but in this case it seems a fourth-place horse that had not given a urine sample yet should have been removed to make room for Life At Ten.

Vance said he’s confident, if tested, that the results would not have turned up anything. But the procedure still should have been followed.

“We have had vets look at her,” he said. “She was legitimately sick. But having been on the other side of the desk in racing, I know perception is reality. She should have been tested,” said Vance.

Veitch said the ongoing investigation will be thorough but could not give an estimate of when results might be presented to the racing commission or how they might be presented.

Let’s hope the investigation leads to real changes and that the only result is not a ban on jockeys from giving pre-race interviews on national TV.