LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Honor system shouldn't apply to workouts When will racing's regulators learn that shortcuts should never, never be taken when the sport's integrity is at stake? Andrew Beyer wrote in his March 13 column, "No betting coup - this time," regarding the recent fast debut win by Grand Hombre at Gulfstream Park after his slow published workouts at a training center in Ocala, Fla., that "the system for reporting workouts at these facilities is made to order for a trainer who wants to deceive the public. Much of the time there are no clockers present, and the trainer is responsible for reporting his horse's time to the racetrack." The reason? "As private training centers have proliferated, the racing industry can't afford to hire clockers to report every workout." Trainers reporting their own workout times? Why should the racing industry stop there? Even more money can be saved by doing away with other jobs. For instance, think of all the money that could be saved if we did away with the stewards. Why not? I'm sure we can trust the game's participants to police themselves. Allowing trainers to determine the official times for workouts by their own horses makes about as much sense as leaving it to the jockeys to decide if there should be a disqualification in a race. Jon White Monrovia, Calif. Denying a coup is defying logic Please spare us nonsense like Andrew Beyer's column about Grand Hombre's first-out maiden victory at Gulfstream. Even to imagine that this wasn't a betting coup is absurd to the point of being downright silly. The horse had no track works and little breeding, yet went off a quiet (but consistently played) sixth choice in a 12-horse field loaded with high-priced and apparently talented maidens. Who bet all the money that was on the nose of this horse? Fans of old Paul Newman movies? Moreover, if this wasn't a betting coup, how do you explain the rather bizarre pick three payoff for this race and the following two? That pick three - a $954.40 payoff on winners paying $30.60, $19, and $21.20 - paid 40 percent less than a win parlay's $3,081.42. Since there was a taxable payoff subject to withholding on this pick three, it would be very interesting to know exactly who collected. The honor system used for workouts at private facilities, and the inability of horseplayers to know what they mean, makes a mockery of the whole system. Glenn W. Magnell Cornwall, N.Y. Races for first-timers might lessen the mystery In his March 13 column, Andrew Beyer wrote, "Ever since Eclipse was preparing for his career debut in the 1700's, Thoroughbred trainers have been trying to conceal the ability of first-time starters. Bettors . . . will always assume they have been deceived when they see a horse win after a dismal string of workouts." I for one do not, as Beyer claims most horseplayers do, "feel a grudging admiration for a trainer who can hide a horse capable of running in 1:08.66" for six furlongs. Anger is more like it. Bettors in the United States might not realize that this is not the way the game is played everywhere else in the world. In France, maiden races on the Paris circuit are for true maidens - first-time starters have their own races. It's time to ask why first-time starters in the United States are not given their own races, which ideally would be non-betting events. This would create two distinct types of maiden races - one limited to horses who have yet to race, and one where the horses have raced but without an official winner. The first type of race would in effect be a public workout, providing the public with far more reliable information than workouts run in the wee hours of the day. While it's true that owners and trainers who are intent on chicanery may still find ways of disguising a horse's form, it would be much more difficult to do in a publicly run race. David Kilmer Los Angeles Champion's death came when she deserved better The death of Lady's Secret highlights something that is incredibly obvious to even the casual Thoroughbred fan: Mares at or above age 20 have no business delivering foals in order to satisfy the demand for high-quality foals from champion mares. When I read "Lady's Secret dead at 21" (March 6), I immediately thought of Exceller. Exceller eventually became no use as a stallion so, since he could not be pimped out anymore, he was slaughtered. Lady's Secret was about the human equivalent of age 65. Her apparent usefulness rested in her ability to produce a valuable foal. I'm sure that her owners loved her and provided her with excellent accommodations and care, but were they so naive as to assume that a 21-year-old mare's giving birth would go so easily? Is the industry so in need of valued foals that it will sacrifice its champions in the name of fertility? When a champion stud cannot perform anymore, the Thoroughbred industry is now spooked enough by the Exceller incident to ensure that that stallion is safely pensioned. Isn't it time to consider voluntarily banning the impregnating of any mare over age 18 in the name of decency? Lady's Secret deserved to die in her sleep at a nice old age (as did Lead Kindly Light, whose death after foaling at age 20 was reported March 13). She didn't deserve to die from the trauma of giving birth at such an advanced age. Perhaps, like Exceller's, Lady's Secret's death will transform an industry much in need of change. Mark S. Miller Revere, Mass. Live and remote patrons blindsided by Santa Anita What a concept - put on a play but block the view of the stage from the patrons! That is exactly what Santa Anita has been doing ever since the installation of that monstrosity of a television screen in the infield. Go to the track and you cannot watch a complete live race. Even as a simulcast customer, you can't see a complete race. Horses go into a blind spot and emerge seven or eight strides later. Do Santa Anita officials think that this adds to the excitement of the race - not being able to see it? Jay Hovdey, in his March 8 column, "Blind spots have got to vanish," brought to light an even bigger problem with the situation - the safety issues of this blind spot. How ridiculous that this has gone on for so long. Perhaps the concept of the tote board has eluded those in charge: provide information to the patrons without blocking their view. If changes aren't made, won't it be a wonderful Breeders' Cup from Santa Anita this year? Maybe fans should boycott Santa Anita for a weekend. Or maybe they already are, considering the embarrassing turnout on the recent Santa Anita Derby Day. Why go to a play that you can't watch? Dave Siuta Keedysville, Md. Head-to-head matchup saw gambler come out winning I found fascinating and amusing the March 6 juxtaposition of Andrew Beyer's column, "Hyperbole hides truth: Americans love to bet," with Marc Fisher's "Time to give up ghost instead of taxing poor." In defense of slot machines, Beyer got to the main issue here: "Gambling is already ubiquitous." The column showed Beyer to be rational, reasonable, and intelligent. Fisher, meanwhile, rambled and stutter-stepped in his opposition to slot machines. He showed himself to be illogical, mean-spirited, arrogant, and just plain ignorant. It was a pleasure to see the gambler's perspective so well presented in the face of the usual knee-jerk lecturing. Vincent Ditrano Aventura, Fla.