Shoot The Messenger! 
Life At Ten Commentary by Tom Dawson

March 15, 2011 - That seems to be the logic employed by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission in part of its findings on the regrettable Life At Ten incident during the 2010 Breeders’ Cup.

If you recall, Life At Ten was favored in the Ladies’ Classic. In a pre-race interview with ESPN analyst Jerry Bailey, Jockey John Velazquez reported that he didn’t believe his mare was warming up well. ESPN producers immediately reported the conversation to the Churchill Downs stewards. However, through an unfortunate series of omissions and failures, no action was taken. Life At Ten ran about a sixteenth of a mile before galloping around the track, burning millions in wagers in the process.

So as part of its findings, the KHRC has recommended that industry groups discuss the practice of pre-race jockey interviews. Discussion is fine, but KHRC suggested “weighing the benefits of post parade jockey interviews versus the duty of the KHRC to protect the safety and integrity of the sport.”

Who is protecting what here? In this instance, the only members of the wagering public who actually had any protection were those in a position to hear Bailey’s interview and subsequent comments. Those lucky folks were the only ones forewarned to proceed with caution concerning wagers on Life At Ten.

What possible benefit could such a blackout afford, other than to position racing further behind the mysterious cloak that some of us have been trying to remove for years. Such an action would do nothing to alleviate the underlying problems brought to light by this incident. Is the commission saying that TV was somehow responsible? Or that the investigation otherwise would have never been necessary?  One would be an erroneous conclusion, the other unthinkable.

In case you haven’t noticed, horse racing is not exactly the favorite sport of the TV networks. ESPN has disappeared from the scene except for Breeders’ Cup days and a couple of lead in- shows. For years, I produced 6 to 8 Kentucky Derby preps for national TV. None of those shows are on the air this year.

There are many reasons for that sad situation. But make no mistake, networks are partial to sports which allow and encourage advancements in coverage. While others came up with innovative ways to offer their product to a TV audience (see NASCAR in car cameras), horse racing always seemed to resist. Now, passing first hand information to the public is in question.  

I wonder if the KHRC’s reaction to Watergate would have been to tell Woodward and Bernstein not to conduct any more interviews?