Posts
Bettors and horse-welfare advocates alike are in a furor, and have a right to be, over the fact that Life At Ten broke from the gate -- if you can call it that -- in the Breeders' Cup Ladies' Classic, despite showing obvious signs to both her trainer and rider that she just wasn't right.
It was downright wrong that the unwell horse was loaded into the gate and asked to, in any way, "run" with the field. It's also wrong that the stewards didn't immediately refund all wagers placed on Life At Ten -- the second choice in the wagering at 7/2 -- when it was clear from the moment the gate opened (actually, well before it closed behind her) that the horse never stood a chance and almost certainly shouldn't run.
So call down wrath from the sky upon the stewards. Vent your fury on the track veterinarians, who observed Life At Ten after both trainer Todd Pletcher and jockey John Velazquez suggested she wasn't well, but authorized her to run anyway. Be angry that Pletcher didn't make the disappointing decision to scratch his own horse when she didn't seem right, though it could be argued he chose to trust the judgment of the vets.
But whether you're livid that the horse's safety was risked, furious that you lost money wrongfully on betting a horse that never even tried to race, or both, I say spare John Velazquez. He did all he could do in untenable circumstances.
According to Blood-Horse reports, Pletcher said Life At Ten seemed well when she walked over to the paddock. But he noticed problems during the saddling, describing the mare as acting as though she'd been sedated. Pletcher said he told Velazquez to be sure he warmed-up the mare well. But when she didn't respond to the rider's efforts, Pletcher said Velazquez asked that vets check Life At Ten before loading the horse into the gate for the start.
Dr. Larry Bramlage, on-call veterinarian for the American Association of Equine practitioners, said in a statement that a team of three vets at the starting gate "did not observe any physical problems." In fact, Bramlage said the vets didn't find anything out of the ordinary upon examining Life At Ten after the race, either.
(Note: The Daily Racing Form reports that Velazquez said nothing to the vets pre-race, according to a quote by Bramlage. Somebody should get to the bottom of that. Complaining to the vets; did Johnny V, or didn't he?)
At any rate, something wasn't right. John Velazquez knew it; even said so before a television audience. And when the veterinarians didn't scratch the horse (and Pletcher didn't either), in my mind Velazquez was left to make one of three terrible choices.
1. Get off the horse. Refuse to ride her. Risk them calling in a replacement jockey who will ride Life At Ten as though nothing is amiss, until such time as she goes completely wrong, perhaps fatally.
3. Stay on the horse that has become one of his most prized regular mounts, so that nobody else has control of his stricken charge's fate. When the gate opens, keep Life At Ten under wraps for her own good.
In an impossible situation, where he (and possibly the horse) will be damned regardless of his choice, John Velazquez did the closest thing there was to "the right thing."
Yes, it screwed bettors. But were they (or "you" where applicable) any more screwed by Velazquez's not persevering at all with Life At Ten than if she had broken down on the clubhouse turn? Or had a heart attack on the backstretch?
It's the vets' error for not listening to a trainer and a rider who both (at least according to some reports) were openly concerned that the horse they know, train and ride wasn't herself today. Pletcher could be blamed for sending her out to the post-parade at all considering how she was behaving in the paddock. And it's the house's inexcusable decision to keep your money when the horse you bet was as close a thing as you'll find in this game to a non-starter without actually "not starting."
The Life At Ten incident of BC2010 was embarrassing. Terrible.
But John Velazquez quite possibly saved us from far worse.
