Harness: Rules are not meant to just support the favorites

What’s right is not always popular.

What’s popular is not always right.

We awaited the results of the Kentucky Derby after the horses crossed the wire as the final posting by the stewards took enough time for many to weigh in on the pending decision. The expanse of those commenting ranged from political correctness to those using the moment to pardon the rules of racing and honor the “best” horse in the race whether by public declaration (betting) or by the appearance of dominance over a rain-soaked surface.

The Derby momentarily took me back in time to when I was a chart caller for Sports Eye in 1980 and a horse by the name of Empire Lobell, a 3-year-old at the time racing against non-winners competition at Roosevelt Raceway, crossed the wire first. Empire Lobell was the betting favorite and did go virtually wire-to-wire much like this year’s Derby. Empire Lobell also was involved in an incident as the horses turned into the homestretch the final time. The pacer made a break in stride while on the lead forcing the horses to his inside to take up noticeably and lose ground. Empire Lobell recovered his gait in short order and went on to win the race by three lengths.

I don’t recall an objection to the result and there may have been a momentary delay in the results, but after they were posted official with Empire Lobell remaining as the winner, I took the discussion to presiding judge Peter Avallone. Some moments in life are hard to remember and others hard to forget, but the astonishment I felt upon hearing Avallone’s reaction is as vivid today due to the Derby circumstance as it was then. “He was the betting favorite and he won so easily. It would have been a shame to take him down,” Avallone said with conviction some 39 years ago.

The record reflected that Avallone gave the impacted horses an “I” on their past performance record to commemorate the interference suffered but at the same time refused to penalize the horse or those that wagered upon him that night. Ultimately the owners of the offended horses in this race elected to appeal the judge’s decision and were victorious as actual judges followed the letter of the law unlike one presiding judge at Roosevelt Raceway.

While the Derby decision left some – including the President of this country – commenting on social media about the “takedown” of what appeared to be the best horse in the race, it was clearly an argument based not on the rule of law but on popularity and the bias it in itself creates. Even those broadcasting the Derby as alleged experts fell victim to the popularity argument during the more than 25 minutes that separated the race from the decision. It was hard to understand the rationale behind veering from the rule of law with enough video evidence to amplify the foul and the defense of the winner as if his path had been clean. Yet that was what was repeated over and over again with many believing that the results should stand as the “best” horse won the race.

Thankfully, while we may be in times where popularity tends to force judgment away from what is legal to what the majority believe to be right, the stewards at Churchill Downs this past Saturday, while perhaps taking an inordinate amount of time to make a decision, did it based on the rules and not the “like” buttons.

Give credit to one brave jockey for filing an “objection” after the race that led to the decision. Reading commentary by other jockeys that didn’t claim foul it revealed the pressure of not wanting to be the “bad guy” by claiming foul against a friend and co-worker when your horse finished so far back that you had nothing personal to gain.

Those comments reflect clearly just how much pressure is put upon all officials to offer just results. With witnesses failing to come forward because “they” don’t want to cause trouble, often times races and decisions such as the Derby never come to light. Here again it is about popularity and the fear by some that “ratting” on a friend is a greater crime than that friend or others breaking the law.

What we should have discovered by now is that it takes more courage and character to come forward and testify when witnessing a crime of any kind than it does to be overwhelmed by ones own standing. In this day and age of social media when even those holding the highest offices instantaneously criticize those who defend the rules, it is at times depressing how many people can’t differentiate right from wrong.

To me this was a great day for racing and the Kentucky Derby. It would be an even better day if the scales of justice and honoring the rule of law became something more people had faith in and didn’t run to bash each and every time a decision was less than popular.

As I told Peter Avallone after he defended his decision to leave the odds-on favorite up in 1980, “What about the people that bet against him?”

Clearly despite the long odds of the official Kentucky Derby winner there were plenty of people throughout North America that cashed a nice mutuel payoff. Just because they were in the minority doesn’t mean their voices shouldn’t be heard. The rules are supposed to protect all, not just the most popular.

Sometimes it takes 25 minutes to make a decision. Instead of complaining about what took so long, perhaps those critics should take a lesson in the fact that even the smartest people should take time and review all of the facts. No doubt in the world we live in had they taken down a horse in just two minutes (the time it would have probably taken had the race been for maidens), the Stewards would have been accused of acting carelessly.

All bettors were given a fair shot in the Kentucky Derby thanks to the rules being adhered to.

It was right.