'88 Odd 1st Race on Derby Day: A Gimmick or Honest Mistake?

There's a nice article on bloodhorse about Dale Romans
cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/horse-racing-steve-haskin/archive/2015/09/07/another-romanesque-work-of-art.aspx

in the comments, there's a link to this which I found interesting. what do you think? honest mistake?

Odd First Race on Derby Day: Was It a Gimmick or an Honest Mistake?
May 19, 1988|Bill Christine
LA Times

BALTIMORE — Paul Berube, who heads the Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau, a national security organization based in New York, was asked what he thought of the first race at Churchill Downs on Kentucky Derby day this year.

With heavy sarcasm, Berube said: "No matter what's uncovered or not uncovered, I imagine this whole thing will go down as another chapter in American racing folklore."

Berube, a hard-liner on racing integrity, was not making light of what happened at Churchill Downs on May 7, six hours before Winning Colors won the Derby.

Almost every year, though, there are rumors of a rigged race on Derby day. There is ample opportunity for chicanery. There are always a few cheap races on the program, and with all those people betting all that money, conspirators could easily make a large bet and have it swallowed up by all of the other money registered on the tote board.

What happened in this year's first race on Derby day hardly smacked of subtlety, however.

Here is what happened:

--Among 12 horses entered in the $12,500, 6-furlong race for older maidens was one listed as Briarwood, a 3-year-old gelding running his first race.

--The only information in the Daily Racing Form on Briarwood showed that he had run two slow workouts at Churchill Downs several days before the race.

--About 10 minutes before post time, the crowd was expectedly ignoring Briarwood, who opened at odds of about 35-1 and stayed there. Suddenly, the tote board indicated that there had been a $20,000 place bet made on Briarwood, which made him the second choice in that pool. If the betting had stopped there, Briarwood would have paid about $70 to win and $40 to place, if he had finished first.

--Churchill Downs officials, noting the betting aberration, questioned the mutuel clerk who sold the ticket. He said that he had made a mistake, that a bettor had asked for an across-the-board ticket of $9,000 to win, $20,000 to place and $10,000 to show on No. 7--Seeking the Gold--in the Derby. The clerk said that he had correctly punched up the win and show bets, but had made the $20,000 place bet on No. 7--Briarwood--in the first race. The bettor apparently walked away without checking his ticket.

--With about three minutes to post, track officials decided arbitrarily to cancel the $20,000 bet on Briarwood and shifted the money to Seeking the Gold, based on the clerk's testimony.

--In the six or seven minutes before that, however, many bettors who had been watching the tote board noticed the $20,000 in the place pool and raced to the windows with money of their own, figuring that Briarwood was a hot horse.

--Gunned from the gate, Briarwood ran the first half-mile 1 1/5 seconds faster than the track record, covered 5 furlongs in just a fifth of a second off the track record, then hung on to win by a head.

--After the race, the bettor who technically held the $20,000 place ticket on Briarwood was located by Churchill Downs officials. His ticket probably would have been worth $30,000 if the $20,000 bet had remained in the pool. The bettor agreed with Churchill Downs' decision and was given a substitute ticket on Seeking the Gold.

--But as radio commentator Paul Harvey would say, here's the rest of the story. By Monday, Churchill Downs learned that the horse's real name was Blairwood, and instead of being a first-time starter, he had run twice at Monmouth Park last summer, finishing sixth and seventh.


--Briarwood-Blairwood paid $71 to win, with not enough bet on him to signal a major coup, but there had been reports that a $19,000 bet was placed on the horse at a casino in Las Vegas.

--The Kentucky State Racing Commission, the FBI, the Kentucky state police and the Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau have been trying to play catch-up with the caper ever since. A Churchill Downs entry clerk--a former dentist, by the way, who gave up a lucrative practice to become a minor racing official--has been suspended because he was the man who wrote down the name Briarwood when trainer Jerry Romans entered him.

Romans says he made an honest mistake in giving the entry clerk the wrong name. The owner of the horse, David Hall, says that he and his trainer have done nothing illegal. But these are questions that haven't been answered satisfactorily:

--Why didn't Hall and Romans, with the incorrect name of the horse listed in the Racing Form, and the track program, notify Churchill Downs so that correct information could at least have been given to the crowd over the public-address system?

--Why was Blairwood running for the third time without a lip tattoo, which is racing's way of identifying horses?

--In the absence of a lip tattoo, why weren't the horse's other physical markings compared with the information on his registration papers by the identifier in the paddock prior to the race?

--Why did the bettor who wanted $20,000 to place on Seeking the Gold in the Derby turn down the chance to collect $30,000 on Blairwood?